Never has a caption been so unnecessary. Photo: Josh Hedges/UFC
Every text is written to be read. This one, however, I wish was even more so. Not because I believe it contains the most incredible lines in the galaxy and therefore deserves to be “appreciated”. But so that the discourse that diverges from what has taken over most forms of communication, from conversation circles to social networks, also has a place. The matter, discussed in the early hours of Sunday, July 7, 2013, could not escape the defeat of Anderson Silva for Chris Weidman at UFC 162.
I'll start with the obvious: Anderson Silva is still the greatest MMA fighter of all time. His reign – which some might translate as invincibility – may not have been the longest in the sport, but he has unquestionable numbers. And more than that, not to limit the observation to the coldness of the data, the way he achieved these records was impressive. Furthermore, without being a young man, he did so at a time of evident tactical improvement in the sport – in which the technical, physical and psychological combination is at a level never seen before. But I emphasize: there is room for disagreement. And I accept it.
Having said that, I continue with a point that I consider fundamental in the discussion about the defeat against Chris Weidman: Brazilians’ “disrespectful” behavior. It might surprise those who aren't used to seeing Spider fight what he did against the North American in combat, but not me. This is usually Anderson Silva inside the octagon. It is the style that established him as one of the most undisputed champions in the history of MMA and that made him have spectacular moments in his victories – and now, consequently, such an embarrassing defeat. It's not illegal. It can be immoral. But let's face it, moralism at this point can sound like opportunism, motivated by the natural shock of a surprising failure.
If there's one thing I learned from José Miguel Wisnik, who guided the entire production of the monograph to complete my degree, it's that this is what sport is: constantly dealing with the feeling of loss, or that you could lose. A limit that Anderson Silva or the fans ignored it, they did it in a very wrong way. The dispute consists of this. There is no such thing as invincible in sport. And even if someone has gone through a sport without being defeated, they certainly live daily with the feeling that they could be defeated. If there is no unbeatable, on the other hand there are favorites. And favoritism, due to historical conditions, is the cause of the surprise setback.
But there is then another important question to be debated: how much did Anderson lose measure in his stance? There is an obvious limitation of carrying out such measurement objectively. We then move on to subjective scales. My opinion is that Spider poorly balanced the intensity of this characteristic of his game. As I have already done on other occasions, it is worth highlighting – the most glaring of them, I believe, at UFC 112, against Demian Maia. What makes such an unfortunate choice stand out even more this time, it seems clear to me, is the end result. Before, the Brazilian's mistake in the euphoria of victory was covered up, although not completely. Still, based on the overall average, the former champion's strategy proved to be efficient. However, as has been proven, it is not infallible.
Which brings us to a factor that has been little remembered about the confrontation: there was another guy on the other side of the octagon. An undefeated fighter who has victories against none other than: Demian Maia, Mark Muñoz, the “Ambulance Man” and TUF 17 sensation Uriah Hall and now, Anderson Silva. Chris Weidman put up a great fight. The North American managed to exploit a hitherto little talked about loophole in the Brazilian's game, avoiding the recurring notion that to beat Spider it was necessary to have a good level of wrestling to take him to the ground and then hit the hand to punish him. in ground and pound.
Weidman, using a very popular term, “gave Anderson a rope to hang himself”. There's no denying that he was a little shaken by the Brazilian's mental game, but not enough for the great opportunity to defeat his opponent to go unnoticed. The new champion was perceptive in noticing the excessive behavior of his opponent – who did not launch a counterattack, even after two excellent dodges – and, as he mentioned in the press conference after the event, he did not stop advancing. He insisted on a third blow, a left, which touched Spider's chin and took him to the ground. The fate of the fight was sealed there. The following attacks, even more powerful ones, were a mere prop. The damage had already been done. The surprise of an unexpected touch made Anderson Silva, one day after an unusual “peck” in Chris Weidman at the weigh-in, kissing the canvas for the first time in his entire career.
PS: The author apologizes for the infamous wordplay. It is certainly the result of the production still in the heat of the event and the conclusion at almost six in the morning on Sunday, July 7, 2013, the “day after”.
Poatan in danger? Veteran calls for 'war' and believes in victory against Brazilian in UFC
Comments
6 responses to “Opinion: The weight of the kiss (on canvas)”
Leave a comment
You need to login to post a comment.
Very well written text and, precisely for this reason, I make a point of commenting on my disagreement with part of it.
Weidman won fair and square. This is not discussed. He won, saw the opportunity, went there and did it. However, I cannot accept this as “merit”. In my humble opinion, this is nothing more than the obligation of anyone who enters the UFC octagon. Look for combat and try to define it. Gross mistake by the former champion. I'm not going to elaborate on the enormous amount of “IF” that could be suggested. However, analyzing the end of the first round until Spider's fateful blunder, he had the fight in hand. Sorry to also disagree about the Weidman cartel. Of those mentioned, Anderson, not to mention, literally gave the fight. Is there any doubt that “if” (lol….) Anderson had taken the fight seriously the result would have been different? Despite not having a crystal ball or mediumistic powers, I am absolutely certain that Wiedman would have become a statistic. Uriah Hall was not what it is today. He came in phenomenal ancestry. Demian Maia at a time when he didn't know what to do at 8. Today, he's back to his normal self. Obviously I'm making a somewhat harsh criticism of the boy's cartel, but I really don't see that as a strong argument. He's a good fighter, without a doubt. Very hardworking guy. It's still nothing exceptional. It may even be.
Now, about humility, I’ll come to you. People who don't know the career talk about this. In fact, I believe that when it comes to competition, humility doesn't have much of a place. Even more so when we are talking about generous scholarships. Everyone is looking for excitement. And the demonstration of superiority is what makes the event (of any sport) interesting. If I were the opponent and the champion respected me, so as not to do everything he can/knows to make sure I don't look bad? What I want more is for the guy to give ALL he has to beat me. There is no more respectful way to fight than showing that you deserve all the strength, because you are a real opponent.
Even with some disagreements, congratulations on the lucid text. Well written. It makes you want to debate. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to such a quality text. Strong hug.
Alexandre,
I thank you for your words, even those of disagreement. When you work on writing, there is rarely such recognition. As a journalist, I am very happy to know that I produced a text capable of pleasing even those who do not agree with everything it contains – in fact, my job is not to convince everyone to think like me, I am not a lobbyist.
Regarding your considerations, I will stick to the part about the Weidman cartel. I understand what you say about the conditions of each victory in the North American's history (and I even agree that he is still not an undisputed fighter), but I also think that we cannot surrender too much to the opposite extreme, relativizing all of the new champion's triumphs. .
Every fight has different nuances and historical conditions – therefore, even in a rematch, no confrontation or moment of an athlete can be reproduced again. But I believe that there is no way to analyze Weidman's cartel negatively, even with any reservations.
With regard to the Anderson – Weidman relationship, I think you reached an interesting point: if Spider tried so intensely to destabilize and gain a mental advantage over the North American, it is because he recognized in him one of the opponents who threatened the most (or the that most threatened) his reign. How he ended up lost at his own game is another matter.
Anyway, big hug.
Lucas
Sold? Snob? Clown? It's difficult to find definitions for this position that the Champion placed himself in.
No mea culpa. I think it wasn't just me who noticed that this fight and nothing for him were the same thing. He really wanted to give the belt to Weidman. I also believe that it is a case of thought, but suddenly not taking a knockout. It seemed like he was going to push the “zuera” to the limit of the challenger’s patience, but he got it right. Chris Weidman HAD NO MERIT AT ALL!!! I won't change a single thing from what I posted on a blog last night before the fight, after seeing an interview on Canal Combate leading up to the event: ANDERSON SILVA IS TIRED! ALOPPED! This fight with CW was an affront to him. A guy who has a ridiculous card in the UFC, going up against the Champion. Only in the head of D.White's mercenary. Sooner or later, this will come to light, you can bet! Did you want to play the Clown Champion? He finished kicking the circus tent... Didn't they say the kid was better? Ready! It was the straw that broke the camel's back! WHO WAS CHRIS WEIDMAN, FOR GOD???
AS's words were clear as water: he doesn't want this life anymore!
He has been fighting with the UFC for some time, due to the renewal of only 4 fights and not 10 as stipulated in the contract. He knew that if he won with emphasis, he would be FORCED to do the SUPER FIGHT, which he didn't want to do and he made that very clear. Of course, the bets on the Weidman boy turned out to be successful, the guess of the other fighters, influenced by the Boss Master, so that there could be pay-per-view sales, and the MGM would be packed, because otherwise, there would be no profit. There's a soooo much $$$ involved, that's for sure. But not so much that a Spider victory would be convenient. It's absurd for a fighter of this magnitude, a Showman, to receive so little in one of the fastest growing sports in the world. An example is boxer Floyd Mayweather, who will receive the equivalent of US$100 million for 2 fights a year. Yes, there are comparisons. Talking to people connected to the industry, I was able to confirm this. OF COURSE, no one comes forward and reveals the dark side of the sport, especially in the halter law that is imposed on the UFC: He who can commands, he who has sense obeys! And Spider showed that this is not the case. There have been disagreements between him and the Godfather, but they have always been put on the same page. Spider is synonymous with $$$ for the organization. And he proved that the belt for him was nothing more than an adornment around the waist. He has already won everything he had to win. He doesn't need to prove anything else. And with this “defeat”, he gives a boost to the organization. You can be sure there will be upheavals in the categories. And that this belt will start to circulate among athletes. That was more or less what the UFC wanted. The fact is: there were plenty of conditions for Spider's (real) show. As for the disrespect, he never knew what that was. For this same reason, he swept everyone in the category. And the people always supported it! Brazilian hypocrisy…
Congratulations, very well written and perfect in the considerations. There's something dark there...
Your statement “This is, usually, Anderson Silva inside the octagon” and the way you put the word disrespectful in quotation marks tries to somehow soften his behavior and justify his petulant way of acting, but it is an unfounded strategy.
It doesn't matter if he has always behaved like this since the beginning of his career or if he only did this in the last few fights. The fact that he has this habit doesn't make him any less disrespectful or unsportsmanlike. Following this same line of reasoning would be the same as saying that a prejudiced person who makes racist jokes is not actually racist because “he is usually like that”.
Honestly, it's sad to see these pathetic attempts to try to soften his attitudes. Of course, many are only saying this now that he lost, but even when he was still champion I always found this type of behavior childish and presumptuous. Fortunately this has become more apparent to others now.
vinicius,
Firstly, thank you for your comment. If only everyone who read and agreed/disagreed with the text, or something in it, acted in the same way. I don't settle for vertical discourse, I believe in dialogue.
Regarding your placement, I think you may not have understood the intention of the excerpts well. There is no question of making value judgments. And I make it clear later when I mention the issue of moralism.
I also don't know if it was a good application of syllogism in the parallel drawn with prejudice. They are different premises. Ultimately, the athlete's stance is a moral discussion, motivated by values.
As I also drew attention to in the text, such a device is not illegal. What exists is a veiled code of conduct that tries to moralize the sport – but which, in my opinion, even though it is so widespread and not very reflective, it only turns a blind eye to what happens on a daily basis.
The defender who talks in the attacker's ear, the skilled athlete who makes a point of trying the most disconcerting dribble at the same defender, the tennis player who celebrates a point by staring and shouting “C'mon!” for the opponent, the basketball player who falls screaming into that center's face after a spectacular block, among many other examples.
Within particular conceptions, anger at what happened, or even satisfaction and celebration at seeing defeat in such a way is justifiable and, obviously, acceptable. I would even say that it is one of the driving forces of the sport. I just don't agree with the universalization of this. Treating the former champion's posture as an illegal elbow, a knee with four supports or as if he had fought armed with a wooden bat against opponents who only had their own fists.
About softening, again it's a moral judgment of its own, and yet I think it highlighted enough Spider's mistake – which ended up making him the biggest victim of his own game plan.
Hug