The Throwdown 5.15.07: Brave New World
Posted by Jon Hartley on 05.15.2007
Gonzaga knocks Cro Cop's head off. Matt Serra is the UFC Welterweight Champ. The Fertitta's buy Pride. And now, The Throwdown returns as Jon Hartley tries to make sense of what has already been a crazy year for MMA.
Suffice to say that the last time I wrote a column here at 411mania, the MMA landscape was quite a bit different. Pride was still running their lovably Japanese-flavored shows, and Cro Cop-Fedor 2 appeared to be the dream fight for 2008. The UFC was business as usual, with Miletich Fighting Systems holding two titles and MFS super-friends Rich Franklin and Chuck Liddell dominating their divisions as well. The MMA world was still basically a galaxy of smallish planets rotating around the twin suns of the UFC and Pride, with upstarts such as the IFL, Elite XC and Bodog Fight having big plans but not posing any kind of threat to the Big Two.
If someone were to, say, have been in a coma since the last appearance of The Throwdown (which many of you may believe I have), there would be a LOT of explaining to do. Yes, Cro Cop's really in the UFC. No, it doesn't really matter because the UFC and Pride are basically step-brothers now. No, Cro Cop's not the UFC champ, because he got head-kicked by a grappler before he could get a chance. No, Randy Couture's not color-commentating much anymore, because he's the heavyweight champion. No, Matt Lindland's not in the UFC or Pride...although he did fight Fedor not too long ago. We could go on and on. Thankfully, we don't have to. However, I am going to give my thoughts on some of the bigger events of the last few months, starting with the biggest of them all.
What The Fertittas Should Do With Pride
We haven't yet seen the first non-DSE Pride show, although the DSE era officially ended some time ago with the Kamikaze show, which was aired live here in the United States. While a few questions have been answered regarding how Pride will be run in the future, many still remain. The chief question among them all, of course, is "What does Jon Hartley think Pride should be run?" Well, dear readers, today is your lucky day. Without further ado, let's get down to what needs to stay and what needs to go as Pride enters a new era. I know the Fertittas are busy guys, so I'll simplify my top-notch advice into ten seperate points.
1. Have multiple productions of each event to please both Japanese fans and others as well.
Let's face it, some things that are hugely popular in Japan simply don't carry over well into other cultures...like Bob Sapp and, um....Bob Sapp. Take DSE's final Pride show, for example. The card, while not outstanding on paper, provided some decent action. Unfortunately, sprinkled liberally throughout the show were some of the fruitiest production choices in recent history, not to mention a really, really long interview with Mark Coleman and Kevin Randleman, who may or may not have been drunk/high/out of his mind/replaced with an alien symbiote. Lest some of you have forgotten, let me remind you of some of the more puzzling choices, particularly with the pre-fight hype videos...actually, I only need two words: "jungle training." The show was also victim of some extremely poor pacing. I mean, an hour in between the end of the Don Frye fight and beginning of Shinya Aoki's? See, the reason why we always got 7 or 8 fights on Pride shows before is that the shows were taped, remember? Obviously, we've seen that when the shows are live, it can be a different thing entirely. And I'm still scratching my head about the "Saturday in the Park" remix that played during the Takimoto-Galesic hype video.
Don't get me wrong...I enjoy the very strange production of the shows, whether I'm laughing at them or laughing with them. However, I don't think that Pride is going to gain a lot of respect from new fans in the U.S. if they tune into a show and see Ricardo Arona running barefoot through the jungle and babbling about whether he or Sokoudjou is the best jungle fighter. The simple solution is to get back towards what Pride had somewhat done previously: have a non-Japanese flavored broadcast to be aired outside of the country, with seperate video packages and everything. And no, I'm not saying that the awesome fighter line-up in the beginning of the show, or the "crazy lady" ring announcer need to go...those things help make Pride what it is. At the same time, though, Pride needs to be tailored to please fans from all different countries to be truly successful...which of course, is easier said than done.
2. For the Love of God, No More Non-Title Matches
If titles weren't supposed to mean anything, we wouldn't have them. So obviously, they are supposed to bring a level of prestige and status to a division's best fighter. So how do you uphold a title's meaningfulness when champions continue to lose non-title matchups, effectively devaluing championships and creating controversy where there should be none?
For instance, although Dan Henderson's victory over Wanderlei Silva makes Henderson the first MMA fighter to hold two different championships in a major organization, the fight's place in history doesn't hold up as well once you start thinking about the two champions involved. After all, Henderson is still the Middleweight champion, even though he lost to Kazuo Misaki in a tournament bout last year. Meanwhile, Henderson's win over Silva would mean a little more if Silva hadn't already been beaten twice by fighters that weren't even in his weight class, and another time by decision in a tournament bout against Ricardo Arona, with all three losses coming in non-title bouts. The fact that Henderson knocked Silva out would also mean more if he hadn't been knocked out already in one of those afore-mentioned losses. While we're on the topic of non-title fights, let me also add that under no circumstances should champions be involved in tournaments...tournaments should be used to find a top contender. Imagine the reaction of American fans if, say, Randy Couture had won a huge 16-man tournament, beating then-champion Tim Sylvia in the final in decisive fashion, only to be rewarded with....a title shot, effectively forcing him to beat the champ two times in a row to win the title. Non-title fights never make sense, period.
And while we're at it, can we stop with the ridiculous mismatches? If there is actually fan interest in seeing Zuluzinho or Giant Silva fight, fine. But don't put them against the likes of Fedor or other elite fighters. Finally, let's also keep fights from within the same weight class. One only needs to look at the careers of Kazushi Sakuraba or Wanderlei Silva to see the senselessness of pitting fighters against heavier, stronger opponents.
3. Keep The Rules, Mostly
A number of people, such as Sherdog's Josh Gross, think that a disparity in rules among major organizations makes it impossible to evaluate fighters on a level playing field. I disagree. I really don't see how not having the option to stomp a downed opponent could make the difference between a fighter looking like a Top 5 competitor and a mediocre gatekeeper. Fedor Emelianenko would be the top heavyweight in the world whether you allow elbows, stomps, soccer kicks, knees to the head, or not. I also think that the difference between fighting in a cage and a ring, while existent, is consistantly overestimated by fans and experts alike. So I have no real problem with Pride keeping some of their rules, even if the UFC doesn't have the same ones. However, I also don't think that Pride would be ruined simply because Wanderlei Silva could no longer force-feed a downed opponent his foot.
So do with the stomps and soccer kicks what you would. I do prefer having elbows allowed because, although they can cause cut stoppages, they also add another dimension to the fight and give the fighter on the bottom a chance to hurt the top man with strikes, if they're used well. And knees to the head of a downed opponent absolutely must remain, whether they're allowed in the U.S. or not. They are no more dangerous than any other offensive weapon in MMA, and they can completely change the make-up of a fight. Imagine if, say, John Alessio could have stuck a couple of knees into Diego Sanchez's dome during one of Diego's fifteen or so unsuccessful takedown attempts in their fight? Ditto with Tim Sylvia when Jeff Monson insisted on unsuccessful takedown after unsuccessful takedown. Not to mention that knees make the side mount a much more advantageous position, forcing the bottom fighter to work to regain good position and giving the top fighter more incentive to pass the guard.
4. Swap Fighters Often
I know MMA fans hate wrestling comparisons, but the Zuffa and Co. should look toward the WWE to see how they should keep both the UFC and Pride's rosters fresh. In the past, extremely talented fighters such as Renato "Babalu" Sobral or Andrei Arlovski have been stuck in limbo in the UFC, as they had already fought the reigning champions of their weight divisions multiple times, and had nothing else to do unless a new champion took the helm. Now, those fighters can be swapped with fighters from Pride who are in a similar position. There aren't a ton of great fights left in the UFC for Tito Ortiz, and his two fights with Chuck Liddell haven't been particularly close. So why not ship Ortiz to the UFC, where he can have a rematch with Wanderlei Silva, or first-ever matchups with the likes of "Shogun" Rua or Ricardo Arona? I think that Pride should retain a better mix of international fighters, especially Japanese ones, so as not to alienate their Japanese fan base, but I also think that the UFC could use a shot in the arm from acquisitions such as the recent one of Antonio Rodrigo Noguiera.
5. Don't Go Crazy With "Pride vs. UFC"
Like all fans, I'm looking forward to the first Pride/UFC supercard, expected later this year. However, I think that a fine line should be straddled when it comes to Pride vs. UFC bouts. For one thing, you don't need to "unify" each title every year. If you're going to have champions in every weight class for both organizations, the last thing you need is to have multiple champions in one of the two who have just lost superbouts vs. the other org's champ, only to retain their title anyway (see: non-title bout rant, above). The title matchups should be reserved for only the most highly-anticipated fights, such as what we used to have with Wanderlei Silva vs. Chuck Liddell (which I think still needs to happen, come hell or high water). I don't think a Liddell-Henderson match would be really worth it yet, for instance, as Henderson just recently won the Middleweight title anyway. Also, why put Fedor up against a UFC Heavyweight Champion unless a dominant one emerges? If Fedor has an off night (I know, impossible, but bear with me) against his UFC counterpart, who then goes on to lose his own title in his first defense anyway, what did you gain from that? No, the crossover events need to include almost all non-title fights that are picked to make the best possible matchups for the fans. Also, don't be afraid to sprinkle Pride fighters into UFC events periodically, and vice versa. And for God's sake, every Pride tournament should include at least a couple of UFC representatives!
My real suggestion is actually to have *gasp* only one champion between the two companies in each weight class, but I know that will never happen. Still, how cool would it be to unify all the titles and then have the champions just jump from Pride to UFC, facing the top contenders from both companies? And finally, speaking of weight classes, Pride's need to expand to include five major weight classes, and better yet, become the same as the UFC's and most other promotions. The real thing keeping meaningful rankings from happening is the lack of uniform weight classes, not the lack of Unified Rules.
Upsets, Get Your Upsets...
I know this is old news, but I'm still not over the destruction of Cro Cop at the hands, er, leg of Gabriel Gonzaga...nor am I over the fact that the moment, an all-time memorable one in MMA's short history, was spoiled for me thanks to a front-page headline on Sherdog.com that was posted before the event started airing "live" on Spike TV, but I digress.
Most have said that the rash of recent upsets is great for the sport as it creates an "anything can happen" vibe that will only add excitement to MMA events. But I'm not so sure. I mean, how much credibility can a combat sport have if upsets of the magnitude we've been seeing can happen so regularly? I really disagree that having tons of upsets is good business. How does it look when a guy who even the most jaded fan would say is the one of the best strikers in MMA history gets knocked out by his own trademark high kick, especially considering that the kick-er is a ground specialist? At what point do the upsets stop being a heatlhy shakeup and start making fans question whether the outcomes of fights are really relevant at all? I mean, doesn't getting knocked out by a fighter who wasn't even in the Top 20 not too long ago take the luster off Georges St. Pierre's historic domination of the great Matt Hughes? You can say "styles make fights" 'til you're blue in the face, but if any fighter can beat any other fighter on any given day, what's the point to it all?
Face it, while sports fans love upsets, they only love them because they're rare and unlikely. You know what sports fans really love? Dominant champions. They will line up and pay handsomely to watch them win, and they will do the same to show up and hope they lose. Look no further than boxing, and compare the sport's popularity under the dominance of fighters like Muhammad Ali (or more recently, Mike Tyson) to where it is now with a virtual revolving door of mediocre heavyweight champions. Fans will watch fights because they enjoy them, but they will also watch because they want to see excellence. While shake-ups are good to have from time to time, an environment where "anything can happen" has its drawbacks, too. After all, what do all these titles mean if they're not really being worn by the best fighters? What do fights themselves mean if they only show who got lucky that night or who was better that particular day?
Quick Thoughts
--I don't know what to think about the fact that most hardcore fans believe that Chuck Liddell-Quinton Jackson 2 will unfold very similarly to their first encounter. Some of the "logic" that has been used to back up this opinion just befuddles me. "Liddell hasn't improved since their last fight." And Rampage has?!?! Let's face it, I'm a Rampage fan, a big Rampage fan actually, but he hasn't exactly looked his best over the span of his last several fights. "Liddell won't be mentally ready." And Rampage will, after having fought exactly once since last JULY?
There's absolutely no reason to expect this fight to unfold exactly as the last one did, just as there's no reason to expect any MMA fight to unfold the same way twice. I really don't see how fans can see a huge advantage going to either fighter here. If anything, there are more question marks surrounding Rampage right now than Chuck, anyway. Chuck, even coming off a relatively long layoff, has still looked great in his last seven fights, dating back to the 2003 bout with Rampage. To me, this fight is a Pick 'Em, at best. If anything, I'd give the advantage to Liddell, although when factoring in his previous loss to Rampage as well as the fact he's coming off an injury, it's clear that Rampage poses a serious threat.
--In other news, OMG BOXING VS MMA~!!!!!!11 LOLZ!!! That's right, things were heating up there a bit before Floyd Mayweather wisely backed off his comments that the "UFC ain't shit". Kermit "You've Probably Never Heard of Me" Cintron, the IBF Welterweight Champion, says he would fight UFC Lightweight Champion Sean Sherk, however. Meanwhile, Dana White says boxers who believe they could take on MMA fighters are kidding themselves.
In the words of everyone who's ever mockingly quoted Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" Look, boxing vs. MMA doesn't have to be one or the other. They can co-exist. As far as which is better, well, that depends on what you're looking for. Obviously there is no one in MMA that has the precision punching of an elite boxer. At the same time, MMA includes many more tools and disciplines than boxing alone, so if you want to know which is more effective for an anything-goes fight, obviously mixed martial arts would be. The best way to look at it is to compare it with a long drive competition in golf, or even three-point shootouts in basketball. If all you did was focus on that one aspect of golf or basketball, forgoing the others, of course you would become much more proficient at them than someone who is working on a more well-rounded, all-inclusive skill set. But if you take that guy who only works on his 400-yard drives or three-point shots, and put him into an 18-hole match or a 5-on-5 full court basketball game, their all-around weaknesses would stand out, just like their superiority in their specialty areas would.
Look, fighting and boxing are two different things. In a true fight, you can wrestle, you can use submissions, you can kick, you can knee, you can punch. There's no reason to argue who would win in a fight between an MMA fighter and a boxer, just like there is no reason to argue who would win in a boxing match. While it's not exactly apples and oranges here, it's definitely not apples and apples either. So instead of taking shots at one another and hyping fights that will never (ever) happen, maybe the two sports should just co-exist. MMA fans who think boxing is "boring" should give boxing a little respect, and all the cynical, crochety old farts who have followed boxing since the fifties should do the same for MMA.
That's it for now, folks. Soon we'll see the return of the Throwdown MMA Rankings. However, I really would like to hold off until we see what kind of changes (if any) will be made to Pride's weight classes. Knowing where to rank all those 160 pounders would be nice. Make sure to come around next time for more detailed analysis of the upcoming UFC card along with any other news that creeps up on is in the meantime. Oh, and also e-mails, although that part is kind of up to you, isn't it?
