Tweet
"There is one thing that is an absolute fact, and no matter how often Greg Jackson pumps that family [expletive], Greg Jackson is a [expletive] businessman. The more top guys he brings in, the more money he makes. There's nothing wrong with Greg Jackson, but he's a [expletive] businessman. Some of these fighters, who ought to know better but don't listen to that [expletive] and don't take it for the crock of [expletive] that it is. These guys need to make the decision where they train based on where they think they'll get the best work and develop the best, and not on this [expletive] crazy idea that you're becoming a part of a family. Greg Jackson [expletive] told Rashad this wouldn't happen, that they're family and all that other [expletive], but look what is going on now. Look and see who is at Jackson's and who is not. Train where you think it's going to be best for you and if that's Jackson's, that's fine. Just don't buy into this family [expletive] because there's nothing to it. This is the fight business, not the friend business."
-
-
source: mmamania -
lol, thank you Dana for clearing up **** most of us know.Comment
-
He's exactly right. Some people still dont get it though.
At least Rashad is with the Blackzilians now.Comment
-
No shiet sherlock!Comment
-
thats how it is for all mma training centers. Jacksons isn't above or below any of them.Comment
-
on another note, I was lol'ing on a BJ PENN post on fb about this issue of camps being a 'family'... some of these dudes actually believe in this ****.. saying MMA is not an individual sport!! LMAO
some even admitted their love for their 'brothers' in their team... smh! hahahahahahahaComment
-
This **** isn't basketball. If you have to fight one of your teammates it may be hard but suck it up and make it happen. It's a business.Comment
-
Nothing wrong with that. As long as your "brothers" don't fight in the same weightclass as you.Originally posted by G A M E View PostComment
-
It's a business. You are right. But, sometimes it doesn't make business sense to fight a teammate actually.Originally posted by SkillspayBills View Post
This is of course reduce it to a mere economic calculus, which is probably valid as an underlying basis, although it doesn't capture the full picture (being that fighters are human beings and not robots).
But, when you think about it a training partner is an asset of sorts which helps one prepare for fights. It is true that MMA is an individual sport in the sense that a prize fighter goes out and does the trenchwork. But it is sort of a team sport in the sense that you have to have a good team around you to perform well, at the top level. The training partners are part of this equation, especially in MMA (which is not as developed as boxing, and so you can't just hire sparing partners and fly them in to your training camp like boxers do). Basically, training partners work together to elevate their careers. Fighting each other and having one guy loose can become a net loss if the two are considered as part of the same entity. This isn't obviously applicable in the case of the individual fighter (being that each fighter is theoretically concerned only with their own earnings) but such a connection becomes a little bit more obvious if you think of it from the perspective of a single gym, which has multiple top fighters (and thus gains income from these fighters).
If I haven't lost you yet, this is actually a good application of game theory. It is actually presents a very interesting variation on the so-called "prisoner dilemma". To sum it up, you have 2 prisoners who are each accomplices in a crime; each is interrogated without the ability to collaborate with the other, and therefore neither can no what the other will do/say. There are 4 potential scenarios, each with it's own payoff/consequences; 1. prisoner A rats on prisoner B, who doesn't rat; 2. Prisoner A doesn't rat and prisoner B does; 3. Prisoner A rats on prisoner B, who also rats on prisoner A; 4. Neither prisoner rats. In scenarios 1 and 2, the rating prisoner gets a light sentence, whereas the prisoner who didn't rat but got ratted on receives a long one; let's say the rat gets 5 years and the ratted on gets 15. In this way, the rat gains. In scenario 3 however, where both rat, they are both convicted on the same grounds, and both lose. Let's just say for the sake of the argument that they each get 12 years (though we could say the each got 15 just as well). In case for however, where neither guy rats, they each get hit with a lighter charge (difficulty getting a conviction, let's say). Let us suppose they each get 8 years. The economically optimal situation is #4 (neither rats), whereas the least optimal is #3 (both rat). The optimal situation for the individual is to rat and not be ratted on, whereas the least optimal is to not rat but be ratted on.
This is a simplification of game theory, which is commonly presented for purposes of illustration. If I still haven't lost you, perhaps you can see how this same theory could apply to the case of MMA fighters.
And by the way, I believe that the economic calculus is such that it probably makes most sense for them to fight. What is in their hearts as human beings? I don't know, but I also think no one here knows that, either. The grudge match angle is always a convenient way to hype a fight. I know some things did go on, but really who knows what the actual facts are. But, I think there is most likely enough money in each fight for it to make sense, and I think there was enough money in it for Jones (not to mention the prestige, etc.) in taking the title fight originally, even considered on a net-basis if you include both fighters (ala game theory).
This concludes my drunken lecture on MMA economics, brought to you Jinro shochu mixed with barley tea. And for the record, I am a graduate student majoring in economics (although game theory is far from my area of specialization).Comment
Comment