What do you consider good matchmaking...

[MustangSally]

...1) building up the number of credible title contenders and challengers (either undefeated or on long win streaks). This basically means avoiding pitting two potential title challengers against each other, in other words we'll rarely get to see number 2, 3, 4, 5 etc or two exciting prospects in a division fight each other (e.g. we never got to see John Dodson v Joe Benavidez and)

...2) say 'to hell with it' and just let good prospects fight each other and exciting matchups take place regardless of what it means for the title picture (e.g Gaethje v McGregor, Walker vs Reyes, Jan v Thiago Santos, Joanna v Tatiana)

 

[MCS]

1 is the right way of course, but part of why 2 happens is matchmakers noticing the results that come from not being able to control the outcome. Even if they do 1 it often won't lead to their desired outcome, so they go with fast food.

 

[RockyLockridge]

Ranked fighters coming off of wins fighting each other, Don't make contenders pick each other off (unless you absolutely must to advance the division) If theres going to be fights where number 2 fights number 1, make sure one of the two of them if not both have fought the divisions champion already.

 

[cshireman4]

I'm more a fan of 2, but overall consistency in either would be nice. The hybrid back and fourth leads to a lot of problems. Yoel Romero has been used by the UFC to capitalize on model 2, yet everyone on sherdog loses their shit when he gets a title shot. Who cares if he is the top contender, he has LOSSES! That mentality holds mma back.

The same dumbasses make threads about how weak PPV cards are. Fans win when there are always good fights going on. It's pretty easy to evaluate the skills of a fighter over the course of their career. As the OP indicates, it's easy to build a false narrative within a fighter's record by feeding them scrubs, so wins and losses alone should not be used to measure talent.

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

little bit of column A, little bit of column B.

 

[MustangSally]

The same dumbasses make threads about how weak PPV cards are. Fans win when there are always good fights going on.

Good point

 

[MakeSherdogGreatAgain]

It's all situational. Matchmaking takes a hit based on injuries, availability, etc. Maybe they wanna match 2 guys up in April, and one guy is down, but the other guy doesn't wanna fight until June, or he's rehabbing an injury so he's not available. So they book the guy that's down for April against the best available opposition they can find for him because he doesn't wanna wait.

There's no perfect system and I think they do a pretty good job. Winners should be fighting winners, and fighters coming off losses should be fighting other fighters coming off losses but it can't always work that way. Sometimes title shots or high level fights are handed out just based on availability, and that's ok because we can't expect fighters to just sit around and wait when they're healthy.

 

[Askafan]

I prefer 2 rather than the boxing model where prospects go 20-0 against cans. One thing I don't like is an inactive champ sitting out while the top contenders eliminate each other. Champs should defend every 4 months or so.

 

[BEATDOWNS]

Dick size, i ain't fighting anyone that has a bigger dick than me..

 

[MustangSally]

I prefer 2 rather than the boxing model where prospects go 20-0 against cans. One thing I don't like is an inactive champ sitting out while the top contenders eliminate each other. Champs should defend every 4 months or so.

I think the issue is that the UFC at any given time wants to have more than one "top contender" so that they have a ready-made list of contenders to feed the champion. By doing this end up with the highly ranked/hyped fighters in each division just fighting cans or waiting it out until they get a titleshot.

I think part of the problem is the notion that if top contenders fight eachother they eliminate eachother. Another way to see it is that by having two top contenders fighting each other you find an undisputed and truly deserving title challenger. And the losing guy doesn't necessarily need to be elimiated as a top contender just because he lost against another good fighter, with a win against another high ranked fighter he can become a title challenger again so it's not like the champion necessarily becomes inactive because two top contenders fight eachother.

I'd rather see a guy who is 3-2 against other highly ranked fighters get a titleshot than a guy who is 5-0 against unranked fighters.

 

[Askafan]

I think the issue is that the UFC at any given time wants to have more than one "top contender" so that they have a ready-made list of contenders to feed the champion. By doing this end up with the highly ranked/hyped fighters in each division just fighting cans or waiting it out until they get a titleshot.

I think part of the problem is the notion that if top contenders fight eachother they eliminate eachother. Another way to see it is that by having two top contenders fighting each other you find an undisputed and truly deserving title challenger. And the losing guy doesn't necessarily need to be elimiated as a top contender just because he lost against another good fighter, with a win against another high ranked fighter he can become a title challenger again so it's not like the champion necessarily becomes inactive because two top contenders fight eachother.

I'd rather see a guy who is 3-2 against other highly ranked fighters get a titleshot than a guy who is 5-0 against unranked fighters.

My problem is number one fighting number two in a final eliminator, really number one should be fighting the champ. Champs shouldn't be allowed to sit on the sidelines. Of course I'm discussing first principles here, the actual UFC rankings are a whole other kettle of rotten fish.

 

[MustangSally]

My problem is number one fighting number two in a final eliminator, really number one should be fighting the champ. Champs shouldn't be allowed to sit on the sidelines. Of course I'm discussing first principles here, the actual UFC rankings are a whole other kettle of rotten fish.

I agree with that, champ vs no. 1 ranked is fair, but 2-5 ranked should ideally fight eachother and at least not someone outside the top 10

 

[moogie101]

Its an awkward one, if you protect prospects too much on the way to a title shot they won't be ready for the step up in talent when finally facing a champion, but if you make every prospect fight tough opponents every time then you risk talented future stars getting ruined.

 

[thehighking]

No immediate rematches ever unless it's a controversial/corrupt decision or a draw

 

[Uber_Noober]

 

[Bork Neslar]

If the fight ends with a brutal finish, it's good matchmaking.