Here’s the official promo trailer for UFC 144: Edgar vs. Henderson. This event will take place on February 26, 2012 in Saitama, Japan.

Click here for discount UFC tickets.

UFC President Dana White looks back at UFC 143 and talks about what’s next for the fighters.

Carlos Condit, the newly crowned UFC Interim Welterweight Champion, talks about his unanimous decision win over Nick Diaz at UFC 143.

Josh Koscheck talks about his split decision win over Mike Pierce at UFC 143.

Here’s the full unedited UFC 143: Diaz vs. Condit post-fight press conference.

Following fighters were awarded $65,000 bonuses.

Fight of the Night: Roy Nelson vs. Fabricio Werdum
Knockout of the Night: Stephen Thompson
Submission of the Night: Dustin Poirier

I saw no reason for this fight to result in any sort of controversy, aside from what I felt would be an unavoidably awful scorecard for Diaz. Even as the consistently bad judging in MMA has made me cynical, I was naïve enough to think there was nothing wrong with Condit’s performance and that he had, in fact, fought brilliantly. Little did I know that in MMA, it is apparently a sin to fight while moving backward.

Of course, people don’t see a problem with moving the sport backward, however.

I’m now aware that there is a second cousin of the antiquated line of thinking that “the guy on the bottom is automatically losing the fight.” Indeed, it is apparently impossible to win an MMA fight if you are not moving forward…all the time.

So, we’re not talking about the close split decision victory of Josh Koscheck over Mike Pierce, which I thought was too close to be controversial, but expected to hear complaining about, nonetheless (all close MMA fights result in a “robbery” nowadays). We’re not even discussing the ridiculous two-point deduction that sabotaged any chance of Alex Caceres defeating Edwin Figueroa on the preliminary card.

It’s okay to win a fight because you get kicked a couple of times in the nads. It’s just not okay to win a fight while outstriking your opponent 159-117 while using evasive footwork.

There are two things that strike me about the Diaz-Condit non-troversy. They are:

1) Whether or not it can be successfully argued that Diaz won the fight, and

2) The reason for the uproar itself, what it means about the sport and whether we as fans have evolved as quickly as the sport has (spoiler alert: we haven’t).

The first point is not nearly as interesting, but as a show of good faith I will take a look at this, since this is ostensibly an MMA article and not an exploration of our culture and its interaction with the sport we at least claim to love.

Can you say Diaz won the fight? I suppose you can, in the same way that you can say that Tito Ortiz is the greatest UFC champion of all-time or that Affliction had a real shot at challenging the UFC if Josh Barnett had cycled off the ‘roids a little quicker. What I want to know is if someone can create a truly compelling case for the matter, though. So far, I haven’t seen it.

If your perspective is that “you can’t win a fight by running backwards,” we have little to discuss. There is no such decree in the judging criteria (which, we should all remember, is what judges use to score fights, not the “macho man-laws of combat as written by Drunk Guy in the Stands.” I can understand, I suppose, if you can’t get over the idea of a guy using evasive footwork and controlling distance and occasionally, yes, even jogging away several feet to create space after circling off of the cage to win a fight.

However, when you say that Condit was using this tactic to AVOID the fight, I can’t help but raise an eyebrow. Tell me, if you would, how a person “avoids a fight” while throwing 329 strikes over five rounds? It’s not as if this was a jab-fest, either. Condit threw 73 power punches to the head and another 19 to the body.

Also, when you say he was “running away,” you’re relying on exaggeration as the foundation of your argument. Generally in a fight, one person moves forward and the other moves backward. Was Condit “running away” because he didn’t want to stupidly let Diaz trap him against the cage and throw a couple of dozen punches his way?

Furthermore, is that a cowardly decision, or simply a smart one? Let me tell you, I’ve seen people run away from fights, and they actually run away from fights. They don’t throw over three hundred strikes at the person they are supposedly frightened of.

Rounds one and two can go to Diaz. I split them, personally, giving the first round to Condit and the second to Diaz. I’m okay with close rounds going either way, though. I think fighters should be, too. Scoring is an inexact science, no matter how badly we want it to be otherwise. It’s incomprehensible to me, however, how anyone can score the fifth for Diaz.

Before I go into it, let me remind you that if you are not using the actual criteria that the judges are instructed to use to score fights, your opinion on who won a round or the fight is invalid. I don’t say that to be a jerk; it is simply true. I’ve seen people say, “I always favor the guy who does x or y,” and that’s great, but it has no place when criticizing the work of a judge who is using completely different criteria. If you want to say that judging criteria should be reformed, I won’t argue, but that’s another topic entirely.

So, we’ve got a fifth round where Diaz is outstruck by Condit for three and a half minutes before taking him down with 90 seconds left. Condit landed 30 strikes to 19. Okay, you say, but he wasn’t landing the harder shots; he was just landing jabs. No, he also landed more power strikes than Diaz, at 25 to 17. Well, you might say, but he inflated the numbers with those “baby leg kicks”, right? Nope, he also landed more shots to the head (16) than Diaz (10) in the fifth.

What about the takedown, though? What about taking Condit’s back and threatening him with a rear naked choke and an armbar?

Let’s look at the scoring criteria and see what it has to say:

“The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-Clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective)
-Clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching)
-Octagon control (Which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations that led to effective strikes?)”

Seventy percent of that last round took place standing up, where Condit was the more active, accurate and powerful striker. Thirty percent took place on the ground, and is weighed thusly. Moreover, what did Diaz do while on the mat? He held a dominant position, which I willingly agree is worth something. However, he never truly threatened with the rear naked choke and the armbar (that he alleged he almost had Condit with) was escaped before the round ended. As the round ended, Diaz was on all fours and Condit was straddling him, striking him. Let’s not forget that judges are to also give credit for submission ESCAPES and being able to reverse position, as Condit did at the end of that round.

What about the other rounds, though? What about aggression and Octagon control?

Here’s the thing about aggression: as it’s spelled out in the judging criteria, it doesn’t necessarily work in favor of Diaz’s performance. Sure, it says that effective aggressiveness “simply means who is moving forward and finding success.” However, does landing a lower percentage of your strikes (45% for Diaz to 48% for Condit) and being out-struck constitute “success”? As it turns out, no. “Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness,” we are told. Most damningly, it is stated that “moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.”

As far as Octagon control goes, who dictated “the pace, place and position of the fight”? We could argue all night about whether Diaz was steering Condit around the cage or if Condit was getting Diaz to foolishly chase him. I do know one thing: Diaz wanted the fight right up against the fence, and he tried many, many times to get it there and keep it there. He was unable to. Where did Condit want Diaz? At the end of his kicks and away from the fence. Where did the majority of the fight take place? Where Condit wanted it. Looking at Diaz’s frustration and taunts throughout the fight, do you think he was satisfied with the pace, place and position of the fight?

Finally, there’s a particular thing I’ve been hearing that drives me nuts, and that’s someone saying, “I just don’t think you should be able to win a fight by running away,” followed by, “I gave rounds 1, 2 and 4 to Diaz.”

Wait…so you can win a round by “running away”, but not a fight? So, I suppose there’s simply a two-round limit for running away? You can win two rounds that way, but no more! No more, I say! I mean, where in the judging criteria is that spelled out, exactly? Do we really want judges to be given the opportunity to punish fighters for not being exciting enough by refusing to give them credit for a clearly-won round? Don’t we have enough problems as it is with these people?

So, let’s move on to the more compelling part of the issue, which is why in the world so many fans, fighters and even trainers are mortified that someone would be given a well-earned decision while fighting the way that Condit did.

Sure, there’s the macho, old school approach, which will always be a part of the sport in some way. You’ve heard it before: it’s not right to fight for the judges instead of going for the finish, it’s supposed to be a FIGHT, etc. Everyone from Pat Miletich and Jake Ellenberger to Daniel Cormier and Ronda Rousey seemed disgusted by the judges’ decision. I respect all of those individuals (even Rousey, though she’s better than the Chael Sonnen act she’s been doing lately), but have to disagree.

It’s great to finish your opponent. I think that when he had the chance, Condit tried to do so. However, to expect Condit to play Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots with Diaz even after watching Diaz destroy opponent after opponent who fell into that trap is silly. So, in the biggest spot of Condit’s career, he’s supposed to beat his chest and go bravely into a type of fight that he is much less likely to win rather than using a rather intelligent strategy that Diaz won’t expect and that could lead to a better future for himself and his family?

Probably not a big fan of the Diaz-Condit fight

In terms of the fans, I’m tempted to lump a lot of these characters in with the classic “Just Bleed” guy. Look, not every fight is going to be a blood bath. I enjoy a good brawl as much as the next person, but are there really fans out there who don’t look forward to seeing how someone will finally solve Jon Jones’ reach? Or who didn’t want to see how someone would counter Diaz’s volume striking? To me, seeing a perfectly-executed strategy may not make for an endlessly-rewatchable classic bout, but is just as compelling during the first viewing itself.

Many, including myself, have wondered why MMA fighters are held to standards that other athletes are not. Nobody in LA was pissed that the Lakers won the title in an almost unwatchable Game 7 in the 2010 NBA Finals. Most people weren’t expecting the New York Giants or New England Patriots to do anything other than try to win tonight. Entertainment is secondary in most other sports.

In the past, I’ve thought that maybe it’s due to the fact that as an individual sport, fans often don’t have the emotional ties to a fight’s participants that they do to professional sports teams. However, that doesn’t stop NASCAR fans or golf fans from enjoying races or tournaments where a) their favorite participant does not win and b) nothing particularly memorable happens.

I think we’re all on the wrong track, though. The problem is two-fold, and one aspect is what I touched upon earlier: “these are supposed to be fights, damn it!” What’s the first thing we often hear when we show someone their first MMA fight? “It looks like they’re humping!” or whatever predictable comment someone comes up with to sum up the (admittedly awkward-looking, at first) ground game. Furthermore, can anyone ever remember a schoolyard fight (or YouTube fight, if your school was relatively conflict-free) that didn’t feature onlookers who impatiently called for more action while themselves staying safely away from the activity itself?

The second part of the problem is overlooked, and it’s the pay-per-view business model. If we had to pay $44.99 to watch the Super Bowl every year, you can bet that people would start complaining if the games themselves were stinkers. For our time, we don’t ask much. For our money, we demand entertainment. By placing a large price sticker on MMA events, the UFC implicitly promises that you will be entertained by the fights you are paying for. While Dana White is quick to point out that not every card can be the best one ever, he’s just as quick to defend the stinkers by saying that most of the time, you’re going to get great fights for your money. When he says “great fights”, he’s not talking about title implications or intriguing strategies. He’s talking about highlight-reel finishes, intense brawls and so forth.

Which brings me back to the beginning of all this. The sport has evolved, but many of the fans haven’t. Most MMA fighters understand that while being in an exciting fight is better than being in a boring one, and finishing your opponent is better than eking out a decision, their job is first and foremost to WIN. Why do so many fans struggle with that reality? Furthermore, while many of us are first captivated by the sport due to the spectacle and yes, the brutality, why haven’t more of us come to appreciate the skill and technique involved? Why is “strategy” still a bad word? Why are great coaches in other sports worshipped, while Greg Jackson steadily becomes a symbol of what is supposedly wrong in MMA?

I’m not going to tell you what should entertain you. Only you know your specific tastes. I’m not going to admonish you for not enjoying Diaz-Condit, either. If you didn’t like it, you didn’t like it. However, the sport is not going to move backward, even if many fans yearn for the balls-out brawlers of days past instead of the hyper-athletic strategists we have today.

In other words, while I can’t make you appreciate a fight like Diaz-Condit, you will enjoy MMA a lot more if you can learn to do so.

E-Mail Jon Hartley
Follow Jon Hartley on Twitter

Marked Improvements or Market Corrections?

Of the three main card fights, one really surprised me. That was Chael Sonnen vs. Michael Bisping. While I did not necessarily expect Sonnen to finish Bisping (as noted in my preview of the event), I didn’t think he’d have as tough a go at it as he did on Saturday night, either. I have to say it: Bisping really impressed me.

Many believed that Bisping won the first two rounds, and he definitely took one of the three rounds, despite what the crazy scorecard of judge Clay Goodman said. He did so with very good defensive wrestling and effective striking that showed that he has vastly improved his ability to land good shots while staying away from his opponent’s takedown attempts.

It should be noted, of course, that Sonnen is no usual opponent. You won’t find anyone in the middleweight division with a more explosive double-leg takedown than he has, and fending him off is no easy feat. Even when they were on the mat, Sonnen noted afterward that the fight always felt “awkward”- he said in the post-fight press conference that “I got him down on the ground, and he’d throw a hook in, blocking me. As soon as I [would] create a space, he pushed away [and] popped up.”

I knew that Bisping was good at standing up off of his back and that his defensive jiu-jitsu was good, but again, Sonnen is a very high-level opponent. I didn’t think his skills would translate to this fight nearly as well as they did. Kudos to Bisping for proving me wrong.

Meanwhile, despite the events of their first fight, this bout did not give me the idea that Chael Sonnen would put on a repeat performance in an upcoming rematch with Anderson Silva. As time goes on, I believe more and more that Silva’s rib injury during their first fight was a huge factor. I certainly didn’t see anything that would make me think that Sonnen’s striking in the first fight with Silva was something he can repeat in a rematch.

In the other fight that provided some interesting results, Rashad Evans defeated Phil Davis in a somewhat paint-by-the-numbers performance in the main event, taking a unanimous decision where all three judges gave him every round.

In baseball, when a player starts playing out of his mind and people don’t think he can sustain it, it is often referred to as a “market correction”. Furthermore, when a player is slumping but the sentiment is that he’s a good player and will bounce back, the same term applies. The question here is, did we see a market correction with both fighters the other night?

We knew Davis was a good prospect, but wondering how he would match up with champion Jon Jones was a bit hasty. I didn’t partake in such speculation, as I felt there was a very small chance of Davis beating Evans. I’m not sure what people saw that made them think that his one-dimensional approach would beat Evans’ multi-dimensional, more polished approach, but I didn’t see it.

Was Davis overrated? No, I think it’s more of a case of him reminding us exactly where he’s at- on the cusp of being a contender, but not there yet. A market correction, in other words. He fought a bona fide contender and lost every round. He competed, but he lost nonetheless. That’s right where I thought he would be at and now everyone else can see it as fact.

What about Evans? He won, but he was again unable to put an opponent away. When you win every round of a five-round bout but fail to finish your opponent or put him in serious danger, you can’t be completely happy with your effort.

At the same time, he won the fight handily. He was hard to hit, as Davis landed a poor percentage of his standing strikes, and he was more effective both with takedowns and with his ability to pass to dominant positions when the fight did hit the mat. If anything, people thought Davis’ wrestling might be better, but Evans proved at the least that he has better wrestling for MMA.

I think that like Davis, Evans is what we thought he was (if I can cite Dennis Green for a moment). Does he have the tools to test Jones? Of course, but if he gets into dominant positions on Jones and doesn’t take advantage, as he did against Davis, he won’t be around long enough to get a judges’ decision.

Say What?!?

When you’re the greatest fighter in the world today, they got a name for ya. They don’t call you a great fighter; they call you Chael Sonnen. Beat me…if you can.- Chael Sonnen, after his fight with Michael Bisping. A fight, by the way, which he won by a very narrow decision. Maybe not the best time to start calling yourself the greatest fighter in the world.

Movin’ On Up Award

Cub Swanson is back on track after a vicious performance against the talented George Roop on Saturday night. This follows his UFC debut in November, which took place on the first UFC on Fox show and featured Swanson losing in disappointing fashion to Ricardo Lamas. Swanson seems to have mentally recovered from the submission loss in his debut and should be a solid featherweight, with the potential to be pretty good if he can put it all together.

Beautiful Loser Award

This goes to Bisping, who looked very good at times against the number two middleweight in the world.

Holy $#!% Award

I have to hand this to Charles “do Bronx” Oliveira, for his extremely crafty calf slicer submission against UFC newcomer Eric Wisely. I’ve never seen that sub done in that position in an MMA fight before, and he capitalized beautifully on Wisely’s eagerness to get his leg out to safety and take the top position. Wisely is a very good fighter who will undoubtedly show in his next appearance that he can be a great addition to the UFC featherweight division, making the submission even more impressive.

E-Mail Jon Hartley
Follow Jon Hartley on Twitter

Demian Maia vs. Chris Weidman

This is an interesting bout featuring a solid prospect in Weidman. Maia used to be a feared grappler, but has seemingly lost his mojo since he got a title shot against Anderson Silva and his last four wins have come through (mostly underwhelming) decisions. What I wonder here is whether Weidman will attempt to outstrike Maia or dangerously engage him where he is strongest: on the mat?

Weidman has the wrestling skills to take down Maia, though I doubt the inverse is true. In my opinion, Maia will be forced to fight the type of fight that Weidman wants because of this. If Maia can outstrike Weidman, he can not only force Weidman to fight him on the mat, but he’ll be obviously winning the fight in the judges’ eyes, as well. Eventually, I think that Weidman will take the fight to the mat, though. Either his confidence will swell after getting through a round or two unscathed or he will want to more definitively win rounds. Who knows; maybe he’ll shoot right off the bat, though I wouldn’t advise it.

In the past I would have expected Maia to win this one if it went to the mat. It wouldn’t even be a debate for me. However, Maia’s approach has been much more cautious and methodical of late, and I’m not even sure that he would submit Weidman if he did play into Maia’s game. On top of that, I think Weidman’s striking is improving very quickly and he will likely get the better of that part of the fight, too. This is a bad style matchup for Maia and will end in a loss, unless he can show some of the aggressive jiu-jitsu we saw from him in the past.

Prediction: Weidman by decision

Michael Bisping vs. Chael Sonnen

Sonnen thinks this should be the main event, and I concur. Another thing that I agree about is that he will beat Michael Bisping. Don’t skip to the next fight just yet, though! Don’t you want to hear why?

Well, maybe not, because quite frankly, it’s not that complicated. Sonnen has no qualms about admitting what he’s going to do when he fights someone like Bisping, or anyone else for that matter. He flat out admits that he’s going to take his opponents down and try to pound them. He also admits that he doesn’t care whether people find it particular entertaining, because his job is to win, first and foremost.

It’s strange that such an obvious approach would not be the norm in this sport, but that’s the way things are. Fighters either believe or pretend to believe that their job is to entertain first and to win second. Again, Sonnen is not that type and he will doggedly pursue takedowns as long as the fight continues.

People are talking about what Bisping has to do in his standup, but I don’t think it’s a particularly interesting subject. Of course he has to watch his range, snap off straight punches and be ready to sprawl at a moment’s notice. The thing is, this fight will hit the mat and that’s when the outcome will be decided.

Bisping is a hard cat to hold down; that much is for sure. While his submission game is pretty decent, it’s his ability to stand back up that has allowed him to succeed in many of his fights. However, Sonnen is on another level entirely from most other grapplers in the middleweight class, and he will be up to the task of taking Bisping down and keeping him there. That will guarantee him at least a decision win, though I’ll be optimistic and predict a late TKO after Sonnen wears Bisping down.

Prediction: Sonnen by KO/TKO

Phil Davis vs. Rashad Evans

I was surprised that this was named the main event of such an important show and not, say, the co-main event of a pay-per-view or something. Sure, it’s two big names and it is an intriguing fight, but it is also a bout for which the potential for a “dud” is very, very high. Chances are this will not be the type of fight that you would choose to show to someone who has never seen MMA before. Yet, that’s what the UFC is doing.

I’m always interested to see two high-level wrestlers go at it, because it’s intriguing to find out who can nullify the other’s ability. Less interesting, though, is the possibility that neither will want to attempt takedowns, and the threat of takedowns from the other man will lead to stilted, conservative standup. Hopefully, that’s not what we see here.

If there’s a chance of this bout being a good one, it’s that Evans should be able to tool Davis a bit in the standup. If he is aggressive and is putting a beating on Davis, it will force Davis to take the fight to the mat, which will lead to this bout being more than a sparring match between a couple of wrestlers. Of course, if Evans is conservative, as he often is, Davis may be content to move around with him, throwing the occasional strike and leading to a rather dull fight. The thing is, either way I think that Evans wins.

Prediction: Evans by decision

E-Mail Jon Hartley
Follow Jon Hartley on Twitter

Jared from Missouri writes:

I’m interested to get your side on the whole fighter pay controversy. I saw the thing on ESPN and heard Dana White’s rant and I think I fall on the side of the fighters here. It’s not like the UFC can’t afford to pay more, right?

Now, this is a big issue to tackle, so let me first point out a few things that struck me about the whole fighter pay non-troversy. Yes, non-troversy. During my viewing of the ESPN piece, my reading of the accompanying article on their website, and my viewing of the videos that Dana White released, these things stood out to me:

–One of the big flaws of the ESPN piece is that they didn’t mention any arguments to the contrary of their thesis. Of course, the thesis was that “fighters make a small amount of money compared to what the UFC makes/is worth, and they aren’t happy but are scared to speak out.” However, there was no mention of anything that could be considered a counter-point, such as the fact that the exposure that the UFC provides to both big-name and no-name fighters leads to a huge increase in sponsorship money. Even before the UFC could afford to pay someone like Chuck Liddell a huge salary, he was making some serious bank on sponsorships. You can’t look at just a fighter’s UFC salary when determining their income from the sport as a whole.

–Along those lines, why was there no mention of the exposure that the UFC gives these fighters? Isn’t that worth something? You get to coach on The Ultimate Fighter and suddenly, hundreds of thousands of people (or more) who didn’t previously know who you were are familiar with you. This, in turn, leads to more of those coveted sponsorship opportunities, as well as chances to make money on appearances, doing seminars, or even opening your own gym one day (the UFC-released video touched upon this nicely).

–I thought that Lorenzo Fertitta’s counter-point that ESPN sometimes pays boxers less than $300 to fight on an ESPN-televised card was a great point. However, it may be a bit misleading to point that out after pointing out that ESPN makes billions of dollars per year. Sure, they make billions of dollars per year, but how much do they make off of that particular boxing card? That’s what’s relevant. Bodog was a huge casino company, but Bodog Fights was not a profitable promotion. Did they owe fighters a share of their casino revenue, even though the MMA events they put on weren’t profitable? If Fertitta was arguing that ESPN should pay a decent salary even if that means they will lose money on their boxing events, that’s an interesting point, and the UFC has done that in the past, so it wouldn’t exactly be a hypocritical one.

–It’s not even close to fair to manipulate viewers who know very little about the sport of MMA by comparing the pay of preliminary card fighters in the UFC to league minimum salaries in the NBA, NFL or MLB. That’s not even comparing apples to oranges, that’s more like apples to Snickers. We’re talking completely different business models here, and you’re also talking about sports leagues that have existed and flourished for decades or, in the case of Major League Baseball, for over a century.

–One other problem I had with the ESPN piece was regarding the anonymity of the fighters being surveyed and their fear of being black-balled for complaining about their pay. Now, I’m not going to say that a young fighter who has fought once on the prelims of a UFC on FX card can just go in the media and bitch about his pay and not have to worry about his job security. However, isn’t that true in all occupations? If your first act on the job is to start loudly complaining about how little you’re getting paid, would you last long in that position, no matter what type of work it is that you do? Would people not, at the bare minimum, say, “Hey new guy, you knew how much you’d be making, shut up and get to work”?

What we’ve seen in the past is that fighters can and do complain about their pay and continue to get fights in the UFC. It’s usually moderate to big names, but again, doesn’t that make sense? Is there any job in the world where you can complain about your pay before you’ve even accomplished anything on the job and expect to remain gainfully employed? If one of those boxers on an ESPN card started ranting and raving in the press about his $275 payday, would he be asked to fight again on the next card?

The argument that if a fighter was to complain, he would be disciplined is also a disingenuous one. I could say that if I did any number of things, something terrible would happen to me, and you wouldn’t be able to convince me otherwise. Until I actually did the thing we’re talking about, there would be no proof one way or another that I was either right or wrong. If I said, “If I call Dana White a blowhard on Twitter, he’ll light a bag of poop on fire and put it on my porch,” how can I be proven wrong unless I actually call him a blowhard on Twitter? Since these fighters believe that they will be black-balled for speaking out, they won’t speak out, and therefore we can never know whether or not they’re right about being black-balled.

I will say this: if the UFC is concerned enough about their image that they will do an interview with ESPN in order to defend what they pay their fighters, do you really think they would black-ball a guy who gave an interview to ESPN about that same topic? If they’re going to do something that’s going to make them look that bad, then why would they do the interview in the first place and try to make themselves look good? What sense does that make?

Now, if you piss off the UFC by having boring fights, making rape van jokes on Twitter, refusing to fight certain opponents, failing drug tests, complaining in the media or doing any other number of annoying things, you will certainly face consequences. “Black-balled” may be pushing it, though. I think it’s more rational to think that you may not get the benefit of the doubt if you have a two or three-fight losing streak, or you may not get called to do The Ultimate Fighter, or you may have a harder time getting extra bonuses. However, that’s once again no different from how things work in all of our lives. Piss off the people that pay you, and they won’t give you preferential treatment. No surprise there.

Now, to speak directly to your point, should the UFC pay its fighters more? I don’t know that they should. Do the fighters complain about their pay sometimes? Of course they do. Here’s something to do: go ask your friends and family members, or even strangers, whether they would like to make more at their jobs. Take it a step further and ask them whether they deserve to get paid more at their jobs. How many will really say no? So am I supposed to go, “ooooh” when ESPN finds a couple dozen fighters who say they’re underpaid? Don’t even get me started about interviewing agents who represent fighters. These guys make their living off getting a cut of the pay of their fighters. You expect them to say that fighters shouldn’t be paid more?

I would love to see fighters get paid more. And in recent years, we have. One thing people don’t acknowledge, however, is that Zuffa does more than they have to do. Would any aspiring MMA fighter really turn down an offer of $2,000 to fight on a UFC card? Would they pass up that opportunity because they wouldn’t make any real money in their first fight? No way. Before Zuffa took over Strikeforce, some fighters on the Strikeforce prelims were making about that much or a little more to fight. It’s not as if more people watch the Strikeforce preliminary bouts now than they did then, but look at the increase in pay they’ve gotten since Zuffa took over.

Look at the issue of expanded health insurance. Is it the most that Zuffa could do? No. But is it far, far more than the least they could do? Absolutely. What competitors in the industry are forcing them to raise fighter pay or expand medical coverage? None. It’s not as if fighters will go fight for Dream or Bellator if the UFC cuts pay by one-third or if they hadn’t expanded their medical insurance. The UFC, like it or not, is where you go to succeed at the highest level in MMA, and fighters would make sacrifices to fight there if they had to. Yet, Zuffa has continually improved pay and other benefits over the last several years without a union or a serious competitor to force their hand. That says a lot to me.

A.C. asks:

I think that weight cutting needs to go. If you ask me, that’s the biggest danger to the UFC. If a fighter dies, it’s more likely to be from cutting weight than from an actual fight. If everyone is 10-20 pounds heavier at the time of the fight anyway, why bother having them lose weight for the weigh ins?

That’s a good point, and one that I will echo here. I’m not sure that we’ll see a fighter death anytime soon due to weight cutting, although it’s still a somewhat fair point because college wrestlers have died cutting weight for wrestling meets. Still, my thinking is kind of like yours: what’s the point? If Anthony Johnson and Vitor Belfort are both between 205 and 210 on the day of the fight, why not just have them fight at light heavyweight?

First, let’s discuss Johnson’s epic weight cutting failure. Here’s a guy who had missed weight by several pounds before when fighting at a lighter weight class. You’d think the extra fifteen pounds would be enough to prevent further problems, but clearly that wasn’t the case. Apparently, he was at 187.5 when the on-site doctor refused to let him go any longer without fluids and made him re-hydrate.

The scary thing is that at the weigh-ins, Johnson looked ridiculously cut at 197 pounds. The idea that this guy used to cut to 170 is crazy when looking at his frame with 27 more pounds on it. Now, the possible health complications and risks related to weight cutting are well-documented. I’m not going to rant and rave over how unsafe the process is, because we’ve all heard that before.

I think besides the safety issues, you can look at two major problems with the current weigh-in procedure. One is that it can lead to sub-par performances by those who attempt to drop too much weight. The other is that the UFC itself is burdened when fighters aren’t able to make their weight. Title fights are nixed and the whole process is brought under scrutiny. The thing is that the UFC is quite happy, for whatever reason, with the current procedure and doesn’t want to change it. For that reason, they aren’t pleased when someone like Johnson attracts attention to what a farce the weight cutting process is, since they’re comfortable with keeping it as-is.

Here you’ve got divisions full of guys that naturally weigh in the weight range of the division above them, but fight at the division below with the understanding (wink wink, nudge nudge) that none of them are really ever at that weight, save for a couple of hours around the time of weigh-ins. Frankie Edgar, for instance, may be the only real lightweight in the lightweight class. Johnson isn’t the only light heavyweight fighting at middleweight; he’s just the only one that weighed in as one, too. His opponent, Vitor Belfort, was well over 200 pounds come fight time, as well. Why not have those guys fighting at light heavyweight?

Many (including myself) find that a really fascinating piece of information is missing from the otherwise-useless “tale of the tape” that the UFC provides: the fighter’s weight just before the fight. Why can’t we have that information? Because the UFC doesn’t want everyone to recognize what a farce the weigh-ins are. The real question is, what difference does it make to the UFC?

Is there any real reason why fighters couldn’t simply weigh in right before a fight, or a couple of hours before? Vitor Belfort and Anthony Johnson would still have been able to fight one another; it just would have been a light heavyweight fight, instead. Make the heavyweight limit 230 pounds and add a super heavyweight class with no limit and voila! No more worries.

Will people still miss weight? Sure. But they already do now, right? Weigh them a few days before the fight, too, and make sure they’re within say, five pounds of their fight weight then, too. Will fighters still cut weight? Some will, but will perform so colossally poorly when dehydrated that soon before a fight that they won’t make that mistake twice.

Of course, none of this needs to happen. Since just about everyone cuts weight, no one is really put at a disadvantage by it, after all. But that understanding does prove that the whole thing is a charade. Really though, if the UFC isn’t going to change anything, they should stop with the righteous indignation whenever someone like Johnson doesn’t do their part to maintain appearances. Isn’t the weight that you fight at more important in determining the fairness of a bout than the weight the night before the fight?

E-Mail Jon Hartley
Follow Jon Hartley on Twitter

Theme of the Night: Missed Opportunities

In both the Miller-Guillard and Barry-Morecraft fights, the eventual loser had the eventual winner right where he wanted him early on. Guillard had hurt Miller with powerful strikes and had Miller desperately reaching for a takedown while trying to get his bearings back. Morecraft, meanwhile, had Barry in what looked to be deep trouble several times in their short scrap. First, he was working for a rear naked choke along the cage, though Barry was turned partially sideways and he didn’t have his back as well as he wanted to.

Then, Morecraft effortlessly landed in the mount during a takedown, and failed to do any real damage. A very close armbar attempt was later deftly escaped by Barry, who rolled out of it when it appeared that he might tap at any moment. Those were all the chances that he had, and his failure to capitalize on any one of them would cost him, as Barry didn’t need many chances of his own before landing a counter left hook that floored Morecraft and signaled the beginning of the end.

These were evenly-contested fights, in that both fights had men who had vastly different strategies that they needed to use to win, and in both contests each man had the chance to use their strengths a number of times. In Guillard’s case, he simply went to the well too often- you can’t spam that many flying knees before someone like Miller is going to time them. The technique was questionable from the start anyway, since it was paramount that Guillard not end up on the mat with Miller.

Morecraft simply didn’t have the goods, or maybe didn’t have the urgency, to finish Barry. He almost seemed to be thinking the same thing that we were thinking while watching at home- that once he got Barry on the mat, it was a foregone conclusion. He seemed to underestimate Barry and wasn’t able to control Barry on the mat for long enough to wear him down for the submission or to land some decent strikes, because he thought he could just slap on a choke without properly having Barry’s back, for instance.

Quick Shots

–Barry and Morecraft won “Fight of the Night” honors and the accompanying $45,000 bonus, which I don’t have a real problem with. People seem to think that the FOTN always has to be a 10 to 15-minute war, and I don’t agree. That was a back and forth fight with plenty of drama packed into less than four minutes. I am happy that Dana White is apparently giving bonuses to both Mike Easton and Jared Papazian, however, for their great scrap.

–Jorge Rivera gets a big shout-out for concluding a great MMA career with a TKO win over Eric Schafer on the prelims. Many have pointed out the similarities to Chris Lytle, and there are plenty: neither won a title, but both were UFC mainstays. Both were exciting fighters, fan favorites and great family men as well. Both were able to go out when the time is right and with exciting, well-deserved wins. Good for Jorge.

–Speaking of awards, I’d have rather seen Josh Neer get the “Submission of the Night” nod than Miller. Neer’s crafty guillotine that he cinched when Duane “Bang” Ludwig was quickly trying to get up was a little more technically impressive than Miller’s rear naked choke. And neither was done on an opponent with mind-blowing jiu-jitsu skills, so that aspect is a wash. I’m not a big fan of fighters getting these bonuses based off name recognition or their standing on the card, which seems like the case here.

–Nice to see the 10-10 round alive and well, as we saw one scored in the first round of Easton-Papazian. Who was the judge? Why, Jeff Blatnick himself, the same cat you’ll see commentating on the very first UFC events.

Beautiful Loser Award

This goes to Papazian, who lost a very close fight to another promising young bantamweight on Friday night. Papazian’s performance was a bit of a disappointment, as he was supposed to have the advantage in the standup and had trouble keeping Easton off of him and matching his output. However, Papazian did look better than expected on the mat, even standing up effortlessly at times after being taken down.

Movin’ On Up Award

Can Jim Miller get a title shot, now?

Holy $#!& Award

For the second time in less than three full weeks of 2012, we’ve seen a remarkable knockout in the UFC. While it won’t compete with Edson Barboza’s ridiculous spinning back kick KO (which, by the way, was only number nine on SportsCenter’s top plays that day…ha!), Nick Denis’s vicious standing elbow KO of Joseph Sandoval should at least get an honorable mention by the time it’s all said and done. Check it out on YouTube while it lasts if you missed it, though you may want to mute your sound if your d-bag tolerance is low.

Follow Jon Hartley on Twitter