UFC Cuts Don’t Always Make Sense

One angle that has gotten a bit of attention in the whole “Fedor finally loses” story is that the victor, Fabricio Werdum, was a UFC castoff not too long ago. Werdum was cut after posting a 2-2 record, with wins against Gabriel Gonzaga and Brandon Vera along with losses to Andrei Arlovski and Junior dos Santos. Dana White would probably brag that someone who “wasn’t good enough” to stay in the UFC beat the number one heavyweight in the world. However, I think it is an embarassment for the UFC to have released a guy good enough to beat Fedor Emelianenko, and only serves to show how inconsistent the UFC’s roster decisions are.

While the UFC runs more events than ever before, with each year setting a new record between pay-per-view shows and cable events on SpikeTV and Versus, you wouldn’t know it by the personnel decisions that Zuffa has made over the last few years.

Though it seems as if there should be more opportunities than ever with about 20 shows per year taking place (or about 200 fights, if you want to look at it that way), fighters are starting to compete only a couple of times per year, and competition for roster spots in the world’s premier MMA organization is fiercer than ever. Just ask the many fighters who have been cut from the UFC over the years following successive losses, contract disputes, poor relations with the company, or all of the above.

Still, you have to wonder: should all of these fighters have been cut? Should some fighters be exceptions to the “lose a few and you’re out” rule, even if that rule is an informal one?

Particularly, is it right that Keith Jardine is now out of the UFC for losing to the likes of Quinton “Rampage” Jackson, Thiago Silva, Ryan Bader and Matt Hamill in an unfortunate four-fight stretch? With the way that the UFC handles their roster, four losses in a row is a clear cut case for letting a guy go, but should the number of “L”s be the only thing looked at, or should the names of the opponents factor in? What about the successes that a fighter has had in the past, or the nature of the losses themselves?

Jardine, for instance, was obviously deemed as good enough to be part of the UFC prior to the Hamill bout, even though he had lost three times in a row. So, losing a competitive decision in what was called the fight of the night but Dana White himself was the last straw?

Look at the situation with Tim Hague, too. This former UFC heavyweight started his time with the organization on a good note, submitting Pat Barry (who just got done fighting in a featured bout against Mirko “Cro Cop” Filipovic, which shows how highly the UFC thinks of him). He then lost to Todd Duffee, who was also highly-regarded and viewed as one of the top heavyweight prospects in the sport until his most recent loss. What got Hague cut? A majority decision loss to Chris Tuchscherer that was viewed by many as yet another example of horrid judging.

So, two losses in a row- one to a top prospect and another by controversial decision- can get you sent away, too? Doesn’t seem right, does it?

Perhaps most confusing is the UFC’s treatment of young prospects. Young fighters like Nick Diaz, Robbie Lawler and Joe Riggs parted ways with the organization after they stumbled when being thrown into the deep water at young ages. Now, all have gone on to success elsewhere, with Diaz in particular having a great career, and Lawler always flirting with the middleweight top ten.

I can understand cutting someone like Paul Buentello, who has fought for a long time, is getting on in years, and has probably done the best that they are likely to do in the UFC already. With someone like Tamdan McCrory, though, I just don’t get it. He was just 22 years old when he was cut last summer following three wins and three losses in the octagon. To add even more fuel to the “WTF” fire, his last loss was- you guessed it- a split decision.

I don’t know whether the UFC believes that keeping guys who are on a bad run will somehow make the organization look “bush league”, or whether they are just now in the habit of doing things this particular way, but you have to wonder why they feel the need to get cut-happy like they do, especially with solid veteran fighters or young prospects. Keith Jardine is never going to be light heavyweight champ, but neither is Matt Hamill. If you’re going to say that someone should be cut because they will never be at the top of the division, there should really only be four or five fighters employed in each weight class by the UFC, then.

There’s a good chance that the UFC just isn’t concerned with keeping fighters who aren’t doing well because they are so confident that they can simply re-sign anyone that they’ve cut, should they decide to do so in the future. Still, it doesn’t make sense to let competitors have good fighters simply because they lost a couple of fights in a row. Plus, you could likely re-sign these fighters for less money, as they know that they haven’t performed well in the recent past.

You need exciting fighters that can put on a show, veterans who can fill out a card and provide name recognition (while testing up-and-coming prospects), and prospects that can be groomed to take the places of those that will eventually step away from the sport.

I’m just not a big fan of arbitrary decisions, such as cutting fighters when they get x amount of losses without regard to any other factors that are involved. I’m a bigger fan of cutting fighters who simply aren’t as good as the others in the weight class in order to make room for new fighters who are better. There are at least 10 light heavyweights currently on the UFC roster that Keith Jardine could mop the mat with.

Don’t even get me started with fighters like Thales Leites, who was good enough for the UFC to expect fans to shell out to see him as part of a pay-per-view main event, but not even deemed good enough to be a preliminary fighter after his second loss in a row (by split decision to Alessio Sakara). Dana White can pretend that the decision was based on a lack of talent on Leites’ part, but it’s pretty obvious that his lackluster performance against Anderson Silva had more to do with it. Sakara, by the way, lost four out of six fights in a two-year stretch from May of 2006 to March of 2008 without getting the axe.

Typical, right?

E-Mail Jon Hartley

Tags: Dana White, Fabricio Werdum, Joe Riggs, Keith Jardine, Nick Diaz, Robbie Lawler, Tamdan McCrory, Thales Leites, Tim Hague, UFC