So the champ should not be expected to fight as hard as the challenger? Then I take it you had no problems with Anderson's performance on Sat. Are you blaming the fight on Maia for not "solving the riddle" of Anderson's style?

While I think BJ won the fight on Sat., I still think he should never have played Edgar's game for the whole fight. Occasionally even great fighters like Penn flake out and have a lackluster performance, and in the current state of MMA judging that's a recipe for bad decisions. My problem is that people that employ the "you have to beat the champ" mentality probably would not have wanted Edgar to get the belt even if he were a bit more effective with the strikes and won at least 3 rounds decisively. You may not like a gameplan that involves evasive movement and picking shots, but that doesn't mean we should throw out the concept of sport and deny the win to guys that take more rounds on points. The scoring is there for a reason, it's just that many judges have no clue what they're looking at.

I wouldn't go this far, although this gets thrown around a lot. In many cases, especially at elite levels, it is much better to plan a strategy for winning a decision. Look at Edgar, for example. It clearly favored him to let it go to the judges. His gameplan was clearly geared more for winning a decision, and for good reason. He would have had a pretty lousy team if they were making a plan that depended on a KO or sub. What are the odds that Edgar could do that given Penn's pedigree? Pretty slim, and a good team will be honest about that and come up with a way to win on points. That doesn't mean the fighter won't finish if he gets the opportunity, but you have to be realistic about how you can win a fight.

I hope that one day people will accept decisions, whether definitive or close, as part of the sport. So many people have this fetish for not letting it go to the judges, but it leads to absurd outcomes. Forrest Griffin is one fighter who comes to mind. He is always talking about not letting fights go the distance, and look at his fight with Anderson. Sure, the KO was exciting but I would have rather seen a fighter executing a good gameplan and not had the flashy highlight reel KO. What were the chances that Forrest would KO Anderson? Slim to none, so why not fight for a decision by taking him down and controlling him, possibly getting a TKO or sub? Now that outcome wasn't very likely either, but it would be better than running after him and playing right into his strength.

Chris Lytle is another victim of this mentality. He has become so focused on getting the KO of the night bonus that what was once a talented mixed martial artist has devolved into a mindless windmilling freak. I'm hoping his last win represents a return to being an actual mixed martial artist.

I like a good KO or sub as much as the next guy, but only if they result from a good plan well-executed or a dramatic comeback/opportunity. At elite levels, finishes are much more rare, for obvious reasons. Even the best fighters on the planet need the judges decision on occasion because some guys are near impossible to finish. Look at GSP v. Fitch. After dominating Fitch for 20 minutes, should GSP have started taking risks to finish him or simply let it go to the cards where he clearly had the advantage? There's way too much at stake for these guys to not use the judges if that's the best way to getting the win.

You might have a point there so let me rephrase: Never leave it to the judges, unless your only chance is by winning a decision. I dont think Edgar could have won in any other way. But Im sure that he would have prefered not leaving it to the judges if he could. In this case it was the only intelligent gameplan (imo). I dont think that BJ Penn's gameplan was winning by decision though but Im only guessing off course.

Had a conversation with a friend today about the Silva fight...he presented an interesting point of view....I haven't seen it out there, so if I missed it let me know.....but.....

The odds on Maia going the distance with Silva must have been fairly long. Is it possible that Silva laid off a bunch of money on winning by decision? He's not betting against himself and it sure looked like he had zero interest in finish Maia.....

I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist (except for Brock Lesnar, aliens, JFK, etc.), but I think the argument is valid. Silva is smarter than spitting in the face of Dana White, especially after the Leitas fight. Silva may have overestimated Maia's abilities and had no idea he'd have to be so pathetic to go the distance. It would also explain one more reason Dana White was so pissed...maybe he suspected it as well....

"In MMA anything is possible" someone once said...

Anything's possible, but this is very unlikely. This theory might have more traction if this performance was completely out of left field. Anderson has already had similar behaviors in the past and was criticized heavily for the Leites fight. I'm not going to attempt to play armchair psychologist and say what's in his head, but he's a strange individual to say the least. I would also think that if this were profit-driven he would not have been so over-the-top and outlandish in how he dealt with Maia. Behavior like that is bound to draw attention, which is the last thing you want if you're scheming to win big on the betting lines.

It's ironic that the point was made that MMA isn't boxing, yet making the sport more and more like boxing is what allowed it to be "sanctioned" and accepted more widely. Now...before you get all pissed off.....I'm NOT a guy who liked all the rules changes.....gloves....rounds....judges, etc. Frankly I don't give two shits about "sanctioning." But...the fact is that the sport is more and more like boxing, especially when guys can actually plan on winning by decision. Commissions, judges, ten-point must system...not like boxing? I believe that Edgar wouldn't finish BJ in 100 rounds. I long for the days of the original UFC...fight until someone wins, even if it has to happen in Wyoming.

To finalize my point about beating the champ, then I'll let it rest until Machida loses to Shogun in another split decision.....

"Welcome to MMA...this is a different beast." I don't agree...fighting is fighting, and matchmaking is matchmaking, and nothing sells a fight, boxing match, MMA, NBA Championship, damnit anything...like a real champ vs. up-and-comer. You want to throw Phil Davis into a title fight next week? Sure...he's strong, power, and looks good....may even win....but Dana White is not stupid. He understands the fight game, that you can't sell a bunch of tickets until both main event competitors are well known and have a significant fan base. And sometimes that happens by fighting some guys you know they're going to beat on the way up...sorry...it's the way it is. You don't like those padded records...tough....sometimes guys are put into fights they're expected to win...usually they win, sometimes they don't..it's the way it is and won't change.

You might want to see the Jazz sneak through to finals to play the Pistons, but 99% of the world wants Kobe vs. Lebron. You may think that's bullshit, and you're right, it is....the best two teams should meet. And that's why basketball has a playoff...and lucky for basketball they don't have to worry about PPV numbers in the finals. (I promise that the league office is praying for it to happen though for major ad revenue.)

But this isn't basketball, this is fighting, where there is a matchmaker and they can make the fights people want to see *and buy*....try to get a million people to buy Edgar vs. Maynard. Good luck with that.

For anyone that subscribes to the "no champ" philosophy, be honest with yourself and ask,"Would I pay $59.95 to see Edgar fight Maynard in a co-main event?" If the answer is,"who is the other main event?" (which it is), than there you have it. Dana White knows this.....*knows* that if Maynard is going to fight for a title and ANYONE is going to buy it, he's going to have get Maynard better known, probably by having him fight in front a rematch of Edgar-Penn. That way the public know Mayard and *knows* he deserves the shot, and whoever he faces, it's either the "great" BJ Penn who had a bad night, or the new champ who knocked off BJ twice and is the new king of the lightweight division.

And that's how you sell a fight. And yes, that's what makes MMA, boxing, or any other fight game profitable, without which profit the fighting wouldn't exist.

No one's pissed here, just having a discussion (a good one at that)

So are you referring to the "good old days" when guys like Ken Shamrock and Dan Severn could literally circle each other for 30 minutes and do nothing (remember - that was billed as a "Superfight"!)? Or how about those grand ol' days without scoring and judges, where a fighter could issue his opponent a one-sided ass-whipping for 30 minutes and then the fight gets ruled a draw because there was no finish (this still goes on actually - here in China the Art of War promotion only recently added judges and scoring)? Or how about those truly awesome days when no one watched MMA and guys made $500 to get their arm broken, only to get no financial assistance from the promoter to pay medical bills? There's more to MMA than just the fights, and sanctioning made it all possible.

As for MMA being like boxing, the similarities are purely cosmetic. Yes, there are judges, rules, and a 10 point must scoring system, but the way MMA works, both inside and outside the cage, is nothing like boxing. The business model of MMA is much more akin to professional wrestling than boxing. Boxing matches are sold on the strength of the big-draw fighters, MMA is sold on the strength of the promotion name (i.e., the UFC). Oscar De La Hoya is a brand, Floyd Mayweather Jr. is a brand. BJ Penn is not a brand (yet). Georges St. Pierre is not a brand (yet). A typical boxing PPV is all about the title fight...people rarely even know or care who is fighting on the undercard. You pay $50 for one fight. A UFC PPV is hardly ever sold on the merits of the title fight alone. You get 5-7 fights (depending on bout duration) and they can compensate for a weak title fight by having a strong co-main event or some meaningful main-card fights. If they don't have that, they can always put it on Spike for free. When the UFC comes to town, it promotes the UFC, not BJ Penn or GSP. When Oscar De La Hoya comes to town, he's promoting Oscar De La Hoya. If BJ Penn and GSP want to fight each other and make a lot of money, they're screwed until Zuffa decides they want to do it. If De La Hoya and Mayweather want to fight and make a lot of money, they have a meeting and get it done. I really don't see how MMA and boxing are that similar.



Well, you're equivocating here. When I said "MMA is a different beast," that was in reference to having really long-standing champions that retain the title. And in that regard, no, it's not as simple as "fighting is fighting." Boxers have to train their boxing, and they only have to worry about guys punching them. Spending all that time focusing on one combat skill lends itself to producing very dominant champions that can stay at the top a lot longer. It would be much easier to plan for beating Floyd Mayweather Jr. if you could kick his legs, take him down, strangle him, what have you. There are so many ways to win in MMA that you can devise a strategy for beating even the most gifted fighter. Even if that means (gasp!) planning for a decision win. That's one of the many reasons I love this sport. You do have to get comfortable with the belts changing hands with greater frequency though.



Well, if we're being honest is anyone here currently paying $59.95 for UFC PPVs? This is a tracker site, after all

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, other than you have to build fighters up to title shots so people will be interested and buy it. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Going back to my previous point though, there are ways of selling less-than-compelling title fights in MMA. Was the public scratching and clawing to see GSP fight Fitch? Fitch was long-overdue and was a serious challenger, but he's not exactly a fan favorite. So how did they sell it? By putting the always compelling Brock Lesnar as the co-main event and having some solid main-card fights (Huerta v. Florian, for example). You don't see that in boxing. If there's one thing that MMA fans have proven, it's that they love the sport so much that they'll buy virtually any event regardless of how lackluster the card is, and then of course spend the next three weeks bitching about it until it's time to buy the next one

love it