UFC functioning like a strict sport: objective competition format + more frequent fighting

[Rubios]

Can't believe nobody's mentioned this before but you're literally just describing how the PFL works.

There are certain advantages to that approach but also some serious drawbacks.

I didn't know until now, thks!

What are the drawbacks, besides the so-so talent pool of PFL?

 

[BangBang]

(I am the OP, or the TS as you say on here and I don't even know what stands for lol)

Maybe I raised 2 different points, that could -but doesn't need to- be connected.

#1 I believe the fans (me, at least) would prefer a competition format with an objective system to determine who's the champ, who's next and who's... #7.

All huge mainstream sports have went through some "questionably chosen" match-making (the great-grandpa of the actual Champions League), ranking system (the antecessors of tennis' ATP) or both.

Even there was (is?) a failed, very recent attempt at it still ongoing with a terrible reception among fans: the SuperLiga.

People need veracity: a sense of a fair, even playing field.
That doesn't mean the best man wins -and that's part of the magic of any sport-, but any competitor could and has the same chances to win.


#2 Fighting schedule.
Football (I mean... soccer, I guess), NBA, ATP... calendars are insane.

@ the NBA, as most of you may know, injuries (or the ability to remain healthy) are a huge part of the game.
A great player fucks his knee or his ankle and is off the court for the playoffs or non-eligible for the MVP/best 5s because hasn't played enough matches.
That's the game. Game is hard.

I think Dana would prefer to leave it as it is. I.e he decides what is right and if you disagree with him then you are wrong!

 

[El Fernas]

Is this PFL's CEO? Lol. See how great has it worked for them...

 

[Rubios]

I didn't even know PFL worked -kinda- that way.

I'm interested to know what are the detriments/issues arising from this system.

 

[El Fernas]

I didn't even know PFL worked -kinda- that way.

I'm interested to know what are the detriments/issues arising from this system.

I think the biggest issue is that your champ is not really your champ, and that affects your revenue, why? Your champ will be fighting on random cards and unless you "fix" your own system, will fight random guys too...champions need to fight on PPV, they need to fight other top contenders, not a random guy during the "season".

 

[Wilmer Digreux]

It isn't a real sport it's a spectacle and should be treated as such.

We need less fighters and less cards. That way each fight and each card will mean a lot more.


Danas even said he wants the ufc to be the "superbowl of mixed martial arts." Yeah....and the superbowl happens once a year.

 

[jsbx45]

I believe (not that I'm a business expert) that UFC has already reached the critical mass to benefit from shifting towards a rigurous, equitable sports competition.

On the long term the credibility, liability and perceived fairness of a sport increases the fan's engagement and commitment to the product.
Fan's behavior has been widely researched in major sports (I'm a journalist, a former sports one) such as football (actual football that you call soccer =) ), basketball, baseball, American football, athletics...
People prefer/need the sense of the organization not interfering and a transparent, established competition format.

A year-round bracket tournament to crown every division's champion and next year's ranking ("seeds").
If a fighter couldn't make it to the next round fight (because of and injury, still recovering from last fight KO or such)... well, that's part of the game. Many football/NBA players get injured, miss half season and fall drastically in the classification. Shit happens.

Football, NBA, athletics is including more games/meets per season.
You can't keep your audience hooked if the top dogs (not being Poatan) fight so scarcely.
In this tournament, every ranked fighter gets to fight thrice a year*. If they are unable to make it to the cage, they automatically lost the fight.
*Losers in the first round fight each other, and the ones losing a second time leave the ranking and get out next year's tournament, so they would only fight twice.
Best prospects occupy their spots in the ranking.

You beat this guy, you advance a round and face the winner of these two. Fair and square.
No need for fighters being morons and playing stupid characters to climb the ladder.

In a perfect world...

 

[FreedomCricket]

I didn't read any of this thread, but even if you went to a bracket style system with seeding... It wouldn't take long for one of the fighters that "won" to also have some sort of injury that would cause them to be out passed what the next fight date would be. So then you either delay or someone else steps up (the person that lost to fighter that can't fight). Suddenly your merit based sport is no longer merit based. It's no different then what we have now.

 

[Rubios]

Dunno... as a former sports journalist, there's a consensus (the matter has been deeply studied) about the fans, the audience, gets more hooked and engaged as the feeling of -let's say- truthfulness increases.

Now, we have to infer that the dude holding the belt is the best in the division because he beat this guy who beat this other dude...

IMO, fighters would need to fight more. We need a higher sense of veracity about the belt holder and the rankings.
Yes, in order to do so, not every fight could be live or death.

Soccer coaches bench their players when the match is decided (in either way). The players get mad, throw the water bottle and doesn't shake hands with the mister.
NBA teams manage the workload of their players and try their best to get them in peak shape for the PO.

Not every match is played with the intensity and the "leaving it all on the court" attitude of a game seven.
Tennis players frequently quit during a match, or soccer players request to be replaced if they feel they can't win or feel any pain or discomfort that could lead to an injury.

That's fighting, you cannot speculate or negotiate your effort facing someone that wants to tear your head apart.

But thowing the towel, quitting between rounds should be normalized.
And leaving the 5 round fights just for the annual finals of every division.

Even doing so, UFC couldn't avoid ugly KOs and bad injuries, sure. That's the game. Game is hard.
Like Durant tearing his achilles in the finals.

In short:
Do you prefer a sport where every fight is a battle that leaves significant damage and prevents most fighters to fight more than twice per year?

Or an established format/fighting schedule in which the fighters would need to fight more often and at the end of every "season" a champ for every division would win the belt?

I prefer the later. The feeling of being "sure" (sure-ish) that the belt holder and the rankings really tell the truth of every fighter's performance that year.

 

[Big Tuppy Hole]

Prize fighting is a spectacle masquerading as a legitimate sport. Thr quicker everyone excepts this the better.

 

[Big Tuppy Hole]

Dunno... as a former sports journalist, there's a consensus (the matter has been deeply studied) about the fans, the audience, gets more hooked and engaged as the feeling of -let's say- truthfulness increases.

Now, we have to infer that the dude holding the belt is the best in the division because he beat this guy who beat this other dude...

IMO, fighters would need to fight more. We need a higher sense of veracity about the belt holder and the rankings.
Yes, in order to do so, not every fight could be live or death.

Soccer coaches bench their players when the match is decided (in either way). The players get mad, throw the water bottle and doesn't shake hands with the mister.
NBA teams manage the workload of their players and try their best to get them in peak shape for the PO.

Not every match is played with the intensity and the "leaving it all on the court" attitude of a game seven.
Tennis players frequently quit during a match, or soccer players request to be replaced if they feel they can't win or feel any pain or discomfort that could lead to an injury.

That's fighting, you cannot speculate or negotiate your effort facing someone that wants to tear your head apart.

But thowing the towel, quitting between rounds should be normalized.
And leaving the 5 round fights just for the annual finals of every division.

Even doing so, UFC couldn't avoid ugly KOs and bad injuries, sure. That's the game. Game is hard.
Like Durant tearing his achilles in the finals.

In short:
Do you prefer a sport where every fight is a battle that leaves significant damage and prevents most fighters to fight more than twice per year?

Or an established format/fighting schedule in which the fighters would need to fight more often and at the end of every "season" a champ for every division would win the belt?

I prefer the later. The feeling of being "sure" (sure-ish) that the belt holder and the rankings really tell the truth of every fighter's performance that year.

Your comparing team sports to 1 on 1 combat sports. There entirely different.

 

[JPOMMA]

Dunno... as a former sports journalist, there's a consensus (the matter has been deeply studied) about the fans, the audience, gets more hooked and engaged as the feeling of -let's say- truthfulness increases.

Now, we have to infer that the dude holding the belt is the best in the division because he beat this guy who beat this other dude...

IMO, fighters would need to fight more. We need a higher sense of veracity about the belt holder and the rankings.
Yes, in order to do so, not every fight could be live or death.

Soccer coaches bench their players when the match is decided (in either way). The players get mad, throw the water bottle and doesn't shake hands with the mister.
NBA teams manage the workload of their players and try their best to get them in peak shape for the PO.

Not every match is played with the intensity and the "leaving it all on the court" attitude of a game seven.
Tennis players frequently quit during a match, or soccer players request to be replaced if they feel they can't win or feel any pain or discomfort that could lead to an injury.

That's fighting, you cannot speculate or negotiate your effort facing someone that wants to tear your head apart.

But thowing the towel, quitting between rounds should be normalized.
And leaving the 5 round fights just for the annual finals of every division.

Even doing so, UFC couldn't avoid ugly KOs and bad injuries, sure. That's the game. Game is hard.
Like Durant tearing his achilles in the finals.

In short:
Do you prefer a sport where every fight is a battle that leaves significant damage and prevents most fighters to fight more than twice per year?

Or an established format/fighting schedule in which the fighters would need to fight more often and at the end of every "season" a champ for every division would win the belt?

I prefer the later. The feeling of being "sure" (sure-ish) that the belt holder and the rankings really tell the truth of every fighter's performance that year.

This is fighting, not soccer. It’s a different mentality. In fact it was pointed out by a fighter recently that there’s a difference between how “jocks” (ex-NCAA, etc.) and natural fighters approach and perform the fights in the UFC. Some are both (Jones?) but it’s rare. You’re more likely to end up with a bunch of Bo Nickals if you go with a traditional sports format and culture. Fight fans don’t want to watch that.

My advice to you (respectfully): put on a pair of gloves and go get punched in the face at your nearest gym. Watch MMA after that. You’ll immediately appreciate the fighting and you’ll stop worrying about theoreticals like ranking and “who is truly the best”.

 

[Rubios]

I would love to be sure-ish that the best fighter holds the belt and the rankings in each division portrait the real level of every fighter any given year, that's my point.

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

the best way to get fighters to fight more is to do the PrideFC approach. have them fight 5 times a year, 4 times vs cans and at the end they fight a legit contender. why? because it lessens the risk of injury for the guy you're trying to promote, it gives him live bodies to get his shit in on them, and more importantly it gives a lot of screen time every year for the casuals to see the fighter, AND it'll be entertaining because it's x4 squash matches so they most likely won't be long, will be full of action and violence, and someone gets bodied.

the 4x cans matches also are used as a build up to create a specific image of the said fighter. then when you see the 1 fight that's going to be an actual fight and not a destruction, the casuals can now begin to understand the disparity of skill between a real world class fighter and just a normal fighter.

 

[Ozze]

I don't think this tournament style, playoff thing works for MMA. Too many injuries, layoffs, etc. And it's not a good look if the guy in the final is there because the guy who beat him couldn't come back in time for the next fight.

To me the best solution would be a point based ranking, like chess or tennis, but that would only be good enough to figure out the ranking positions. There would need to be some solution to making the championship fights or belts would be meaningless.

 

[Lord Pyjamas]

MMA will never be a real sport. It definitely has elements of sport, but it’s more of a spectacle, more about the drama of a competition where the main goal is to deliver a car accident to your opponents head.

There’s nothing sporting in that. Unless you consider a shootout or a swordfight a sport.

sport,noun

1. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
2. Duelling with swords and guns have all of that! Just a bit more death.
3. I don't know how to get rid of the numbers. I copypasted something into this!

 

[Söze Aldo]

Prize fighting is a spectacle masquerading as a legitimate sport. Thr quicker everyone excepts this the better.

There was a period of time where boxing was the most the popular spectator sport in the US (1920s) and when the biggest sports star in the world was a boxer (Ali in the 70s).

With the present state of both boxing and MMA however, doesn't seem like that will happen again any time soon.

 

[Dreyga_King of Sherbums]

I believe (not that I'm a business expert) that UFC has already reached the critical mass to benefit from shifting towards a rigurous, equitable sports competition.

On the long term the credibility, liability and perceived fairness of a sport increases the fan's engagement and commitment to the product.
Fan's behavior has been widely researched in major sports (I'm a journalist, a former sports one) such as football (actual football that you call soccer =) ), basketball, baseball, American football, athletics...
People prefer/need the sense of the organization not interfering and a transparent, established competition format.

A year-round bracket tournament to crown every division's champion and next year's ranking ("seeds").
If a fighter couldn't make it to the next round fight (because of and injury, still recovering from last fight KO or such)... well, that's part of the game. Many football/NBA players get injured, miss half season and fall drastically in the classification. Shit happens.

Football, NBA, athletics is including more games/meets per season.
You can't keep your audience hooked if the top dogs (not being Poatan) fight so scarcely.
In this tournament, every ranked fighter gets to fight thrice a year*. If they are unable to make it to the cage, they automatically lost the fight.
*Losers in the first round fight each other, and the ones losing a second time leave the ranking and get out next year's tournament, so they would only fight twice.
Best prospects occupy their spots in the ranking.

You beat this guy, you advance a round and face the winner of these two. Fair and square.
No need for fighters being morons and playing stupid characters to climb the ladder.

It won’t work.

Ask the PFL