The legitimacy of the UFC product is a risk from another direction. If they continue to shape the in cage product by cutting people based on their personality and style we will eventually start seeing more WWE style acting from the fighters in an effort to keep their jobs maybe even well passed their competitiveness.
A fighter that does not win but has many, many fans can still sell tickets and PPV. So if he gets all Chael like and grabs the interest of fans regardless of his fight success we might not be seeing the best product as a result of eliminating boring fighters.
Clay Guida is a fighter I used to like prior to his match with Pettis. That fight soured me on him and I was absolutely disgusted with his performance against Maynard. In my opinion he is a ripe candidate to be cut from the company and his style seems to be structured around convincing the judges that he is effective and essentially winning. There are many people who would vehemently disagree with me and make a case that he is top tier in the organization still.
We are going to be seeing more and more fighters trying to put on a performance to keep their job and it won't necessarily result in quality fighting.
Point fighting is what Dana and his backers are trying to combat but cutting guys like Okami will probably send a mixed message. We will most likely just see more me, me, me quotes or outrageous soundbites as many guys try to sell themselves as viable products.
That is my question of the legitimacy issue.
It was easier to accept when people were cut for losing three in a row, or for tarnishing the company image/cheating/creating issues for the sponsors.
Does anyone actually think Pereira beat Izzy in their first fight?
