- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 1,144,789
- Reaction score
- 59
You must be registered for see images attach
Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed below are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Sherdog.com, its affiliates and sponsors or its parent company, Evolve Media.
* * *
With the UFC White House: Freedom 250 on the horizon, there hasn’t been a whole lot of buzz on the recent action. Sure, the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s Macau card delivered in spades, but it also took place when most in the Western Hemisphere were sleeping soundly in their beds. Thus, a lot of the recent talk has been about controversial releases from the organization, most notably those of Ketlen Vieira and Daniel Marcos.
Vieira was actively ranked within the Top 5 of the women’s bantamweight class at the time of her release, a division notorious for its lack of depth. Given the divison is about as deep as Bloodhound Gang lyrics, it wouldn’t make any sense on the surface as to why the UFC would let go of one of their better fighters in such a shallow pool. While it should be a well-known fact that numbers don’t tell the whole story, one merely has to look deeper into her record to understand the UFC’s thought process. In 15 UFC fights, Vieira has gone to decision 13 times without a single Performance Bonus awarded to her. Given she’s turning away the best prospects the division has to offer on the road to the top made her a problem the UFC was tired of dealing with. Thus, the boring fighter had to go.
A quick look at Marcos reveals something similar. In seven UFC fights, four went the distance without any performance bonuses. It is worth noting one of those contests that ended before the final bell was declared a no contest due to a groin strike, so there were only two finishes. With Marcos, while his perceived “boring” nature plays a part of it, it seems more like the UFC felt the bantamweight division was deep enough that they weren’t going to give Marcos the contract he believed he was worth based on his success, with five wins in the six contests that received an official conclusion. Regardless, it is still a head scratcher when someone like Cody Gibson with a 3-7 record remains on the roster.
Before I rip into the UFC’s strategy, it’s only fair to offer a degree of defense of what they’re doing. First and foremost, the UFC is an entertainment company. If they don’t entertain their viewers, their viewers go away and they aren’t a profitable company. What they’re doing isn’t without merit. The same goes for any other sports organization. If the sport doesn’t entertain spectators, the sport will die away or turn into an exceptionally niche sport without money involved.
That said, what constitutes entertaining can be subjective. Take the NBA for example. Most consider high scoring games to be more entertaining that low scoring games. Based on that, the All-Star game shouldn’t be in crisis season after season as it was just two years ago when one of the teams topped 200 points. Instead, the league continues to tinker with the format in hopes of generating an inkling of interest as fans have checked out. In other words, more points doesn’t translate to more entertaining, despite the popular consensus.
What I’m getting at is that how entertaining a fighter is in the cage tends to have less to do with their popularity than one would think. Contrast Georges St. Pierre with Robbie Lawler. St. Pierre was one of the UFC’s biggest stars and ended up developing a reputation as a boring fighter by jabbing his opponents to death. On the flip side, Lawler couldn’t have been more entertaining, winning FOTY three consecutive years from several publications, including Sherdog. Despite that, you’re far more likely to find a passerby on the street who is familiar with GSP than Lawler.
Granted, those are the fighters who’ve hit the pinnacle of the sport. About the only ones whom the UFC are going to promote are those at the top. Since about 80% of the roster isn’t going to contribute to adding new viewers... like any sport. Robert Horry wasn’t adding any new viewers, but his intangibles made him a valued part of some damn good teams. He was also appreciated by those who closely followed the sport... kind of how Vieira and Marcos were valued by those who never miss UFC events.
Even though I acknowledge Vieira isn’t the most aesthetically pleasing fighter, I still found great value in her place as a gatekeeper separating the wheat from the chaff. She did just that in defeating Jacqueline Cavalcanti. The experience allows Cavalcanti more time to hone her craft and improve to the point where she’ll be better prepared to challenge for the title... if she ever makes the leap. Better for Cavalcanti to lose at this point rather than likely being defeated in worse fashion against an even better fighter and have her chances of receiving another title shot down the road diminished because she “already had her shot.”
Rushing fighters rarely turns out to be a good thing. Eliminating a step like Vieira will prove more damaging. It’s also dumb to cut her loose due to her inability to entertain. Viewers aren’t tuning in to watch Michel Pereira any more than they are to watch Vieira, despite Pereira’s proclivities to “entertain.” Joe Lauzon wasn’t adding extra eyeballs either, despite being the bonus leader for a long time. As much as we all love(d) Lawler, the pay-per-views he headlined were some of the lowest purchased of the era. I’m not going to say how entertaining a fighter’s performance is doesn’t mean anything, but it isn’t nearly as important as one might think.
Neither Vieira nor Marcos will gain the UFC extra fans outside of their own inner circles. I won’t deny that. They won’t repel any either and those that add to the UFC’s viewership don’t come around all that often. There could be further circumstances. Perhaps it’s because they pulled some crap similar to Mohammad Mokaev, though I believe that would have been made public. If it’s because they demanded more than the UFC wanted to chalk up, that’s a sad excuse given all the Paramount money rolling into their coffers. I doubt that’s the case, but I also can’t discount the possibility. Regardless, the positives to keeping them around outweigh the negatives. I realize the UFC feels differently, but their recent perspective has been called into question a lot recently. At the very least, throw those of us who appreciate the likes of Vieira and Marcos a bone. We appreciate good and great fighters more than entertaining fighters. Outside of extenuating circumstances, being boring isn’t as bad as It's made out to be. Ask Tim Duncan.
Continue reading...
