A specific kind of cherrypicking that's BS

[Bynum]

This is something that I saw having occurred a few weeks ago, in an org where I have access to see people explaining turning down fights.

A manager refused to have his stand up fighter fight a grappler because he said he didn't have enough D-Grap.  The fighters had been around for a while.  Regardless of where he had started his D-Grap, he had had plenty of time to train it up.

A loophole in the game is that someone can build just for standup or build just for grappling, and instead of a pure standup fighter fighting just kickboxing, or a pure grappler fighting only in grappler-only rules fights, they can fight MMA and just not accept fights against opposing styles.  I call BS on that.

Unless you have a kickboxer, who will fight only in kickboxing orgs, someone who can't either be very good at preventing himself from fighting too much on the ground (takedown defense + escapes) or be able to defend against grapplers when on the ground (d-grap with some help from transitions) or some combo of those, should be exposed on the ground, because otherwise it's not fair to the strikers they fight who DID invest in defensive ground skills and thus have less points in being the perfect striker.   Ideally org owners could refuse to accept someone essentially saying they refuse to fight anyone but strikers in an MMA org.  That may not be possible.  I don't know how to prevent cherry-picking like that.  I don't remember who did it and wouldn't say who if I did as it's not my org and it wouldn't be my place to directly call someone out for it.

But declining a fight should occur when the opponent is clearly a better fighter than yours, or an amazingly bad matchup, which at lower levels like id orgs (all I've played at so far) a really bad matchup usually means that your highest primary, the opponent tops in that same primary- so what your fighter is best at, they're better.

There might be other cases also.  But one that isn't a good case is cherry-picking so as never to fight a ground specialist so you can essentially have a kickboxer in an MMA org. 

[Icon73]

44 minutes ago, Bynum said:

This is something that I saw having occurred a few weeks ago, in an org where I have access to see people explaining turning down fights.

A manager refused to have his stand up fighter fight a grappler because he said he didn't have enough D-Grap.  The fighters had been around for a while.  Regardless of where he had started his D-Grap, he had had plenty of time to train it up.

A loophole in the game is that someone can build just for standup or build just for grappling, and instead of a pure standup fighter fighting just kickboxing, or a pure grappler fighting only in grappler-only rules fights, they can fight MMA and just not accept fights against opposing styles.  I call BS on that.

Unless you have a kickboxer, who will fight only in kickboxing orgs, someone who can't either be very good at preventing himself from fighting too much on the ground (takedown defense + escapes) or be able to defend against grapplers when on the ground (d-grap with some help from transitions) or some combo of those, should be exposed on the ground, because otherwise it's not fair to the strikers they fight who DID invest in defensive ground skills and thus have less points in being the perfect striker.   Ideally org owners could refuse to accept someone essentially saying they refuse to fight anyone but strikers in an MMA org.  That may not be possible.  I don't know how to prevent cherry-picking like that.  I don't remember who did it and wouldn't say who if I did as it's not my org and it wouldn't be my place to directly call someone out for it.

But declining a fight should occur when the opponent is clearly a better fighter than yours, or an amazingly bad matchup, which at lower levels like id orgs (all I've played at so far) a really bad matchup usually means that your highest primary, the opponent tops in that same primary- so what your fighter is best at, they're better.

There might be other cases also.  But one that isn't a good case is cherry-picking so as never to fight a ground specialist so you can essentially have a kickboxer in an MMA org. 

What's the point of ID orgs if you're gonna decline cause someone is better?

 

At that point you guys should start making learning speed orgs. All these reasons for declining are equally as soft to me.

[CelticStryder]

I am very new but everything I have been taught thus far is that declining a fight is severly frowned upon unless there is a very valid reason like taking some time for the fighter to train. My understanding is that declining a fight because you don't think its a good matchup or you don't see a good path to win is a big faux pas. At the same point a few people I chat with on discord and PM have also warned me of certain managers that only accept fights they believe they will win so that if you see a fight with them it is a good indication they believe they have the stronger fighter.

[clydebankblitz]

7 minutes ago, CelticStryder said:

I am very new but everything I have been taught thus far is that declining a fight is severly frowned upon unless there is a very valid reason like taking some time for the fighter to train. My understanding is that declining a fight because you don't think its a good matchup or you don't see a good path to win is a big faux pas. At the same point a few people I chat with on discord and PM have also warned me of certain managers that only accept fights they believe they will win so that if you see a fight with them it is a good indication they believe they have the stronger fighter.

I think it depends where you're at. In my org, fighters can be on the retirement line very quickly, so I much prefer fighters turn down fights and get invested in their fighters than just not care and cut them.

[TheHoarseWhisperer]

I like to have an understanding with contracted fighters that they can be on the path to a title shot or they can just be hang arounds that I use to fill cards. If they want to be taken into consideration for a title match, they need to be willing to take some tough fights. A championship doesn't get this luxury- you take challengers and it's my job to keep the roster fair for as many as I can.

There's a mutual expectation of fairness and willingness for fighters to accept fights, but the same pressure should be on the organization to keep the roster fairly balanced so you don't end up with a bunch of cans with one or two killers.

IMO

[clydebankblitz]

2 hours ago, clydebankblitz said:

I think it depends where you're at. In my org, fighters can be on the retirement line very quickly, so I much prefer fighters turn down fights and get invested in their fighters than just not care and cut them.

To follow up on this, Highland at this stage has some big ID gaps. Once a newer ID fighter goes about 3-4 wins straight at his current level, I like to start think about testing them against the bottom level of older fighters in the org. That step up might be one too many for a new fighter though. They might not be comfortable to step up so soon. Maybe they want to keep fighting at their current point until they hit a few training goals. So I put that back to the managers. Have your own goals. Know your own path towards the title. I have my own little ideas but I can't see stats and tbh don't even know that much about training. So for any fighters that are a step up too soon, definitely decline it. Let's work out a plan you're more comfortable with to get your fighter towards those hard to reach title shots.

[Rambo]

When you see highland QFC fighters infiltrating the mainland MMA rankings 

[Bynum]

I think it can be fine to decline mismatches depending on the circumstances, such as when the other fighter is clearly better than yours is (rule of thumb being look at your fighter's best primary; if their same primary is better that's likely a mismatch). 

I think it's fine to  decline if you get a series of fights and keep having the disadvantage, even if not mismatches.  The org owner/matchmaker probably is NOT doing it on purpose, but if you keep getting fights with a disadvantage over and over, I think it's fine to decline and say something, though maybe pm the matchmaker first if you feel that way and then decline if it keeps happening (if he explains how some weren't disadvantages for you, though, be open to that explanation also).  But I do think it's fair to expect that they'll balance out, though give it some time, not just 3 unfavorable matchups or something; but you shouldn't always have to fight at a disadvantage, fight after fight, despite the fact that the matchmaker most likely didn't mean to do it but just didn't notice.  And even with a very fair matchup I think you have the right to say you need more time for a given matchup if you believe that's a big factor, that you'll take it but give you a couple extra weeks.

The manager I mentioned in the OP would have been fine to say "I need a couple more weeks than that to train up d-grap, then I'll do this fight," just not to say, in essence, he wanted to keep his d-grap low and only fight other strikers.

What you NEVER have the right to do is be unwilling to fight a given type of fighter or expect every matchup to be in your favor, or expect that you won't have to fight the more successful managers in your org just as everyone else does.

[Bynum]

I just saw another example of just the kind of cherrypicking I meant in the OP though, virtually the same as in the OP.

If it were my org I'd probably name names, or maybe I wouldn't but I'd given a very pointed response back.  It isn't, so I won't do either of those.

I will say someone was unwilling to fight a brown belt, saying "no defense against ground."  Had it been my org, maybe I'd have written back, "Maybe you need to join a kickboxing org then, because fighting ground fighters is part of MMA."  Maybe I wouldn't, because I'd have to control my temper or lose too many managers.

But what the **** makes him so special that he doesn't have to put enough points into Takedown Defense and D-Grap and get to fight other fighters who did?

I don't manage the fighter he ducked, so it doesn't directly affect me.  It's toxic to the game, though, and blatant BS.  You have to fight ground fighters as well as strikers, and your only alternative should be to join a kickboxing org.  He didn't ask for a couple extra weeks to train D-grap up, just thinks he shouldn't have to be bothered with it.  Nope.

[Bynum]

I did write the org owner and suggest he get confrontational with the manager (it is unfair, because when that manager only takes stand up fights he'll be fighting guys who put points into ground defense that he avoids needing to spend/train because he just doesn't fight ground fighters, that he can instead put into only fighting strikers and thus have a big advantage when he fights them).

The org owner also knows of this thread, so I'm sure he'll read this, and there are people here with much more experience than I have.  What would all of you do with a manager who refuses to fight ground fighters, won't even ask for extra time to train D-Grap because he wants the advantage of not having to bother with it at all?

Edited February 10, 2022 by Bynum
Changed "cheating" to "unfair" because it isn't literally cheating.

[Icon73]

23 minutes ago, Bynum said:

I did write the org owner and suggest he get confrontational with the cheating manager (it is cheating, because when that manager only takes stand up fights he'll be fighting guys who put points into ground defense that he avoids needing to spend/train because he just doesn't fight ground fighters, that he can instead put into only fighting strikers and thus have a big advantage when he fights them).

The org owner also knows of this thread, so I'm sure he'll read this, and there are people here with much more experience than I have.  What would all of you do with a manager who refuses to fight ground fighters, won't even ask for extra time to train D-Grap because he wants the advantage of not having to bother with it at all?

I mean its literally not cheating. Its not more cherry picking then you saying you won't take fights at a disadvantage even if they are in the same ID org.

 

Please get off your high horse.

 

Everyone ducking fights is equally pussy. 

[popart]

This is why ID org owners give 3-4 weeks between fights- that time is more than enough to train def grappling if you need it. Not a valid reason to decline a fight. 

[Bynum]

10 minutes ago, Icon73 said:

I mean its literally not cheating. Its not more cherry picking then you saying you won't take fights at a disadvantage even if they are in the same ID org.

I guess by the literal definition of cheating it isn't in that there is no rule against it.  An org could make a rule, and maybe orgs should make the rule "We don't accept declining a fight because you want to only fight certain fighter types" but the org has no rule saying that, and maybe no org, except for a few that essentially say never turn down any fight ever (which goes way too far in my opinion), has a rule like that. 

But I saw others whose explanations were along the lines of "similar age and skills please," and I consider that a reasonable reason to decline.

I'll admit it isn't literally cheating to refuse to fight ground fighters (or whatever type; this manager's thing seems to be ground fighters).  Unfair is not the same as cheating.

[TheHoarseWhisperer]

1 hour ago, Icon73 said:

Please get off your high horse.

Hey now.

 

1 hour ago, Bynum said:

An org could make a rule, and maybe orgs should make the rule

In the past I've made it clear that I accept declining fights happily so long as the person gives me an explanation. I tended not to renew fighters that routinely refused reasonable fight offers due to skills unless they had the hype to make them worthwhile... but who needs the headache? There doesn't need to be a negative dialogue over it, just quietly let them go and find somebody more agreeable with how you do business.

[Rambo]

1 hour ago, TheHoarseWhisperer said:

Hey now.

 

In the past I've made it clear that I accept declining fights happily so long as the person gives me an explanation. I tended not to renew fighters that routinely refused reasonable fight offers due to skills unless they had the hype to make them worthwhile... but who needs the headache? There doesn't need to be a negative dialogue over it, just quietly let them go and find somebody more agreeable with how you do business.

This guy gets it.

[clydebankblitz]

10 hours ago, Rambo said:

When you see the #1 fighter in the game fighting Island guys for cheap hype

FIFY

[Rambo]

25 minutes ago, clydebankblitz said:

FIFY

[soyster89]

It's an MMA manager game. I fully support managers having the freedom to decline fights for their fighters whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. The key is for Org owners to also have that same freedom to not offer that manager's fighters any contracts due to their managerial decisions, and when/if they have that manager's fighters under contract, they have the freedom to simply hold the fighter hostage letting him rot out his prime years. We can police ourselves and take care of this. 

[clydebankblitz]

9 minutes ago, soyster89 said:

It's an MMA manager game. I fully support managers having the freedom to decline fights for their fighters whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. The key is for Org owners to also have that same freedom to not offer that manager's fighters any contracts due to their managerial decisions, and when/if they have that manager's fighters under contract, they have the freedom to simply hold the fighter hostage letting him rot out his prime years. We can police ourselves and take care of this. 

Calm down Dana ffs 😆

[TheHoarseWhisperer]

3 hours ago, soyster89 said:

and when/if they have that manager's fighters under contract, they have the freedom to simply hold the fighter hostage letting him rot out his prime years.

I strongly oppose holding fighters hostage. I'd much rather let them go entirely than keep them around building bad blood.

[TycoonHec]

Org owning has two major headaches for me personally. Those who sit on fights and those who decline regularly. I am sure most who have once or currently do, run an org feel this same way. However, I as an org owner have the responsibility of creating matchups that make sense and are necessary for both the fighter to grow and the org to move forward. Often, I have seen it where guys who are close to a title fight will decline an opponent due to some sort of differential that they don't like. This is always quite bothersome to me as more than anything, I would prefer communication of why we are making fights. 

I have learned several great things from other org leaders and one of my favorite things is the importance to focus on the future. When I first took over Bellicose, I was only concerned with putting the very best against the very best for the upcoming show. I had no desire to look to the future in any regard as I believed it would just play out for us. This was ignorant and foolish. 

Since then, I have made it a point to look at the division in its entirety and ensure that if Fighter A wins he can Fight Fighter C/D next but if he loses he may fight the loser of C/D or the winner of E/F. I look through fight stats from past fights and compare it to the upcoming opponent, I believe this comes from my writing experience. I have seen guys with Brown Belts struggle to submit white belts in other matchups and guys with great boxing struggle to land any of their punches against anyone they fight. And often, I have seen it where if I put two guys against one another an immediate decline is met without first looking at the other guys stats. Every time we make a fight at bellicose however we look to see if both guys can win it. If a guy, in my eyes, can not win a specific fight, I don't offer him that fight. There are situations that this changes  of course where sometimes we see a guy who is the champion taking on the number one contender. I have seen this where two different managers released their champions because the number one contender was too skilled. I have also heard it said, what's the point of being in a restricted ID org if you wont compete against guys at the same id range.

By and large I think matchmaking can be very difficult. From the when to the how long to the who a lot goes into it. At such an early age my desire is that these young Bellicose fighters storm the divisions of the top orgs in the game and lay claim to a title one day and become the next KILO MALUGA. However, I want them to do that by fighting the very best in their divisions and not getting the fights they believe to be easy wins. I

I agree that Cherry Picking is harmful to the overall state of the game. I would prefer that if someone declined a fight offer that their contract was extended a month or they were only allowed three declines on a contract. That may be too aggressive and I am aware of that but I think the reason I share this is somewhere along the line the joy of running an org started to feel more like a part time job. Perhaps we did away with IDs and used creation date orgs instead or we aimed to do away with primaries being visible and in matchmaking we all had to look at who they beat, how they beat them, and when more like real life. OF course, this is more difficult for everyone involved but might enhance the game. Too much of a gamble to really know though. 

I have had a few conversations with different org owners now who just feel a little beat up in their experience dealing with managers at various levels that decline fights on the regular for very bizarre reasons. Perhaps it should be shared that managing MMAT fighters is not a reflection of who you are as a person, your mma knowledge, and has no bearing on how you would perform in real life as a coach/manager/trainer/Fighter. It is a game. Meant to be enjoyed by enthusiasts of the world of martial arts.

In the same way, I would never succeed in running an org in real life as well as I have in this game and if you look at my profile, I obviously am terrible at fight management. Never the less, it is still my core responsibility to find your fighter fights and should a manager regularly decline it is the managers responsibility to find your fighter a new home to "compete in". The secondary responsibilities of adding fun with posters, interviews, betting, and other things are not truly a responsibility but the added weight of giving our managers an experience where they can immerse themselves into a world where they feel their work matters. So, if you are a manager who regularly declines matchups, I would encourage you to ask your org owner why before you decline. At the end of the day, you would have the final say. Yet this one step can go a long way in not making org running feel like a part time job. 

[BenhornbyMMA]

I personally haven't declined a fight yet in the game but it is a tad annoying as a noob my 18yr old fighters getting rasclatted by 25 yr olds and then getting called shit by there managers 🤣 But hey give me another 2 years and I might actually work out the sliders to win... 

 

[soyster89]

3 hours ago, TheHoarseWhisperer said:

I strongly oppose holding fighters hostage. I'd much rather let them go entirely than keep them around building bad blood.

So that turd of a manager can go and make another org owners life horrible? Doesn't seem like a good solution to me. If a manager refuses to work with fighters the org owner is setting them up with, that's fine. But they shouldn't be upset if the org owner doesn't release them.

And in the scenario where the org owner is the shady one and is the true root of the issue, offering fights that are in no way competitive, the manager can voice their displeasure via org feedback, forums, buzz, or directly to Mike. Orgs like that won't last. 

[TheHoarseWhisperer]

20 minutes ago, soyster89 said:

So that turd of a manager can go and make another org owners life horrible?

It isn't my job to worry about the relationship between some turd sandwich and other org owners but I usually let the ones I'm talking to know. I'm still strongly against org owners holding hostages- it doesn't stop the bad manager indefinitely, he will eventually sin again but now you have him sitting in your org and rating you down. Maybe he's also telling other managers his side of events and making it even uglier... nah, I'd just drop the negative vibes and move on with fighters that want to fight.