After almost every UFC fight, there is some controversy.  Bad judging, boring fights, the scoring system, bad judging again, Dana White, Dana White, and sometimes great fights.  Many fighters today in MMA tout their ability to finish fights or their desire to get better and finish a fight.  Ironically, in my opinion the two most elite fighters in MMA today (Anderson Silva and GSP) have both claimed that they are looking for safety when they enter the octagon, look at winning by points as not a dishonorable way to win, and that the average MMA fan just does not understand the nuances behind what they are doing.  To me, this begs the question, should MMA be marketed as more of a sport or as more of a show?

Brock Lesnar WWE via www.midwestsportsfans.com

Brock Lesnar (post fight Frank Mir 2 - middle finger incident) via americansportsblog.files.wordpress.com

1. There is one thing in common between sport and show that pays the bills and that is drama.  UFC 114 had perhaps the highest level of drama in fight history and more people tuned in as a result.  Like a soap opera, your average viewer is not going to tune in to see if someone on the undercard can pull of a submission.  Nope, they will only shell out their $50 for a PPV if there is some controversy to make them choose the UFC over some other activity that they could do on their Saturday or a guarantee that there will be blood.  This makes me think that the UFC is still more of a show. 

2. The UFC has been around for a long time now.  It is just hitting its stride and is doing a great job of spreading MMA around the globe.  If Dana White is right, MMA has the potential to have the universal appeal that soccer has globally.  If MMA is supposedly a sport, then why can't we get the judging right?  Almost every UFC that I can remember has at least one fight that went to the judges and the person that is most marketable wins.  It is rarely (and I use rarely because i can't remember an instance but I am sure there are BE members that will correct me if I say "never") the case that the underdog wins a close fight.  Little Nog beat Brilz (no chance), Rua lost to Machida (utter silliness), Couture beat Vera (crazy talk), etc. etc. etc.  Brilz has zero marketability at this point, Nog wins.  Rua was not nearly as popular as Machida at the time of their first bout, loss.  Couture is the poster boy of the UFC, Vera loses despite landing the effective strikes. If we can't get a judging system down by now, this makes me think that the UFC is still more of a show.

3. Rashad Evans beat Rampage (narrowly escaping a pummeling) using the often criticized wrestling technique of laying on top and doing very little to the opponent.  This is not as entertaining to watch, but is a skilled strategy and takes tremendous athleticism.  GSP has not been able to finish a fight, but he continues to dominate his opponents.  No one would criticize Kobe Bryant if he figured out a way to win a game by only doing layups and controlling the game 100%.  This is good sports strategy.  Not every basketball game ends with a 2 point jumper at the buzzer.  A team is never criticized for just getting it done.  However, you don't have to pay $50 to watch Kobe in your home.  The fact that the UFC has not made the transition to free television will continue to make it a show, because people want to be entertained if they spend their money.  It is excusable if the Super Bowl is boring, because no one had to shell out any money.  The UFC is still more of a show because you have to PPV.

Do I think this will be the case forever?  No.  Guys like Rashad Evans and GSP are exciting figures.  They are getting real sports deals (GSP and Gatorade) and people are starting to tune in.  The future is bright, but I still think the UFC is more of a show.