A former sportswriter and Bakersfield professor who became an MMA fan a decade ago, was immediately turned off by them using the ten-point must system that led to so many problems in boxing. He figured, as a new sport, it would work itself out. Years later, with nothing changed, he tried to come up with a solution.
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine from college came by and talked about something every MMA fan hears about after almost every show. It’s something I’ve heard, literally, since childhood, long before there was a such thing as MMA, except you could substitute boxing for the conversation.
It had to do with judging, judges, scoring, ten point-must, and four letter words. You’ll have to imagine the actual conversation, but it’s pretty easy to know the content. Over the years, my friend would bring it up to me several more times. I’d continually dismiss the notion of it and never think about it again.
My friend said how the system has to go. I said it was here to stay. Of course it has its problems, which are much deeper than bad judging, which also exists in some cases. The current system has inherent flaws, the biggest being the inability to differentiate between close rounds and decisive rounds.
As someone who scores every single UFC fight as it happens, like a judge when the round is over, with no erasing and changing your mind after the fact allowed, there are fights every few weeks where my scores indicate somebody won who really shouldn’t have won. It’s the weakness of ten-point must. And I’m far more liberal than most MMA judges on 10-8 scores, which are horribly underutilized, particularly when a round ends in something just short of justifiable homicide and two of the three judges score it 10-9.
The absolute silliness of 10-9 scores for round five of the first Shogun Rua vs. Dan Henderson fight, round one of the Brock Lesnar vs. Shane Carwin fight and round three of the recent Fabio Maldonado vs. Gian Villante fight, giving the round win the same valuation as an even coin-toss round, is one problem. But even correctly used, the rubber stamping 10-9s even with 10-8s used for dominant rounds is still not going to work to tell who should have won the fight in a significant percentage of cases.
Anyway, he brought up another old friend of mine from college, a longtime sportswriter who is now a college journalism professor, who was a sports stat freak. He’d become a huge MMA fan, but quickly became disenchanted with aspects of it, particularly the frequent bad decisions and arguments over who won that ensued. He worked hard to develop a system of scoring based on giving points for a variety of different attacks, and was testing it out.
My reaction? The same as everyone else’s. You can’t quantify points for moves in MMA. It’s about trying to win a fight, not win a scoring contest. Instead of trying to use techniques to win the fight, the mindset will switch to looking for scoring superficial points.
The flaw in that argument is MMA is already like that, but worse. People are fighting to win rounds in every fight, only they have no idea what they even need to do, because what wins a round in one judges’ eye, loses it in another.
The worst thing that could happen is guys don’t do much standing for a few minutes, then wait until late in the round, when it’s the last thing the judges will remember, to shoot for a takedown. Those rounds happen all the time. With a point system that scores every offensive move, it will encourage more aggression. At worst, it’ll result in exactly what we already have, but with less dispute over who won the round.
Recently, I got a package from an unknown address, opened it up, and there was a booklet touting a MMA points system. I took a quick glance, immediately came to the conclusion it would never work, knew for sure it would never be implemented, and put it down. Later, I scolded myself for being narrow-minded, realizing that’s the same mentality that has kept the currently flawed system in place for a dozen years. So, I started reading. Remaining skeptical of the point system, I saw a breakdown of fights from 2013 under this system, the outcomes, focusing on the fights where the outcome was different from what the judges had.
Two things struck me immediately. The first is that there were more disputes than I would have thought. The second was, in those disputes, in every case, the fights I thought were really bad decisions last year were scored the right way under this system. And in the vast majority of disputed cases, I agreed with the winners in the booklet.
In examining the data further, it was clear that, on paper, this system was superior, perhaps significantly so, in determining who really won the fight. Then I saw the author was the same Danny Edwards, the former sportswriter for years at the Fresno Bee who is now teaching at Bakersfield College, that I had been told about for a couple of years.
“I started watching MMA fairly regularly in 2004 and 2005,” said Edwards. “Immediately, I was stunned that they were using the ten-point must system that I couldn’t stand in boxing. And in MMA, there is so much going on and so many ways to score. I’d see decisions where one judge would have it 30-27 for one fighter and another judge would have it 30-27 for the other fighter. That comes off as a lack of credibility to an average sports fan who is trying to get into a sport where judges disagreed on every round. It begged that they needed a more quantifiable way to determine a fight outcome. I figured, it was a new sport, and someone would eventually figure this out.
“Years went by. I thought, `How hard can this be?’ So I just decided to start giving points for what fighters do in the cage. Then the first (Dan) Henderson-(Shogun) Rua fight, and the (Nick) Diaz-(Carlos) Condit fight happened. In both of those cases, I thought the other fighter won from just watching the fight. So I put points to things that they did in the cage. After scoring a few fights, I adjusted, added some things, and took some things out. Then, I went back and scored those fights. It came up that Rua beat Henderson, and with Diaz vs. Condit, I had Diaz winning, but just barely.”
This booklet, available on the web at www.ScoreThatFight,com consisted of Edwards implementing his point system for every fight that went to the judges that aired on television or pay-per-view for the UFC, Bellator and the final Strikeforce show in 2013.
Edwards scored 434 fights last year, of which, 45 percent went the distance. In all, just over 18 percent of the total in 2013, had different winners under his system. That’s nearly one in every five fights that went the distance.
Because the system is superior than the current one when used on fights where the fighters and corners aren’t trying to work to score within the system, doesn’t mean it will be superior when implemented. But it does mean people should be opened-minded enough to consider that it might be.
If it was to change how fighters fight in their quest for superficial points, it may have a motivational flaw. But again, that flaw already exists in the sport today. The system does not have the inherent scoring flaws the ten-point must system does.
I had always figured it was about five percent of judged fights go the wrong way, not 18 percent. But that was based on accepting any close round could go either way. Robberies, like what happened to Dollaway, do exist. Yet, with the current system, you have to accept judges have a tough job in close rounds, which in MMA, constitute a lot of rounds in a lot of fights. In other words, in my mind, anything close gets a pass.
In a sport with short careers, losing close fights, besides losing out on win bonuses, often decrease ones opportunities for bigger fights. Sometimes UFC will overlook a bad judges decision in evaluating future matchmaking, but often times losers of close fights where they should have won can lose championship matches, title opportunities, have to move weight classes, or can even lose their jobs.
“These guys are professionals and somebody’s getting a win taken away,” said Edwards. “With a different system, they’d get their victory, their record wouldn’t be damaged, they would get bigger fights, and in some cases, they would stay under contract. I’d be really worried if I was a fighter about a profession where a subjective decision could cost so much.”
The basics of the point system is that every strike that lands, whether standing or on the ground, counts as a point. Jabs and strikes without much force are worth one point. Strikes that land with force are worth two points. Strikes that do real damage are worth three points. A knockdown is also worth an additional three points.
The ground game has elements of wrestling, but with the submission factor added. A takedown is worth two points. A reversal, or sweep, is worth two points. Getting up from the bottom is worth one point. Keeping an opponent grounded is worth two points every 30 seconds, similar to riding time points in college wrestling. Submission attempts, which likely should be ruled on by trained referees, similar to back exposure points in wrestling, can be anywhere from one to four points, depending on things like time span, and how close they are to finishing.
There are also ways to lose points, which also, scored by a referee, would be anywhere from one to five points. In the case of rules violations, there are no warnings, just one point lost for a first offense and more for subsequent offenses. They would be utilized for the obvious MMA fouls: knees to the head of a downed opponent, strikes to the back of the head, groin strikes, grabbing the cage, grabbing the opponents’ shorts, as well as stalling or passivity.
In Henderson vs. Rua, Henderson, through his point system, won the first round 26-24, a very close round. Rua won the fifth round 72-1, among the most one-sided rounds you’ll ever see that doesn’t have a stoppage. All three judges gave equal value to Henderson’s first round win and Rua’s fifth round win when rendering the decision 48-47 for Henderson.
Can you imagine that in almost any other major sport except boxing and tennis? And even in tennis, there is quantifiable scoring and both players know exactly what the score is throughout the match. A questionable call can affect things, as happens in every sport. But when it’s over, you don’t have a seemingly weekly argument where half the people, and often more, think the loser really won.
Overall, Rua outscored Henderson 175-122. He also has a second system, which is utilizing the ten point must system, but with more concrete specifications. A round won by one to nine points would be a 10-9 win. If winning by ten 19 to points, it’s a 10-8. Wins by 20-29 points become a 10-7 round. In the case of Rua winning a round by 71 points, that’s a 10-2 round. In using round scoring, Rua scored a solid 44-39 win.
In Hendricks vs. St-Pierre, he had Hendricks winning 171-136 in total points, and 49-44 in round scoring, based on his strongly winning rounds two and four. In Jon Jones vs. Alexander Gustafsson, he had Jones winning 131-111, but all five rounds were close. He only had Gustafsson out pointing Jones in round three, leading to a 49-46 win for Jones. He also had Michael Chandler winning the rematch over Eddie Alvarez in Bellator on Nov. 2, by a 120-99 score, and 46-43 based on rounds scoring.
“With a points system, there is no getting it right or wrong,” he said. “There are just the points. There are no judges, just scorekeepers, trained in scoring fights.
It took time to come up with the system, as he wanted to balance out points for striking with points for ground work. He noted frustration where guys would dominate the stand-up most of the round, get taken down late, and lose the round, or the exact opposite, a striking edge early, followed by the other fighter dominating most of the round on the ground, and the striking sometimes winning the round.
“This system will take away the stealing rounds at the end,” he noted.
This is a sport where, if it was an NBA game, a team winning 96-92 would very often be judged the loser of the game, either based on quarter scoring instead of game scoring, or human error in remembering who scored the most baskets since this sport doesn’t allow its judges to have a scoreboard to look at when the round is over. And the players in the game would never know the score, and even if in their head they knew they scored more than the other team, because when the game was over, they could be surprised by the outcome.
“I wasn’t planning on scoring a year’s worth of fights,” said Edwards. “Even in a fight where it’s an obvious 30-27, if someone didn’t see the fight, they would think it was one-sided. But there have been 30-27 fights that were really close fights. With this, it’s like a baseball box score where you can look at it and see what really happened in the game. You can look at the rounds and the scoring and get a better idea of what really happened in the fight.”
Last summer, at the UFC Fan Expo, Edwards asked UFC CEO Lorenzo Fertitta his thoughts about the system in place. Fertitta told him that a new system would be better than the ten-point must, but UFC was trying to get fighters with the mentality of wanting to finish fights, not outscoring opponents. Edwards felt that a system that clearly rewards activity and aggression would lead to more action and finishes.
The best idea would be to test the system out on smaller shows, perhaps amateur shows, gather enough feedback to be meaningful, likely tweak some components, experiment with others, and report back. There could be problems, but in its present sense, this system is superior in determining who won fights based on how fighters fight right now. Edwards also feels the current system limits the growth of the sport.
“We don’t have that average sports fan because they don’t like vague decisions,” Edwards said. “American sports fans like clear-cut outcomes. In Robbie Lawler vs. Johny Hendricks, Lawler felt he did enough to win. With the current point system, you don’t even know what that means.”
“You can train scorekeepers and the results would be more objective, not subjective,” he said.
“It would help MMA’s credibility with the average sports fan who wants bottom line value to scores and not just subjective opinions.”
Edwards isn’t sure if the scoring should be revealed as the fight goes on, or just used for decisions, but does see the merit of fans and everyone knowing the score as the fight is going on, as that would make it just like almost any other sport except boxing. Even in sports like figure skating, diving and gymnastics, where the winners are based on subjective judging as opposed to quantifiable point scoring methods, the competitors, and fans, know the scores and who is winning after every round.
“I’m not sure about showing the scores after every round or just announcing them at the end of the fight,” he said, but did say he was swayed in the direction of scores being shown.
The positive of the latter is fighters know exactly where they are in a fight and what they need to do to win. It lends to a natural increase in excitement because every offensive move matters, and there are no surprises and far less arguments when it’s over. Plus, fans would know absolutely when a fight is close and what the two fighters need to do, instead of everyone playing the guessing and hope game.
The idea this can’t work in a sport like this is contradicted by the fact college wrestling, judo, jiu-jitsu and other sports that make up the bases of the complete fighting sport that is MMA, all have point systems .Nothing eliminates disputes over close calls and those will never go away completely, but on a percentage basis, disputes about who won are far less in those sports.
In watching the recent NCAA wrestling tournament, while there were occasional arguments over ref calls, the fact that every spectator, every corner and every competitor knew the score from start-to-finish added excitement to the matches, as opposed to taking it away, the fear of open scoring in combat sports. And when every match was over, there were no arguments over who won.
The argument that a fighter would coast after building up a big lead can be true, but such a thing happens in every sport, including those far more popular than MMA. Giving referees strong latitude to dock points for stalling or passivity in that event would go a long way toward fixing that. But in the end, being scared of that hurting the sport is silly, because the NFL has that problem, and no sport in this country is more popular than the NFL.
The only reason that isn’t the case in MMA is because it wasn’t the case in boxing. In that sense, because they are governed by the same commissions, MMA has followed the path of a sport that has been plagued for decades with popularity losses among the average sports fan and credibility issues to the public, based on fans disagreeing too often with who was awarded the wins at the end of the fights.
“With this system, there is no such thing as a split decision, or a majority draw,” Edwards said.
A former sportswriter and Bakersfield professor who became an MMA fan a decade ago, was immediately turned off by them using the ten-point must system that led to so many problems in boxing. He figured, as a new sport, it would work itself out. Years later, with nothing changed, he tried to come up with a solution.
A couple of years ago, a friend of mine from college came by and talked about something every MMA fan hears about after almost every show. It’s something I’ve heard, literally, since childhood, long before there was a such thing as MMA, except you could substitute boxing for the conversation.
It had to do with judging, judges, scoring, ten point-must, and four letter words. You’ll have to imagine the actual conversation, but it’s pretty easy to know the content. Over the years, my friend would bring it up to me several more times. I’d continually dismiss the notion of it and never think about it again.
My friend said how the system has to go. I said it was here to stay. Of course it has its problems, which are much deeper than bad judging, which also exists in some cases. The current system has inherent flaws, the biggest being the inability to differentiate between close rounds and decisive rounds.
As someone who scores every single UFC fight as it happens, like a judge when the round is over, with no erasing and changing your mind after the fact allowed, there are fights every few weeks where my scores indicate somebody won who really shouldn’t have won. It’s the weakness of ten-point must. And I’m far more liberal than most MMA judges on 10-8 scores, which are horribly underutilized, particularly when a round ends in something just short of justifiable homicide and two of the three judges score it 10-9.
The absolute silliness of 10-9 scores for round five of the first Shogun Rua vs. Dan Henderson fight, round one of the Brock Lesnar vs. Shane Carwin fight and round three of the recent Fabio Maldonado vs. Gian Villante fight, giving the round win the same valuation as an even coin-toss round, is one problem. But even correctly used, the rubber stamping 10-9s even with 10-8s used for dominant rounds is still not going to work to tell who should have won the fight in a significant percentage of cases.
Anyway, he brought up another old friend of mine from college, a longtime sportswriter who is now a college journalism professor, who was a sports stat freak. He’d become a huge MMA fan, but quickly became disenchanted with aspects of it, particularly the frequent bad decisions and arguments over who won that ensued. He worked hard to develop a system of scoring based on giving points for a variety of different attacks, and was testing it out.
My reaction? The same as everyone else’s. You can’t quantify points for moves in MMA. It’s about trying to win a fight, not win a scoring contest. Instead of trying to use techniques to win the fight, the mindset will switch to looking for scoring superficial points.
The flaw in that argument is MMA is already like that, but worse. People are fighting to win rounds in every fight, only they have no idea what they even need to do, because what wins a round in one judges’ eye, loses it in another.
The worst thing that could happen is guys don’t do much standing for a few minutes, then wait until late in the round, when it’s the last thing the judges will remember, to shoot for a takedown. Those rounds happen all the time. With a point system that scores every offensive move, it will encourage more aggression. At worst, it’ll result in exactly what we already have, but with less dispute over who won the round.
Recently, I got a package from an unknown address, opened it up, and there was a booklet touting a MMA points system. I took a quick glance, immediately came to the conclusion it would never work, knew for sure it would never be implemented, and put it down. Later, I scolded myself for being narrow-minded, realizing that’s the same mentality that has kept the currently flawed system in place for a dozen years. So, I started reading. Remaining skeptical of the point system, I saw a breakdown of fights from 2013 under this system, the outcomes, focusing on the fights where the outcome was different from what the judges had.
Two things struck me immediately. The first is that there were more disputes than I would have thought. The second was, in those disputes, in every case, the fights I thought were really bad decisions last year were scored the right way under this system. And in the vast majority of disputed cases, I agreed with the winners in the booklet.
In examining the data further, it was clear that, on paper, this system was superior, perhaps significantly so, in determining who really won the fight. Then I saw the author was the same Danny Edwards, the former sportswriter for years at the Fresno Bee who is now teaching at Bakersfield College, that I had been told about for a couple of years.
“I started watching MMA fairly regularly in 2004 and 2005,” said Edwards. “Immediately, I was stunned that they were using the ten-point must system that I couldn’t stand in boxing. And in MMA, there is so much going on and so many ways to score. I’d see decisions where one judge would have it 30-27 for one fighter and another judge would have it 30-27 for the other fighter. That comes off as a lack of credibility to an average sports fan who is trying to get into a sport where judges disagreed on every round. It begged that they needed a more quantifiable way to determine a fight outcome. I figured, it was a new sport, and someone would eventually figure this out.
“Years went by. I thought, `How hard can this be?’ So I just decided to start giving points for what fighters do in the cage. Then the first (Dan) Henderson-(Shogun) Rua fight, and the (Nick) Diaz-(Carlos) Condit fight happened. In both of those cases, I thought the other fighter won from just watching the fight. So I put points to things that they did in the cage. After scoring a few fights, I adjusted, added some things, and took some things out. Then, I went back and scored those fights. It came up that Rua beat Henderson, and with Diaz vs. Condit, I had Diaz winning, but just barely.”
This booklet, available on the web at www.ScoreThatFight,com consisted of Edwards implementing his point system for every fight that went to the judges that aired on television or pay-per-view for the UFC, Bellator and the final Strikeforce show in 2013.
Edwards scored 434 fights last year, of which, 45 percent went the distance. In all, just over 18 percent of the total in 2013, had different winners under his system. That’s nearly one in every five fights that went the distance.
Because the system is superior than the current one when used on fights where the fighters and corners aren’t trying to work to score within the system, doesn’t mean it will be superior when implemented. But it does mean people should be opened-minded enough to consider that it might be.
If it was to change how fighters fight in their quest for superficial points, it may have a motivational flaw. But again, that flaw already exists in the sport today. The system does not have the inherent scoring flaws the ten-point must system does.
I had always figured it was about five percent of judged fights go the wrong way, not 18 percent. But that was based on accepting any close round could go either way. Robberies, like what happened to Dollaway, do exist. Yet, with the current system, you have to accept judges have a tough job in close rounds, which in MMA, constitute a lot of rounds in a lot of fights. In other words, in my mind, anything close gets a pass.
In a sport with short careers, losing close fights, besides losing out on win bonuses, often decrease ones opportunities for bigger fights. Sometimes UFC will overlook a bad judges decision in evaluating future matchmaking, but often times losers of close fights where they should have won can lose championship matches, title opportunities, have to move weight classes, or can even lose their jobs.
“These guys are professionals and somebody’s getting a win taken away,” said Edwards. “With a different system, they’d get their victory, their record wouldn’t be damaged, they would get bigger fights, and in some cases, they would stay under contract. I’d be really worried if I was a fighter about a profession where a subjective decision could cost so much.”
The basics of the point system is that every strike that lands, whether standing or on the ground, counts as a point. Jabs and strikes without much force are worth one point. Strikes that land with force are worth two points. Strikes that do real damage are worth three points. A knockdown is also worth an additional three points.
The ground game has elements of wrestling, but with the submission factor added. A takedown is worth two points. A reversal, or sweep, is worth two points. Getting up from the bottom is worth one point. Keeping an opponent grounded is worth two points every 30 seconds, similar to riding time points in college wrestling. Submission attempts, which likely should be ruled on by trained referees, similar to back exposure points in wrestling, can be anywhere from one to four points, depending on things like time span, and how close they are to finishing.
There are also ways to lose points, which also, scored by a referee, would be anywhere from one to five points. In the case of rules violations, there are no warnings, just one point lost for a first offense and more for subsequent offenses. They would be utilized for the obvious MMA fouls: knees to the head of a downed opponent, strikes to the back of the head, groin strikes, grabbing the cage, grabbing the opponents’ shorts, as well as stalling or passivity.
In Henderson vs. Rua, Henderson, through his point system, won the first round 26-24, a very close round. Rua won the fifth round 72-1, among the most one-sided rounds you’ll ever see that doesn’t have a stoppage. All three judges gave equal value to Henderson’s first round win and Rua’s fifth round win when rendering the decision 48-47 for Henderson.
Can you imagine that in almost any other major sport except boxing and tennis? And even in tennis, there is quantifiable scoring and both players know exactly what the score is throughout the match. A questionable call can affect things, as happens in every sport. But when it’s over, you don’t have a seemingly weekly argument where half the people, and often more, think the loser really won.
Overall, Rua outscored Henderson 175-122. He also has a second system, which is utilizing the ten point must system, but with more concrete specifications. A round won by one to nine points would be a 10-9 win. If winning by ten 19 to points, it’s a 10-8. Wins by 20-29 points become a 10-7 round. In the case of Rua winning a round by 71 points, that’s a 10-2 round. In using round scoring, Rua scored a solid 44-39 win.
In Hendricks vs. St-Pierre, he had Hendricks winning 171-136 in total points, and 49-44 in round scoring, based on his strongly winning rounds two and four. In Jon Jones vs. Alexander Gustafsson, he had Jones winning 131-111, but all five rounds were close. He only had Gustafsson out pointing Jones in round three, leading to a 49-46 win for Jones. He also had Michael Chandler winning the rematch over Eddie Alvarez in Bellator on Nov. 2, by a 120-99 score, and 46-43 based on rounds scoring.
“With a points system, there is no getting it right or wrong,” he said. “There are just the points. There are no judges, just scorekeepers, trained in scoring fights.
It took time to come up with the system, as he wanted to balance out points for striking with points for ground work. He noted frustration where guys would dominate the stand-up most of the round, get taken down late, and lose the round, or the exact opposite, a striking edge early, followed by the other fighter dominating most of the round on the ground, and the striking sometimes winning the round.
“This system will take away the stealing rounds at the end,” he noted.
This is a sport where, if it was an NBA game, a team winning 96-92 would very often be judged the loser of the game, either based on quarter scoring instead of game scoring, or human error in remembering who scored the most baskets since this sport doesn’t allow its judges to have a scoreboard to look at when the round is over. And the players in the game would never know the score, and even if in their head they knew they scored more than the other team, because when the game was over, they could be surprised by the outcome.
“I wasn’t planning on scoring a year’s worth of fights,” said Edwards. “Even in a fight where it’s an obvious 30-27, if someone didn’t see the fight, they would think it was one-sided. But there have been 30-27 fights that were really close fights. With this, it’s like a baseball box score where you can look at it and see what really happened in the game. You can look at the rounds and the scoring and get a better idea of what really happened in the fight.”
Last summer, at the UFC Fan Expo, Edwards asked UFC CEO Lorenzo Fertitta his thoughts about the system in place. Fertitta told him that a new system would be better than the ten-point must, but UFC was trying to get fighters with the mentality of wanting to finish fights, not outscoring opponents. Edwards felt that a system that clearly rewards activity and aggression would lead to more action and finishes.
The best idea would be to test the system out on smaller shows, perhaps amateur shows, gather enough feedback to be meaningful, likely tweak some components, experiment with others, and report back. There could be problems, but in its present sense, this system is superior in determining who won fights based on how fighters fight right now. Edwards also feels the current system limits the growth of the sport.
“We don’t have that average sports fan because they don’t like vague decisions,” Edwards said. “American sports fans like clear-cut outcomes. In Robbie Lawler vs. Johny Hendricks, Lawler felt he did enough to win. With the current point system, you don’t even know what that means.”
“You can train scorekeepers and the results would be more objective, not subjective,” he said.
“It would help MMA’s credibility with the average sports fan who wants bottom line value to scores and not just subjective opinions.”
Edwards isn’t sure if the scoring should be revealed as the fight goes on, or just used for decisions, but does see the merit of fans and everyone knowing the score as the fight is going on, as that would make it just like almost any other sport except boxing. Even in sports like figure skating, diving and gymnastics, where the winners are based on subjective judging as opposed to quantifiable point scoring methods, the competitors, and fans, know the scores and who is winning after every round.
“I’m not sure about showing the scores after every round or just announcing them at the end of the fight,” he said, but did say he was swayed in the direction of scores being shown.
The positive of the latter is fighters know exactly where they are in a fight and what they need to do to win. It lends to a natural increase in excitement because every offensive move matters, and there are no surprises and far less arguments when it’s over. Plus, fans would know absolutely when a fight is close and what the two fighters need to do, instead of everyone playing the guessing and hope game.
The idea this can’t work in a sport like this is contradicted by the fact college wrestling, judo, jiu-jitsu and other sports that make up the bases of the complete fighting sport that is MMA, all have point systems .Nothing eliminates disputes over close calls and those will never go away completely, but on a percentage basis, disputes about who won are far less in those sports.
In watching the recent NCAA wrestling tournament, while there were occasional arguments over ref calls, the fact that every spectator, every corner and every competitor knew the score from start-to-finish added excitement to the matches, as opposed to taking it away, the fear of open scoring in combat sports. And when every match was over, there were no arguments over who won.
The argument that a fighter would coast after building up a big lead can be true, but such a thing happens in every sport, including those far more popular than MMA. Giving referees strong latitude to dock points for stalling or passivity in that event would go a long way toward fixing that. But in the end, being scared of that hurting the sport is silly, because the NFL has that problem, and no sport in this country is more popular than the NFL.
The only reason that isn’t the case in MMA is because it wasn’t the case in boxing. In that sense, because they are governed by the same commissions, MMA has followed the path of a sport that has been plagued for decades with popularity losses among the average sports fan and credibility issues to the public, based on fans disagreeing too often with who was awarded the wins at the end of the fights.
“With this system, there is no such thing as a split decision, or a majority draw,” Edwards said.
It’s been just over four months since the launch of UFC Fight Pass, two months of it as a paid service. Between its launch, and WWE’s launch at the same time, there is a mountain of data to look at regarding the future of both companies business.
After four months in operation and two months as a pay service, UFC’s Fight Pass has given the organization so many mountains of data on its hardest core of fans, that the trick almost becomes learning what is and isn’t relevant.
At this point, it is an experiment in its embryonic stages, with the beginning of a learning curve that will take it in directions that probably nobody today can even foresee.
At this time, the streaming service is based around an extensive fight library, which includes UFC, WEC, Pride, Strikeforce and Elite XC shows, as well as live overseas UFC events that don’t air on U.S. television. It also includes prelims from almost every card, exclusive features, and currently, a weekly airing of TUF Brazil. The live fights can be viewed as they happen, or at the viewers’ convenience.
The product in a sense was rushed out a few months back. The announcement was made in late December, hours before UFC 168. Within a few days, it was on the air, with the first live event being on Jan. 4 from Singapore.
It’s almost impossible to discuss Fight Pass without bringing up the elephant in the room, which is the WWE Network. The WWE Network launched about seven weeks later, but both became a pay service, identically priced at $9.99 per month, at the same time. Fight Pass became a paid service on March 1, the WWE Network one day later, to far more promotion and fanfare.
But while they are similar in that they are both streaming services that provide extensive libraries of old classic matches, the mentality in each company toward the product is different.
“We’re not looking at this as the answer to help drive our business as a main revenue source,” said Marshall Zelaznik, UFC’s Chief Content Officer, who is spearheading the project. “This is a complimentary product, made for the most avid fan who wants to have more UFC content than a television network can deliver.”
For WWE, the network has been its prime focus, not just a service offered, but telling stockholders that it will completely turn company business around and in many ways, reinvent the wheel. They’ve touted it will lead the company to multiple times the profits that it has ever achieved. And if they are correct, they may create a model the UFC can learn and emulate from. And if they aren’t, the same is the case.
From a fan perspective, the key difference is WWE offers all of its pay-per-view events on the network at no additional cost, and also produces a number of “C” level television shows weekly as well as new shows, including reality shows.
Offering the pay-per-views made the launch a huge story, and perhaps a risk from a business standpoint. WWE made itself an enemy of many in the cable industry. On May 4, when WWE had its most recent pay-per-view event, neither The Dish Network nor DirecTV would carry it, because of the feeling WWE had undercut the value of the show by offering it on their streaming service.
Many lauded that move as being ahead of the curve in a changing business. And in time, it could be, but the jury is very much out. In the long run, far more consumers will view the average monthly WWE major shows shows at $9.99 than the $44.95 SD and $54.95 HD price tag on pay-per-view. The UFC and the WWE take in a figure in the range of $8 to $9 of that $9.99, whereas of the pay-per-view revenue, the companies have to split it roughly in half with the cable companies and dish distributors.
The way the math works out, they need to triple the number of pay-per-view buyers to network buyers to make the same amount in revenue. But that’s not factoring in the significant cost of running the WWE network, which is another $40 million per year or more. The WWE does less on pay-per-view than the UFC, so it can break even on this gamble at 1 million network subscribers, a number they project they’ll hit at the end of the year, and blow away in 2015. For UFC, because of their larger pay-per-view business, they would need a minimum of 1.6 million regular subscribers, perhaps a little more, to make it work out.
It’s not an impossible figure to reach, but today it’s a huge gamble that would leave them upside down financially for a long period of time even under a best-case scenario.
As far as the WWE went, they had 667,287 subscribers to the network as of April 8, the day after WrestleMania, the company’s biggest show of the year. That was nearly identical with the number of pay-per-view orders the show did at full price the year before in the U.S. But they also had just under 400,000 pay-per-view buyers still paying the much higher price in the United States this year.
The company made significantly less money this year from its biggest show of the year as in previous years, but that was expected going in, and the show was viewed going in as something of a loss leader.
While the number of network subscribers could be viewed as at the low level of acceptable, the number of people who didn’t sign up for the network and paid full price on pay-per-view was shockingly high. It seemed to indicate that the majority of buyers, as many as 70 percent, were very willing to pay the existing price as they had a year earlier. Lowering the price opened it up to some new customers, but not nearly as many as would have been expected. But it’s way too early in this game to evaluate long-term prospects.
And the UFC is watching. Zelaznik noted he, and others in the company, pay very close attention to the WWE Network and how it’s doing.
“I’m in close contact with all the pay-per-view guys and it comes up in the discussions,” he said. “I watch with interest how their network is doing and I subscribe.”
Zelaznik said their goal, which is years down the line, is to hit 1 million subscribers for the current version of the product, a home for historical fights, up-to-date new features, and all the fights that don’t air on television or pay-per-view.
There is also the option of moving some major numbered shows, whether it be four, six or eight a year, to Fight Pass, to test if it would greatly boost numbers, and then cut back to a few pay-per-views per year, and load them up more to create the idea of a UFC pay-per-view show is a rare can’t-miss event, as opposed to a regular monthly offering.
The hope would be to create the lure of a UFC 168 type show, where the public has no qualms about paying big ticket prices, similar to boxing with Mayweather, and really, what the WWE inadvertently proved without trying with this year’s WrestleMania.
Another option could be to give Fight Pass subscribers the option of purchasing the pay-per-views at a major price discount. If the shows were offered at $30, UFC would get roughly the same revenue as they currently get per buy, but would cut out the cable and dish companies. Consumers would pay less per month than non-subscribers, and get all the archived content and Fight Pass exclusive fights. But that has to be weighed against creating bad will with former partners, risking distribution as the WWE has, with the casual fan base that doesn’t get Fight Pass.
“It can be very hairy negotiations,” said Zelaznik, about negotiating future television deals and other deals around the world in a post-Fight Pass world going forward. “Having worked in TV networks, they want all the rights they can get. In the U.S., when you have pay-TV penetration, broadband penetration, these rights become tricky.”
In two years, what philosophy would work best would be far more evident. It makes no sense right now for the UFC to throw away its key revenue stream on something that could flop, not to mention damage their relationships with the cable industry in the process.
As a publicly traded company, the WWE releases its numbers. They have projected 1 million subscribers by the end of 2014, and between two and three million a year later in the U.S., as well as another 500,000 to 750,000 outside the U.S. If they reach their 2015 projections, their gamble of killing traditional pay-per-view, one of the company’s three major revenue drivers with live event business and television rights, will have turned out a major success. But not everyone is confident they will. WWE stock has taken a beating ever since the first numbers released disappointed Wall Street, with the value of the company dropping 30 percent in the last five weeks.
For now, the UFC is not thinking in that direction.
“We’re already in conversations (with pay-per-view providers as the current deals expire late this year) and we made it clear that we still are a pay-perv-view company,” said Zelaznik. “We are not intending to do what WWE does. We like our partnership. We think pay-per-view is a sit-back experience to watch on television as opposed to a lean-in experience on a computer screen. The economics are for us in the pay-per-view world rather than the over-the-top world. Pay-per-view is a good business for us, we like it, and we don’t have any intentions of putting pay-per-view on Fight Pass. Our strategy is Fight Pass is a complimentary product. That’s our philosophy.”
Both companies offer a one-week free trial to sample the product. Zelaznik said that between 80 and 85 percent of those who sign up for a free week end up signing up for a month or longer. New sign-ups usually peak at the time of a live show, or on Sundays, when the newest episode of TUF Brazil airs. One difference is the UFC allows its fans to sign up for a short as one month, while WWE requires a six-month minimum commitment.
While Zelaznik was very open about buyer habits and what they’ve learned, the UFC keeps almost all its revenue numbers private, although it was reported when Fight Pass was launched that the company’s goal was 100,000 subscribers by the end of this year. Dana White at a press scrum a few weeks back would only say that they’ve already topped that figure less than two months after it became a pay service. Zelaznik would only say that they are trending at this point at triple the rate of the company’s original projections.
Currently Fight Pass has subscribers in about 153 countries, and the surprise was the number of subscribers outside the U.S.
Zelaznik said that their business model predicted 75 to 80 percent of subscribers would be domestic, but right now the figure is 65 percent, with Canada, Europe and Australia/New Zealand being the strongest international markets.
The biggest surprise success is Eastern Europe, Russia in particular, and they’ve also gotten strong response from Japan, even though there is nothing on the station in the native languages of those countries. The company’s hottest international market, Brazil, does not have Fight Pass, nor is it expected to be offered there at any time in the near future, because it would interfere with existing television deals.
There have been four live fight cards thus far, the Jan. 4 debut, as well as shows on March 1 in Macau, China, March 8 in London, England, and April 11 in Abu Dhabi.
Stats show that almost all subscribers, more than 90 percent in total, watched those shows within a 24-hour period. The surprise is, most will not watch them live. It runs about 30 percent live and 70 percent later, which contradicts the belief UFC fans need to watch it when it happens. Granted, the China and Singapore shows took place in the middle of the night, but even the London show, the strongest marquee offering to date, airing on a Saturday afternoon ni the U.S., had more viewers after the fact than live. The UFC has also lucked out that the four Fight Pass shows were among the best events the company has put on from an action standpoint, all year, so word of mouth to watch those shows after completion was strong in every case.
Another surprise is the viewing of the prelims of the television cards. Previously, those fights would air on Facebook, essentially available to anyone in the world. Now, the availability is very limited, but the prelims are actually being viewed by significantly more people this year. That seems to indicate that prelim matches, and all live fights, become more important to people psychologically once they are paying for them.
Except for days of live cards, Sunday’s when the new TUF Brazil episodes launch, get three to six times more sign-ups than any other day.
They have archived content labeled in about 4,000 different segments, based largely on the fight, a number that grows daily as new content is put up. During a normal week, at least 60 percent of the available content will be viewed by someone.
The product is about to launch on XBox, and then on Samsung and LG soon, with Amazon Fire TV and Apple TV hoped to be on board by late summer. At this point, it’s in English only worldwide, but they are also working on the idea of a Spanish language version as well.
It’s been just over four months since the launch of UFC Fight Pass, two months of it as a paid service. Between its launch, and WWE’s launch at the same time, there is a mountain of data to look at regarding the future of both companies business.
After four months in operation and two months as a pay service, UFC’s Fight Pass has given the organization so many mountains of data on its hardest core of fans, that the trick almost becomes learning what is and isn’t relevant.
At this point, it is an experiment in its embryonic stages, with the beginning of a learning curve that will take it in directions that probably nobody today can even foresee.
At this time, the streaming service is based around an extensive fight library, which includes UFC, WEC, Pride, Strikeforce and Elite XC shows, as well as live overseas UFC events that don’t air on U.S. television. It also includes prelims from almost every card, exclusive features, and currently, a weekly airing of TUF Brazil. The live fights can be viewed as they happen, or at the viewers’ convenience.
The product in a sense was rushed out a few months back. The announcement was made in late December, hours before UFC 168. Within a few days, it was on the air, with the first live event being on Jan. 4 from Singapore.
It’s almost impossible to discuss Fight Pass without bringing up the elephant in the room, which is the WWE Network. The WWE Network launched about seven weeks later, but both became a pay service, identically priced at $9.99 per month, at the same time. Fight Pass became a paid service on March 1, the WWE Network one day later, to far more promotion and fanfare.
But while they are similar in that they are both streaming services that provide extensive libraries of old classic matches, the mentality in each company toward the product is different.
“We’re not looking at this as the answer to help drive our business as a main revenue source,” said Marshall Zelaznik, UFC’s Chief Content Officer, who is spearheading the project. “This is a complimentary product, made for the most avid fan who wants to have more UFC content than a television network can deliver.”
For WWE, the network has been its prime focus, not just a service offered, but telling stockholders that it will completely turn company business around and in many ways, reinvent the wheel. They’ve touted it will lead the company to multiple times the profits that it has ever achieved. And if they are correct, they may create a model the UFC can learn and emulate from. And if they aren’t, the same is the case.
From a fan perspective, the key difference is WWE offers all of its pay-per-view events on the network at no additional cost, and also produces a number of “C” level television shows weekly as well as new shows, including reality shows.
Offering the pay-per-views made the launch a huge story, and perhaps a risk from a business standpoint. WWE made itself an enemy of many in the cable industry. On May 4, when WWE had its most recent pay-per-view event, neither The Dish Network nor DirecTV would carry it, because of the feeling WWE had undercut the value of the show by offering it on their streaming service.
Many lauded that move as being ahead of the curve in a changing business. And in time, it could be, but the jury is very much out. In the long run, far more consumers will view the average monthly WWE major shows shows at $9.99 than the $44.95 SD and $54.95 HD price tag on pay-per-view. The UFC and the WWE take in a figure in the range of $8 to $9 of that $9.99, whereas of the pay-per-view revenue, the companies have to split it roughly in half with the cable companies and dish distributors.
The way the math works out, they need to triple the number of pay-per-view buyers to network buyers to make the same amount in revenue. But that’s not factoring in the significant cost of running the WWE network, which is another $40 million per year or more. The WWE does less on pay-per-view than the UFC, so it can break even on this gamble at 1 million network subscribers, a number they project they’ll hit at the end of the year, and blow away in 2015. For UFC, because of their larger pay-per-view business, they would need a minimum of 1.6 million regular subscribers, perhaps a little more, to make it work out.
It’s not an impossible figure to reach, but today it’s a huge gamble that would leave them upside down financially for a long period of time even under a best-case scenario.
As far as the WWE went, they had 667,287 subscribers to the network as of April 8, the day after WrestleMania, the company’s biggest show of the year. That was nearly identical with the number of pay-per-view orders the show did at full price the year before in the U.S. But they also had just under 400,000 pay-per-view buyers still paying the much higher price in the United States this year.
The company made significantly less money this year from its biggest show of the year as in previous years, but that was expected going in, and the show was viewed going in as something of a loss leader.
While the number of network subscribers could be viewed as at the low level of acceptable, the number of people who didn’t sign up for the network and paid full price on pay-per-view was shockingly high. It seemed to indicate that the majority of buyers, as many as 70 percent, were very willing to pay the existing price as they had a year earlier. Lowering the price opened it up to some new customers, but not nearly as many as would have been expected. But it’s way too early in this game to evaluate long-term prospects.
And the UFC is watching. Zelaznik noted he, and others in the company, pay very close attention to the WWE Network and how it’s doing.
“I’m in close contact with all the pay-per-view guys and it comes up in the discussions,” he said. “I watch with interest how their network is doing and I subscribe.”
Zelaznik said their goal, which is years down the line, is to hit 1 million subscribers for the current version of the product, a home for historical fights, up-to-date new features, and all the fights that don’t air on television or pay-per-view.
There is also the option of moving some major numbered shows, whether it be four, six or eight a year, to Fight Pass, to test if it would greatly boost numbers, and then cut back to a few pay-per-views per year, and load them up more to create the idea of a UFC pay-per-view show is a rare can’t-miss event, as opposed to a regular monthly offering.
The hope would be to create the lure of a UFC 168 type show, where the public has no qualms about paying big ticket prices, similar to boxing with Mayweather, and really, what the WWE inadvertently proved without trying with this year’s WrestleMania.
Another option could be to give Fight Pass subscribers the option of purchasing the pay-per-views at a major price discount. If the shows were offered at $30, UFC would get roughly the same revenue as they currently get per buy, but would cut out the cable and dish companies. Consumers would pay less per month than non-subscribers, and get all the archived content and Fight Pass exclusive fights. But that has to be weighed against creating bad will with former partners, risking distribution as the WWE has, with the casual fan base that doesn’t get Fight Pass.
“It can be very hairy negotiations,” said Zelaznik, about negotiating future television deals and other deals around the world in a post-Fight Pass world going forward. “Having worked in TV networks, they want all the rights they can get. In the U.S., when you have pay-TV penetration, broadband penetration, these rights become tricky.”
In two years, what philosophy would work best would be far more evident. It makes no sense right now for the UFC to throw away its key revenue stream on something that could flop, not to mention damage their relationships with the cable industry in the process.
As a publicly traded company, the WWE releases its numbers. They have projected 1 million subscribers by the end of 2014, and between two and three million a year later in the U.S., as well as another 500,000 to 750,000 outside the U.S. If they reach their 2015 projections, their gamble of killing traditional pay-per-view, one of the company’s three major revenue drivers with live event business and television rights, will have turned out a major success. But not everyone is confident they will. WWE stock has taken a beating ever since the first numbers released disappointed Wall Street, with the value of the company dropping 30 percent in the last five weeks.
For now, the UFC is not thinking in that direction.
“We’re already in conversations (with pay-per-view providers as the current deals expire late this year) and we made it clear that we still are a pay-perv-view company,” said Zelaznik. “We are not intending to do what WWE does. We like our partnership. We think pay-per-view is a sit-back experience to watch on television as opposed to a lean-in experience on a computer screen. The economics are for us in the pay-per-view world rather than the over-the-top world. Pay-per-view is a good business for us, we like it, and we don’t have any intentions of putting pay-per-view on Fight Pass. Our strategy is Fight Pass is a complimentary product. That’s our philosophy.”
Both companies offer a one-week free trial to sample the product. Zelaznik said that between 80 and 85 percent of those who sign up for a free week end up signing up for a month or longer. New sign-ups usually peak at the time of a live show, or on Sundays, when the newest episode of TUF Brazil airs. One difference is the UFC allows its fans to sign up for a short as one month, while WWE requires a six-month minimum commitment.
While Zelaznik was very open about buyer habits and what they’ve learned, the UFC keeps almost all its revenue numbers private, although it was reported when Fight Pass was launched that the company’s goal was 100,000 subscribers by the end of this year. Dana White at a press scrum a few weeks back would only say that they’ve already topped that figure less than two months after it became a pay service. Zelaznik would only say that they are trending at this point at triple the rate of the company’s original projections.
Currently Fight Pass has subscribers in about 153 countries, and the surprise was the number of subscribers outside the U.S.
Zelaznik said that their business model predicted 75 to 80 percent of subscribers would be domestic, but right now the figure is 65 percent, with Canada, Europe and Australia/New Zealand being the strongest international markets.
The biggest surprise success is Eastern Europe, Russia in particular, and they’ve also gotten strong response from Japan, even though there is nothing on the station in the native languages of those countries. The company’s hottest international market, Brazil, does not have Fight Pass, nor is it expected to be offered there at any time in the near future, because it would interfere with existing television deals.
There have been four live fight cards thus far, the Jan. 4 debut, as well as shows on March 1 in Macau, China, March 8 in London, England, and April 11 in Abu Dhabi.
Stats show that almost all subscribers, more than 90 percent in total, watched those shows within a 24-hour period. The surprise is, most will not watch them live. It runs about 30 percent live and 70 percent later, which contradicts the belief UFC fans need to watch it when it happens. Granted, the China and Singapore shows took place in the middle of the night, but even the London show, the strongest marquee offering to date, airing on a Saturday afternoon ni the U.S., had more viewers after the fact than live. The UFC has also lucked out that the four Fight Pass shows were among the best events the company has put on from an action standpoint, all year, so word of mouth to watch those shows after completion was strong in every case.
Another surprise is the viewing of the prelims of the television cards. Previously, those fights would air on Facebook, essentially available to anyone in the world. Now, the availability is very limited, but the prelims are actually being viewed by significantly more people this year. That seems to indicate that prelim matches, and all live fights, become more important to people psychologically once they are paying for them.
Except for days of live cards, Sunday’s when the new TUF Brazil episodes launch, get three to six times more sign-ups than any other day.
They have archived content labeled in about 4,000 different segments, based largely on the fight, a number that grows daily as new content is put up. During a normal week, at least 60 percent of the available content will be viewed by someone.
The product is about to launch on XBox, and then on Samsung and LG soon, with Amazon Fire TV and Apple TV hoped to be on board by late summer. At this point, it’s in English only worldwide, but they are also working on the idea of a Spanish language version as well.
Stefan Struve (25-6) returns to action for the first time since discovering he had a serious heart condition, when he faces Matt Mitrione (7-3) in a heavyweight contest that was announced for UFC 175 on July 5 in Las Vegas.
Struve’s career appeared to be in grave jeopardy when it was diagnosed he was suffering from an aortic valve leak and enlarged heart. The condition made it impossible to train at near full efficiency. Even so, Struve was on a four-fight winning streak before being knocked out by Mark Hunt in his last fight in Japan on March 3, 2013.
“I was missing about 30 to 40 percent oxygen rich blood with every heartbeat,” said Struve on UFC Tonight. “So my heart had to work a lot harder than it was supposed to. With blood pressure medication, they were able to get the chamber smaller again and the opening got smaller and the leak got smaller. My heart is better and I’m in the best shape ever. I feel amazing. I have energy for days.
Struve, at 7-feet tall, is the tallest fighter in UFC history. He had just recently gotten clearance to return.
He had noticed he would fatigue quickly in training and in fights, saying he felt stronger at the start of training camp
than at the end.
Mitrione, a former star football player at Purdue who had a brief NFL career is coming off a first round knockout win over Shawn Jordan on the March 1 show in Macau, China. Mitrione is one of the best athletes in UFC’s heavyweight division, who didn’t even start fighting until the age of 31. He was handicapped by a late start, but has made a name for himself with good power, scoring six knockouts in his seven wins, and has great agility for a 260-pounder. But he’s giving away significant height, reach and fighting experience, as well as being ten years older.
Struve turned 26 earlier this year, while Mitrione will turn 36 ten days after the fight.
Stefan Struve (25-6) returns to action for the first time since discovering he had a serious heart condition, when he faces Matt Mitrione (7-3) in a heavyweight contest that was announced for UFC 175 on July 5 in Las Vegas.
Struve’s career appeared to be in grave jeopardy when it was diagnosed he was suffering from an aortic valve leak and enlarged heart. The condition made it impossible to train at near full efficiency. Even so, Struve was on a four-fight winning streak before being knocked out by Mark Hunt in his last fight in Japan on March 3, 2013.
“I was missing about 30 to 40 percent oxygen rich blood with every heartbeat,” said Struve on UFC Tonight. “So my heart had to work a lot harder than it was supposed to. With blood pressure medication, they were able to get the chamber smaller again and the opening got smaller and the leak got smaller. My heart is better and I’m in the best shape ever. I feel amazing. I have energy for days.
Struve, at 7-feet tall, is the tallest fighter in UFC history. He had just recently gotten clearance to return.
He had noticed he would fatigue quickly in training and in fights, saying he felt stronger at the start of training camp
than at the end.
Mitrione, a former star football player at Purdue who had a brief NFL career is coming off a first round knockout win over Shawn Jordan on the March 1 show in Macau, China. Mitrione is one of the best athletes in UFC’s heavyweight division, who didn’t even start fighting until the age of 31. He was handicapped by a late start, but has made a name for himself with good power, scoring six knockouts in his seven wins, and has great agility for a 260-pounder. But he’s giving away significant height, reach and fighting experience, as well as being ten years older.
Struve turned 26 earlier this year, while Mitrione will turn 36 ten days after the fight.
With Georges St-Pierre and Anderson Silva out of action, it figured to be a lean pay-per-view year, a business with results that vary wildly based largely on the main event attraction.
For example, in 2013, a successful year which topped 6 million buys according to industry estimates, UFC had two shows that did less than 200,000, and two others that topped 900,000. One was headlined by St-Pierre, and the other by Silva.
The problem is, unless you are St-Pierre, or someone like Brock Lesnar or Chuck Liddell in their primes, the other part of the rule is that it takes two to tango.
To the surprise of nobody, UFC’s two top remaining draws are Ronda Rousey and Jon Jones. But neither had much help in their fights this year. Rousey faced Sara McMann, who did have an Olympic silver medal and an unbeaten record, but had only fought once in UFC in a largely forgettable undercard win, and did little to build up the fight.
Jones had it better, with Glover Teixeira, who had gone 5-0 in UFC with four stoppages in UFC competition. But his most widely viewed fight was arguably his least impressive performance in a decision win over Rampage Jackson on FOX. And even with former training partner Liddell out promoting, most fans saw Teixeira as an interlude fight, waiting for Jones to face either Alexander Gustafsson or Daniel Cormier.
Both UFC 170 and UFC 172, headlined by Rousey and Jones, are looking at about 350,000 buys according to industry estimates. The latter, Jones’ event, looks to have the slight edge, nor surprising with a better known contender and stronger undercard. It’s also possible Jones’ last two fights have been hurt by the proximity with the biggest pay-per-view draw of all, Floyd Mayweather Jr. Jones first fight with Gustafsson, which also did in the 300s, was a week after Mayweather vs. Canelo Alvarez. His most recent fight, on April 26, was a week before Mayweather vs. Marcos Maidana.
The number is well above UFC’s pay-per-view baseline, which may be less than 150,000. But in Hendricks vs. Lawler, you had the fighter that most felt beat St-Pierre last time out, put in a match that promised action. It, on paper, figured to be the kind of title fight that St-Pierre was criticized for playing the percentages and avoiding during his lengthy second title reign.
Still, after four events this year, UFC is at an estimated 1.23 million buys, which isn’t that much more than UFC 168, the last monster show, did on its own.
The next two months figure to test the baseline more than anything. UFC 173, on May 24 in Las Vegas, features Renan Barao vs. T.J. Dillashaw for the bantamweight title. The real main event is likely Cormier vs. Dan Henderson, which may play a big factor in if and how well a potential Jones vs. Cormier fight does. UFC 174, on June 14 in Vancouver, B.C., Canada, with Demetrious Johnson vs. Ali Bagautinov for the flyweight title may struggle even more with a largely unknown challenger.
The first truly big number would likely be UFC 175 on July 5, provided the injury bug doesn’t attack and the top three matches stay in place. The show has the same two champions that led to the success of UFC 168, with Chris Weidman and Rousey. But Weidman is facing Lyoto Machida, not Anderson Silva.
Machida is the worst kind of opponent for Weidman, a stylistic nightmare who thrives on wrestlers, but one who is not a guy who gets fans as excited as Weidman’s original foe, Vitor Belfort. Rousey faces Alexis Davis, who is riding a five-fight win streak, three in UFC competition, but struggled in her last fight with Jessica Eye. Most see her as a place holder, while waiting for Rousey to face Gina Carano, Cris Cyborg, Cat Zingano or Bethe Correia.
What could be the difference maker is Chael Sonnen vs. Wanderlei Silva, the type of grudge match that has played out on Ultimate Fighter that has historically propelled pay-per-view numbers, in situations like Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock and Rashad Evans vs. Rampage Jackson. The season has been wildly successful in Brazil, with audiences ranges between nine and 12 million on Sunday nights, even with a start time past midnight. But Brazil is not a pay-per-view market, with UFC’s buys largely from the U.S. and Canada. In those countries, the only viewers of the season are largely Fight Pass subscribers.
But a three-deep show, with two titles and the first show of its type since December should pop a 500,000 plus number, and perhaps significantly more. The second half of the year will also feature a Jones vs. Gustafsson rematch, perhaps a Rousey fight with an opponent people have been waiting for, and the return of Cain Velasquez in November.
With Georges St-Pierre and Anderson Silva out of action, it figured to be a lean pay-per-view year, a business with results that vary wildly based largely on the main event attraction.
For example, in 2013, a successful year which topped 6 million buys according to industry estimates, UFC had two shows that did less than 200,000, and two others that topped 900,000. One was headlined by St-Pierre, and the other by Silva.
The problem is, unless you are St-Pierre, or someone like Brock Lesnar or Chuck Liddell in their primes, the other part of the rule is that it takes two to tango.
To the surprise of nobody, UFC’s two top remaining draws are Ronda Rousey and Jon Jones. But neither had much help in their fights this year. Rousey faced Sara McMann, who did have an Olympic silver medal and an unbeaten record, but had only fought once in UFC in a largely forgettable undercard win, and did little to build up the fight.
Jones had it better, with Glover Teixeira, who had gone 5-0 in UFC with four stoppages in UFC competition. But his most widely viewed fight was arguably his least impressive performance in a decision win over Rampage Jackson on FOX. And even with former training partner Liddell out promoting, most fans saw Teixeira as an interlude fight, waiting for Jones to face either Alexander Gustafsson or Daniel Cormier.
Both UFC 170 and UFC 172, headlined by Rousey and Jones, are looking at about 350,000 buys according to industry estimates. The latter, Jones’ event, looks to have the slight edge, nor surprising with a better known contender and stronger undercard. It’s also possible Jones’ last two fights have been hurt by the proximity with the biggest pay-per-view draw of all, Floyd Mayweather Jr. Jones first fight with Gustafsson, which also did in the 300s, was a week after Mayweather vs. Canelo Alvarez. His most recent fight, on April 26, was a week before Mayweather vs. Marcos Maidana.
The number is well above UFC’s pay-per-view baseline, which may be less than 150,000. But in Hendricks vs. Lawler, you had the fighter that most felt beat St-Pierre last time out, put in a match that promised action. It, on paper, figured to be the kind of title fight that St-Pierre was criticized for playing the percentages and avoiding during his lengthy second title reign.
Still, after four events this year, UFC is at an estimated 1.23 million buys, which isn’t that much more than UFC 168, the last monster show, did on its own.
The next two months figure to test the baseline more than anything. UFC 173, on May 24 in Las Vegas, features Renan Barao vs. T.J. Dillashaw for the bantamweight title. The real main event is likely Cormier vs. Dan Henderson, which may play a big factor in if and how well a potential Jones vs. Cormier fight does. UFC 174, on June 14 in Vancouver, B.C., Canada, with Demetrious Johnson vs. Ali Bagautinov for the flyweight title may struggle even more with a largely unknown challenger.
The first truly big number would likely be UFC 175 on July 5, provided the injury bug doesn’t attack and the top three matches stay in place. The show has the same two champions that led to the success of UFC 168, with Chris Weidman and Rousey. But Weidman is facing Lyoto Machida, not Anderson Silva.
Machida is the worst kind of opponent for Weidman, a stylistic nightmare who thrives on wrestlers, but one who is not a guy who gets fans as excited as Weidman’s original foe, Vitor Belfort. Rousey faces Alexis Davis, who is riding a five-fight win streak, three in UFC competition, but struggled in her last fight with Jessica Eye. Most see her as a place holder, while waiting for Rousey to face Gina Carano, Cris Cyborg, Cat Zingano or Bethe Correia.
What could be the difference maker is Chael Sonnen vs. Wanderlei Silva, the type of grudge match that has played out on Ultimate Fighter that has historically propelled pay-per-view numbers, in situations like Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock and Rashad Evans vs. Rampage Jackson. The season has been wildly successful in Brazil, with audiences ranges between nine and 12 million on Sunday nights, even with a start time past midnight. But Brazil is not a pay-per-view market, with UFC’s buys largely from the U.S. and Canada. In those countries, the only viewers of the season are largely Fight Pass subscribers.
But a three-deep show, with two titles and the first show of its type since December should pop a 500,000 plus number, and perhaps significantly more. The second half of the year will also feature a Jones vs. Gustafsson rematch, perhaps a Rousey fight with an opponent people have been waiting for, and the return of Cain Velasquez in November.
