Do you "separate the art from the artist" in mma?

[payton]

I refused to separate the two when I was younger but now I find that generally I can separate the fighter from the person, but there have been exceptions.
Colby has been annoying me to no end as well, both for his MAGA grift and calling the cops on everyone. I’ve never been a mega fan of his but again, he is a top tier wrestler at a time where wrestling is the strongest discipline in the UFC. He was very close to beating prime Usman and I would expect him to make a run for the belt again now that it seems Usman has fallen behind.

Are you able to separate the fighter from the person?

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Yep, same with music.

 

[Cameron]

depends what we are talking about, if it's validating their skills and in ring accomplishments? Sure. If it's separating and being a fan? No. I don't like Jones and not a fan, but his in ring skill and accomplishment is undeniable. He's the goat and a D bag.

 

[AmonTobin]

Yes. Roman Polanski would be a good example for me. IMO, The problem with Jon Jones is that even setting all the personal life issues aside, he still cheated like crazy. So even the art is tainted in this case.

 

[Marko Polo]

No because that’s what the fighting is - evidence of their character.

I don’t watch fighting to see people get brutalised, I watch it to see people push through adversity and show heart, show what people capable of

I’ve never been interested in Jones career because he is a steroid cheater who won the majority of his fights by maintaining range using eye pokes. He has a few clips here and there doing gimmicky spinning shit to old man Bonnar and Stipe but that’s it

 

[Sweater of AV]

I prefer when the artist is the art.

 

[Last Falconry]

sometimes. sometimes it's way more effort than its worth

 

[FreddieRoachsVoice]

I used to for Jones but honestly, his performances became so lackluster that it's hard to ignore the "PED cheat" claims. Watch the OSP fight (if you can stay awake) and tell me he was the same fighter after he popped. It's not like he was suddenly old or he took a lot of damage at a young age... he was an absolute shell of himself and then immediately became a cherry picker who stayed in the most cleared out division IN HISTORY rather than going up to HW like he promised.

2012 Jones would surely beat any HW active in 2024 but I think there is a pretty obvious reason why he has become incredibly selective with who he fights. It was very hard to stick by Jones in 2015/2017 when he seemed like an extremely talented guy who had a lot of personal problems but now he feels like a complete sociopathic fraud who takes no accountability for anything.

I still think Jones in 2011-2014 was the best fighter in MMA history but he is one of the rare fighters I believe actually deserves an asterix next to his name because his scandals have legitimately overshadowed his legacy IMO

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Attempt to. But definitely dislike plenty of fighters due to their personality

 

[Get To Da Choppa]

I refused to separate the two when I was younger but now I find that generally I can separate the fighter from the person, but there have been exceptions.
Colby has been annoying me to no end as well, both for his MAGA grift and calling the cops on everyone. I’ve never been a mega fan of his but again, he is a top tier wrestler at a time where wrestling is the strongest discipline in the UFC. He was very close to beating prime Usman and I would expect him to make a run for the belt again now that it seems Usman has fallen behind.

Are you able to separate the fighter from the person?

It depends. I was really happy to see Joe Son getting his nuts pounded knowing what he did though

 

[CasualBot]

Never separate from reality.

 

[Westbrick]

i don't even rank Jon Jones in any ranking besides greatest piece of shits ever

 

[Kono dio da!]

Sorry for being so blunt, but it's stupid and it's a copout. What it indirectly means is you're allowed to be a heinous piece of shit as long as you entertain us. Motherfuckers were defending R Kelly like their lives depended on it even though, he was a known PDF file. You even had people saying "nah dawg, but his music is so good". Okay but what about his victims. Imagine telling that to them y'know what I mean?

If a fighter spews hate (à la Strickland, Colby, Conor) or they commit hate crimes/ domestic violence (Conor, Jones et cetera), you're just bullshitting and need to sort of look at it for what it is.
I will objectively tell you that Jones is a GOAT, Conor was a murderous counter puncher, Strickland is underrated, Colby in his prime was tough. But I tend to avoid watching them if I can and you'll never catch me saying anything positive/ glazing ever. It's bullshit.
"Aw but you gotta give to Con-" shut the fuck up. (Not you OP or anyone in particular) Just tired of motherfuckers who glaze trivialize their actions. "Separating the art from the artist" is bullshit.

 

[Söze Aldo]

To an extent but there are limits, and stuff like domestic violence and rape are usually my limits. Others may have different limits but if Jon was a charged pdf file for example, I'm sure that would reach the limit for most where they can't separate things.

 

[JBJ was here]

So long as you're not putting money directly in the artist's pocket - in this case that would mean paying for a PPV where the fighter in question is getting points - who cares? Of course they're separate. People are largely terrible, and that includes authors, artists, fighters, and everyone else whose entertainment and other products we consume. If you stopped consuming products associated with terrible people you'd be a joyless husk on a hunger strike, a mere corpse in waiting.

The fact is, even directly paying for the product of a terrible person is usually no big deal; individual boycotts may be admirable in some cases, but they're useless in nearly all cases so you can't fault anyone too greatly for not engaging in them.

 

[Thy]

weird, it's like being a good a hurting people doesn't make you a good person.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

You ultimately have to separate the artist from the art with any form. But that doesn't mean it can't color your perceptions once you learn more about them outside of the art.

That doesn't mean I'm a "fan" of them, just that I appreciate the art they excel in and their ability to display it - so many terrible people play beautiful music, make amazing films, put on exceptional athletic performances. Is their music bad, are their films poor, are their athletic achievements non-existent because they are reprehensible human beings? To me the answer is no, objectively speaking quality art is quality regardless of the character of the person who makes it.

If it wasn't for social media and the internet you would be obtuse to the knowledge about their personal life to even give you that information about them. I like to know anyways as it gives you insight into their character and how they might be driven/inspired to make their art, even if it's contradictory to their nature and past. But historically we were kept in the dark about who someone was as any type of artist outside of the very narrow window of information put out via public relations.

However, once you do know that information it does change your perception of their art, even if you enjoy it - can you listen to Michael Jackson, watch a Roman Polanski film, watch Deshaun Watson play football and be obtuse to your feelings about them while you enjoy their work? It's incredibly difficult to do, if not impossible. Once you open Pandora's box it's going to affect your perceptive enjoyment to varying degrees in ways that you have no control over.

A lot of it has to do with what you want to get out of the art. I don't watch fighting to worship the fighters as demi-gods or idols, I watch because I'm fascinated by the nuances of violent combat and all its intricacies and variations. But most people have a tendency to put artists on a pedestal because of their art, which leads to unrealistic perceptions and expectations about human nature/the human condition.

 

[ninja boot]

100% i do.
First off... to be successful in mma you need unshakable self confidence which doesn't always result the most empathetic, personable people. I've found plenty of examples in the history of mma where idiocy of some of the athletes has ruined my enjoyment of their fights.
The less i watch interviews and invest in their personal lives the better things seem to be.

 

[Bobby Boulders]

Generally, in any medium. Burzum makes badass music, which I do enjoy, but Varg is an absolute asshole. I don't wish Burzum success or anything, he doesn't deserve it. Same with Jones. Jones is obviously a remarkable fighter, anyone with two eyes can see it, and I've often been astounded by the effortlessness of his fights, especially 10-15 years ago. But he's a complete douche, I don't cheer for him and never will.

 

[Bend NvR Break]

No because that’s what the fighting is - evidence of their character.

I don’t watch fighting to see people get brutalised, I watch it to see people push through adversity and show heart, show what people capable of

I’ve never been interested in Jones career because he is a steroid cheater who won the majority of his fights by maintaining range using eye pokes. He has a few clips here and there doing gimmicky spinning shit to old man Bonnar and Stipe but that’s it

That means you're not interested in
Josh Barnett
Chael
Anderson Silva
Wand Silva
Dan Henderson
Randy
Machida
Sean O'Malley
Nate Diaz (yeah he had a bad test and I've never seen the UFC makes a bad test disappear as fast as they made Nate's)
TJ
Overeem
Brock


I can keep going.