Maybe. Another interesting paradox about it, as one of my former instructors once pointed out, that it's actually harder to submit a white belt than to submit a blue belt :)

The former one may be more clueless, but offers 100% ferocious defence without attempting any reasonable attacks of his (or her) own.

You can sort of see how progressing to the next step - from white to blue - is an inevitable setback of sorts.

Funnily enough, this phenomenon vaguely makes me think of the "trough of disillusionment / slope of enlightenment" syndrome (the hype cycle)

As I remember, someone who put together a study of highly mismatched chess games reached a similar conclusion. Strong chess players often play longer games and lose more material when their opponent is thoroughly unskilled players than when they're merely somewhat weaker.

It's possible to beat weaker players more efficiently, but it requires consciously "playing down" to set simple traps and grab materiel quickly. Otherwise, a clueless opponent will disrupt "sophisticated" plays by accepting losing trades and ignoring threats. It lowers their chances of actually winning compared to a better player, but pushes the game towards a drawn out chase.

And yes, I think there's certainly some truth to the hype cycle comparison. They both remind me of the "four stages of competence", where people in the middle two stages of "conscious" execution can be slower and more uncertain than either trained or untrained instinct.