- Joined
- Jan 16, 2016
- Messages
- 108
- Reaction score
- 0
Most of us are familiar with IQ (Intelligence Quotient) and EQ (Emotional Intelligence Quotient). Yesterday, for the first time, I heard of the concept AQ, or Adversity Quotient. Basically this is a scale whereby one's response to adversity can be measured:
1) At the bottom of the hierarchy are those who simply cannot deal with adversity; they are utterly "broken" by bad events in their lives.
2) Moving up the scale you find those who can cope with adversity; they do not necessarily flourish when the unfortunate transpires, however they can narrowly squeeze by and avoid being broken.
3) Even higher on the scale are those who persevere through adversity. They easily overcome obstacles.
4) At the top of the scale are those who harness adversity. They find a way to embrace the negative situation in front of them and turn it around for gain.
In recent UFC history we have witnessed opposite ends of the spectrum in how Ronda and Conor have dealt with their respective losses. Given their incredible success before adversity struck, they make for a great illustration of the AQ concept.
In Ronda's case, she became suicidal and a recluse. It does not appear that she improved her striking to close the glaring gap in her arsenal. The results of this were an even more devastating loss whereby she was made to look completely foolish in the ring. She succumbed to adversity and it appears her fighting career is over at a relatively young age.
On the other hand, Conor was handily beaten by Nate Diaz. Conor realized why he lost, went back to the drawing board and arrived at a more intelligent game plan; by focusing on kickboxing to maintain his guard and not chasing a low probability quick knockout, he was able to inflict significant damage on his opponent over 5 rounds and ultimately capture a victory. He harnessed adversity and ultimately made himself a better fighter from it. As a result, his stock has never been higher.
How does everyone else feel about this and where would you put other fighters on this scale?
Fedor?
Silva?
Lawler?
Cruz?
Cain?
Lesnar?
Jones?
1) At the bottom of the hierarchy are those who simply cannot deal with adversity; they are utterly "broken" by bad events in their lives.
2) Moving up the scale you find those who can cope with adversity; they do not necessarily flourish when the unfortunate transpires, however they can narrowly squeeze by and avoid being broken.
3) Even higher on the scale are those who persevere through adversity. They easily overcome obstacles.
4) At the top of the scale are those who harness adversity. They find a way to embrace the negative situation in front of them and turn it around for gain.
In recent UFC history we have witnessed opposite ends of the spectrum in how Ronda and Conor have dealt with their respective losses. Given their incredible success before adversity struck, they make for a great illustration of the AQ concept.
In Ronda's case, she became suicidal and a recluse. It does not appear that she improved her striking to close the glaring gap in her arsenal. The results of this were an even more devastating loss whereby she was made to look completely foolish in the ring. She succumbed to adversity and it appears her fighting career is over at a relatively young age.
On the other hand, Conor was handily beaten by Nate Diaz. Conor realized why he lost, went back to the drawing board and arrived at a more intelligent game plan; by focusing on kickboxing to maintain his guard and not chasing a low probability quick knockout, he was able to inflict significant damage on his opponent over 5 rounds and ultimately capture a victory. He harnessed adversity and ultimately made himself a better fighter from it. As a result, his stock has never been higher.
How does everyone else feel about this and where would you put other fighters on this scale?
Fedor?
Silva?
Lawler?
Cruz?
Cain?
Lesnar?
Jones?
