All This "Title Shot" Nonsense... With Poll

Drewplata — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:47:17 -0000

With wins at UFC 95, Demian Maia and Nate Marquardt are standing on their soap boxes, asking for title shots. Why? I guess because they either really want the strap or they are deluded. Let's look at the reality.

The UFC middleweight division stacks up like this:

Champ: Spider Silva

#2: Thales Leites

#3: Dan Henderson (t)

#3: Michael Bisping (t)

#5: Nate Marquardt (t)

$5: Demian Maia (t)

This is not my opinion, it's the fact. Leites is fighting for the belt. The winner of Bisping/Henderson gets the next shot. Logic would dictate that Maia should fight Marquardt to determine the next #1 challenger. But logic would not have dictated that Leites would get a shot so, who really knows. So, what do you think?

Poll

How will the next #1 Contender in the MW division be determined after Bisping fights Henderson?

Marquardt vs Maia

59 votes

Coin flip

8 votes

Man, the UFC needs to sign some new MWs

9 votes

Pie

7 votes

I'll tell you in the comments

3 votes

86 votes | Poll has closed

I Just Got My Affliction Promo Materials

Drewplata — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:35:29 -0000

It's January 16th, 2009, eight days prior to Affliction: Day of Reckoning. I just got the promotional material I signed up for as soon as the site for the show was put up. The poster looks exactly like the one on the site when I signed up, but it is torn. Looking at the promotional material (in addition to the poster, there are 2 mini-posters that fold so they stand and a deck of cards, all with the same image), I am conflicted. I look at the names: Fedor, Arlovski, Hieron, Nogueira, Barnett and I think about how good this card should be. Then I think about how asinine it is to get this stuff eight days before the show! Are these guys incompetent, assholes, or just plain stupid?

I live in New Jersey and I work in Manhattan. You know, one of those small media markets. I was willing, even looking forward to, putting up some of this stuff in the area around my office. For the last show I signed up to get the promotional material and got nothing but emails trying to sell me shirts, so by now I had assumed that it just wasn't going to happen. Now I doubt it's worth the effort.

Let me say that I loved the first show. There were issues with the announcers (and Big John is much better at reffing than he is at interviewing), the ropes/stand ups were not handled well, and Megadeath was wrong on many levels- all mistakes that could be prevented. I know I'm in the minority of MMA fans (see my fanpost about my opinion of elbows to the head on the ground), but I like ropes, when they are handled appropriately. In Pride (and now in Dream), the ropes were taut, which made it more difficult for fighters to fall through. The refs used the ropes to bounce the fighters off of them and there were officials surrounding the ring giving the ref, giving them information, such as whether a fighter is holding the ropes. Although Affliction did about as poor of a job managing the ropes as you can imagine, the viewer had the advantage of angles impossible to get in a cage.

But this business with the promotional items bothers me. Do they think that the east coast market is unimportant? But then, I am reassured. I haven't seen any advertising for this show at all, so I shouldn't take it personally. It's not going to be the payroll that's going to kill Affliction MMA, it'll die because they're going to put on a show and no one is going to know it's happening.

An Argument Against Elbows to the Head of a Downed Opponent

Drewplata — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:38:44 -0000

Before I begin to elucidate my assertion that elbows to the head of a downed opponent should be outlawed in MMA, let me address some inevitable criticism. I am not a fighter; I have never fought. I have not trained in any martial art, outside of grade school. Such a lack of a resume inevitably invites the "you don't fight, what the hell do you know?" criticism from purists who have been blogging about MMA since strikes to the groin were legal. I am aware that blogs and the internet are one of the driving forces of MMA as they originally provided a forum in which athletes in a sport shunned by society could come together as an international community uniquely able to understand the hardships of the fighting life. However, as MMA has become "mainstream" in the United States, so have many of these sites once only inhabited by the men and women paving the way for the stars of today. While I sympathize with those who believe something of theirs has been bastardized, this attitude does nothing to promote the sport so that the men and women who put their livelihoods on the line each time they enter the cage or ring; it is the "casual" or new fan that allows for fighters to be paid an equitable wage for the risk they assume. And it is the popularizing of the sport that invites mainstream media criticism, which in turn validates the sport. While I am certainly not saying that I am Bob Costas or Mike Lupica, but whenever they make an assertion about a sport, player, league, etc., are they asked when was the last time they took a hit from a linebacker? I think not. So, while I invite criticism, preferably the constructive kind, regarding my opinions and points, I respectfully ask that the "you don't fight" criticism be left out.

Perhaps the most obvious argument against elbow strikes to the head of a downed opponent is that those strikes make cuts that, although they are bloody, do not significantly damage the fighter who takes the blow. All too often, fights are stopped due to these cuts. And, when the fight is not stopped, the blood that may pour from a cut (to the scalp, for example) can make the fighters slippery and make it more difficult for a grappler to submit an opponent. Or the blood can effect a fighter's vision. Or the fight may have to be repeatedly stopped to clear the blood from a fighter's eye. Of course cuts happen in fights, but the cuts I am most referring to are the ones incurred when the fighter with top position cannot pass his opponent's guard. Allowing these blows makes it more valuable to be able to sit in someone's guard that it is to control and neutralize the fighter on top from the bottom. In my opinion, it shows more athletic ability and martial arts acumen to be able to stop a trained fighter from being able to pass your guard than it does to land a short elbow while laying on someone. I will get more into this thought soon.

That a wrestling background is the most easily convertible to a successful MMA career, particularly in the US, is an almost universally agreed upon conclusion. Former high level collegiate wrestlers dominate the MMA landscape, past and present, and compiling a list of some of the best of them would be an exhaustive task. Just a few examples, of course, are Brock Lesnar, Randy Couture, Tito Ortiz, Rashad Evans and Sean Sherk. Wrestlers have several advantages, including core strength, mastering weight cutting, and the ability to take a fight to the mat, where they are often most comfortable. Some side effects from the proponderance of dominant wrestlers, though, have become endemic to MMA. All too often, dominant wrestlers make the move to MMA too quickly, without the time or inclination to develop their striking or submission game. As opposed to MMA in Japan, for instance, where the quality of the fight and the "fighter's spirit" demonstrated in combat are often as or more important than the victor in the fight (and, consequently, records mean less), American society assigns value almost exclusively to winning. Losing, then, is befit only of "losers".

One result on our focus on records and wrestlers' ability to grind out fights without a well rounded MMA game is "lay and pray" (LNP). A LNP, wrestling based fighter takes his opponent down, puts himself in a position from which it is difficult to be submitted, and does just enough not to warrant a stand up. An elbow to the head of his opponent is one of the best tools in his limited tool box to make sure that the fight is not stood up. Because small hammer fists do not usually do enough damage to merit a referee allowing a stagnant fight to continue on the ground, the LNPer may throw a short elbow that results in one of the cuts discussed previously, validating his corner's claim that he is being productive in that position. Three rounds later, the LNPer has the "W" on his record, while the "loser" in the fight may be no worse for wear.

Elbows in a closed guard distort the value of what should be a neutral position. In a fight between evenly matched, well rounded fighters, the fighter on the bottom should be considered to be in a position from which he can end the fight, just as the top fighter is. For the reasons already discussed, though, elbows tilt the balance to the top position. If elbows were disallowed, it could be legislated that the full guard is a neutral position and that fight will be stood up if the fighter on top does not attempt to improve his position or the fighter on the bottom does not attempt any offensive maneuvers within a reasonable period of time. This would not only give guidance to referees, but judges as well. A take down that results in a quick stand up because the top fighter cannot mount any offense would be discredited. Allowing a take down to facilitate a submission attempt would "score points".

I realize that most of my points have been at the detriment of wrestlers and to the advantage of submission fighters. To a certain degree, that is true, although the rule change would be to the benefit of strikers as well. If a striker was taken down and could neutralize the top fighter and not allow him to pass guard, the fight would be stood up, after all. Wrestlers have some advantages inherent to the sport from which they came, not the least of which is their ability to cut weight. By the time they get to, for instance, the UFC, they have been doing it for many years. There have been calls for same day weigh-ins to curb excessive weight cutting, a suggestion about which I am agnostic. The other side argues that "boxers cut just as much weight". That argument is debunked by saying that boxers fight other boxers. Mixed Martial Artists, however, fight opponents with various backgrounds for which weight cutting may not have been as integral a skill. One fight I look at as proof of this point is the Lyoto Machida and Tito Ortiz fight. Although Machida won, he was clearly the smaller man. It is hard to imagine that the discrepancy has to do with anything other than Tito's ability to shed a significant amount of water weight.

The fact is that throughout the history of sports, rules change to neutralize certain advantages. After years of dominance by pitchers in baseball, major league baseball lowered the pitching mound in 1969. In football, defensive backs once were able to make contact with receivers down the field. When the league wanted to free up the passing game, such contact was deemed illegal.

There are many voices within the MMA community, both professional and online, that are resistant to change. Sadly, I believe it has less to do with athletic integrity and more to do with blood lust. Many fans are attracted to the bloody messes that fights, such as BJ Penn and Joe Stevenson's, become. In many ways, they are these fights (and fans) that make MMA so easy to label as "barbaric" or whatever some misinformed politician calls it today. However, it is also this desire for blood that keeps some fans shelling out the $50 for a PPV or buying tickets. While this revenue stream makes the UFC stronger in the short term, one must wonder about the long term viability of a sport that is torn between athletic integrity and appealing to our most base instincts.

Thanks for taking the time to read all the way through this. I look forward to your comments.

SB Nation User Blog: Drewplata