Does UFC Need to Pad Records to Build New Stars?

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/1/5/2677443/does-ufc-need-pad-records-build-new-stars-brock-lesnar-gsp-georges-st-pierre

Brock Lesnar retiring -- along with Georges St. Pierre likely being out of action for the entirety of 2012 -- has left the UFC in a dilemma. Not only were they the biggest draws for the company, but they were the most significant draws for a company that has yet to find a close runner up in audience attraction.

Anderson Silva has to be considered in the twilight of his career on age alone, and his drawing power is only just now being fully realised after years spent dominating his division. Had Silva not fumbled with a trio of bizarre, frustrating performances against title challengers he should have otherwise blown away, he'd arguably be the headline act UFC could most depend on without Lesnar or GSP.

Silva's ability to draw though is now dependent on a viable contender people believe has a shot at beating him, which partly explains why his fight with Vitor Belfort did a lot better on Pay Per View than his fight with Yushin Okami, and why a rematch with Chael Sonnen is perhaps the most anticipated fight in 2012.

This year it's expected Jon Jones will be looked on to carry the UFC as its most dominant champion, but fans and critics alike are already wondering who could possibly present a competitive challenge for him, and that this might pose a problem in Jones' ability to become a big attraction at the gate and on PPV.

Herein lies the issue. UFC fans have been conditioned into believing the best should always fight the best, and that there are no easy fights in the UFC because it's something that Dana White -- as the UFC's main spokesman and figurehead -- likes to to use to trumpet the UFC's promotional model over that of Boxing's. But if the fans perceive what they're given as anything less, there's usually outcry (for example - most European cards).

To their credit the UFC has managed to bring certain fighters along slowly in order to develop them, whether it be current and former champions in Junior dos Santos, Cain Velasquez or Jon Jones, but also with some prospects such as Alexander Gustafsson.

Bringing prospects along slowly, or even building their champions without appearing to feed them nothing but cans is going to be a difficult balance to strike. Casual fans and even some hardcores usually revel in one sided destructions, and generally speaking the more dominant and consistent a fighter is, the easier it is to build a following and fanbase. The problem is having mismatches that would likely result in quick finishes as PPV headliners.

Watching a fighter get squashed by an obviously superior opponent is ideal for free Television though, and the increased number of shows UFC plans to put on thanks to its new partnership with Fox is an ideal opportunity to puff up fighters the UFC has long term plans for.

For the UFC to build a fighter like a Mike Tyson or like a Roy Jones Jr, the raw talent MMA's equivalents have is out of their hands. But, like Tyson and RJJ, the UFC can protect certain fighters to a degree so they can develop but also so they can showcase their abilities against outmatched opponents and wow audiences.

Using the Fox/FX shows to build number one contenders and present occasional title fights will work best with the right opponents used to elevate them and we're less likely to see the pass-the-parcel of title contenders (or even title holders) that have become somewhat common in the UFC. Lightweight champion Frankie Edgar should be put on free TV to squash an opponent and build his base, but instead risks being ignored on an international show which will feature less press coverage as a result, against an opponent who could quite possibly beat him. Similarly, Fox opting out of showing Ben Henderson vs Clay Guida was a missed opportunity to build either as a title contender and sell some PPV's.

Phil Davis vs Rashad Evans headlining UFC on FOX 2 sounds like a fantastic match to give to fans, but you wonder if it would have made more sense to build both guys and line them up sequentially as the next to face Jones rather than set one of them back. Keeping Davis' undefeated record intact or almost guaranteeing Evans a chance to destroy a lesser fighter in a similar fashion to his fight with Tito Ortiz would have kept both in better standing going into a championship bout with Jones and may have generated a bigger buzz about their chances. As it stands, either Evans' grudge match with Jones is derailed, or Davis' streak ends and fickle fans write him off as a potential challenge. Neither scenario is particularly good for business.

The ability of the UFC to build new stars to fill the void left by Lesnar and GSP in 2012 is going to be a point of debate perhaps for the rest of this year, and it's safe to say the UFC would like to do better on PPV than it did in 2011. Building these stars starts with the matchmaking, and maybe a little padding of records on free TV needs to be part of the process.

Yes they need to. The UFC always ruin a contender for no reason. Case in point Sonnen-Munoz and if they fight Cain-Mir.

Fuck casual fans, they will beleive the best is whoever Dana tells them is the best. Save the padding for boxing.

freakzilla wrote:

Yes they need to. The UFC always ruin a contender for no reason. Case in point Sonnen-Munoz andif they fight Cain-Mir.

That's bullshit. Only noobs will buy into that.

I don't mean until like they are 15-0. If a fighter though has an easy fight there is no harm in that. If they make Cain's next fight against someone like Roy Nelson I would've had no problem with it.

freakzilla wrote:

I don't mean until like they are 15-0. If a fighter though has an easy fight there is no harm in that. If they make Cain's next fight against someone like Roy Nelson I would've had no problem with it.

Fighters are brought up at different paces. It's not like fighters start out in the UFC at 0-0(unless they are TUFers). Often times guys that are given a quicker road to more difficult fights have an extensive background in some other kind of discipline. Like they come in with an impressive wrestling or bjj resume. I don't like padding stats just for the look of the record.

OU wrote:

freakzilla wrote:

I don't mean until like they are 15-0. If a fighter though has an easy fight there is no harm in that. If they make Cain's next fight against someone like Roy Nelson I would've had no problem with it.

Fighters are brought up at different paces. It's not like fighters start out in the UFC at 0-0(unless they are TUFers). Often times guys that are given a quicker road to more difficult fights have an extensive background in some other kind of discipline. Like they come in with an impressive wrestling or bjj resume. I don't like padding stats just for the look of the record.

It's not just for the look though. It's to make stars. Case in point is Brian Stann looked awesome knocking out everyone like Leben. People actually thought he could beat Sonnen (the uneducated that is ) and that made the fight much more exciting beforehand. The UFC should've never put Stann in with Sonnen.

Well have you seen the UFC MW division? They obviously want fresh blood. Brian Stann is 31 and has been fighting professionally since 2006. He was the former WEC LHW Champion and that was his 8th fight in the UFC where he was 5-2(3-0 at MW). I completely disagree with you. This whole idea of protecting fighters while "padding records" is not what the UFC needs.

No they don't need to protect fighters to build stars. Enough of this WWE bullshit. Let the best rise wins and losses be damned.

I'm all for fighters moving up the ranks slower to build them up, but they should NEVER put a fighter against someone they KNOW doesn't have a change to win. That's BS and you shouldn't stand for that shit Freak even your GSP lovin ass is better than that

I think the real problem here is how we the fans are looking at losses. Most mma fans see a guy lose for the first time and automatically think said fighter was always garbage and it was a fluke that said fighter ever did well and I think that sucks. Even tho that's exactly how I feel about Brock lol

MMAEYES wrote:

I think the real problem here is how we the fans are looking at losses. Most mma fans see a guy lose for the first time and automatically think said fighter was always garbage and it was a fluke that said fighter ever did well and I think that sucks. Even tho that's exactly how I feel about Brock lol

Brock Legacy. Higher levels of fickleness. If you're not a preexisting superstar, standards are held to an unreal level, if you are, you get a pass.

MMAEYES wrote:

I think the real problem here is how we the fans are looking at losses. Most mma fans see a guy lose for the first time and automatically think said fighter was always garbage and it was a fluke that said fighter ever did well and I think that sucks. Even tho that's exactly how I feel about Brock lol

You mean like Eddie Alvarez disappearing from the top 10 after an extended time in the top 5?

in a word, no.

as a boxing fan relatively new to MMA, one of the big attractions for me is that the UFC do try and make good fights rather than spoon feeding bums to potential contenders.

a loss isn't the end of the world in the UFC, if you consistently fight appropriate competition you may lose a few but you improve as a fighter. as soon as you drop a decision in boxing they're all over you and you're written off as exposed or a bum.

also, by deliberately sending guys in to fight people they are completely overmatched against you also give credance to those peddling the human cockfighting argument imo.

No. Its a case by case basis. Someone like Michael Macdonald can get brought up slowly given his age and relative inexperience. Stann has had plenty of big fights though and there was no problem with him fighting Sonnen or anything like that

freakzilla wrote:

Yes they need to. The UFC always ruin a contender for no reason. Case in point Sonnen-Munoz and if they fight Cain-Mir.

No! Boxing did it for years and we got held from the best fighting the best for very long periods if ever, of seeing the best fights. MMA doesn't do that and never should. A 4 loss 27 year old champ is just as good as a 29 year old Boxer with 28 wins for a REAL reason. Fuck that dawg!

How is it hurting Munoz as a title contender to put him in with Sonnen? He had a crack at a top 5 guy already in Okami and blew it big time. But it doesn't matter who else he fights nobody is going to think he's a legitimate contender if he doesn't beat Sonnen unless he goes out and beats Okami and Vitor continuing his current streak.

If anything this is the perfect time to throw Munoz in with Sonnen. Munoz is about to turn 34 years old and this is probably the last chance to promote him as a title contender given his under-developed technical striking and subsequently weak double leg.