At UFC 201, yet another UFC champion fell victim to an upset. In this week’s Trading Shots, retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes joins MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes to discuss this landscape of so many title-holders, yet so few defending champs.
Downes: Ben, even though you were up in the Pacific Northwest covering WSOF 32, I’m sure you’ve seen Tyron Woodley’s (16-3 MMA, 6-2 UFC) first-round knockout of Robbie Lawler (27-11 MMA, 12-5 UFC). It was the latest example of the recent string of title changes.
Of the UFC’s 10 divisions, only two (flyweight and women’s strawweight) have champions with multiple title defenses. Unpredictability is one of the appeals of MMA, but how much is too much? It’s like a sitcom star going to his/her catchphrase too often – the law of diminishing returns comes into play at some point. How many upset title changes can we have and they still mean something?
Fowlkes: You know, after Holly Holm’s (10-2 MMA, 3-2 UFC) latest loss I was thinking about this same topic as it applies to the women’s bantamweight division, and one of the things that occurred to me was how so many shakeups in the ranks make even the act of ranking seem (even more) meaningless.
Like, if anyone can win the title on any given night, and if so few people can hold onto it, what’s the point of the title? I mean, if it’s just going to change hands again in a couple months anyway, how worked up are we supposed to get? It’d be like crowning a new Super Bowl winner for every week of NFL play.
But then, is this just us writing off Woodley’s reign before it begins? Maybe he’s about to go on a tear with 10 straight title defenses. Maybe he’ll bring the stability we say we crave to the welterweight division.
But if that happened, wouldn’t we find ourselves hoping for a little shakeup at the top? As fun as Georges St-Pierre’s run as champ was, admit it, it was kind of fun when he finally left us and ushered in an era of chaos, wasn’t it?
Downes: I don’t think I’m writing Woodley’s (potential) reign off at all. I’m talking about the larger state of the UFC. I’m glad you brought up GSP’s reign. Why was Matt Serra’s win over him such a big deal? Because of St-Pierre’s dominance that followed once he regained the title. Holm’s upset of Ronda Rousey will still be one of the high points in the sport’s history, but its long-term effect has been lessened by what followed. Consistency may be boring sometimes, but it creates legacies.
Parity in the NFL keeps people interested, but I’m not sure the same applies to MMA. In team sports, you need parity to keep the fan base energized and willing to engage. That’s why every year Bengals fans find a way to convince themselves that this is their year (I’m a Bears fan, so we’re usually pessimistic every year).
But when it comes to individual sports, parity makes everyone interchangeable. Are people going to watch the next Woodley fight, or are they going to watch the next UFC fight? The difference there is important. Conor McGregor draws a following. Whether they’re diehards or casual fans, they want to watch him compete. Who else draws that kind of attention now?
I enjoy the sport of MMA, but if recent history is any indication, stars drive the growth and interest. If few fighters can put a run together, how do you build a star? Rousey and McGregor had a lot more going for them than in-cage success. They have personality and charisma. I’m not saying that in-cage success always leads to stardom, but isn’t it a prerequisite? Does the current state of the UFC show that the brand is indeed bigger than the fighters?
Fowlkes: You know, I get what you’re saying about all the belt swapping making the fighters seem interchangeable, but the question I always come back to on this topic is: So what are we supposed to do about it?
It would seem that a certain amount of unpredictability is inherent in a sport in which people hit each other with both minimally padded and totally unpadded body surfaces. We’ve seen it. This is a recognizable aspect of this sport. Anything can happen in a fight, remember?
So if that’s the way it is, how much does it even matter whether it’s a good or a bad thing? It seems to be a pretty inextricable part of the thing. We don’t have to like it, but I’m not sure there’s any way to change it. Maybe what we should be focusing on is learning to live with it.
View full post on News | MMAjunkie
