Brock Lesnar post-fight at UFC 141. Photo by Esther Lin via MMA Fighting
Brock Lesnar retiring -- along with Georges St. Pierre likely being out of action for the entirety of 2012 -- has left the UFC in a dilemma. Not only were they the biggest draws for the company, but they were the most significant draws for a company that has yet to find a close runner up in audience attraction.
Anderson Silva has to be considered in the twilight of his career on age alone, and his drawing power is only just now being fully realised after years spent dominating his division. Had Silva not fumbled with a trio of bizarre, frustrating performances against title challengers he should have otherwise blown away, he'd arguably be the headline act UFC could most depend on without Lesnar or GSP.
Silva's ability to draw though is now dependent on a viable contender people believe has a shot at beating him, which partly explains why his fight with Vitor Belfort did a lot better on Pay Per View than his fight with Yushin Okami, and why a rematch with Chael Sonnen is perhaps the most anticipated fight in 2012.
This year it's expected Jon Jones will be looked on to carry the UFC as its most dominant champion, but fans and critics alike are already wondering who could possibly present a competitive challenge for him, and that this might pose a problem in Jones' ability to become a big attraction at the gate and on PPV.
Herein lies the issue. UFC fans have been conditioned into believing the best should always fight the best, and that there are no easy fights in the UFC because it's something that Dana White -- as the UFC's main spokesman and figurehead -- likes to to use to trumpet the UFC's promotional model over that of Boxing's. But if the fans perceive what they're given as anything less, there's usually outcry (for example - most European cards).
To their credit the UFC has managed to bring certain fighters along slowly in order to develop them, whether it be current and former champions in Junior dos Santos, Cain Velasquez or Jon Jones, but also with some prospects such as Alexander Gustafsson.
Bringing prospects along slowly, or even building their champions without appearing to feed them nothing but cans is going to be a difficult balance to strike. Casual fans and even some hardcores usually revel in one sided destructions, and generally speaking the more dominant and consistent a fighter is, the easier it is to build a following and fanbase. The problem is having mismatches that would likely result in quick finishes as PPV headliners.
Watching a fighter get squashed by an obviously superior opponent is ideal for free Television though, and the increased number of shows UFC plans to put on thanks to its new partnership with Fox is an ideal opportunity to puff up fighters the UFC has long term plans for.
For the UFC to build a fighter like a Mike Tyson or like a Roy Jones Jr, the raw talent MMA's equivalents have is out of their hands. But, like Tyson and RJJ, the UFC can protect certain fighters to a degree so they can develop but also so they can showcase their abilities against outmatched opponents and wow audiences.
Using the Fox/FX shows to build number one contenders and present occasional title fights will work best with the right opponents used to elevate them and we're less likely to see the pass-the-parcel of title contenders (or even title holders) that have become somewhat common in the UFC. Lightweight champion Frankie Edgar should be put on free TV to squash an opponent and build his base, but instead risks being ignored on an international show which will feature less press coverage as a result, against an opponent who could quite possibly beat him. Similarly, Fox opting out of showing Ben Henderson vs Clay Guida was a missed opportunity to build either as a title contender and sell some PPV's.
Phil Davis vs Rashad Evans headlining UFC on FOX 2 sounds like a fantastic match to give to fans, but you wonder if it would have made more sense to build both guys and line them up sequentially as the next to face Jones rather than set one of them back. Keeping Davis' undefeated record intact or almost guaranteeing Evans a chance to destroy a lesser fighter in a similar fashion to his fight with Tito Ortiz would have kept both in better standing going into a championship bout with Jones and may have generated a bigger buzz about their chances. As it stands, either Evans' grudge match with Jones is derailed, or Davis' streak ends and fickle fans write him off as a potential challenge. Neither scenario is particularly good for business.
The ability of the UFC to build new stars to fill the void left by Lesnar and GSP in 2012 is going to be a point of debate perhaps for the rest of this year, and it's safe to say the UFC would like to do better on PPV than it did in 2011. Building these stars starts with the matchmaking, and maybe a little padding of records on free TV needs to be part of the process.
0 recs | 100 comments
A lot of these guys just aren't fighting enough, it's hard to build up a star when they're inactive (injury or waiting for a big fight) for half a year+ at a time
JBJ being the huge exception here, he fought like 18 times last year.
menckenstein - January 5, 2012
To be exact, I believe it was 20.
But who’s counting, right? :)
pud333 - January 5, 2012
Interesting theory
But in MMA, nothing is guaranteed. It was thought Cerrone and Guillard would walk through Diaz and Lauzon respectively on their way to a title shot, but instead suffered bad losses.
In MMA, there are more ways to lose, so it’s much harder to protect fighters and pad records IMO
nannerb - January 5, 2012
I don't think people expected Cerrone to walk through Diaz
That was always going to be a competitive fight. Diaz’s Boxing was better than cerrone’s multi dimensional striking, which must have left Joe Rogan flumoxed to say the least.
I believe quite a few in the know picked Lauzon remembering how Guillard often mentally stumbles in fights he has the ability to win.
KJ Gould - January 5, 2012
Regardless of the examples I chose, my point is that MMA is too dynamic to ensure a guaranteed victory for any fighter (in an effort to pad their record). There are so many ways to lose.
Elite Fighter “A” could be the master of 99/100 MMA things and fight Joe Schmo Fighter “B”, who only knows how to do one thing really well – and still lose to Fighter “B” because Fighter “B’s” one strength was his one weakness.
Like Bruce Lee said, I don’t fear the man who practices 10,000 kicks once, but fear the man who practices one kick 10,000 times.
nannerb - January 5, 2012
Todd Duffee vs. Mike Rusow
kanginator10 - January 5, 2012
Russow didn’t demonstrate any skill in that fight. He demonstrated utter unkillability and the general truth that someone who’s spent 12 1/2 minutes trying to turn a fat man’s organs into paste will be too tired to get out of the way of an incoming haymaker.
Hummus5989 - January 6, 2012
Unkillability is a pretty good skill in MMA… probably the most important, really.
Shnak - January 6, 2012
I think a lot of people thought it would be a good fight
But most people still thought Cerrone had a handy edge on that one.
Scott Whitaker - January 5, 2012
I do agree with lining up contenders along separate paths though, in order to build contenders. I felt that way with Bader vs Jones. Why ruin one prospects trajectory, when they could possibly have two undefeated number one contenders? As opposed to offering title shots to Rampage and Lyoto (note that I’m ignoring the fact that those two are former champions and PPV draws, so I understand why)
nannerb - January 5, 2012
It's hard for guys to fight alot when they gotta cycle on and off of PEDs... just sayin.
RECE ROCK - January 5, 2012
c'mon man i was a believer with all the star wars talk from yesterday but now you say this.
well. actually it might be true for some but not everyone.
PeopleWatching - January 5, 2012
haha, it was kind of a joke.... but alot if truth is said in jest.
Sometimes the truth hurts.
RECE ROCK - January 5, 2012
yes sir lol there are truths in jokes
PeopleWatching - January 5, 2012
I didn't even think about this
Great point. I have a couple buddies that cycle on and off their juice and they’re on about 4-6 weeks, then cycle off for the same time. That can hold a fighter back 2-3 months per cycle, if you do that twice a year, half your competition time is gone for the year.
soilworker - January 5, 2012
The MMA talent pool is too shallow to follow a boxing type model.
Prospects like Chris Weidman, Jon Jones and Cain Velasquez are called up when they have 4, or so, professional fights and are given a shot in the UFC and are not given time to build a highlight reel of 15-20 professional fights, with 14-19 stoppages, against lower tier guys. They are needed at the highest stage because there are not enough talented fighters to run the number of cards that Zuffa wishes to run. Until the talent pool catches up with the popularity that Zuffa craves, this will be the norm.
As far as squash matches for champions…are you suggesting non-title fights? Or are you suggesting to have title fights with a 20th ranked guy that has no business being in a title fight? Has the UFC ever staged a non-title fight of this nature?
I agree that the UFC can use free TV to build a fighters fanbase, but I think it needs to be when a fighter first comes into the UFC. Showcase the prospects as soon as you have an inkling that they might be championship material, make them fight 5-6 times in a year (barring injury), and have everyone of those matches on free TV. At least at that point, you have the ability to bring in lower-tier guys that probably shouldn’t be in the UFC, and if they happen to score a huge upset, then you already signed them to a contract that gives another 2 fights if they win. Otherwise your porspect gets a squash match and it builds more hype for a potential championship match against someone the casual fans probably already realize is good if he is the champ.
Ulf Murphy - January 5, 2012
Gsp vs Hardy. Except he’s far from twenty.
TheLastEmpress - January 5, 2012
Hardy was ranked #6 at the time he fought GSP.
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/3/24/1385537/usat-sbn-march-mma-consensus
alicks - January 5, 2012
NO NO NO!
Revisionist history dictates that Dan Hardy sucks!
MicahtheCynic - January 5, 2012
Revisionist history always wins.
VeeisAnimated - January 5, 2012
He DOES suck though. He really does, and he belongs in Strikeforce or BAMMA.
TheLastEmpress - January 5, 2012
yes, but at the time, he was literally the best option, the same as cote/leites were the best option for silva.
funny how all those fights turned out to be boring bullshit instead of exciting tyson-esque beat downs.
Clifford J - January 5, 2012
Yeah, but GSP's fights with Koscheck and Shields were equally boring
If not more so.
KJ Gould - January 5, 2012
The MMA talent pool CAN NEVER follow a boxing type model
End note: A small fact that many people tend to forget. Guys like Floyd Mayweather Jr., (yes he fought some less than stellar opposition . . . like everybody else) have 90+ amateur fights in experience.
VeeisAnimated - January 5, 2012
GREAT points
How does a new MMAer get to the pro ranks? The fight a lot of $50 matches in Podunk and get their bell rung a lot.
Or they go an amateur route individual combat sports and then transition to MMA. This means they will have to build skills as they go. Good luck fighting at the elite level.
The question is whether high schools, colleges, the NCAA, the Army, the Marines, the Olympic committee will ever create space in amateur athletics for MMA. They may, but when there are still places where MMA is banned, and still hearts and minds to be won, I have to think it is going to be a long time before we see a Division 1 MMA champion.
jackbox - January 5, 2012
Hey you are on BE to Ulf
This is the only place i comment now the Mania thing was fun but to much damage was done
Mark Colemans Takedown coach - January 5, 2012
MMA is far more dynamic than boxing
So younger fighters have chances to beat more experienced fighters because styles make fights far more often. I honestly like it that way. No one is really protected in MMA.
discoandherpes - January 5, 2012
I think it's also a matter of oversaturation
As a hardcore fan, I’m all about seeing more MMA. But from a star-building standpoint, seeing a guy maybe 2-3 times a year in a pool of 250+ fighters on 35 events… it makes it incredibly difficult.
I’m friends with alot of casuals and they know maybe 1 guy on an entire card. When you’re being introduced to 20 new names every 1-3 weeks, you’re not gonna remember that one exciting guy from 3 months ago that’s fighting again.
Genki Sudo's Choreographer - January 5, 2012
I disagree. I will admit that it’s hard for new fans to keep all the fighters straight, but when you’re told “this is the champion” and you see him every few months, you’re a lot more likely to remember him and watch his fights, I think. At least compared to seeing him once a year. The more exposure the better.
thirdparty - January 5, 2012
I disagree with your point to a certain extent. I think seeing champions fight only once a year for example, helps build hype. It gives more time for the media and fans to dwell on the skill and accomplishments of said champion. That large time gap allows “mystique” to build around the fighter.
nannerb - January 5, 2012
Really? I mean we’re talking about casual fans and people who most likely don’t read/view any form of MMA media/blog so they’re not really in the know. I’d say more people are bound to forget a champion fighting once a year than they are a champion that fights at least 3 times a year.
originaldude - January 5, 2012
But then you mess up the rest of the division by squashing potential future contenders. Plus, you are bound to end up with B grade contenders for the title (a-la Dan Hardy) which drives down your PPV buys, which is what you were trying to improve int he first place.
ludakrish - January 5, 2012
Well, I think that’s why he wanted to have them on free shows so that people would watch it regardless. But you do want to keep the division open.
thirdparty - January 5, 2012
While I agree that fighters need better records, what they don’t need are fighters going 40-0 fighting no name guys. That’s one problem with boxing is that you never really know how good a 20-0 or 30-0 fighter is until they face off against a relevant name.
I also think it’s important to pad fighter’s records a little. It’s hard for a casual fan to see Randy Coture’s record and see him as a ledged.
DayGeaux - January 5, 2012
It doesn't need to be as extreme as the Boxing model
The UFC’s model is arguably too far the other end of the spectrum, though.
KJ Gould - January 5, 2012
do you think they are almost afraid to develop people bigger than the promotion?
they don’t seem to have embraced the need to produce stars, as they view it as almost a threat.
Clifford J - January 5, 2012
Nailed it on the head right there
UFC does not want mega stars like Floyed or Manny
Mark Colemans Takedown coach - January 5, 2012
Which is what they need if they want to pull huge numbers.
discoandherpes - January 5, 2012
I think that was a bigger threat when the UFC had some competition. Between the money that the UFC is paying the lack of competion, I think it’d be hard for a Jon Jones to get up and leave or sit out.
DayGeaux - January 5, 2012
Record padding happens in the first few years of a fighter, but once in the big show, where they only fight 2-3 times a year, record padding just can’t happen, it’d be too boring. Who’d want to see Jones smash cans and unknowns when he can do that to the best the UFC has to offer?
Shnak - January 5, 2012
build potential stars up on free tv and only free tv. allow them to fight gatekeepers who are considered entertaining fighters or newly signed fighters who have highlight reel fights in the minors. fighters like MacDonald, Hettes, Wiedman and the brazilian kid who just one TUF, (as examples) this way no one is padding records and the fighters are weeded out before they reach PPV status. at one point the UFC was doing well w/ this model (Diego, Kos, and Leben) w/ the early fight nights. this way no ones record is being padded and PPV stars are potentially being built up.
F'n Clownshoes - January 5, 2012
^This
775assassin - January 5, 2012 via mobile
Not necessarily padding records, but more appropriate matches.
They can’t rush a prospect, which they do sometimes. Take for example Rory Macdonald: He goes from Mike Guymon, to Carlos Condit in just his second UFC bout? Yeah, he was beating Condit right up until the end, but in theory, that may have been too quick. Sometimes I wonder what Joe Silva and crew are thinking when they make certain matchups. In the end, you can’t meddle too much. Any fighter can beat another on any given day, so all they can do is make the best fights they can and the rest is in the hands of the fighters. A better marketing push would be more effective. The UFC marketing of their fighters is very bland these days.
pud333 - January 5, 2012
At first I wanted to disagree about the blandness, but then I realized that you’re completely right. The only interesting promotion/information I see about fans usually comes from BE (or twitter or something.)
thirdparty - January 5, 2012
Two of the three bizarre Anderson Silva fights you mentioned were brought about by a system just like you describe: fighters gaining title shots after beating a series of non-contenders. Thales Leites got his title shot after beating Drew fucking McFedries. Cote got his off Ricardo Almeida. The only merit in their title shots was that both were riding decent win streaks. Maia’s case a little different because he was a late replacement for Vitor and had no win streak, but still gained his shot after beating middling competition. Contenders need to fight each other. Yes, it will diminish one of the contenders, but number 1 contender matches tend to make better title fights.
mcgriff - January 5, 2012
Note: Cote got his title shot because Yushin Okami broke his hands in training.
VeeisAnimated - January 5, 2012
maia beat sonnen not exactly mid-level competition
benten20 - January 5, 2012 via mobile
I believe he was at the time, correct me if I’m wrong.
thirdparty - January 5, 2012
whats your point?
he sure as hell isn’t now. my point is simply that maia didnt fight cans to pad his record
benten20 - January 5, 2012
Records
I think part of the problem is that in, some people’s eyes anyway, fighters lose so much stock after a loss.
Terra17 - January 5, 2012
Not so much in MMA.
Being submitted or losing a very close decision during an all out war doesn’t really hurt your status.
Examples of winners that lost:
Donald Cerrone lost to Nate Diaz but he won. He literally won a Fight of the Night bonus.
Mauricio Rua lost to Dan Henderson but he won.
VeeisAnimated - January 5, 2012
It definitely depends on how they lost. Cerrone looked like he got an assbeating to me, his stock dropped. But Shogun looked like he won that fought to me, so his went up even though he lost. Good point though.
thirdparty - January 5, 2012
OK, Cerrone stock dropped. Fine. How far did his stock drop?
Do you think fans will be interested in watching him again?
Do you think it will be difficult to feature Cerrone on a PPV? or Fox?
Do you think fans will quickly forget his victories in 2011?
And let’s not forget this is the same Nate Diaz that got thrown around like a rag doll at 170lbs. by GSP’s shadow (I forgot his name).
VeeisAnimated - January 5, 2012
Here's the problem
Donald Cerrone isn’t a main event level player. And with the loss he’s not going to be anytime soon.
Cerrone isn’t going to be the name at the top of the card, Cerrone isn’t going to be the guy putting butts in the seats and eyes on the TV. I think the point is, they need to build guys who are going to move the needle.
Worldisart - January 5, 2012
I think fans will quickly forget his victories. MMA fans are kind of fickle that way. I’ll still watch his fights, I just think a lot of the hype around him has gone down (or transferred to Lil Diaz). We have short memories.
thirdparty - January 7, 2012
after reading this Ronda Rousey comes to mind. so does Satoshi Ishii. felt like he maybe was kinda fed to Fedor.
PeopleWatching - January 5, 2012
I agree that there was no need for Bader and Jones to knock each other’s careers off. They were both young and were riding a ton of momentum. I think that Jones/Bader could have been a great title match.
Ubernoober - January 5, 2012
i see where ur coming from. maybe JBJ vs Mr Wonderful will be something similar. should Rashad lose that is…
PeopleWatching - January 5, 2012
Fingers crossed. I think Mr. Wonderful has this one. Rashad is old and busted. Mr. Wonderful is the new hotness.
Ubernoober - January 5, 2012
i have a unhealthy man crush on Phil. i think this dude can be an absolute star. i think he can handle Rashad but i don’t want him to fight Jones yet. in my eyes Rashad is not the test Davis needs to compete w/ Jones yet.
F'n Clownshoes - January 5, 2012
I think Rashad should have gotten the title shot before Machida, and Mr Wonderful should have been fed a bunch of fringe ranked LHWs, culminating in a savage beating of Brandon Vera.
Ubernoober - January 5, 2012
at this stage of the game anything that ends in Vera getting smashed, i’m ok with.
F'n Clownshoes - January 5, 2012
+1 for lol
i agree. should he beat Rashad i would like to see him fight X amount of fights before a title fight. a top 10 match up that may be stylisticly doable for him is Shogun. Lyoto may be tougher due to the Lyoto’s TDD and striking. seeing him maul Vera though would be funny
PeopleWatching - January 5, 2012
slightly not connected
But I think Bader needed the loss to prove to him that he needed to improve. I like that fight and it’s timing
troyd - January 5, 2012 via mobile
he was fed a good payday probably
he should be fighting at 205
four20 - January 5, 2012
probably
yea he was suppose to do a 205 fight for SF
PeopleWatching - January 5, 2012
Sokoudjou, Santiago, Gomi
these guys had big names to us hardcore fans but to casuals they were nobodies. they could have benefited greatly by fighting mid tier and exciting gatekeepers on free tv to build confidence and fanbase
F'n Clownshoes - January 5, 2012
Why? Those guys weren’t going to be top fighters either way
Horselover Fat - January 5, 2012
my theory is they were brought in as stars rather than as new fighters fighting in the UFC which i think they should have been. Soko could have grown exponentially. i’m of the opinion that his UFC run ruined him. just what i believe.
F'n Clownshoes - January 5, 2012
Those guys came in as stars, and thus, high priced… the UFC had to put them in high-profile fights from the start. It’s sink or swim in the UFC, it really is.
Shnak - January 5, 2012
Well, okay. I think Soko has been proven to be a one-hit-wonder, he was going to be who he became no matter what matches you gave him. He got Machida in his first fight which is admittedly rough, but at the same time that was before Machida’s real rise to fame. He beat Nakamura and then lost to Luiz Cane.. don’t see a huge problem with that match-making. And again I don’t think he was destined to be a real top 10 guy either way.
Takanori Gomi has been done for years, and that’s not really the UFC’s fault. I did think at the time though that it was awfully harsh to feed him to Florian for his first UFC fight.
Santiago, I don’t know.. he came in as a top ten ranked guy, the match-up with Stann seemed appropriate at the time, unfortunately he was dominated and KO’d. Then he got decisioned by Maia.. maybe they could have kept him around at the mid-level, but I don’t see a huge loss here either.
And yes like Shnak says those guys all came in with some hype to them, and got payed fairly good money, which is why they got tough matches.
Horselover Fat - January 5, 2012
I think there will always be fighters who are better then whole of their fighter record, and some who need a certain number of fights to achieve their potential. that being said, when you put a fighter who is 4-1 against a fighter who is 35-15 you really have to think there is a missmatch when looking at their records and where they are in their abilities
kieranski - January 5, 2012
THERE ARE NO EASY FIGHTS in the UFC
You really can make an argument that these guys are facing some top competition in the UFC.
VeeisAnimated - January 5, 2012
story goes jones was brought in as an 'opponent' for gusmao
now granted, that worked out great in the long run, but still…
some schmuck in texas - January 5, 2012
Does the UFC need to pad records to build new stars? Na, Br O
some schmuck in texas - January 5, 2012
You've got to be kidding me
“Lightweight champion Frankie Edgar should be put on free TV to squash an opponent and build his base, but instead risks being ignored on an international show which will feature less press coverage as a result, against an opponent who could quite possibly beat him.”
So you’re saying they should give a title shot to someone with little or no chance of winning, and make an obviously deserving contender like Bendo wait? That’s absurd. If they start protecting their champs like that, the belt becomes meaningless, and I for one would lose all interest. Bringing new contenders along slowly is one thing, but the champ should fight the best contender and prove he deserves to be champ.
MMAth Wiz - January 5, 2012
Frankie squashing an opponent, and Bendo squashing an opponent
Creates buzz going into a PPV fight between the two. As it stands, Edgar vs Henderson won’t get the attention it deserves. Out of the media outlets that cover MMA I’d bet MMA Fighting and more specifically Ariel Helwani will be the only one to go there and cover it live. Whereas the card we just had included media from ESPN, Yahoo and so on.
KJ Gould - January 5, 2012
Only because of Lesnar…
Shnak - January 5, 2012
More because it was in Vegas and was more accessible
KJ Gould - January 5, 2012
Yes, but mostly because it was Lesnar fighting… if it was Edgar vs Bendo fighting, you think it gets as much coverage?
Shnak - January 5, 2012
Significantly more than it would get from them fighting in Japan
KJ Gould - January 5, 2012
Sure, fine, whatever. So you’re saying MMA writers are lazy and don’t want to travel to do their jobs. That sucks, honestly.
Shnak - January 6, 2012
I'm saying the budget isn't there to send journalists to cover international MMA events
So US coverage suffers, which has an effect on PPV sales and fighters’ exposure.
Edgar vs Maynard II and III were fantastic fights, but not enough people saw it. Even less are going to watch Edgar vs Henderson. Both fighters could have done with being built on Fox or FX so that a PPV does better (and they do better) financially.
KJ Gould - January 6, 2012
i've often thought about this
it’s a very interesting point with advantages and disadvantages.
Clifford J - January 5, 2012
Your views are often either controversial or downright fascinating. Such as this one. Or perhaps I’m thinking of another.
( . Y . ) - January 5, 2012
no
padded records just look bad in the end I rather see top 10 guys fight top 10 guys and so one and interesting match ups than squash matches to get people over.
Part of the problem is the UFC dosen’t sell their champions its always Joe saying ya know I know I said fighter X was the perfect formula to beat Champion X but really its this guy LOUD NOISES. If they just sold they champ as one of the baddest men on the planet and the sheer act of defending his claim to that title is a worthy major event they would do better. Either A the champ you just built up wins and looks good or B he loses and maybe gives the new champ a bit of a rub.
MaZZacare - January 5, 2012
All I can say is....
….that the UFC, just like PRIDE did in their heyday pads records period. Perhaps padded record is the incorrect term for this. Look at it this way, the UFC has so many fighter on their roster, they have a ladder system. Entry level, one gets a few entry lever fights, win them then the next step is like mid tier, a few there then gate keepers to make you a “star” then maybe another contender as an elimination, maybe, then an over the hill former champ to secure the title shot.
Cestus84 - January 5, 2012
Answer is easy
You want stars start doing tournaments again is the easiest way and quickest way to build stars
Mark Colemans Takedown coach - January 5, 2012
Tournaments are fun
But usually fuck everything up
discoandherpes - January 5, 2012
I will use an example in Daniel Cormier
do you think anyone would know who this guy is if he was was just fighting single matches in Strikeforce. Yes we would of heard of him but him being in this Tournament has made his name value skyrocket. The eventual winner of this tournament will be the next star. No imagine if they did this kind of thing with multiple weight classes. Look at boxing the tournament format worked wonders for them
Mark Colemans Takedown coach - January 5, 2012
Really?
To who? To those of us who already knew about him? Put him on PPV, he probably can’t draw flies.
Tournaments are fun but ripe with opportunities for complete failure due to injuries and scheduling issues. And they do not inherently build stars.
Worldisart - January 5, 2012
Thoughts on the UFC model vs. tournment models for promoting fighters
The tournament model has an advantage over the way the UFC makes matches insofar as the fighter know they are working towards title contention for sure. And it also allows newer fighters to fast-track their careers. Daniel Cormier is suddenly a “name” to consider because of his success in Strikeforce.
It also provides a space for experienced fighters to get back into the mix without necessarily having do gate keeping duties at mid-card.
What I like BEST about tournament structures is the interesting mix of match ups that are possible. I loved seeing CroCop fight Wandy in PRIDE!
The downsides however are numerous. The threat of injury makes some fighter risk-averse. Whereas in the UFC, a fighter can move up the rankings based on how WELL he wins, not simply whether he wins Also, tournaments mean the champ is just sort of on hold or taking non-title fights. This to me erodes the prestige of the championship and makes the tourney winner disproportionately more important. Fighting once a month for three months vs. fighting MAYBE twice a year?
The UFC’s way of doing things isn’t perfect, but it is probably the most sustainable way of promoting a stable of MMA fighters. If they use Strikeforce effectively, a good fighter in the UFC who flounders can still fight in the second tier promotion and not necessarily have to worry about their livelihood or go the Bellator route.
jackbox - January 5, 2012
They probably could go for some slightly more soft opponents
Not at the title level, but for the contenders. Especially for a guy like Rampage who blows up between long layoffs and then takes 3 months just to cut the weight. If you had him fighting a Bonnar or Vera or something in between, you’d have an easier time convincing him just because he legitimately doesn’t need to train as hard. You simply can’t fight top competition 3 times a year because your body breaks down when you are trying to peak at 105%.
joker24 - January 5, 2012
what about a four man mini-tourny every 4 months?
Fill. The winner gets a title shot. This makes the champ fight 3 times/year against a guy you’ve built up on free cards. Then refill the four man bracket again and repeat on free cards. If/when injuries arise, figure something out.
tha dude - January 5, 2012 via mobile
*fill the bracket with 4 possible contenders
tha dude - January 5, 2012 via mobile
fuck that
i don’t believe in gimmie fights. you’re in the marquee league. have them fight the best and promote the fuck out of it.
Victor Rodriguez - January 5, 2012
They promoted the fuck out of Cain Velasquez
And he had to fight JDS after a year+ layoff recovering form a 90% rotator cuff tear. And then Dana White gets all cranky when Cain gets blown away in a minute by a guy on a tear in the UFC who had kept active and kept healthy.
KJ Gould - January 5, 2012
ring rust + surgery+not adhering to game plan = major disadvantage.
i understand your reasoning, but it defeats the purpose of the big leagues to have guys in gimmie fights in a sport where things can go either way at any time.
just think of Pulver vs Lauzon or Griggs vs Lashley. guys that were fed to more ‘established’ fighters and trounced them. i don’t see it happening in practice and the theory cheapens and brings down the integrity of the sport. that’s just me.
Victor Rodriguez - January 5, 2012
It may have been better to take the title off Velasquez once it was determined he'd be out for more than a year
The trouble is the HW division is still thin, so who do you put him against? The chasm in talent between the top 5 guys (including Overeem) and the rest of the Heavyweights currently in the UFC is huge. Cain, JDS, Brock, Overeem, Mir … and then the Kongos and below. A fight with Carwin could have done, but he seems to be having major surgery every 3 months.
KJ Gould - January 6, 2012
true
even with the Strikeforce guys coming over it’s a big leap from #6 to #5. gimmie fights won’t remedy that. the idea of taking the strap from Cain is interesting, but not entirely fair. he won it, and it’s difficult to get back in after a year with recovery. as unfortunate as that is, i’m willing to accept that as part of the fight game.
Victor Rodriguez - January 6, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bloody Elbow to post a comment.