The Connection Between Fan and Fighter
The Connection Between Fan and Fighter
What makes fans follow specific fighters in the UFC? FloCombat takes a look.
What makes fans follow certain fighters?
In the aftermath of 'The Paige & Sage Show' being preempted for 'Mickey & Michelle Take Sacramento' at UFC on Fox 22 last weekend and the rash of post-event pieces questioning whether those results were good, bad or a little bit of both for the UFC, that question took up permanent residency in my mind and showed no signs of leaving.
While there are a handful of seemingly obvious answers and explanations that we all turn to quickly whenever this conversation comes up -- the biggest stars, exciting performances, personal connections -- I didn't want to just dive into this discussion without more concrete insights to lean on, so I asked some fans.
Here's what I sent to a collection of fight fans I interact with on a fairly regular basis on Twitter:
"Want your fan input for a piece I'm putting together about how/why fans follow certain fighters and if there is transference of attention after fights - like are you more inclined to watch Waterson after beating PVZ type stuff?"
I wanted to get thoughts from people I know are actual fans, because for something like this, you need input from folks who follow the sport and might have deeper reasons for why they follow specific fighters besides "they're one of the only names I know."
The one common answer from everyone was that exciting fights and consistently entertaining performances draw them in.
Whether it's the slobberknocker between Cub Swanson and Doo Ho Choi leading to future investment in both men or longstanding relationships with perennial all-action guys like Joe Lauzon or Donald Cerrone, strong performances inside the Octagon stand out as the biggest factor when it comes to what makes fans follow certain fighters.
While that isn't groundbreaking news, the interesting takeaway (for me) is that a couple of the fans I talked to specifically mentioned the Swanson/Choi fight gave them reason to watch both men going forward. In this case, I think the platform that delivers the exciting fight plays a factor. Swanson and Choi have been consistently entertaining since arriving in the UFC, and yet it's only after their Fight of the Year contender on pay-per-view that their following with some of these fans was solidified.
The level of exposure matters, which is why it's smart that the UFC is re-racking the best moments of UFC 206 for a FOX special on Christmas Eve -- it puts several thrilling performances in front of the largest audience possible, creating the best opportunity for people to latch on to some of these fighters.
Based on the feedback from this focus group, the fact that Mickey Gall and Michelle Waterson went out and beat Sage Northcutt and Paige VanZant should be a positive for the UFC going forward as a couple people mentioned "fighters facing guys the UFC is pushing too hard" as competitors they're eager to get behind.
A couple people also mentioned fighters that fit certain archetypes -- underdogs, villains, hot prospects -- and patriotic connections (read: Canadians backing GSP; following U.S. servicemen) as well, though neither of those is particularly surprising either.
One of the interesting responses that got multiple mentions and probably doesn't play as much in other sports was personal interactions with athletes. From meeting them randomly in a restaurant, the lobby of the fighters hotel or getting a couple minutes with them at a signing, the moments fighters spend with fans -- however brief -- have a real, tangible impact on those followers. While all the mentions were positive, negative interactions probably have a similar influence in reverse.
Though I previously said Gall's and Waterson's victories should be a positive for the UFC, the rub is that I don't think they will be, because there isn't really a ton of transference of attention and interest amongst fans.
As much as everyone points to exciting performers and entertaining fights as the greatest root factor in their fandom, the shift in support or interest that happens following such outings isn't as great as you would expect given those responses.
Holly Holm delivered the most exciting performance of 2014 against Ronda Rousey, but didn't see a huge groundswell of support following her UFC 193 victory. Tyron Woodley walked into the Octagon, punched Robbie Lawler in the mouth and claimed the welterweight title, only to remain one of the most maligned elite fighters in the UFC today.
Max Holloway has won 10 straight fights -- seven of them via stoppage -- and yet people are still only just starting to find out about "Blessed" and beginning to pay attention to the interim featherweight champion. Donald Cerrone is as exciting as they come, but he's more cult favorite than full-blown superstar. And if exciting performances breed followings, "Groovy" Lando Vannata should see a spike in his followers and mentions in advance of his third UFC appearance, but I'm not sure that's going to happen.
(Sorry Lando… you do deserve it; that kick was nasty!)
In last weekend's event, Waterson's win over VanZant was dominant and Gall's victory over Northcutt came early in the second round of an entertaining scrap between the two upstarts, yet my assumption is that neither are likely to vault ahead of their vanquished foes in terms of popularity, despite literally proving themselves to be the superior talents less than a week ago.
See Barberena, Bryan.
As much as we all have a list of criteria and qualifications we can point to when asked, "What makes you follow certain fighters?" I think the truth is that we all have a complex algorithm that we run -- perhaps subconsciously -- when it comes to determining who we're going to put our support behind.
Not every all-action competitor is going to be a must-follow and not all "prospect killers" will become our new favorite fighters; everyone will continue to pick and choose, breaking from their patterns and professed criterion without warning or explanation.
To me, the most influential factor when figuring out why fans follow certain fighters is the combined the push they receive from the UFC and the media, because in most cases, they're the type of entertaining or archetypal figures the organization and those covering the sport know have a greater chance of resonating with the audience.
So tell me, fight fans, why do you follow certain athletes?
By E. Spencer Kyte
In the aftermath of 'The Paige & Sage Show' being preempted for 'Mickey & Michelle Take Sacramento' at UFC on Fox 22 last weekend and the rash of post-event pieces questioning whether those results were good, bad or a little bit of both for the UFC, that question took up permanent residency in my mind and showed no signs of leaving.
While there are a handful of seemingly obvious answers and explanations that we all turn to quickly whenever this conversation comes up -- the biggest stars, exciting performances, personal connections -- I didn't want to just dive into this discussion without more concrete insights to lean on, so I asked some fans.
Here's what I sent to a collection of fight fans I interact with on a fairly regular basis on Twitter:
"Want your fan input for a piece I'm putting together about how/why fans follow certain fighters and if there is transference of attention after fights - like are you more inclined to watch Waterson after beating PVZ type stuff?"
I wanted to get thoughts from people I know are actual fans, because for something like this, you need input from folks who follow the sport and might have deeper reasons for why they follow specific fighters besides "they're one of the only names I know."
The Biggest Factor
The one common answer from everyone was that exciting fights and consistently entertaining performances draw them in.
Whether it's the slobberknocker between Cub Swanson and Doo Ho Choi leading to future investment in both men or longstanding relationships with perennial all-action guys like Joe Lauzon or Donald Cerrone, strong performances inside the Octagon stand out as the biggest factor when it comes to what makes fans follow certain fighters.
While that isn't groundbreaking news, the interesting takeaway (for me) is that a couple of the fans I talked to specifically mentioned the Swanson/Choi fight gave them reason to watch both men going forward. In this case, I think the platform that delivers the exciting fight plays a factor. Swanson and Choi have been consistently entertaining since arriving in the UFC, and yet it's only after their Fight of the Year contender on pay-per-view that their following with some of these fans was solidified.
The level of exposure matters, which is why it's smart that the UFC is re-racking the best moments of UFC 206 for a FOX special on Christmas Eve -- it puts several thrilling performances in front of the largest audience possible, creating the best opportunity for people to latch on to some of these fighters.
What Else Contributes?
Based on the feedback from this focus group, the fact that Mickey Gall and Michelle Waterson went out and beat Sage Northcutt and Paige VanZant should be a positive for the UFC going forward as a couple people mentioned "fighters facing guys the UFC is pushing too hard" as competitors they're eager to get behind.
A couple people also mentioned fighters that fit certain archetypes -- underdogs, villains, hot prospects -- and patriotic connections (read: Canadians backing GSP; following U.S. servicemen) as well, though neither of those is particularly surprising either.
One of the interesting responses that got multiple mentions and probably doesn't play as much in other sports was personal interactions with athletes. From meeting them randomly in a restaurant, the lobby of the fighters hotel or getting a couple minutes with them at a signing, the moments fighters spend with fans -- however brief -- have a real, tangible impact on those followers. While all the mentions were positive, negative interactions probably have a similar influence in reverse.
The Really Interesting Part (at Least to Me)
Though I previously said Gall's and Waterson's victories should be a positive for the UFC, the rub is that I don't think they will be, because there isn't really a ton of transference of attention and interest amongst fans.
As much as everyone points to exciting performers and entertaining fights as the greatest root factor in their fandom, the shift in support or interest that happens following such outings isn't as great as you would expect given those responses.
Holly Holm delivered the most exciting performance of 2014 against Ronda Rousey, but didn't see a huge groundswell of support following her UFC 193 victory. Tyron Woodley walked into the Octagon, punched Robbie Lawler in the mouth and claimed the welterweight title, only to remain one of the most maligned elite fighters in the UFC today.
Max Holloway has won 10 straight fights -- seven of them via stoppage -- and yet people are still only just starting to find out about "Blessed" and beginning to pay attention to the interim featherweight champion. Donald Cerrone is as exciting as they come, but he's more cult favorite than full-blown superstar. And if exciting performances breed followings, "Groovy" Lando Vannata should see a spike in his followers and mentions in advance of his third UFC appearance, but I'm not sure that's going to happen.
(Sorry Lando… you do deserve it; that kick was nasty!)
In last weekend's event, Waterson's win over VanZant was dominant and Gall's victory over Northcutt came early in the second round of an entertaining scrap between the two upstarts, yet my assumption is that neither are likely to vault ahead of their vanquished foes in terms of popularity, despite literally proving themselves to be the superior talents less than a week ago.
See Barberena, Bryan.
As much as we all have a list of criteria and qualifications we can point to when asked, "What makes you follow certain fighters?" I think the truth is that we all have a complex algorithm that we run -- perhaps subconsciously -- when it comes to determining who we're going to put our support behind.
Not every all-action competitor is going to be a must-follow and not all "prospect killers" will become our new favorite fighters; everyone will continue to pick and choose, breaking from their patterns and professed criterion without warning or explanation.
To me, the most influential factor when figuring out why fans follow certain fighters is the combined the push they receive from the UFC and the media, because in most cases, they're the type of entertaining or archetypal figures the organization and those covering the sport know have a greater chance of resonating with the audience.
So tell me, fight fans, why do you follow certain athletes?
By E. Spencer Kyte