Do You Care About the "Politics" of matchmaking?

[JKS]

I think Condit is a fan favorite amongst hardcore fans not casuals. Even though Condit is one of my favorite fighters he doesn't pull number at least not yet.

But who is a fan fav among casuals?? You can really come up a few people and Condit is certainly far more popular with casual fans and can sell a fight better then Woodley. Condit has put up solid PPV numbers with GSP and Diaz, granted his opponents had more pull its still exposure for him.

Its not if Condit is a draw or not, its who out of the WW's is a better draw Condit or Woodley. They have to pick the best guy

 

[JKS]

i accept it. big difference.

funniest part is no matter how many times this cycle repeats (e.g. there is no clear cut next contender - or the clear cut next contender is a rematch many don't want - no matter who they chose people whine & moan) - and it's been repeating as long as i can remember - a bunch of fans act like it's a new thing.

fighter A is champ. fighter B, C, D and E all have good reasons for being the next contender, and all have good reasons against. and no matter who is picked, Chicken Little fans act like the MMA sky is falling. AfuckingGAIN.

it's quite hilarious, actually. but it would be funnier if they all weren't such utter cliche's about it.

Funny thing is they scream for a organized system based on rankings. Not only would that create fights that may not make sense style wise, but also fights being repetitive. You wold have the same top 10 guys fighting each other over and over, it would take 2 years for a guy to leave the top 10.

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

Don't care about rankings or who deserves what. It's all bullshit anyway.

Just wanna see good fights

 

[Lovetap]

It doesnt work like that in the business of the fight game. It does for pro team sports, but a system like the UFC has is put in place so the company and fights are the most sellable and profitable for that organization but also offer the best competitors and fighter moving up. The issue with what you're suggesting wont work because the rankings system is open to interpretation and opinion based but would also clog up the title and creates repetitive fights. What qualifies one win better then another? If a title contender or fighter loses where does he go? What's the basis for who fights who?

This creates even more problems then anything. You have champ, then #1 vs #2, #3 vs #4, #5 vs #6 and so on. Guys win and move up for title shots, right? Not exactly, this will create so many problems. Suppose a fighter gets injured....#1 is out so who does #2 fight?? They gotta take the next highest guy out and change the fights. This would be a nightmare for fighters training for a particular guy. What happens if they cant find a opponent and #2 and #3 or #4 wins, do they move up over #2? Also, with the system would just move way too slow and you would have the same top 10 guys fighting each other, the system now make it easy for new guys to always enter the top 10. You also have to consider that just cause a guy is ranked higher doesnt mean he's better and more deserving of better fights. Right now you can have a guy outside the top 15 come in a knock of a top 5 guy. What your suggesting wont work in the fight game, it doesnt fit the dynamix of the sport.

Its nothing to do with being more of a "sport" The "sport" aspect is the competitive aspect of the game. What you're talking about is the business and promotions side and that wont change in the fight game, its been like that in boxing and mma for decades and the best and most efficient system.

Well the MMA ELO system is a known algorithm. It's objective and predefined once set. It will probably never be perfect for every situation but we can get it pretty close...

Regarding repetitive fights and how to do it I was just thinking of this and I came up with some rules:

1. You always start with the champion in setting fights and then work your way down.

2. If the first ranked contender already fought the other fighter within 1 year then the next fighter is chosen instead.

3. If the first ranked fighter already fought the other fighter twice within 3 years then the next ranked fighter is chosen instead.

4. If the first ranked fighter already fought the other fighter three times within 6 years then the next ranked fighter is chosen instead.

This is would eliminate repetitive matchups save for where they are reasonable. So in this case Meisha Tate is the #1 contender for Ronda Rousey. As long as:

a)Their last fight was over 1 year ago (YES - December 28, 2013)

and

b) Their first fight was over 3 years ago (YES barely - March 3, 2012)

then Rousey vs Tate 3 would be booked. In this case it would. But if she say had this fight again set for Jan 1, 2016 and she lost it then she would not be fighting Ronda again until March 3, 2018 at the earliest if she still is the #1 contender then.

Regarding injuries they already happen. You can't do much about that. At least the next fighter in line should be fairly competitive.... Also these injuries will help other fighters have the chance to possibly move up faster so it's all good.

 

[Shaddows]

A lot of you seem impossible to please. Everybody was complaining about seeing ANOTHER Tate vs Rousey fight, and now that we get the match up that everyone on here was asking for a lot of you are still complaining (Dana is a liar/Miesha is the #1 contender/too soon for Holm/Holm isn't ready/etc.).

All inconsistencies aside, do you guys care more about who truly deserves the title shot and has campaigned for one? Or do you just want good fights against top guys in the division? Because even though some of the upcoming title fights are necessarily having challengers that have earned it (Gus, Condit, Holm, Cain), all of those contenders are still top guys in the division (although the Cain fight really annoys me).

Look at Robbie vs Condit. Most people here agree that is a badass fight and should be awesome, but Condit is clearly not the number one contender. But does anyone want to ALREADY see another Hendricks vs Lawler fight? And isn't Condit a more interesting matchup than Woodley?

The point UFC continues to fail is simple:
In EVERY SINGLE SPORT, there are rules, and EVERYONE knows those rules.

All we ask is consistency. And rules that applies to all.

The only consistent thing Zuffa does is being inconsistent as fuck and keep us guessing so they can put whoever they PREFER to fight for a belt over whoever deserves more.


Make a F'ing formula!
Explain to all how it works.
Use this formula for EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER.

problem solved.

Note: You will have people complaining so-and-so is more exciting and should get a faster path to the title. But even those people will realise the formula works equally for everyone.

 

[Shaddows]

Well the MMA ELO system is a known algorithm. It's objective and predefined once set. It will probably never be perfect for every situation but we can get it pretty close...

Regarding repetitive fights and how to do it I was just thinking of this and I came up with some rules:

1. You always start with the champion in setting fights and then work your way down.

2. If the first ranked contender already fought the other fighter within 1 year then the next fighter is chosen instead.

3. If the first ranked fighter already fought the other fighter twice within 3 years then the next ranked fighter is chosen instead.

4. If the first ranked fighter already fought the other fighter three times within 6 years then the next ranked fighter is chosen instead.

This is would eliminate repetitive matchups save for where they are reasonable. So in this case Meisha Tate is the #1 contender for Ronda Rousey. As long as:

a)Their last fight was over 1 year ago (YES - December 28, 2013)

and

b) Their first fight was over 3 years ago (YES barely - March 3, 2012)

then Rousey vs Tate 3 would be booked. In this case it would. But if she say had this fight again set for Jan 1, 2016 and she lost it then she would not be fighting Ronda again until March 3, 2018 at the earliest if she still is the #1 contender then.

Regarding injuries they already happen. You can't do much about that. At least the next fighter in line should be fairly competitive.... Also these injuries will help other fighters have the chance to possibly move up faster so it's all good.

I would agree with it.
But we do have to allow some rematches, in case of a robbery or some sort of controversy. I know it will open a door for abuse, but let us be honest. If someone gets blatantly robbed, I don't want to punish him/her further and making them wait years to be able to rematch the champ...

 

[rjmbrd]

I don't watch WMMA but there is no depth there so it doesn't really matter.

In the three most talent rich divisions right now, 155-170-185, it definitely matters to me that some sense of order is in place. I love NBK but it wildly irritates me he was given a title shot for no reason at all.

 

[tramendous]

Ultimate Fighting Entertainment

Lol

 

[JKS]

Well the MMA ELO system is a known algorithm. It's objective and predefined once set. It will probably never be perfect for every situation but we can get it pretty close...

Regarding repetitive fights and how to do it I was just thinking of this and I came up with some rules:

1. You always start with the champion in setting fights and then work your way down.

2. If the first ranked contender already fought the other fighter within 1 year then the next fighter is chosen instead.

3. If the first ranked fighter already fought the other fighter twice within 3 years then the next ranked fighter is chosen instead.

4. If the first ranked fighter already fought the other fighter three times within 6 years then the next ranked fighter is chosen instead.

This is would eliminate repetitive matchups save for where they are reasonable. So in this case Meisha Tate is the #1 contender for Ronda Rousey. As long as:

a)Their last fight was over 1 year ago (YES - December 28, 2013)

and

b) Their first fight was over 3 years ago (YES barely - March 3, 2012)

then Rousey vs Tate 3 would be booked. In this case it would. But if she say had this fight again set for Jan 1, 2016 and she lost it then she would not be fighting Ronda again until March 3, 2018 at the earliest if she still is the #1 contender then.

Regarding injuries they already happen. You can't do much about that. At least the next fighter in line should be fairly competitive.... Also these injuries will help other fighters have the chance to possibly move up faster so it's all good.

When you set these organized rules there are just too many complications. A system like this would work if the fighters fought once a month or 10-12 times a year and with limited fighters in a division. It would just take way too long for fighters to move up and break into the rankings. Especially in divisions like WW, LW and FW that have 100+ fighters. If a guy is talented he can move up many spots rather than going one by one.

Consider when you have new fighters come in, where do you place them?? A guy coming at 9-0 from ONE FC is different then if the UFC signs Ben Askren. Of course the UFC would rank Askren higher and somehow make sense of it, but what happens when you get many new fighters signing that are closer in level, where to you place em? That complicates things even more.

You also have to consider the whole other side of the spectrum. Whats in in for the UFC?? Right now they put on the most profitable and promotionally viable fights which makes the company successful, they dont gain anything from having a system which is solely based on rankings.

Another issue is this would negatively affect fighters pay. Right now the fighters act as independent contractors and use their promotion ability to earn bigger contracts and move up faster. Also, they are able to use the negotiation process to score better fights or more favorable fights, they have control of their career. If a rankings system is in place they dont have the ability to this anymore. I mean can you imagine a guy like McGregor under a rankings system?? He would just enter then top 10 now and still would have to fight 3-4 more times to earn a shot.

The system we have now is the only one that works for mma based on how the infrastructure of mma promotions is set up.

 

[threelions]

Tate vs Zingano for #1 contender next

Lol after Zingano's title fight she needs to win a few more fights before she gets a fight with Tate who's on a winning streak.

As for the OP it's the constant amateur BS from the UFC that's annoying.

 

[curryjunkie]

There's supposed to be a bit of logic behind the matchmaking. Instead we get people getting title shots with unimpressive decisions over unranked fighters, people getting title shots off of losses, etc.

wot he sed.

 

[Andrew06]

no, because in the end it's sports entertainment. if you understand that then you should be good

 

[Lovetap]

I would agree with it.
But we do have to allow some rematches, in case of a robbery or some sort of controversy. I know it will open a door for abuse, but let us be honest. If someone gets blatantly robbed, I don't want to punish him/her further and making them wait years to be able to rematch the champ...

Actually a one year delay isn't as bad as it seems. It typically takes 3-6 months to set up the average fight. So really it's only a six month delay or so. Also the instant rematches lead to some stagnation and I notice people are increasingly against them. It might not be a bad idea at all to get at least one other match in there before a rematch.

 

[bubbleboyjones]

Do I care? No

Same shit happens in every facet of life. How do promotions happen in companies?

 

[phil the void]

My fantasy fight is Nick Diaz vs. Conor Mcgregor at welterweight. That should pretty much tell you what I think about matchmaking.

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

My fantasy fight is Nick Diaz vs. Conor Mcgregor at welterweight. That should pretty much tell you what I think about matchmaking.

Only if they're mic'd up

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

I care because in a real sport, politics shouldn't matter.

I grew up a big fan of pro-wrestling and politics was a major reason I stopped watching. Guys would never get a chance because they were too small, weren't liked by the right person, etc. With MMA, I figured that wouldn't be an issue. I saw guys like Fedor who has chubby, quiet and couldn't speak English at the top of the sport. The only thing that mattered was he won.

UFC is now turning into what I hated about WWE. They try to act like they are legit sport but then contradict themselves but giving matches to people they clearly want to be champions or based on politics or who is the better money draw. On one hand they promote rankings and then on the other hand they don't follow them.

If Cain Velasquez wins the rematch against Werdum and Werdum doesn't get a rematch too, isn't that pretty much fixing a fight?

 

[Phanuel]

A lot of you seem impossible to please. Everybody was complaining about seeing ANOTHER Tate vs Rousey fight, and now that we get the match up that everyone on here was asking for a lot of you are still complaining (Dana is a liar/Miesha is the #1 contender/too soon for Holm/Holm isn't ready/etc.).

All inconsistencies aside, do you guys care more about who truly deserves the title shot and has campaigned for one? Or do you just want good fights against top guys in the division? Because even though some of the upcoming title fights are necessarily having challengers that have earned it (Gus, Condit, Holm, Cain), all of those contenders are still top guys in the division (although the Cain fight really annoys me).

Look at Robbie vs Condit. Most people here agree that is a badass fight and should be awesome, but Condit is clearly not the number one contender. But does anyone want to ALREADY see another Hendricks vs Lawler fight? And isn't Condit a more interesting matchup than Woodley?

The UFC is inconsistent - their match making doesnt make sense there is no real method behind their madness.


Remember when Chael Sonnen talked his way into multiple title shots - one of which was at Light Heavyweight, that was ridiculous.


As a fan - I wish the UFC would implement a legit rankings system based on performance alone while not being reprimanded for speaking their minds. Also no buddy system. (Fighters close to Dana's nuts who receive preferential treatment)

If the UFC can set up a real rankings system and followed it I don't think we would be having any of these issues.

 

[Phanuel]

I care because in a real sport, politics shouldn't matter.

I grew up a big fan of pro-wrestling and politics was a major reason I stopped watching. Guys would never get a chance because they were too small, weren't liked by the right person, etc. With MMA, I figured that wouldn't be an issue. I saw guys like Fedor who has chubby, quiet and couldn't speak English at the top of the sport. The only thing that mattered was he won.

UFC is now turning into what I hated about WWE. They try to act like they are legit sport but then contradict themselves but giving matches to people they clearly want to be champions or based on politics or who is the better money draw. On one hand they promote rankings and then on the other hand they don't follow them.

If Cain Velasquez wins the rematch against Werdum and Werdum doesn't get a rematch too, isn't that pretty much fixing a fight?

Agreed 100% great post.

 

[Melas Chasma]

A lot of you seem impossible to please. Everybody was complaining about seeing ANOTHER Tate vs Rousey fight, and now that we get the match up that everyone on here was asking for a lot of you are still complaining (Dana is a liar/Miesha is the #1 contender/too soon for Holm/Holm isn't ready/etc.).

You do realize that when there are a lot of people, like here on Sherdog, opinions vary? Not EVERYBODY complained about Ronda vs Tate 3, and not EVERYONE are complaining about Ronda vs Holm. Are you sure that people who complained about Ronda vs Tate 3 are the same people who now complain about Ronda vs Holm? Because if they arent the same people, your hole claim about inconsistency is wrong.