how prevalent is groupthink in today's MMA culture? (WARNING: long read!)

[Dionysian]

You freaking nutjobs. Seriously. This isn't complicated. The media scored it largely in favor of Jones because Jones won the fight in the eyes of most people that understand how fights should be scored.

Hold on, have to pause for a moment to defend myself from your inevitable follow-up: "Oh jeez wiz just dismiss it and don't look at evidence kk sheep." Phew, got that out of your system? Great. Let's move on.

There is no media conspiracy. These are largely independent websites, most of which feud with one-another, and have no reason to agree with another just for the sake of it. If the UFC came to them and tried to pay them to tilt their media scores (as if they meant anything), they would make a ridiculous amount more money exposing that sort of seediness than they would changing the rounds on an online scorecard.

They appear overly unanimous because that's how they viewed the fight. I watched the fight with one other person, and we both had it potentially tied going into the 5th round. Zuffa didn't have to pay me shit to come to that conclusion. Watching the fight worked just fine.

Name-calling? Check.
Ignoring numbers/the point and trying to make this into a "who won" thread? Check.
Conspiracy strawman? Check.
Saying stupid shit like MMA media makes more money being opposed to the largest MMA company in history rather than working with a billion-dollar-plus company? Check.

Yeah I'm not bothering replying to you other than this. I know it'll lead nowhere.

 

[TreasDiggler]

media scored it largely in favor of Jones because Jones won the fight in the eyes of most people that understand how fights should be scored.

That's one of the points I ment to make in my original reply. I have yet to rematch the fight, initially I have it for Alex. Opinions are like assholes anyway.

 

[SnitchInsider]

Name-calling? Check.

And? Nothing wrong with a good name-calling. Ad Hominem exists when name calling substitutes an argument, not when it complements one. Check.

Ignoring numbers/the point and trying to make this into a "who won" thread? Check.

Wait, there were numbers and a point I didn't address? All I read was a bunch of mind-numbing pseudo-intellectual drivel. I don't see any so-called numbers. Check.

Saying stupid shit like MMA media makes more money being opposed to the largest MMA company in history rather than working with a billion-dollar-plus company? Check.

I'm sorry, I've worked in the media, including MMA media. I think I've got a better idea of how this stuff works than your panicked forum posts do. And yes, as a matter of fact, the media makes their money by breaking original stories. Welcome to journalism. Check.

Yeah I'm not bothering replying to you other than this. I know it'll lead nowhere.

Funny considering "nowhere" is exactly where your claims have been heading since the start. It's also the location of the compelling evidence that you think exists to support your theory.

Wait, what's that?

Chirp?

Don't have any sneaky leaked emails from the UFC to the media?

Don't have that audio recording of Dana on tape?

No?

Can't find it?

Misplaced it?

Rented a room in "nowhere" and storing it for later use?

 

[SnitchInsider]

Exciting.

 

[Dionysian]

blah blah blah random provocation blah blah random provocation

then double post the same thing 5 minutes later hoping for a reply

Try to get a rise out of someone else troll. Won't work here. You were given away once you said that MMA media knows more about fighting than pro-MMA fighters in the UFC.

 

[Magooglie]

Welcome to humanity.

 

[JonesBones]

Whenever your point relies on a vast conspiracy, you have no argument.

 

[Dionysian]

Whenever your point relies on a vast conspiracy, you have no argument.

I know you didn't read the thread and it is long but there IS a tldr section. At least check that out before doing a one-liner.

 

[SnitchInsider]

Try to get a rise out of someone else troll. Won't work here. You were given away once you said that MMA media knows more about fighting than pro-MMA fighters in the UFC.

Uh..........

MMA Media knows more about scoring fights unbiasedly than fighters in the UFC, yes, that's correct. If you don't know that's correct, then you don't understand anything about professional fighters or the media. Here's another pro tip that might shock you: Professional fighters, on a whole, don't even follow the sport as closely as hardcore fans do.

 

[Post Crisis]

Good analysis.

 

[kuromusha]

I know you didn't read the thread and it is long but there IS a tldr section. At least check that out before doing a one-liner.

What's hilarious is that JonesBones is an intelligent guy. I can never tell whether he is being dead serious or trolling. He has a way of pissing people off.

 

[Scyther]

lol it's clear more people think Gus won, if anyhting groupthink has worked in favor of the Gus fans.

 

[SnitchInsider]

Conspiracy! UFC paid the media in the second fight to all go against the judges!

Wait, we're picking and choosing which one-sided media scorecard we care about. I forgot. As you were.

 

[JonesBones]

I know you didn't read the thread and it is long but there IS a tldr section. At least check that out before doing a one-liner.

You compared the situation to elections in a communist dictatorship. That these guys were totally bullied into scoring it for Jones.

That assumes:

A: UFC wanted Jones to win.
B. Media knew UFC wanted Jones to win. (must have been a secret memo passed around)
C: UFC would punish those who went against their wishes.
D: MMA media is scared of UFC and bows to its demands.

You have not proven any of those.

All 3 judges also scored it for Jones. How convenient. Were they intimidated or pushing UFC interests too?

 

[SnitchInsider]

You compared the situation to elections in a communist dictatorship. That these guys were totally bullied into scoring it for Jones.

That assumes:

A: UFC wanted Jones to win.
B. Media knew UFC wanted Jones to win. (must have been a secret memo passed around)
C: UFC would punish those who went against their wishes.
D: MMA media is scared of UFC and bows to its demands.

You have not proven any of those.

All 3 judges also scored it for Jones. How convenient. Were they intimidated or pushing UFC interests too?

Outlining his argument is a "conspiracy strawman" apparently. Who knew? And here I thought a conspiracy was a prerequisite to his point.

 

[Babalinho]

To draw any conclusions from statistics like this you'd have to be in a controlled environment. Which isn't the case. There are many unknown variables that can have caused the 95 %. It may be as easy as media being more unbiased than fans...

 

[dogooder]

You can see the media scores here:

http://mmadecisions.com/decision/4518/Jon-Jones-vs-Alexander-Gustafsson

It's not 60% of Sherdog thinks Gus won the fight. It's 60% of people who voted in the polls think Gus won the fight, and people who think he got robbed were much more motivated to vote (and make threads and post in each other's threads). Those who thought Jones won didn't bother to vote, they had a good night's sleep. That's why the numbers here are so skewed compared to the media's.

If the judges had given it to Gustafsson, then all the threads would've been about Jones got robbed and the polls would be going the other way. Because it's the people who are outraged that are the ones who post. Pretty obvious, really.

 

[poorlytoldjoke]

Because people disagree with what the "majority" of fans think (your words) they are prone to group think? Gotcha.

This brilliant thesis is brought to you by cheetos, mountain dew, mom's basement, and never having known the touch of a woman.

 

[Bonged Kiwi]

Conspiracy! UFC paid the media in the second fight to all go against the judges!

Wait, we're picking and choosing which one-sided media scorecard we care about. I forgot. As you were.

Boom. Headshot.

This thread is confusing to me, perhaps its because I'm not as familiar with statistics/polling etc as TS seems to be, but I don't really get the point.

Yes, Groupthink exists. That much is obvious. But the examples provided by TS don't really make much sense. I have no idea what Saddam and the Communist Party have to do with MMA media (I also found it hard to follow as he was constantly jumping from point to point... but maybe I'm just being dumb. I am sick at the moment so I'm pretty foggy mentally.)

I get the point that Saddamn/Communism opposers would be shamed/scared in to falling in line, but I cannot fathom anyway in which the analogy applies to MMA media.

MMA media REGULARLY pisses off the UFC. Dana is constantly fighting with people like Ariel. In fact, at the press conference for 165 Dana made fun of Ariel after Ariel brought up UFC's shitty marketing to Dana in his usual pre-fight interview. Not to mention all the Sherdog journo's who've battled with the UFC already.

Why would the MMA media suddenly feel compelled to score this fight in line with the judges in order to get in the UFC's good graces? Especially since the judges and the UFC are so often at odds themselves. And don't most MMA media outlets score the fights live in their play-by-play, just like the judges do? So, wouldn't that mean that they'd have their scores completed before even finding out how the judges scored the fight?

Seems like TS is stretching to me.

The aspect of MMA groupthink I find far more fascinating is with the members of this board. The narrative of how fights went can vary WILDLY from how they actually occurred. It's almost like a game of chinese whispers. From Condit becoming the Natural Born Runner to Gus "dominating" the whole 4th round (or even the whole fight), the stories of fights/fighters changes and morphs to become something that does not even remotely represent reality... and the fans aren't beholden to the UFC in any way shape or form.

 

[poorlytoldjoke]

Because people disagree with what the "majority" of fans think (your words) they are prone to group think? Gotcha.

This brilliant thesis is brought to you by cheetos, mountain dew, mom's basement, and never having known the touch of a woman.