Fighters refuse to fight and Dana White loves it

Once upon a time, in the "good ol' days", MMA was a far more brutish sport. Fighters would take on each other regardless of preparation time, or even the opponent's size.

Often as well in those days, most fighters were the master of just one style. There was often no opportunity to scout your opponent, let alone specifically train for him. Those guys would have no idea if they were fighting a boxer, wrestler, judoka, or whatever.

On top of this, there were often multiple fights on one night.

Now, however times have changed. There are unified sanctioned rules, and weight classes. Pretty much every fighter is well versed in multiple styles, fighters (usually) know well in advance who their opponent is going to be and usually have lots of film of their opponent to study.

To put it simply, MMA is as much science as it is an art in today's world. However Dana White begs to differ. Or does he? Dana is on the record on numerous separate occasions stating that "real fighters" will take on whoever, whenever, wherever. The Chuck Liddell mentality as it's popularly known as.

And while that mentality definitely has an badass lure to it that you can't help but respect, is it smart? And more importantly, does Dana White himself truly believe that?

The UFC is quick to cut fighters after losses, case in point, Miguel Torres. In his last 5 fights before being cut, he was 3-2. But because his last fight was a loss, he was quickly snipped from the roster.

Does that haste to cut losing fighters dissipate if a fighter steps up on a short notice fight? Hardly, just ask DaMarques Johnson, who was instantly released after losing a short notice fight to Gunnar Nelson.

Meanwhile, fighters that turn down fighters on short notice, Lyoto Machida, Jon Jones, etc., are punished by being bashed in the media. The ultimate hypocrite here is Dana himself. Whether or not fighters should refuse short notice fights is definitely not the issue. He bashes fighters who feel like they're protecting their own interests by turning down short notice fights.

This guy however turns around  and punishes guys that DO step up and take short notice fights if they lose. So, taking a short notice fight is only plausible if you win? Losing is definitely the more likely outcome for fighters stepping in at the last minute.

Forget the fact that a full training camp is essential for peak conditioning. Forget that the time needed to scout your opponent is crucial for maximizing the possibility of success. Heck, forget that every win for an MMA fighter is crucial in order to improve your pecking order in your respective division and thus improve your earnings.

If you're going to draw a line in the sand, then make damn sure that it's a straight line and be consistent. Actions speak louder than words Mr. White. Shut up.

Ronda Rousey to fight Demetrious Johnson?

Seems a little ridiculous, if not entirely impossible doesn't it? And if that's your thought process, I can't blame you. You're probably right.However will someone please tell me, who the hell else is she going to fight? We've already been told it's not going to be Cristiane "Cyborg" Santos.

The only other somewhat recognizable women in MMA would be Sarah Kaufman ad Miesha Tate. She's already beaten them both....convincingly.

While we are all thrilled at the novelty of a female superstar such as Rousey competing in the UFC, she really has no contemporaries. It is noble and ambitious of Dana to try and expand the borders of the UFC and push the Zuffa brand to new heights, but at what point are moves being made just for the heck of it?

I guarantee you they will search for another Olympic judoka, such as gold medalist, Kayla Harrison, or bronze medalist, Marti Malloy, and stick them in an MMA camp. This will be followed by UFC Prmetime episodes where much emphasis will be placed on "how quickly *insert Ronda's opponent* picked up the various aspects of MMA". And that it "will definitely be a test for Rousey".

All the while, most hardcore fans, and even some casual ones, will know that the hype is nonsense. We'll know full well that Ronda is going to break her opponent's arm in the first round. Despite this however, we'll be fascinated. We will be counting the seconds, minutes and hours until fight night, and we will tune in.

Why?

Partly because we're suckers for fight drama, perhaps. Perhaps because Ronda is just that good, and we need to justify watching her fight, even if it means buying into some far-fetching marketing hype. Or maybe for many of us, the novelty of a woman fighting on the biggest MMA platform in the world is an opportunity that cannot be missed.

However Ronda's UFC deal shakes out, it will probably be worth tuning it. Even if she's fighting Demetrious Johnson.

Do MMA fans really want a super fight?

Which super fight will you like to see?
	Anderson Silva vs Georges St. Pierre
	Anderson Silva vs Jon Jones
	Jon Jones vs Junior dos Santos
	No super fights please, waste of time
pollcode.com free polls

Battle of the Styles should make a comeback

When the UFC put on it's first show in 1993, the premise was simple; which fighting style would prove most effective in a real fight? And while I thoroughly enjoy the fact that this concept led to popularizing mixed martial arts, there is something to be said for the amazing simplicity of that concept. Yes, without a doubt, the most successful fighter will always be one that does several things really well. However, in a sanctioned fight, which style will prove most effective? Will a kung fu master pick a judoka apart? Will a taekwondo expert chop down a shotokan karate black belt?

This is my thinking, weight classes, comparable levels of experience, and close in age, height and reach. Why all these mitigating factors? Make it less about the fighter and their personal "X" factor, and more about which style matches up best against most styles. Imagine if you will, a 16 man tournament, no man more than three inches taller or shorter than any other fighter, all in their mid-20s, all black belts and all trained in different disciplines. Suddenly you have an intriguing match up every single time. No rounds, no time limit. Both guys just fight until a knockout, submission, or forfeit of any kind takes place.

My only issue with modern day MMA is that it is mostly about entertainment value. I don't truly believe that every MMA win is the result of a superior fighter defeating an inferior fighter. Merely one who has successfully used the structure of an MMA fight to his advantage. When Chael tossed Anderson Silva around for five rounds, only to get caught at the last minute, what does that really tell us? If that were a street fight for example, Chael would have been destroying Silva, until someone called the cops. There would be no breaks between rounds, no referee, no judges. This is not a knock on Silva, or any other fighter that dominates in the cage, but might be less dominant out of it.

My point simply is this, if I could only learn ONE style, what should it be? I doubt I am the only one that yearns for the answer to that question. And while I know the answer would not be crystal clear, I simply refuse to believe that all styles are born equal. The rules of modern MMA competition aren't even conducive to all martial art styles. Aikido, for example is a great defensive art with awesome practical use in a street fight. However with the gloves required of MMA combatants, this style would be extremely difficult if not entirely impossible to use in a sanctioned event.

In the early days of the UFC, Royce ruled with his jiu-jitsu mastery, then the wrestlers had their day as the sport evolved, with the likes of Tito Ortiz and Matt Hughes ground and pounding their way to dominance in their respective divisions. Then came Chuck Liddell, and Anderson Silva. Proving that accurate striking and good takedown defense was also a formula for MMA success.It is these examples of cyclical dominance with different styles that makes a Battle of the Styles concept so intriguing.

So listen up Dana and create a "new" Battle of the Styles divsion in the UFC.

What single style or styles do YOU think would prove most effective against others? Sound off....

Why Cain will beat Junior dos Santos

The hype leading up to UFC on Fox: Velasquez vs dos Santos was amazing. Two exciting heavyweights, on top of their games, getting ready to clash. Cain was the unbeaten champion with a well-rounded game, and Junior the unbeatable-looking hotshot with lead in his fists. Best of all? The fight was free! Definitely not a fight any MMA fan, hardcore, or casual would want to miss. Unless you tuned in, and blinked. In a heartbeat it seemed Big John McCarthy was pulling dos Santos and his fists of fury off a downed Velasquez.

It was an amazing display by Junior and a true testament both to his technical boxing skills, and his amazing power. That being said however, it was also technically a fluke. That is by no means meant to disrespect dos Santos, who has certainly earned his belt, but Cain has the tools to beat dos Santos. The problem with fighting a guy like dos Santos is that on top of his knockout power, he is a very smart and technical fighter. Regardless though, much like Chael has the right tools to beat Anderson Silva (despite failing), Cain can and probably will beat Junior. He just needs the right game plan, and he needs to execute this game plan flawlessly.

Cain Velasquez's 60.2% accuracy in significant strikes is second only to Anderson Silva in the UFC. Junior fails to make the top 10 of that list. The two fighters do match up remarkably well on paper though. For  significant strikes landed per minute, Cain Velasquez tops the UFC with 7.47. Second on that list? Junior dos Santos at 6.87. As for strike differential, which measures how many more strikes a fighter lands than he absorbs per minute, Cain Velasquez again tops the list with 6.24, and again dos Santos is number two in the UFC with 4.78. As a point of comparison, Jon Jones' strike differential is 2.48, good for the number 7 spot. The last stat I'll bore you with that separates Velasquez from his Brazilian counterpart is strikes absorbed per minute. Cain is number 7 on the list for absorbing the fewest strikes per minute with only 1.23, tied with Georges St. Pierre.

As the stats above clearly indicate, Cain is actually (albeit marginally) a more efficient striker than Junior dos Santos. So all the conjecture of a striker vs wrestler match up is totally ridiculous. Velasquez is an elite striker and can easily hold his own with any striker in the division. Does he possess the same dangerous one punch knockout power of Junior? No, definitely not, but that's hardly the most relevant factor to consider. When you consider that they are comparably efficient on their feet, that leaves the ground game. Cain's wrestling pedigree without question gives him the edge in that facet of the fight game.

Truth is, at their last match up, Cain got caught. Plain and simple. It can happen to the best of fighters (think St. Pierre vs Matt Serra). And while I am certainly not comparing Junior to Serra, it would be premature to count Cain out, he simply has too many tools. AKA teammate Jon Fitch was even kind of enough to provide Cain with a legitimate excuse, admitting that he had a knee injury. Not only can Cain beat Junior, he can probably do it very convincingly.

Who do you have winning this fight and why?

*Stats provided by www.fightmetric.com*

Has MMA already peaked?

President of the most significant MMA organization today, Dana White, has grand plans for the UFC and MMA in general.  "Every day when we get up, we know what the goal is, we know what the prize is - we want an event everywhere, in every city, in every country all over this planet, and make this the biggest sport in the world."

The beautiful thing about MMA, or combat sports in general really, is that it certainly doesn't lack universal appeal. One can even go so far as to compare it to dancing. It's just an art that pretty much transcends cultural barriers. Mr. White's lofty ambitions aside, there is a general consensus among the MMA community that because the sport is still fairly young it will continue it's upward trajectory. Not to discount the business savvy of Dana, but I feel like it's a bit of a pipe dream.

Let's take a look at two different, wildy popular sports. Cricket and "soccer". Few Americans even have a clue as to how incredibly popular cricket really is globally. Why? Simply because it is a total non-factor in the States. Heck, I guarantee you, more than a few Americans have never even heard of cricket, and even more couldn't even describe the game. Now let's take "soccer", a sport known worldwide as football. To some degree, it has "caught on" in the States, but will it ever enjoy the kind of popularity that baseball, American football, or even basketball enjoys? No, not realistically.

The point here? Even though quite a few Americans have never heard of cricket, alot of them have. So why is there no cricket tournaments here in the States? There simply is no demand. Demand simply can't be manufactured to further your bottom line. Certain sports fit better with certain cultures.
Yes, Dana can push the burgeoning UFC brand to every corner of the globe if the Fertittas have the money, but a real possibility exists that MMA simply won't be accepted in some countries. Or at least not accepted enough to make it a profitable venture.

Can MMA possibly become the biggest sport in the world? Yes, it is possible. But an event everywhere, in every city, in every country? No, no way. There are too many moving parts that make that impossible. However even if MMA could theoretically have that kind of reach, it would certainly be in the best interest of the sport if it wasn't the UFC doing all of that reaching. I would hate for MMA to literally become synonymous with the UFC. Zuffa has already swallowed Pride, WEC, and Strikeforce. So while I hope MMA continues to grow, let's hope Mr. White never attains his lofty goal.

The Rise and "Eh" of Jon Fitch

As I am writing this, the MMA world prepares to see if Carlos Condit can indeed snatch the belt from the Canadian sensation, Georges. And as the world awaits with bated breath (not really), I can't help but ponder the state of the welterweight division. Top ranked 170 pound stud, Josh Koscheck, is not likely to get another title shot, after losing to St. Pierre twice. However why should Fitch be relegated to the same fate of constantly contending for nothing?

Don't get me wrong, Fitch doesn't really have a prayer to beat "Rush", but so what? Who does really? Pessimists will say Fitch is 1-1-1 in his last three fights. My contention is that the Hendricks loss was a fluke, much like Georges against Matt Serra. Anyone can get caught. Which leaves a draw against the legendary B.J. Penn, and a win against Erik Silva. Only Jake Ellenberger and Martin Kampmann even resemble legitimate title contenders right now. Up and comer Rory MacDonald (quite foolishly I might add), refuses to fight his teammate, St. Pierre. It is those combining factors that leave me to believe that Jon Fitch is certainly entitled to lose to St. Pierre at least once more before is career of "almost did it" is over.

Now much has been said about Jon Fitch and his financial problems, and villifying him as another cry-baby rich athlete has become the popular viewpoint. However let's truly take a closer look shall we? In 12 UFC fights, Lyoto Machida has amassed 9 wins to 3 losses, and Jon Fitch has racked up 15 wins to 2 losses, and neither guy has been accused of being exciting fighters to watch. My point? Lyoto Machida's lifetime earnings in the UFC? $2,075,000. Jon Fitch comes in at $1,068,000. Two comparably efficient and boring fighters, yet such an awesome disparity in earnings. This despite Fitch having both a better record and more fights inside the octagon than his light heavyweight counterpart.

Fitch's reality is that he has been relegated as a lay and pray snoozefest that will usually win, but usually no one will care. Who can forget  the clash of the giants at UFC 141? I remember not having a clue that Jon Fitch was even on the card until I saw the weigh-ins. Poor Joe Rogan was doing his best proclaiming, "this is a huge, huge, fight!" But no one was buying it, no one cared. His reality is that only truly hardcore fans can tolerate him, but the reality is that much of this young sport is driven by the casual fans. The hardcore fanbase has always been there, MMA's explosion is because of the occasionally interested bystander that wants to see one man beat another man senselessly into the ground.

So yes, Jon Fitch is incredibly talented, even his biggest detractors can't deny that. Yes, Jon Fitch deserves another shot at relevance and probably bigger paychecks. But he won't receive either in all likelihood. Why?

No one cares.