Hey, I was wondering if any of you all who train in jiu-jitsu could answer a dumb question for me.  What's to stop you from just reaching down and strangling your opponent from inside his guard?  I've seen this done briefly with like a forearm or sometimes even a hand a couple times and the UFC and the referee warns about it being illegal but if you were in an unarmed combat situation wouldn't this be a pretty easy thing to do?  And if so, wouldn't this negate the real-life effectiveness of jiu-jitsu techniques from the bottom? 

OK, so this is any interview done by MMA Junkie reporter Jon Lane that was sent to Sonnen in written form.  It's been posted on a lot of sites but I know a lot of people only check Mania and this is not one to miss. 

Enjoy.

Jon Lane: The story opened with an oath you made to your dying father to become a world champion. The chance is coming and barring any injury there’s no denying it this time. You’re in the main event of UFC 117, the organization’s debut in Oakland, and all you have to do is defeat someone considered one of the top if not the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world. I get the impression you’re one to never allow the magnitude of an opportunity to overcome you, so how are you taking this in stride – or perhaps more accurately facing it dead on.

Chael : You ask pretty long questions pal, i lost you about half way through.

Jon Lane: To reiterate, all you have to do is defeat Anderson Silva. What does Anderson Silva have to do? This is more than just a title defense to him. Dana White put him on notice to compete in light of the stunt he pulled at UFC 112 and MMA fans, many of whom were unhappy and disappointed in the Spider, are expecting excellence.

Chael : You seem to be asking and answering questions at the same. I'm not sure where i fit in. You seem to be doing a great job on your own.

Jon Lane : You’ve been quoted on the record that you have a moral obligation to beat Silva up. In terms of having to overcome perhaps the sport’s most talented and gifted athlete and the vibe he gives off that he’s in charge and owns the Octagon, can you crack his aura? And how?

Chael : zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.. what?

Jon Lane: You said this: "[Silva is] really good, he’s really effective, and he’s as unpleasing to watch as grass growing. That’s why they called me to get rid of this cancer of the company." Why have you adopted the villain role in MMA? Your strong words directed at Silva the past four years, combined with your ascension to the No. 1 contender’s spot, gives off the impression that you’re playing the part of the heel. Why? Is part of it to better sell a fight?

Chael: Are they paying you by the word? If so, I'll send you a check myself to cover whatever they are paying you to ask me shorter questions.

Jon Lane: Is Silva, despite his incredible talent and what's still a strong following, slowly becoming a fighter a lot of fans would like to see lose?

I’m sure you’ve been asked too many times to count, "Are you ready?" You’ve counted by saying, "I’m not ready, it’s just my turn." What’s the difference?

Chael: If I've answered that questions already, then why are you asking? I have no idea what you are trying to ask...

Jon Lane : The winner of this fight gets Victor Belfort. You and the Phenom are two examples of how despite suggestions that Silva will move to light-heavyweight after he cleans out the middleweight division, that may not necessarily the case. My last story was on how the lightweight division was blown up by Frankie Edgar’s win over B.J. Penn. The fighters I spoke to took exception to any suggestion that Penn cleaned out the division even though he hadn’t lost since 2002. How do you react to whenever you hear that Silva is unstoppable, unbeatable and my eventually be better suited for a move up to 205?

Chael: I'll have a Venti Iced Mocha and an almond biscotti.

Jon Lane: You can change the course of the middleweights by knocking off Silva. Have you fully grasped the opportunity of become a champion and defeating one of the all-time greats and having that much of an impact on the future of the division and the sport?

Chael: No

Jon Lane : You’re 3-0 since Damian Maia last February. What did you learn from that last defeat?

CHael: Do you think I should get a puppy?

Jon Lane: Since the loss to Jeremy Horn at UFC 60 you told Fight you "didn’t deal with stuff right" and thought of quitting. Sessions with sports psychologist Ed Versteeg put you back on the right path. What was that ‘stuff’ and how did Dr. Versteeg recalibrate you?

Chael: Here's a clue - Albert Hoffman / Sandoz Laboratories / Owlsley Stanley III / Jerry / "Box of Rain"

Jon Lane : You won your next five fights and are 10-2 –the loss to Maia and the disputed first Filho fight the only setbacks. Over the years you’ve developed a bit of a mean streak. Is it one you can control?

Chael : No

Jon Lane : The win over Nate Marquardt was arguably your best since you took a rising star completely off his game, but the price was hard. There was the cut on the bridge of your nose. You were quoted saying that guillotine choke late in the third round was "one of the most horrible experiences of my life." It was hell getting out of bed and the kicker was you were offered a chance at Silva last month when Victor Belfort was forced to pull out, but there was no way you were able to fully prepare having to overcome those aches and pains. Whatever doesn’t kill a fighter makes him stronger. How did you emerge from that entire ordeal stronger even though you walked out of Las Vegas that night a winner?

Chael : I really don't think you need me for this interview, I'm happy to help, but you can just divide your question in half and have the 1st par serve as the questions and the 2nd part serve as the answer. Is my Venti Mocha here yet?

Jon Lane : Your distain (if that’s an accurate word) for Silva is well-documented. Silva took a ton of abuse from the media and fans for his shenanigans. The performance was called an embarrassment and a complete lack of respect and class for his opponent and the sport. Watching that were you seething, telling yourself I’m going to ram this clown into the mat and beat the ego out of him?

Chael : See previous answer

Jon Lane : What if Silva tries doing that at your expense in August? If he has you in position where he can end the fight and walk away as the better man, but instead chooses to dance and make the fight a mockery, what will you do?

CHael :I will call you into the ring to bore him to death with rambling inane questions.

Jon Lane : Obviously you have no intention of letting it come down to that. Silva’s skills are on another planet and it’ll be your turn to do what nobody has done since January 20, 2006. He’s like Georges St. Pierre in that he makes observers wonder, "What on earth does one have to do to defeat him?" How do you intend to be the man who finally brings the Spider to his knees?

Chael : Planet, skills, St. Pierre, knees, yeah! Wait....What? Wheres my biscotti?

[Following Correspondence:]

Hey Chael,

I do appreciate your honesty. My goal as a reporter is to ask in-depth questions that allow me to tell a story beyond a story, and have conducted previous telephone and e-mail interviews with the same approach. I apologize if I lost you, so would it help if I trimmed it down to the basics? I do need you for the interview. I read the story in Fight on you, the insights you provided, and know I too can make it work.

I owe you a Venti Mocha and will throw in an almond biscotti. Your time is valuable so let me know how I can make things easier. Perhaps a phone conversation?

Best,

Jon Lane

===================================================================================

Jon....

You accomplished your goal of telling a story all right.....
I'm not certain why, at this point, you would want to modify anything. You had time (LOTS of time, apparently) to prepare your questions, and they represent you; they...DEFINE you. My answers define me too. I'm happy and satisfied with the interview as it stands. You may recall on more than one occasion during the (comparatively brief) "answer" segments of our interview that I mentioned that you seemed to have it all covered; I really didn't have any place to fit in, and my attempts apparently didn't satisfy you. The reason my answers didn't satisfy you is because YOU didn't say them; they actually take time and space away from points YOU want to make. So I did the interview in good faith, I spent time on it in an effort to be courteous, but it was an insurmountable task to approach the standards of verbosity and loquaciousness that you set; you simply set the bar too high, and expected more from me (as far as the simple raw tonnage of words you employ, which constitute a form of "journalism" I cannot accomodate) than I could possibly supply. I'm comfortable with that; I'm NOT a journalist, but I'm willing to stand behind my answers. As a Journalist, please have the courage to stand behind your questions. I await publication of the interview "en toto", and if I do not see it, I will post both the interview and this post-interview correspondence (both mine AND yours) as my own, admittedly, imperfect, form of "journalism".

Chael Sonnen

In the next MMA Worldwide Magazine I will publish portions of your fan Q&A and our 2009 interview. And thank goodness for spell check :-)

Jon Lane

 

===================================================================================

It seems to me you're not getting it, Jon. Let me make this absolutely CRYSTAL CLEAR for you. You contacted me, and requested an interview. You GOT one. I took the time to read your rambling, unfocused, semi-coherent questions, and answered them. You have CONSISTENTLY DODGED the question of whether or not you will publish it. And I should remind you, Jon, that in this age of the Internet, NOTHING GOES AWAY. NOTHING. You can not, and WILL NOT, since I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO, bury or ignore what YOU wrote, or what I wrote. I have enjoined you repeatedly and asked you whether or not you plan on publishing it, ALL OF IT. If NOT, I WILL. It EXISTS. You can acknowledge it,and find a way to accommodate it, or turn your back on it; in which case, it will lock its jaws around you and start swallowing. As sure as night follows day, your words will find you out.

-Chael Sonnen

Great stuff, and I gained new respect for Chael.  He definitely has his eccentric ways, but he's a very intelligent and funny guy. 

The best part is he made good on his promise to leak the interview, lol. 

Please rec this if you enjoyed so more people can see it. 

Hey I was wondering if any of you all participating in the MMA playground betting game from previous seasons have any tips for a first-timer?  One of the big things I was wondering about was how much (i.e. what % of your total $) you should risk in a particular event? 

For example, currently I have a MacDonald/Dunham parlay that pays ~$1400 on a $100 bet, and that is my only bet for this event, meaning I am only risking 1/10th of my total money.  Should I be risking more? 

Also if anyone has any opinions on good value for upcoming cards feel free to post them as well. 

Thanks in advance!

What does it mean to be champion? 

The idea of the "undisputed champion of the world" is synonymous with combat sports, particularly boxing and MMA.  There is something deeply satisfying about the notion that, after all is said and done, that there is a clear winner, one man who stands alone on the mountain top. 

via www.reocities.com

But, in a real sense, what does it mean to win a championship title?  Are you the best in the world because you wear a UFC belt around your waist?  Of course not, people would rightfully argue: What makes you the best in the world is the fact that everyone (for the sake of argument) is striving for the same goal, and you have come out on top.  Thus, it is proven that you are the best in the world!

On the surface, this idea is plausible, and quite appealing.  However, I take issue with this line of logic.

Championship titles, like the rankings in general, are based on linear history that does not accurately reflect the current state of the MMA world.  As an example of this, let me use Brock Lesnar and Randy Couture.  (For a moment let us pretend that the only organization in the world is the UFC, so Fedor, Barnett, and others do not exist to complicate things). 

via images.chron.com

Randy Couture famously came out of retirement and battered Tim Sylvia, then Gabe Gonzaga in succession to achieve true legend status. 

Along comes Brock Lesnar.  Like a demon from hell, the seemingly unstoppable mountain of a man that is Brock Lesnar knocks Couture senseless.  Brock is now champion, and what has happened? Quite simply, he inherits the wins of Couture and earns the UFC belt.  In this way it is not far-fetched to say that Lesnar's credibility after attaining the UFC belt was directly due to Randy Couture defeating Sylvia and Gonzaga. 

And while these were highly prized wins at the time, in the modern MMA landscape they might mean much less.  Both of these fighters' stars have fallen considerably, as Gonzaga has suffered KO losses to Werdum, Carwin, and Dos Santos, and Tim Sylvia has fallen viciously to Fedor, and in one of the most humiliating defeats in MMA history, was destroyed in the first round by aging pugilist Ray Mercer.  While there may be a legitimate case to be made that Gonzaga and Sylvia have deteriorated, the fact remains that while Randy and Brock were duking it out at for the championship, the landscape had changed drastically beneath them.  The fighters upon which both of their fame rest were no longer even competetive at the top of the MMA food chain.  Thus, the idea that the linear champion (that Brock himself has referenced in pre-fight intervews in the leadup to his second fight with Mir) equates to being the best in the world is called into question. 

This leads me into a related point which casts further doubt on the myth of the "champion," and to illustrate it I will use MMA's own karate kid, Lyoto Machida. 

via madmedia.com

Machida began fighting MMA in 2003, and quickly displayed incredible promise by stopping Bonnar and Franklin in his second and third fights, respectively.  As I'm sure you all know, he continued to go undefeated until only recently when he was knocked out by Shogun. 

So where am I going with this? 

In 2004-2006, at the time when Machida was relatively undiscovered, Chuck Liddell was the UFC champion and regarded as the best fighter in the world in the LHW weight class (excluding, for the moment, Wanderlei Silva).  Yet in retrospect, many MMA fans would scoff at the notion that Liddell could have defeated Machida even during his "prime"--his storied championship reign.  Indeed, it is hard to imagine Liddell ever having an answer to  Machida's technical wizardry (which he has always had, even prior to gaining recognition in the UFC), and incredible skill set.

Further, let me clarify that I am not saying Machida would merely have been a "bad matchup for Liddell."  I believe that at the time when Chuck was champion, Machida was decidedly the better all-around fighter.  While this cannot be proven, recent developments would seem to support this assertion. 

This leads one to wonder:  how many other no-name fighters in the great MMA abyss could have defeated Liddell, even in his prime?  Odds are it is many more than one...

So what did it really mean for Liddell to be champion, then?  What does it mean for anyone to be champion when it seems inevitable that superior fighters are waiting in the wings, ready and able to take their championship titles? 

The case of Machida and Liddell is but one example of a great plethora that goes to show that in MMA there is a large time gap between a fighter's true merit and the recognition he recieves. 

The most common explanation for this gap would be the notion that a fighter must "work his way up" to the top of the ladder, and go undefeated against a series of up-and comers to prove he is worthy of fighting for a championship.  This is reasonable (although problematic due to the changing landscape theory I described previously, which would mean that young contenders who are both better than the champion must, instead, fight one another and further delay the loser's attainment of the recognition befitting of his skill level), and it is a reasonably fair (if not universally disadvantageous) system.  Yet in MMA this process is very lengthy, and as I have mentioned, not always fair to promising prospects.  The resulting massive lag time between merit and recognition is one of the largest distinctions I can see between MMA and other sports, and an unfortunate consequence of the fighters need to compete relatively infrequently (compared to traditional sports).  For example, in tennis, one must similarly prove oneself to get to the top of the game, yet the process is much, much faster for the cream to rise to the top--certainly not the 4,5, or 6 years that one might witness in MMA, and a single loss to another prospect would certainly not set you back a year or more, as it has the potential to in MMA.  It is hard for a sport to really keep "up to speed" on the reality of people's abilities the same way as tennis , when the competitors perform about 1/30th as often (Novak Djokovic, the number 3 tennis player in the world, played well over 100 matches last year).  There is simply not enough data to work with. 

So, what does it mean to be a champion?

I can tell you what it does not mean.   It does not mean you are the best in the world.  The linear championship is a reflection of the past as much as the present: a relic to victories significant years ago; an oversimplified version of reality in which it is possible for a single person, by virtue of a few notable victories, to "prove" supremacy over the entire fighting world, many of the inhabitants of which are more than capable of, but are years away, in a matchmaking sense from, fighting for the title. 

What does it mean to be champion? 

The idea of the "undisputed champion of the world" is synonymous with combat sports, particularly boxing and MMA.  There is something deeply satisfying about the notion that, after all is said and done, that there is a clear winner, one man who stands alone on the mountain top. 

via www.reocities.com

But, in a real sense, what does it mean to win a championship title?  Are you the best in the world because you wear a UFC belt around your waist?  Of course not, people would rightfully argue: What makes you the best in the world is the fact that everyone (for the sake of argument) is striving for the same goal, and you have come out on top.  Thus, it is proven that you are the best in the world!

On the surface, this idea is plausible, and quite appealing.  However, I take issue with this line of logic.

Championship titles, like the rankings in general, are based on linear history that does not accurately reflect the current state of the MMA world.  As an example of this, let me use Brock Lesnar and Randy Couture.  (For a moment let us pretend that the only organization in the world is the UFC, so Fedor, Barnett, and others do not exist to complicate things). 

via images.chron.com

Randy Couture famously came out of retirement and battered Tim Sylvia, then Gabe Gonzaga in succession to achieve true legend status. 

Along comes Brock Lesnar.  Like a demon from hell, the seemingly unstoppable mountain of a man that is Brock Lesnar knocks Couture senseless.  Brock is now champion, and what has happened? Quite simply, he inherits the wins of Couture and earns the UFC belt.  In this way it is not far-fetched to say that Lesnar's credibility after attaining the UFC belt was directly due to Randy Couture defeating Sylvia and Gonzaga. 

And while these were highly prized wins at the time, in the modern MMA landscape they might mean much less.  Both of these fighters' stars have fallen considerably, as Gonzaga has suffered KO losses to Werdum, Carwin, and Dos Santos, and Tim Sylvia has fallen viciously to Fedor, and in one of the most humiliating defeats in MMA history, was destroyed in the first round by aging pugilist Ray Mercer.  While there may be a legitimate case to be made that Gonzaga and Sylvia have deteriorated, the fact remains that while Randy and Brock were duking it out at for the championship, the landscape had changed drastically beneath them.  The fighters upon which both of their fame rest were no longer even competetive at the top of the MMA food chain.  Thus, the idea that the linear champion (that Brock himself has referenced in pre-fight intervews in the leadup to his second fight with Mir) equates to being the best in the world is called into question. 

This leads me into a related point which casts further doubt on the myth of the "champion," and to illustrate it I will use MMA's own karate kid, Lyoto Machida. 

via madmedia.com

Machida began fighting MMA in 2003, and quickly displayed incredible promise by stopping Bonnar and Franklin in his second and third fights, respectively.  As I'm sure you all know, he continued to go undefeated until only recently when he was knocked out by Shogun. 

So where am I going with this? 

In 2004-2006, at the time when Machida was relatively undiscovered, Chuck Liddell was the UFC champion and regarded as the best fighter in the world in the LHW weight class (excluding, for the moment, Wanderlei Silva).  Yet in retrospect, many MMA fans would scoff at the notion that Liddell could have defeated Machida even during his "prime"--his storied championship reign.  Indeed, it is hard to imagine Liddell ever having an answer to  Machida's technical wizardry (which he has always had, even prior to gaining recognition in the UFC), and incredible skill set.

Further, let me clarify that I am not saying Machida would merely have been a "bad matchup for Liddell."  I believe that at the time when Chuck was champion, Machida was decidedly the better all-around fighter.  While this cannot be proven, recent developments would seem to support this assertion. 

This leads one to wonder:  how many other no-name fighters in the great MMA abyss could have defeated Liddell, even in his prime?  Odds are it is many more than one...

So what did it really mean for Liddell to be champion, then?  What does it mean for anyone to be champion when it seems inevitable that superior fighters are waiting in the wings, ready and able to take their championship titles? 

The case of Machida and Liddell is but one example of a great plethora that goes to show that in MMA there is a large time gap between a fighter's true merit and the recognition he recieves. 

The most common explanation for this gap would be the notion that a fighter must "work his way up" to the top of the ladder, and go undefeated against a series of up-and comers to prove he is worthy of fighting for a championship.  This is reasonable (although problematic due to the changing landscape theory I described previously, which would mean that young contenders who are both better than the champion must, instead, fight one another and further delay the loser's attainment of the recognition befitting of his skill level), and it is a reasonably fair (if not universally disadvantageous) system.  Yet in MMA this process is very lengthy, and as I have mentioned, not always fair to promising prospects.  The resulting massive lag time between merit and recognition is one of the largest distinctions I can see between MMA and other sports, and an unfortunate consequence of the fighters need to compete relatively infrequently (compared to traditional sports).  For example, in tennis, one must similarly prove oneself to get to the top of the game, yet the process is much, much faster for the cream to rise to the top--certainly not the 4,5, or 6 years that one might witness in MMA, and a single loss to another prospect would certainly not set you back a year or more, as it has the potential to in MMA.  It is hard for a sport to really keep "up to speed" on the reality of people's abilities the same way as tennis , when the competitors perform about 1/30th as often (Novak Djokovic, the number 3 tennis player in the world, played well over 100 matches last year).  There is simply not enough data to work with. 

So, what does it mean to be a champion?

I can tell you what it does not mean.   It does not mean you are the best in the world.  The linear championship is a reflection of the past as much as the present: a relic to victories significant years ago; an oversimplified version of reality in which it is possible for a single person, by virtue of a few notable victories, to "prove" supremacy over the entire fighting world, many of the inhabitants of which are more than capable of, but are years away, in a matchmaking sense from, fighting for the title. 

Pretty sensionalist, huh? 

Has he accomplished as much as Silva?  No.  Should he be ranked number one?  No.  Would he beat Silva?  Certainly. 

It stands to reason that if Shields was able to take down and dominate Henderson (an olympic caliber wrestler) at will, that he could do the same to Anderson Silva, who has a much more suspect wrestling game.  Let's not forget that Henderson was the number 2 MW in the world, the only man to take a round off of SIlva in the UFC. 

Shields made him look utterly foolish. 

Shields is nothing short of a grappling phenom, and after what he did tonight, I am ready to anoint him the best 185er in the world. 

Are you? 

I think not. 

In my opinion, the most interesting fights for him are at 185.   Think about it.  He has three fights left on his UFC contract, after which he has proclaimed his desire to retire.   The Maia fight uses one, which leaves two to be used between Vitor, Sonnen, and GSP, 

Also, he's stated repeatedly that he doesn't intend to challenge for the Light Heavyweight belt so as not to fight his friend, Lyoto Machida, or to prevent Machida from challenging for the belt by holding it himself (by way of beating another, i.e. Shogun)

So, what do you think, Maniacs?