Firebathdan wrote:


I don't care one iota about money or drawing power-these are not my concerns, I have no investor/ownership stake in the UFC or any other promotion. I think it's a fool's errand for any fan to be concerned about these things too. If one has no financial stake in the company, then why do these matter?

I only care about sporting meritocracy. Since the UFC does not, it is a farce. Plain and simple.

At least Bellator makes no bones about the fact they are a circus freakshow. The UFC, however, holds themselves out there as the best fighting the best. But how can that be? I mean, look at some of these champions:

-Miocic: a semi-legit champion because HW is the most historically shambolic division in MMA.
-Jones: steroid cheat
-Bisping: actively dodging ranked contenders and the interim champion
-McGregor: gifted a title shot, actively dodging ranked contenders, and we all know will dodge the interim champion
-Cyborg: steroid cheat, best fighter in an utterly nonsensical and nonexistent division

and to a lesser extent:

-Woodley: a champion who was forced into legitimacy by facing ranked contenders after attempting to dodge
-Holloway: unproven as a champion, but at least earned his title by taking out the best available contenders
-Garbrandt: good win against Cruz, but is relatively unproven as a champion
-Future Women's 125: Only four of those 16 women are legit top shelf fighters (Honchak, Roxy, Lauren Murphy, and DeAnna Bennett), some are pretty good at best (Ariel Beck, Sijara Eubanks, Rachael Ostovich), the rest are essentially regional circuit amateurs. If anyone other than the first four that I mentioned win this tourney then the title is almost automatically de-legitimized, especially if it's not Honchak or Roxy. And save for the fact that whoever wins this will eventually have to face Joanna, who-out of all those mentioned-only Honchack has a fighting chance against. They made a huge mistake by not including established fighters from other divisions such as Calderwood, Leslie Smith, etc.

So at the end of 2017, you're gonna have 12 champions-8 men, 4 women (not counting interim champs, who are-in both cases-the more legit champ of their respective divisions, and that does include Kevin Lee should he win). Of those 12, 5 are complete shit shows, and 4 have huge question marks. 9 out of 12 champions who are questionable at best. Only three proven legit champions: Johnson, Nunes, and Joanna.

Other real and legit sports only care about winning, championships and being the best. That's what primarily draws. Who gives a fuck about star power and money? In legit sports, that comes from being the best, and is not manufactured because you have a "personality" the way it is in MMA.

And all that said: I still watch when it's on free TV.

I guess the joke's on me.[/quote]


Even with all your criticisms, the champs are generally the best in their divisions, and eventually lose to the best when they aren't so it's only a matter of time before you have the current best fighters as champs.

Yes, many of them take steroids which sucks but at least the UFC is trying to stop them more now than ever before.

--I HATE Jones, but he's probably the best fighter of all time regardless of the roids.
--Miocic is a damn good fighter, despite how thin HW is, knocked out former K-1 champ in Overeem and former champ in JDS
--Bisping has ducked, but will eventually lose, if not to GSP then sooner or later Whittaker will have the belt who is an AMAZING fighter.
--Conor---Say what you want, he's at least one of if not the best LW now and the best FW with only Edgar being anyone who can possibly challenger him---he might lose to Khabib or Ferguson and we'll find out soon, but you don't get to be the first 2 division champ without MASSIVE amounts of talent, and talent is what it's all about
---Cyborg---Well, I'll give you that, she's always basically been close to a man in a woman's division strength wise an has always roided/.

Woodley--Despite who you think he dodged (I'm not even sure), he's now beaten Maia, Lawler and Thomson which clearly makes him the best WW.
Holloway--Needs more time to be tested that's true.
Garbrandt--Yes, needs more time, but his beating Cruz speaks VOLUMES as no one ever could, and he'll be given the chance to prove himself more....I mean it's never a knock on someone that they earned a title and havne't yet defended it when he has a fight soon to be scheduled against the number 2 guy in Dillashaw.
Women's 125--I'll admit I don't care that much.


You seem to find ways to de-legitimize the best fighters on planet earth who have skills in all areas and I don't get it.

You simply WILL NOT find best MMA fighters in almost any MMA organization in the world than the UFC, minus certain guys from Bellator and the UFC has absorbed some of them already.

Sure, the UFC will do some weird fights here and there, but to call it a freak show makes no sense.

My instructor trains with the Miller brothers and is in Jim Miller's corner for every one of his fights so he sees what goes into it and passes some of that knowledge on to me.

We are talking guys who risk life and limb out there, and even ranked somewhere around #15 Jim Miller is a clear example of how much talent and grit you need to make it in the UFC.

That you discredit fighters who are higher ranked and in some ways more skilled than him maybe shows you haven't had a behind the scenes look at what goes into this.

It's CERTAINLY no "freak show"...these are the best fighters the world has to offer, plain and simple.

Woodley attempted to dodge said contenders by calling out GSP and Nick Diaz for "money fights" when he first one the title, and then again after beating Thompson in the rematch.

Which is my whole point-the move away from legit meritocracy de-legitimizes the sport. The mere concept of "money fights" makes it a freak show and not a legit sport.

If the sport was legit, Bisping-GSP would not happen. Ever.

If the sport was legit, McGregor would have at least three wins at 155 before challenging for the title.

If the sport was legit, two time roid offenders like Jones would be gone.

If the sport was legit, CM Punk would not exist.

If the sport was legit, Paige and Sage would earn their star status rather than be positioned for it from the get go.

If the sport was legit, Demetrious Johnson would be openly acknowledged as the best to ever do it and no one would say word one about "he can't draw".

These are all recent developments and Dana White is at the center of them. The open acknowledgement that star/drawing power is more important than skills is what I'm griping about.

I'm not trying to say anything about the wide majority of fighter ability. It's very obvious that the talent level is the highest it's been and it's only getting higher. And to be 100% clear I'm not even dreaming about trying to say I can do it better. My point is that it's not about talent these days-it's about star power and that seems to be it.

Take Woodley for example-aside from trying to angle for "money fights", I think he's a tremendous fighter and he's proven to be a worthy champion. But he is hardly ever given his due for his skill and is constantly disrespected for being "boring". By Dana White. This is not legit sporting when the president of the company openly disrespects his champions (see also Nunes, DJ, etc.).

And I'll never understand why who and who isn't a "draw" is the fans' concern.

I'll give you that I was off base on Miocic, I just have a distaste for HW as whole.

And yeah Grabrandt was awesome against Cruz, there's no doubt about it.

All credit to you for training and all the success you've had thus far in BJJ (legitimately, no sarcasm), and I think Jim Miller is awesome (they missed the boat with him circa 2011-2012), but behind the scenes knowledge is not needed to have an objective opinion. Kind of like how we are on a music forum and one does not need to know how to play guitar or drums to form an objective opinion.



This thread died off in 2012 and was recently revived in tandem with Mayweather-McGregor (another non-sport fiasco).

Ok, I'll admit certain truths to what you are saying and where I agree and disagree:

I hadn't heard about Woodley attempting to dodge contenders, but that doesn't matter now that he's convincingly beaten Lawler, Thomson and Maia.

Any criticism on him now should really be set aside by what he's proven.

As far as Bisping/GSP---I will agree this is a money fight and the UFC has been doing more of them lately, but by and large the UFC is an org where a fighter needs to work their way up, and I don't think they are as bad with this as Bellator who has fights like Dada 5000 and Kimbo.

Why shouldn't the fight happen?

Surely not because GSP doesn't deserve it.

I mean granted, Whittaker deserves it most, but GSP was such a legend and P4P during his time that giving him a money fight against one of the few top MWs he can probably beat in Bisping makes sense.

Bisping is IMO not going to hold the belt long, regardless of who he fights.

We both know GSP should be returning at WW, so yeah, that makes this kind of a silly fight, but considering ALL the fights the UFC does, wouldn't you agree that the VAST majority of them make sense and are not organized in a sloppy manner with an attempt to provide nothing but a "freak show"?

It's BOTH a sport and entertainment, but it's mostly a legit org where fighters work their way up but occassionally weird fights happen.

Let me ask you: were you a PRIDE fan??

Cause I was a HUGE Pride fan and LOVED their freak shows.

They were both a legit org AND an org that had freak shows, but the UFC is WAY more legit now with WAY fewer freakshows, and they are also more legit than Bellator.

They do what they do well, and then throw in the occassional "tasty treat" for the fans like GSP/Bisping or, to a MUCH lesser extent, giving someone like CM Punk a shot.

THAT was a freakshow, but that barely EVER happens, that was a once in a lifetime thing to let someone like that debut in the UFC.

Yes, I'll agree that Mcgregor could have been made to win more fights before challenging, but I'm not sure anyone ever said that 3 was the magic number.

He's selling tickets so yeah, they pandered to him a bit, but he's got the talent so I really have no complaint.

See, in the end with all these complaints you have, it's always just a matter of time before the best guy becomes the champ of the weight class.

That is why I think you are kind of overdoing your complaints.

I mean, if the best fight the best and the best eventually ends up being the champ even if there's some unusual twists and turns before it happens, why does that matter??

To me it really doesn't.

Paige and Sage were given more credit than they were due but....

Do you NOT think that it's a TAD unfair to say the UFC is not "a legit sport" because you have certain complaints about certain, and yes, relatively rare, ocassions where star power elevates people beyond their skill temporarily, and were certain guys get title shots a bit early??

You are REALLY throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

Look at your average fight night or UFC and you will see, ESPECIALLY on the prelims, tough, hungry young fighters working their way up and training hard to do it.

You see legit rankings on the UFC website, and you see increasing talent level all the time.

With most sports there is going to be some extra entertainment value thrown in, and yes, the UFC has done that a bit lately, but by and large, the UFC is the most legit MMA org in the world.

So I can tell from how you speak you don't think the sport of MMA as a whole is a joke right?

So how then, can the agreed upon best MMA org in the entire world be a joke?

It's not.

It's the best MMA org with the best talent where some shady shit goes on at times, but where, whenever the smoke clears, you eventually have the best fighters holding the belts.

My advice to you, if you really like MMA, would be to take the freak shows with a grain of salt, and acknowledge that it's a legit sport.

I'm still curious, how do you think MMA is a legit sport but DON'T think the best MMA org is legit?

I'm gonna try and give you the shortest answer possible because basically I feel like I've said all that I have to say on this matter.

If the most recognizable organization de-emphasizes legit sporting, then the sport itself is not legit. Ipso facto, MMA in its current state is not legit because the UFC de-emphasizes legit sporting. In my view.

I've seen every Pride show. Do not care for it, and it's irrelevant to the discussion. It's in the past and comes from a completely different mindset.

There are no freak shows in other sports because the fans would immediately decry it. Things analogous to what we're talking about here would be giving the Yankees a pass to the semifinals of the playoffs because they're a popular team. It would not fly.

But listen, why does it matter what I say? You look at it one way and I another. I'm not trying to tell you that you shouldn't enjoy MMA because my view is opposite yours. I'm not trying to change your mind. But how I view things is how I view things, and I'm not looking to have my mind changed either.

And like I said, despite all of this, I still watch. And enjoy. But in order for me to enjoy it, I have to properly contextualize it, and for me that's "this is sports entertainment, this is not real sport".

Cheers, good talk.

^^^^

For sure, I see what you are saying, and feel no need to overly debate further.

To put it simply: I can understand why you hold MMA and the UFC to a higher standard, but I'd quickly say this:

MMA is only 17 years old: The Unified Rules were completed in 2000...so consider if boxing or hockey or baseball had rules only completed 17 years ago??

The sport is in its infancy and it shows, so criticism towards it should be kept in that context...that this is a new sport with hiccups.

The fact that there are matchups made in quicker order than boxing would do, or freak shows boxing wouldn't do, is of very little significance.

MMA is not boxing and never will be.

Even the idea that there should be 3 warm up fights before a title shot is, I am fairly sure, an idea Dana White came up with.

We are in new territory here, and that's something VERY unique!!!

Who can say that in there own lifetime they witnessed the birth of a brand new sport!!!

This is something lost on most sports fans when it comes to MMA, and I feel it MIGHT be lost on you.

If you are overly critical of mere hiccups because a sport 17 years old isn't yet holding to the standards of hundreds of years old sports I say you need to wait a while and hold off.

The UFC has the best MMA fighters in the sport and everyone who follows knows they are the best, and if you follow MMA you know that MMA is not a joke sport and that the UFC is the best there is.

Yes, they have freak shows from time to time to get extra followers, but eventually they get to their point, which is that sooner or later, the most talented MMA fighters will hold the belts, and your criticisms compare a 17 year old sport to sports with hundreds of years of momentum behind them to avoid those pitfalls.

If you don't watch, or call the UFC a freak show and not a legit sport because of this, you are merely missing out on the development of a great new sport with exceptional athletes who go above and beyond to do what they do best.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the UFC is a farce. I don't think you do either. I also think you missed my point. You claimed UFC has done a lot to de-legitimize itself as a sport. My claim was simply (this coming from someone who has followed it since the mif-90's) is that it has always been bordering to the entertainment industry much in the same way boxing does. Would you not agree that it has always had a heavy bend towards the show industry?

As I wrote in my first post the whole beginnings of the UFC was pure commerce. Then the Ultimate Fighter stuff with the fake drama, the building of the fights like wrestling angles (albeit more rooted in reality) etc. This has always been the case.



The thing is that in martial arts it is not just the best vs the best that draws. UFC and boxing alike. The biggest fights are always the ones with the most popular stars not always the best. You brought up Demetrious Johnson, perhaps the most dominant fighter in the UFC. He is the best but he doesn't draw. Hence just being the best is NOT what primarily draws.

Look at Mayweather vs McGregor. A joke of a fight, but that drew huge, probably the most bought boxing match in history.

With that said the freak-show card is not something one can always use - then it becomes a joke. But one cannot only rely on ranking and putting the best fighters against each other either. It has to be a combination of the two. There is a reason people like Chael Sonnen, Clay Guida and Josh Barnett keep getting chances while a really good, but boring fighter like Jake Shields gets released despite a really good record.


And I don't think it is true that its the best vs the best that draws the most interest in all other sports. In football (not the American kind - I know little about it) teams draw crowds based on their popularity in the region. My team draws huge crowds despite being in the lower-mid part of the table. The games that draw the most amount of people to the arenas are the derbys between two rival teams - despite their place in the league table etc.

Also, not only do I believe that MMA only being 17 years old (before that it was NHB) is the reason for most of the problems and the learning curve they have in comparison to most sports, I am sure that I have a VERY different and MUCH more lax opinion of what makes a sport "legit" than Firebathdan does.

(Note to Dan, I am not criticizing you or your opinion, I just LOVE to debate about MMA and have been doing it for years on another forum, so don't take this as me being a dick or anything haha).

To me, well, I don't watch many sports that are not combat sports. I barely ever watch boxing though I do take boxing classes on and off and have seen some of the bigger fights, ocassionally watch kickboxing, wrestling (real wrestling) and very rarely Judo or Sambo, and I used to watch a LITTLE bit of Rugby when I played two seasons in college. I avoid baseball, basketball, football, soccer and everything else like the plague lol, so my opinion on what makes a sport "legit" will not be comparing it to other sports.

For me, there are VERY few things necessary for a sport to be "legit" and here's what I can think of them being:

---Clearly defined rules which are followed and penalties for when they aren't
---Pre and post fight medicals and physical requirements that must be met for optimal health and enforced by doctors (this isn't always done in Amateur sports though or amateur MMA
---Legit and unbiased judges and refs
---A large amount of skill in the competitors
----Drug tests that are enforced (unless EVERYONE is allowed to use drugs, which I'll call fair lol...just not enhanced athletes vs un-enhanced
----A fairly adequate ranking system
---For one on one sports with champs: MORE OFTEN THAN NOT---A fighter/competitor should have to earn the belt with winning a few fights/matches in a row, BUT...if once in a while a high selling competitor is gifted a shot, it doesn't make the whole sport a farce
---Events which GENERALLY happen on schedule when they are supposed to, but cancellations for good reasons don't make it a farce either
---More often than not, fighters should be FAIRLY well matched on paper

The UFC (and MMA in general) GENERALLY conform to those rules. That's all I need. I don't feel the UFC needs to follow the tried and true rules that seem set in stone from other sports because it's not other sports. The standards made by other sports are not universal and can change and the UFC doesn't need to copy them to be legit.

IMO MMA was legit even in the days when it was NHB LOL: There were rules (not many, but there were), there were champs, there was a lot of skill (not as much as nowadays), I mean honestly, even the fact that it didn't meet some of my above criteria to me doesn't matter. I think it's better that MMA cleaned up its act, but a sport is generally IMO (legit) so long as fairly skilled competitors are going at it and there are rules. Sure, it was a mess back then, but still a legit sport with legit talented fighters.

I mean with all these "standards" we have, what about a fringe, obscure sport like Calcio Florentino (Florentine Football), which has been happening in Florence, Italy once a year for hundreds of years?? The rules are: 2 teams try to kick or throw a ball into a net, and for every time they score they get 2 points and every goal they miss they lose 1 point, and other than that, the guys are free to beat the shit out of eachother and run around and do whatever they want, grapple, strike, you name it. They don't get paid, they don't have rankings, and there are only 4 teams from each of the 4 regions of Florence.

To me, that sport is legit because it's got a strong history of tradition behind it and has skilled players, and nothing more is needed.

Was the ancient Aztec sport where fighters had to throw a disc through a hoop of some sort, and winners were sacrificed to the gods, not a "legit sport" LOL? A very UNUSUAL sport I will grant you...but I don't see what makes it "not legit".

What about boxing's early rougher years when you were allowed to throw another boxer and gloves weren't worn? Or early Catch As Catch Can Wrestling where rules were often decided on the spot as to best 2 out of 3 falls or one single fall, whether or not certain strikes would be allowed, what subs would be allowed, whether or not you could fight off your back.

All these sports/games were legit sporting contests regardless of them not meeting our current cultural norms for what makes a sport "legit". "Sports" have existed since the dawn of time before athletes were paid, before TV existed, before ranking systems, before any of that shit, and yet to the tribes and peoples who practiced them they were every bit as "legit" as our modern day sports.

The very idea of the sort of rules a sport must adhere to to be legit according to some people are really most of them only about a hundred years old, maybe some of them one hundred and fifty. The world has an ancient history of sporting contests, and our current trends of a sports' "legitimacy" are very new and surely not universal.

At any rate, with only 17 years to meet these rigid standards so far, MMA and the UFC have a long way to go to satisfy these people.It is SO extremely rare to be alive to see the birth and development of ANY sport. I bet that in their first 17 years boxing, baseball, football and basketball were a MESS in terms of their rules. So that's the context I think is necessary to recognize here.

Rant over LOL.

Yeah, I'm a purple belt in BJJ, have a black belt in Goju-Ryu karate and a decent wrestler. Do mostly BJJ now for four years, four times a week and one MMA type class once a week. I only do I'd say, three tournaments a year but I do okay. Just don't like to travel out of town for them.