In the realm of professional sporting competition, the concept of sportsmanship entertains a wide range of concrete expressions. From trash-talking athletes that harp on colleagues and officials to highly-respected individuals that are distinguished for their game-time etiquette, the idea (or perhaps ideal) of good sportsmanship occupies its own niche in every particular sport.

One activity common to all sporting endeavors is that of conceding defeat to your opponent. In a combat sport, such as mixed martial arts, this can take many forms. Graciously accepting defeat in a postfight interview, acknowledging the better man on that day, and not making excuses, are but a few of the verbal forms that conceding defeat might take.

However, there is a more conclusive method of admitting defeat, and it is a feat that has come to symbolize the definitive way of losing a match: tapping out. The act of submitting to an opponent, either verbally or using one’s hand (or foot) has been practiced for centuries.

Whether it is a scuffle between siblings (where the term “uncle” is often employed to signify giving up) or a contest between two highly-skilled warriors, there is no more satisfying feeling than knowing that you made your opponent give up willingly (or unwillingly, as the case may be).

MMA is advertised as a sport where two world-class athletes enter the cage and proceed to punch, kick, elbow, and knee each other in the face for 15 minutes, before embracing at the end of a hard-fought battle.

There is no doubt that MMA has showcased some of the greatest sportsman-like gestures in all of sports throughout the past decade and a half. Many top fighters and champions are exceedingly humble and gracious to their opponents, more so than can be expected.

But I raise the question: Is refusing to concede defeat to your opponent, when they have rightly deserved it, a form of unsportsmanlike conduct itself? In other words, is it disrespectful or unethical to not tap out from a submission that you cannot escape? Better yet: Do fighters have an obligation to surrender when they have been placed into a compromised position?

Some fighters may refuse to tap because they see it as dishonorable, and some don’t do it because they don’t want to give their opponent the satisfaction of beating them definitively. Many also think that they can escape the submission, or try to wait until time runs out (more on this point later).

Yet, isn’t there a set of unwritten rules hidden in the martial ethos that is adhered to by millions of practitioners worldwide that places an emphasis on honor and virtue? After all, it is difficult to disagree with the outcome of a basketball game when you have lost by 20 points.

So why is it hard for some fighters to admit losing in a legitimate manner by tapping out, when they are clearly in no position to dispute the fact? I would say that refusing to tap out is more dishonorable than trying to reject the fact that one has lost.

It is obviously more difficult to accept losing than winning, but still, it is a test of the character and integrity of an athlete to lose in a gracious and praiseworthy manner. And MMA offers an outlet (tapping out), which makes this much easier than other sports. But some fighters refuse to play by the unwritten rules of single combat, which has proven costly in numerous cases.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?