411 MMA Fact or Fiction 01.18.12: ESPN vs. UFC, Johnson's Future, UFC Over-saturation, More

Posted by Todd Bergman on 01.18.2012

Did the ESPN piece on the UFC kill the promotion's credibility? Will Anthony Johnson fight in the UFC again? Will Miller defeat Melvin Guillard at UFC on F/X 1? Is the market oversaturated with UFC shows? 411’s Robert Winfree & Jon Butterfield debate these topics and more in this week's 411 Fact or Fiction: MMA!

Ladies and Gentlemen welcome to another edition of 411 MMA: Fact or Fiction. I'm your host Todd Bergman and this week, we have a terrific match up for you loyal readers out there. It's the rookie with an edge Robert Winfree battling the grizzled veteran Jon Butterfield. Before getting into the introductions and the FoF battle, it's time for me to randomly bitch about something going on in the world of MMA. This week, it's steroid use with MMA. As many of you know, I believe that the sport is full of people who abuse PED's and simply cycle off the juice before drug test time occurs. Some of you are still on your high horse and believe that MMA has a few bad apples but not enough to warrant the negativity that I give. I'm jaded when it comes to PED use because I heard the talk forever about baseball players and how they cheat and I never wanted to believe it as a kid. Now-a-days, I know enough people in the sport to know that MMA isn't a clean sport. Whether it's PED's, Vaseline baths or training camp spy's, there is also someone shitting in the punch pool that is the emerging sport of MMA.

Of course this all comes on the heels of Cyborg and King Mo getting caught for alleged failed PED tests. I say alleged because both are trying like the dickens to appeal the failed tests. Cyborg's defense is that she was given something illegal via diet suppliment to help her through a difficult weight cut. Even if Cyborg did ingest something that she didn't know was illegal, she is ultimately responsible for everything that she puts into her body. The same comparison can be made to MLB's National League MVP Ryan Braun, who failed a drug test based on almost the same thing. Braun's failed test had more to do with some sort of medication screw up than a difficult weight cut but he still didn't know what he was putting into his body and at the end of the day, he's the one who will fall on the sword for a failed drug test. I'm not exactly sure what King Mo's defense is other than him saying something about cheating at video games but not MMA. Then again, the guy isn't the brightest crayon in the box given his "Strikeforce is like a dying cancer patient" line especially after Mo just re-upped with the "dying cancer patient." Anyway, enough of my on my soapbox, let's get into the introductions.




This week's FoF combatants are:

Blue Corner: Robert Winfree
Nickname: "Wings of the Dove"
Fighting out of: Minneapolis, Minnesota
FoF Record: 1-1
411 Column: MMA Contributor

---

Red Corner: Jon Butterfield
Nickname: "Silverchair"
Fighting out of: Bloody England
FoF Record: 3-4
411 Column: MMA Contributor

---

1.) The ESPN piece on the UFC's monopoly was a crushing blow to MMA.

Robert Winfree: FICTION. It certainly didn't do us any favors, but it was hardly a crushing blow. Plus, if anything, it would hurt the UFC, which is not all of MMA. It is the biggest and best by a huge margin, but there are other MMA promotions. In addition, the piece wasn't the most convincing and plenty of current or former UFC fighters weren't giving ESPN the kind of interviews they wanted. When Ken Shamrock, who hasn't been with the UFC for years and has tested positive for steroids in his last three fights, is the biggest name fighter you can get there's something wrong. Like I said, it wasn't favorable and did no favors, but it was hardly some decisive blow to the sport.

Jon Butterfield: FICTION I didn't see this (which may be due to my Britishness and all rather than complete ignorance) but I see no way a piece of journalism can provide a ‘crushing blow' to a multinational corporation like the UFC, let alone an entire sport. A crushing blow, by definition, is something which severely damages or destroys something completely. Am I to believe that suddenly arenas or PPV channels will refuse to deal with the UFC, or another other company or that fans will tune out in droves? Highly unlikely. The worst that could happen, as I go all Dr Pepper on your asses, is that they slightly and temporarily tarnish the product's image for some fans. Until I see otherwise, the fact that this isn't even on my radar kind of suggests it doesn't matter all that much. Having said that, the UFC does have a very strong stranglehold on the sport, and I'd sincerely hope fans take that at face value. That UFC is NOT MMA, and it's not the only place to find good, relevant fights.

SCORE: 1-1

---

2.) Strikes to the back of the head need a clearer definition.

Robert Winfree: FICTION. Strikes to the back of the head actually have a clear definition, the problem lies in how each referee handles them. The other issue, in many times the real issue, is that determining strikes to the back of the head is difficult in real time. Having referees view replay at monitors before announcing a disqualification is a very reasonable thing, which is the real issue as opposed to the definition of strikes to the back of the head.

Jon Butterfield: FICTION You won't exactly struggle to find a fight (or two thousand) in which a strike to the back of the head is clearly landed, yet not chastised by the referee, picked up by the commentators, or even reacted to by the fans. They happen all the time, but most often they're completely accidental, relatively harmless, and they don't affect the outcome of a fight in any way, shape or form. If they do, however, affect the result of (or severely alter the momentum of) a bout, then clearly the incident(s) need(s) to be weighed up to determine whether or not they render the result ‘unfair'. This can be done post-fight, or even between rounds, and really should be overseen by an external body or a panel of judges much like in other sports. What went down on Saturday night was farcical, and it calls into question the mechanics of fight refereeing and the kind of assistance they should be entitled to, but I don't think it has much to do with the actual definition of ‘strikes to the back of the head'. A ‘strike to the back of the head' is just that – a strike to the back of the head. Not the side, not the front, but the back, and there's a clear ‘restricted area', so to speak, that Erick Silva didn't actually seem to breach. Mario Yamasaki thought he did, disqualified Silva, and there's been a degree of uproar about it since. However, that could have been easily avoided, as outlined above, with an external panel watching replays and making a fair, measured call. That didn't happen, and all those gigantic mega screens the UFC put in there were, ultimately, redundant as a crutch for the official. The technology is RIGHT THERE, staring everyone in the face, and in the end, what use was it? Very little. Time to rewrite a few rules.

SCORE: 2-2

---

3.) Anthony Johnson will fight in the UFC again.

Robert Winfree: FACT. While I can't blame the UFC for firing Johnson for missing weight, by eleven pounds, Dana also made it clear he'd be willing to rehire Johnson. Johnson is still a young man, and as such is prone to stupid decisions like the ones that led to him missing weight. I think he's going to realize how good he had it with the UFC, he's going to fight three or four times this year, and if he makes weight each time and doesn't do anything stupid then the UFC will take him back.

Jon Butterfield: FACT I don't care, to be honest, but Dana White seems pretty adamant that he likes ‘Rumble' and that's probably good enough to get him reinstated. This cut, as far as Johnson is concerned, is a bit like being levelled with a hefty, hefty fine. He's going to lose a ton of money, now, and he's going to have to go out and fight at whatever events he can and work his way to the top of the pile outside the UFC, and if he does that, he'll no doubt be taken back – but this isn't even like the Paul Daley situation, since Dana White has already said that yes, he can return if he sorts himself out. On that note, one of the reasons Daley hasn't been reinstated is because a) he hasn't exactly dominated the opposition since being axed by Zuffa, and b) he hasn't even been making weight regularly. The same could happen to Anthony Johnson, let's face it, and that would scupper his plans, but as long as he takes this firing the right way and doesn't get too complacent and doesn't continue with his unprofessional ways, yeah, he'll be a shoe-in for the UFC 185 lb division. Again, though, I don't really care if he gets back in or not.

SCORE: 3-3

---

VIDEO INTERMISSION

---

4.) The UFC on FX will be a ratings success.

Jon Butterfield: FACT I've had to field questions like this before, and the bottom line is, US TV networks (and ratings) mean nothing to me. Everything I write now could be wrong to the last detail, but since I've been asked to field it, here goes: Sons of Anarchy has the highest average viewership on FX, scoring 4.9 million viewers per week through 2010. Now the UFC isn't going to match that, and it probably won't come particularly close. Their debut show on FOX, where the UFC rolled out the big guns with a heavyweight title clash between Junior dos Santos and Cain Velasquez, attracted 4.64 million. As far as I'm aware, that was reasonable for a show on FOX, neither terrible nor particularly great. FX, I believe, is the smaller sister channel to FOX and therefore we can expect a considerable downturn from that number (which never topped Sons of Anarchy to begin with, even on a bigger stage). Plus, we haven't even touched upon the fact that this card is basically a Fight Night with a particularly strong main event (albeit featuring two top lightweight contenders who both lost last time out), and isn't being nearly as well hyped as JDS-Velasquez. Still, the UFC is the UFC, and anyone who pays for the PPV's will presumably tune in to get the free show, and so will a bunch of people who never pay – because that always happens with Fight Night-style events. I think they'll do fine, they won't break any records (unless they have separate records for one-off live events and episodic TV shows, which would basically amount to them making an EXCUSE to give the show a record), and all in all it will be a decent success. I'll pull a number out of thin air that's based on nothing whatsoever and say the show will bring in 1.5 million viewers. Not good enough? Okay, let's spice it up. If it doesn't get 1.5 million viewers, Todd Bergman will retire from 411mania forever. Just like Ric Flair retired from wrestling in 1994.

Robert Winfree: FACT. Much of this depends on how you define success. If people are expecting this event to suddenly be the highest rated thing on FX they'll be disappointed. But I think most of us are looking at this with a realistic expectation, and I would be very surprised if the event did lower than 1.4 million viewers. I think something between 1.6 and 1.9 is most likely and would be considered a success.

SCORE: 4-4

---

5.) Jim Miller will defeat Melvin Guillard this Friday night.

Jon Butterfield: FACT I think so, yes. Guillard is extremely talented with outstanding athleticism, and even though he has a tendency to embarrass himself with unprofessional performances, I don't see him doing it twice in a row. The Lauzon defeat came after Guillard had announced himself ‘undefeated' in his ‘new run' as a professional fighter, and was his first and only blip in recent years. Other than that, the cocky ‘Young Assassin' seemed to have got his head on straight both in training and in the octagon, and I'm expected an infinitely superior performance this weekend. But I don't think Guillard, for all his striking merits and ability in the takedown defence department, will beat Jim Miller. Miller, for me, is an overachiever of the highest magnitude, and it's all down to his incredible work rate, bowling shoe-toughness and out-and-out tenacity. The dude is actually as one-dimensional as you can get fighting at the level he's fighting at, and the Benson Henderson fight highlighted that. Unable to secure a submission, Miller continued to go after the seemingly unbreakable Benson, taking a ton of damage along the way. It was a strategy that was never going to work that night, not even if he'd had another 15 minutes to work with. This style will, however, work on Guillard, I have absolutely no doubt about it. If Henderson can't comprehensively stop Miller working his jiu-jitsu game, Guillard won't either – and I don't fancy his chances of getting a flash KO, given Miller's outstanding durability.

Robert Winfree: FACT. Jim Miller is one of the best lightweights in the world. You can argue that he's over-reliant on his wrestling and submission game, but any fighter is over-reliant on what they're very good at. His only losses in the UFC have been to Gray Maynard and Ben Henderson, and I don't think Guillard is on that level of quality. Guillard is a talented and athletic fighter who looked like he was finally getting his stuff together, but I don't see him winning here. Jim Miller is a savage who relentlessly presses forward and tries everything he can to get the win.

SCORE: 5-5

---

6.) The UFC has over saturated the market with shows.

Jon Butterfield: FACT No doubt about it, but the upside for the UFC is HUGE. Sooner or later, the company is going to be doing a show a week, and that's more than enough MMA action to keep even the most die-hard fans happy. So what will that mean? Well, for one, it will mean there's no time for Strikeforce or Bellator or any other company to put on the single biggest show of a particular weekend, since a ton of the attention that they might ordinarily receive will go straight to the UFC card, no matter how half-assed it may be in reality. The thing is, though, it's hard to say if that's good or bad. You see, the UFC: Brazil card last week was pretty disappointing in my eyes, though the string of first round finishes on the main card ensured an exciting show, but all that did was paper over the cracks. You cannot say there were ten top-level fights on that card. Then, this weekend there's the FX debut with a typically poor Fight Night preliminary portion. Why is it poor? Because there's a prevailing sense these days that the undercards of so many UFC events (even extending to certain PPVs) are being ‘filled' with guys nobody has even heard of, who have impressive records courtesy of fighting other guys nobody has heard of either. Who really cares who wins out of Joseph Sandoval and Nick Denis? Who the hell is Kabib Nurmagomedov? Are these guys future UFC title contenders? Are they EXPECTED to rise to that level? Or are they just fluffing out the show so the paying fans get their 10-12 fights for the night and don't feel robbed.

There was a time, a while back, where fighting in the UFC meant so much. To be recognized as UFC-quality was a HUGE deal. Now, the UFC roster is so enormous that it's hard to keep track of everyone, even harder to fall in LOVE with anyone (since there are so damn many, hence why the UFC is having trouble building stars – there are TOO MANY fighters), and the fact is, you know it's got to saturation point when someone like Daniel Pineda is fighting on the biggest stage of them all despite going 0-2 in Bellator. Really, is his fight with 5-0 Pat Schilling UFC-calibre? Because if you asked me, that would be lucky to open a Strikeforce Challengers event (it certainly wouldn't appear on a Bellator card, since Pineda isn't Bellator-quality). So that's the downside of it all – saturating the market with shows the company just does not need to hold only leads to a bloated roster of fighters, 20 % of whom could EASILY be cut and never missed, and therefore poor events are becoming more and more prevalent (or rather, poor-looking events are, since action can make up for a lack of name value; this is fighting, it's not about comparing stats and you don't need hype to be exciting). Long gone are the days when you can honestly say guys are ‘not good enough to fight in the UFC'. These days, almost anyone with a positive record and a purple belt-equivalent in one martial art will be considered.

Robert Winfree: FACT. Much as I dislike agreeing with my opponent on every point, it's hard to disagree here. The UFC is the biggest organization, and it plans on continuing to grow. As a result it needs more fighters who might not be up to the standard of fighters the UFC previously had. They also run a lot of shows, as it's not that uncommon to go several weeks in a row with shows. It isn't just the UFC though, as Strikeforce and Bellator both run regularly, and let's not forget the executives at Spike who run marathons of UFC events on a pretty regular basis. The UFC isn't totally to blame here, but they run the most shows with the largest audience and at this point it's not out of line to say the market is saturated. The lone upside is that we rarely get truly lackluster cards, which isn't to say they don't exist, it just seems that despite the number of shows we still get a good amount of quality fights.

SCORE: 6-6

It's one of those weeks in which both guys agreed on every answer. If I were Dustin James, I would ban both guys from battling in FoF again but I'm much nicer. In the past couple of weeks, I've made a pact to not choose winners and allow the readers of this article to select the victor. I'm not playing by that rule anymore given last week's lack of compliance. So, this week's winner is Butterfield for his blatant and hilarious shot at yours truly. I have retired from MMA writing at least a half dozen times and likely will continue to do so until I build up a fan base of more than two readers. Come back next week as Mark Radulich battles Todd Vote. Remember to support your local MMA and keep your tapping hand strong.

---

411mania MMA Fact or Fiction Scoreboard!

Larry Csonka: 8-1

Samer Kadi: 5-5-1

Jeffrey Harris: 4-8

Todd Vote: 4-7

Scott Kuczkowski: 8-6

Jonathan Solomon: 4-2-1

Steve Cook: 4-2

Dan Plunkett: 7-2

Todd Bergman: 4-1

Dustin James: 1-5

MMA Fighter Jason High: 1-0

Jon Butterfield: 4-4

Mark Radulich: 3-5

Alex Watt: 1-5

Stewart Lange: 3-2

Wyatt Beougher: 3-3

Jeremy Lambert: 4-1

Jack Bramma: 0-1

Robert Winfree: 1-2