When does it stop being "hype"?

Hype, as far as I'm concerned, is an exaggerated, dubious, claim regarding something.

For me, it ceases to be hype when the claim can be substantiated, or ceases to be hyperbolic.

Example: Guy watches JDS defend takedowns, proceeds to claim nobody can take him down. That would be hype, in my mind. More specifically, it'd be hype that can never truly be validated.

Example 2: Guy watches JDS defend takedowns, proceeds to claim his takedown defense is so good, even Cain will have a hard time getting him down consistently. That is hype that can eventually be substantiated.


Unfortunately, with MMA it seems spewing hyperbole is the first reaction most of us have in response to a quality/dominant win, and most of the time it tends to be the type of hype that can never truly be validated. So the hype only really goes away in those cases when the hyped fighter loses, typically.
 
depends. my friends and I had JDS on this pedestal he could never live up 2. so in a sense he seemed unbeatable. when he lost it suckd becuz I can no longer hype him up to my friends that r new to mma like I used to. hype is just excitement and whenever someone losses they lose hype to a degree
 
This is sherdog, so never. For me, it's when I see continued improvement from one fight to the next.
 
When you start beating top level opposition.
 
It stops being hype when you beat someone real legit. For Gus that just happened against Shogun (you could argue the Thiago Silva fight, but I personally needed one more to fully buy in). For Glover it will happen if he beats Rampage (assuming Rampage makes weight and doesn't look dreadful). For Cormier it happened when he smoked Bigfoot. For Weidman it was taking down a pretty solid wrestler in Munoz in under a minute, and proceeding to thoroughly dominate him.
 
Depends on the person. If Brock would have beaten Cain, he still would have been hype, if Cain would have beat JDS the first time, he would be hype still. You have to lose then win again to shake the baggage that is hype.
 
Some people still consider Erick Silva as just 'hype' because Fitch beat him. I think he has more than proven himself already
 
To add to what I said, it really does stop being hype after the hype train is derailed with a loss and the fighter comes back with a nice win, everyone feels better now that the fighter lost, because when the fighter was undefeated there were all these questions of how will he handle the pressure of so and so, and what about the ground game and what about late rounds and blah blah blah. Until you lose and win again, you are hype, because we can't handle it
 
This is very subjective. I don't think there really is one single event when it stops being hype. It just gradually fades away.
 
When the person calling it 'hype' decides they like said fighter.
 
That depends on who you ask, and when you ask them.
 
Elysianwing said:
Hype, as far as I'm concerned, is an exaggerated, dubious, claim regarding something.

For me, it ceases to be hype when the claim can be substantiated, or ceases to be hyperbolic.

Example: Guy watches JDS defend takedowns, proceeds to claim nobody can take him down. That would be hype, in my mind. More specifically, it'd be hype that can never truly be validated.

Example 2: Guy watches JDS defend takedowns, proceeds to claim his takedown defense is so good, even Cain will have a hard time getting him down consistently. That is hype that can eventually be substantiated.


Unfortunately, with MMA it seems spewing hyperbole is the first reaction most of us have in response to a quality/dominant win, and most of the time it tends to be the type of hype that can never truly be validated. So the hype only really goes away in those cases when the hyped fighter loses, typically.
Click to expand...

fantastic answer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,975
Messages
55,458,479
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top