Author: Levi Nile

UFC: With Cain Velasquez as Champion, Where Does Junior Dos Santos Go Now?

It’s hard to believe a fighter like Junior dos Santos, a former UFC champion with a record of 16-3, may be a man with no place to go, but that’s the situation before him now.
Granted, the UFC will no doubt keep him busy with big-name fights…

It’s hard to believe a fighter like Junior dos Santos, a former UFC champion with a record of 16-3, may be a man with no place to go, but that’s the situation before him now.

Granted, the UFC will no doubt keep him busy with big-name fights against Top-10 competition, but what about after that?

Should dos Santos keep on winning, he will continue to rise in the rankings until he finds himself in the unenviable position of facing Cain Velasquez a fourth time. Considering just how badly he was beaten by the current heavyweight king in their past two outings, a title shot against Velasquez seems less like a reward and more like a punishment.

In truth, the only real reason for dos Santos to keep fighting is in the hopes some other fighter will dethrone Velasquez. In that scenario, dos Santos once again has a chance to reclaim that which he wants above all else: the title.

However, the odds are Velasquez keeps his belt and remains champion into the foreseeable future. Should he manage to defeat Fabricio Werdum, he will once again be a champion in dire need of legitimate threats to his crown; save for dos Santos, there won’t really be anyone else at heavyweight who really stands an honest chance.

And so, dos Santos will likely be thrown to the lion once again. For many of the same reasons Jake LaMotta kept fighting Sugar Ray Robinson, it appears dos Santos is really the next-best fighter in the division, and as such will once again find himself reminded that second-best is a painful place to be.

None of this is to say dos Santos doesn’t have a chance to defeat Velasquez or that he never had any success in the second and third bout with the champion. The truth is, dos Santos has done better against Velasquez than anyone else ever has, which is something to be proud of.

But the man dos Santos knocked out so quickly to take the title is light years removed from the beast that currently wears the belt. This new version of Velasquez continues to tighten his game, and the result is a sleek steamroller who flattens anyone who gets in his way.

Thus, dos Santos waits for his next fight. Should he win, he’s one step closer to a door that seems closed to him for as long as Velasquez remains champion.

But all of this assumes dos Santos will only be truly satisfied if he wins the belt. He could be settling into a new mindset; one that saw Arturo Gatti become the champion of the hearts of boxing fans the world over.

If that is the case, then the belt, like the title of BJ Penn‘s book says, really is just an accessory. Should dos Santos hunger for nothing more than great fights, with potential title shots nothing more than a cherry on the top, then his career could indeed be very rewarding.

Fights against the likes of Alistair Overeem, Antonio Silva, Josh Barnett, Travis Browne and many others could be incredibly entertaining, and these are all fights dos Santos could win by knockout.

But if we know anything about dos Santos by now, it is he is a competitor who will never settle for being a perpetual No. 1 contender. No matter how many fights he wins in exciting fashion, as long as Velasquez holds the belt and owns the style that seems tailor-made to bind and batter him, dos Santos is just a good man who can only stand so much heartache.

But then again, LaMotta never seemed to get tired of fighting Robinson, so maybe the same is true of dos Santos. Maybe he will end up fighting Velasquez three more times before their careers are finally over, loving every minute of it, no matter how painful.

If that indeed comes to pass, I hope something changes for dos Santos. He’s a great fighter and it’s hard to watch great fighters throw themselves against the wall too many times without at least some success.

But in the great sport of MMA, where so many things can change overnight, there is no place, as a fan, I would rather see dos Santos, other than inside the Octagon.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com

Can Nick Diaz vs. Anderson Silva Pull the UFC out of Its Pay-Per-View Doldrums?

When we heard that the UFC was working to make Ronda Rousey-Gina Carano a reality, we should have known then that things were changing, perhaps by necessity.
Since the beginning of 2014, the pay-per-view numbers that had been so kind to the UFC during …

When we heard that the UFC was working to make Ronda Rousey-Gina Carano a reality, we should have known then that things were changing, perhaps by necessity.

Since the beginning of 2014, the pay-per-view numbers that had been so kind to the UFC during the time of Georges St-Pierre and a healthy Anderson Silva have passed. In its place are figures that, while solid, do not exactly speak to the notion that the sport of MMA is setting the world on fire.

In fact, UFC 174 posted some of the lowest PPV numbers the company has seen—95,000 to 115,000 range— since the days when Andrei Arlovski was the heavyweight champion, back at UFC 53.

To remedy that ailment, the UFC has taken action.

Now Nick Diaz, possessor of the kind of will and style that drives fans wild, has gotten what he wanted in the way of money, and the UFC has gotten what it wanted in the way of a fight: Anderson Silva vs. Nick Diaz.

Diaz has been involved in some barnburner bouts that made the crowd go wild. Against men like Takanori Gomi, Paul Daley and countless others, Diaz has backed up the talk and put his money where his mouth was, and the crowd loved it.

Of course, Dana White and the UFC love that, too. And they want that for one very simple reason: it’s half of the equation needed to make an incredible fight, and the majority of fans will love it enough to buy it.

And if enough people buy it (especially if it is part of a stacked card), then the UFC could have its first big event since Silva’s last appearance in the cage at UFC 168, which was the only pay-per-view event to break one million buys since July 2010, when Brock Lesnar took on Shane Carwin at UFC 116.

Since then, the UFC has had some big events; St-Pierre helped generate some of the highest PPV events during that time, and his highest numbers came against one man: Nick Diaz.

UFC 158 generated approximately 950,000 buys, high for a GSP-headlined card, and averaged roughly 750,000 buys since the Lesnar days. Clearly, GSP was the major reason for such high numbers, but Diaz provided the “special ingredient” needed to push it over the top.

However, unlike UFC 158, UFC 183 will see Diaz pitted against a fighter who will not be looking to turn the fight into a wrestling match, a fighter who is happiest with hands, feet, knees and elbows flying: Anderson Silva.

Finally, after all of Diaz’s years of talk, shouting from the rooftops that no one would stand with him, he has finally been heard, although a fight with Silva hardly seems like a reward.

Indeed, it is more like “Be careful what you wish for…”

Even though Silva will be 40 years old by the time they climb in the cage, he’s still relevant and probably dangerous enough to close the show in a split second; when paired with the constant aggression of Diaz, they could provide the fireworks that Robbie Lawler vs. Matt Brown did not.

And while there has been talk of Diaz getting a title shot should he defeat Silva, the simple fact is that this bout is not really about divisional standings—it’s about wish fulfillment for many a fight fan. It’s for bragging rights, and that is something altogether different and equally exciting because it is personal.

For too long now, fans and writers have acted as if the UFC should be all about one thing and one thing alone: divisional ramifications. While this is laudable, it also circumvents the other demands that the sport was built to serve: entertaining the fans and making money.

Rousey vs. Carano is proof positive. Both are about as big as MMA stars can get on the big screen, and pulling the luster of Hollywood back into the Octagon is not done for divisional anything—it’s done to get those numbers and make that cash.

As is the case with Rousey-Carano, so to is Silva-Diaz.

Make no mistake about it—the UFC has always had a plan: global domination and making big stars that in turn would get it the big PPV numbers.

It is making enough headway in the former as evidenced by how many shows it is staging per year and how many are in foreign countries. Now it wants to get back to work on the latter, and that means getting some high-profile fights back to the Octagon on PPV.

The UFC has been doing solid work at growing the sport by promoting the lower weight classes in the PPV arena, but it can’t afford to let the public’s attention wander for too long.

The fights that have been showcased on PPV in 2014 have been good, meaningful bouts—important fights that needed to happen; but that which is necessary is not always enough.

Rousey vs. Carano was the beginning, and now, with the announcement of Silva vs. Diaz, the UFC is showing that it understands that title fights are not the only big fights available or watchable.

Will you be watching Rousey vs. Carano or Silva vs. Diaz? Chances are that if you are more than a casual fan and have the means and a free schedule, you will be. If the history of math is to be relied upon, a great many of you will, in fact—perhaps more than a million.

And if that does indeed come to pass, it could be just the shot in the arm that the UFC’s PPV machine needs. From there, other fights could be made; bouts that are more about action and fireworks than anything else: Diego Sanchez vs. Connor McGregor, for instance, or Junior Dos Santos vs. Alistair Overeem.

Bouts like these might not make sense from a divisional ranking or advancement process, but they do far more good than harm. They give fans who may be tiring of countless fights that follow the due process of divisional advancement some much needed variety.    

As the UFC goes forward, it seems to have learned that it cannot afford to leave any stone unturned. In doing so, odds are high that the fans will find themselves treated to some exceptional fights while the UFC finds its PPV numbers growing to a higher standard.

As much as Don King has been rightly criticized, he was also terribly honest about the practical side of fight promotion. One of his more famous quotes touches that rarely touted principal of the fight game; a needed aspect that is rarely appreciated by anyone who doesn’t work to make the fights.

“Martin Luther King took us to the mountain top,” King said. “I want to take us to the bank.”

Indeed, it’s not like these fighters can be paid with Monopoly money; well, not that kind of monopoly, anyway.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com

MMA in 2004: A Retrospective Look at the Sport a Decade Later

With the events of UFC 175, the finale of season 19 of The Ultimate Fighter and UFC Fight Night McGregor vs. Brandao now behind us, it seems a good time to look back upon the sport as it was a decade ago.
The year is 2004 and the sport has seen some ch…

With the events of UFC 175, the finale of season 19 of The Ultimate Fighter and UFC Fight Night McGregor vs. Brandao now behind us, it seems a good time to look back upon the sport as it was a decade ago.

The year is 2004 and the sport has seen some changes of late. Tito Ortiz is no longer the champion of note at 205, and Randy Couture looks like the second coming of Henry Armstrong, partnered perhaps with James J. Braddock.

Outside of the world of MMA, Shrek 2, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and Spider-Man 2 dominated movie theatres across the nation while the first Saw film opened more than a few eyes. In music, Metallica released their hard-hitting documentary Some Kind of Monster and Dimebag Darrell, former lead guitarist of Pantera, was shot and killed onstage at a show while performing with his post-Pantera band, Damageplan.

Yet, amid so much change, the song seemed to remain the same at the beginning of 2004.

Wanderlei Silva was still thought by many to be the most violent fighter the sport had ever seen, and his detractors were still reeling from his destruction of Quinton “Rampage” Jackson in the biggest event of 2003: the Pride Middleweight Grand Prix.

In addition, fans still wanted to see Chuck Liddell fight Ortiz and Matt Hughes was still considered by many to be the best pound-for-pound fighter in the sport, poised to set new records for consecutive title defenses.

Meanwhile, when eyes turned toward Japan, many were awaiting the final resolution between Fedor Emelianenko and Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira as to who really is the best heavyweight in all of MMA.

The sport was still defined and realized by two main promotions: the UFC and Pride FC, and the latter was still the bigger organization, at least on paper and sales slips.

Consider: In 2003, total attendance numbers for the two organizations showed one aspect of the advantage Pride enjoyed over the UFC.

The UFC had an approximate total number of 49,500 over five shows. Pride FC had approximately 147, 500 in attendance for just three shows: parts one and two of their middleweight Grand Prix (Pride Total Elimination 2003 and Pride Final Conflict 2003) and their year-end show, Pride Shockwave 2003. If hard attendance numbers were available for all of the Pride shows for 2003, the disparity would have been shocking.

In 2004, the same tale would be told yet again, but it also pointed out one very important fact; being second place globally was not a bad thing at all if you were first place in America. The UFC was growing the sport, slowly and surely, one show at a time, and their aspirations were founded in reality.

Historically speaking, 2004 was the last year the UFC spent making sure the ground floor was solid. It set the bedrock firm and began erecting the scaffolding for the next level, which would be realized in 2005.

And from there, the sport would never be the same.

Begin Slideshow

‘Foxcatcher’: The Story of Former UFC Fighter and Olympian Mark Schultz

WARNING—SPOILER ALERT: If you don’t want to know the story behind the movie, read no further.
On May 17, 1996, Mark Schultz stepped into the Octagon at UFC 9 on just 24 hours notice.
Standing across the cage from him was the formidable Gary…

WARNING—SPOILER ALERT: If you don’t want to know the story behind the movie, read no further.

On May 17, 1996, Mark Schultz stepped into the Octagon at UFC 9 on just 24 hours notice.

Standing across the cage from him was the formidable Gary Goodridge. It was a tough assignment for any first-time fighter, yet Schultz dominated the fight utterly, defeating Goodridge and making it look like child’s play.

For fans of both wrestling and the new sport of MMA, seeing Schultz inside the cage was simply incredible, and in truth, we were all hoping it would be the beginning of so much more.

As for the fight itself, well, it ended up like many fights did back then. Schultz made Goodridge look like a novice when it came to grappling while looking somewhat awkward everywhere else.

But life imitates life as it turns out, and as told in the upcoming film Foxcatcher, Schultz had more than a few awkward moments in his life.

Slated for release in November 2014, Foxcatcher is not just a true story about one man but two brothers and their troubled benefactor, John du Pont.

With the world of international wrestling set as the background the story, Foxcatcher is a shocking story. The title of the film is based upon the name of Du Pont’s training facility, the Foxcatcher Farm, where Shultz trained in pursuit of even greater heights after he and his older brother, David, won Olympic gold in 1984.

The movie, based upon the autobiography by Mark, details the events of his life after his winning of the gold medal 1984, when he was basically broke and living on past glories.

From there, the story explores the relationship between the younger Schultz and Du Pont, who seemingly wanted to live vicariously through his charges.

Du Pont and the younger Schultz worked together for years, with the ultimate goal being another gold medal in the 1996 Olympic games. Schultz won two International titles before his relationship with Du Pont began to sour.

From there, Du Pont called upon Mark’s older brother, Dave, to come to the farm and lead the charge for Olympic gold.

Of course, for those fans that have followed the world of wrestling over the years, they know the tragic turn the story would take.

On January 26, 1996, Dave Schultz was shot and killed by Du Pont.

In an interview with noted sport historian Eddie Goldman, Mark recalled that tragic day:

“In 1996, I was the head coach at Brigham Young University,” Schultz said. “And I got a call from my dad, and he said my brother had been murdered by du Pont. And it just infuriated me to just no end. And I think I destroyed everything in my office.”

Du Pont would later die in prison at the age of 72 in 2010.

In the Goldman interview, Schultz speaks about many topics, including his UFC fight, his encounter with Rickson Gracie (which prompted his love of submission grappling), the problems that have been plaguing wrestling and the movie itself.

Foxcatcher is scheduled for a November 14, 2014 release and stars Channing Tatum as Mark Schultz, Steve Carell as John du Pont and Mark Ruffalo as Dave Schultz.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com

MMA: Why Retired Fighters Should Be Employed as Judges

There are a lot of discussions going on as to how to fix the judging problems in MMA today. By and large, the judging of many fights is simply below the efforts of the fighters, who deserve much better.
This isn’t a dismissive accusation. There a…

There are a lot of discussions going on as to how to fix the judging problems in MMA today. By and large, the judging of many fights is simply below the efforts of the fighters, who deserve much better.

This isn’t a dismissive accusation. There are a lot of good judges, but by and large it seems that far too often a close fight is apt to be scored wrong.

One obvious answer would be for the commissions to recruit, train and employ a group of retired fighters as judges.

This idea has been spoken of before, but it doesn’t seem to have gained all that much momentum. I cannot understand why.

Before anyone cries foul, the simple fact is that as of now, fighters are the best options as judges because they know what they are seeing and how it should be scored. In addition, most fighters have been on the bad end of a bogus decision and thus don’t want to pass that kind of judgment onto another fighter.

Ricardo Almeida currently spends time in the judge’s seat for the NJSAC (New Jersey State Athletic Commission), and his experience as a fighter influenced his decision in the Josh Koscheck vs. Johny Hendricks bout. Almeida was the only judge to score the fight for Koscheck at UFC on Fox: Diaz vs. Miller.

The rest of his judgments basically fell in line with the other judges, who were required to decide six bouts that night.

The obvious question when looking at retired fighters as judges becomes one of trust versus an assumed bias. Many still worry that when it comes to judging a close fight, a judge like Almeida will side with a fighter who shares his nationality or comes from the same core disciplines.

While this is always possible, a former fighter like Almeida would seem to have a more trustworthy conscience on such matters; it’s hard to think of a fighter who hasn’t felt he has been on the wrong end of a decision before.

In addition to that, Almeida has a keen understanding of all the problems that can come from a conflict of interests. In an interview with Jeff Harder of Fightland.com, Almeida discussed the subject openly:

There was a Bellator event and I was assigned to judge a fight with Phillipe Nover, who had come down and trained with us. Nick Lembo didn’t know that Phillipe was coming down and sparring with Frankie Edgar and the guys a couple days a week. I called Nick and said ‘I can’t be a judge for Phillipe’s fight. If something happens and there’s a bad call, and people find out that he’s been training at my school, that’s bad.’

Almeida takes it one step further:

I would not judge a fight with Chris Weidman. He trains with Matt Serra, who’s practically like my brother; he trains at Renzo Gracie’s academy all the time. So even though I’ve never really had close contact with Weidman, I think even subconsciously I would favor him. Or maybe it would be the opposite: ‘I can’t give it to Weidman because he’s from my team, so I’ve got to give it to the other guy.’

It is this kind of awareness and accountability that is needed in the judging of MMA fights, large and small. There also seems to be a kind of transparency under which judges like Almeida labor; their affiliations are well-known, and thus their own personal standard is much higher by necessity.

He also talks about the need for judges to have a serious understanding of what they are seeing, which has been a longtime concern. Many MMA judges have come from the world of boxing, which favors striking above all.

“If you can’t even have a discussion on the difference between a single- and a double-leg takedown, a body lock and a hip throw, a Thai clinch and a collar tie, you have no business judging,” Almeida told Harder.

He’s absolutely correct. Obviously, some fights are harder to judge than others because they are not based upon an understanding of technique alone. How would a group of retired fighters have judged Carlos Condit vs. Nick Diaz, Georges St-Pierre vs. Johny Hendricks or Jon Jones vs. Alexander Gustafsson?

While we do not have the answer to that, if said fights had been judged by retired fighters, it seems safe to say that the decisions would not have been a result of ignorance, which is a clear step in the right direction. 

Right now, several fighters have a wealth of experience and could be excellent judges: Pat Miletich, Shonie Carter, Matt Serra and Randy Couture are only a few who come to mind.

These men have long known that every fight is important for every fighter and that every second counts. They are also the kind of men who would and could defend their decisions, because judges should be able to do that consistently.

They understand the need for accuracy, accountability and clarity because they know just what is at stake for the men and women inside that ring or cage.

And when so much is at stake, it would be better if those who judge know what it feels like to be judged in that same environment.

Speaking to reporters on the subject in 2012, Dana White was clearly in favor of the idea.

“I would like to see the fighters ref and judge,” he said. “It makes all the sense in the world.”

Yes, it really does.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com

MMA: Examining the Idea of 3-Minute Rounds and Longer Bout Durations

For some time now, fans and officials have been pondering how to fix many of the problems currently in the sport of MMA.Be it judging inconsistencies, fighters “coasting” by maintaining a top position without trying to improve said position…

For some time now, fans and officials have been pondering how to fix many of the problems currently in the sport of MMA.

Be it judging inconsistencies, fighters “coasting” by maintaining a top position without trying to improve said position for a finish, or just being overly tentative, the sport is still trying to come up with the next improvement.

As of now, most fights are three rounds, with each round lasting five minutes. For title fights, the bouts are five rounds, five minutes per round.

It’s a formula that has worked well in the eyes of many and has been adapted as a sport standard by nearly all MMA promotions. This is especially important considering that a uniformed standard is needed in order for fighters to grow to their full potential.

But would there be any possible benefits of changing the length of rounds and, further, bout durations?

In theory, the idea behind this is that shorter rounds would make fighters work harder to take advantage of strong positions in addition to making it easier for the judges to properly assess the content of three minutes worth of action as opposed to five.

The latter seems very important when it comes to the usage of the 10-8 round, which is rarely done with any kind of uniformity in the sport today. One judge may see a round 10-8 while the other two do not, which can lead to vast differences in scoring.

The former is of equal importance for obvious reasons: It leads the fighter on top to try and make the most of any advantageous position rather than simply milking the clock by imposing the urgency of time. The fighter might not get another chance if they don’t get the finish or do enough damage to give themselves an advantage in the rounds to come.

Secondly, it could make for more competitive fights as it gives striking-based fighters more opportunities to impose their will. By proxy, this turns up the heat on grappling-based fighters, making them work hard for the finish anytime they take the fight to the floor.

Of course, with shorter rounds comes the need for a change in bout duration. Non-title fights would need to be five rounds long and title fights increased to seven or nine rounds.

That is a whole lot of change to implement in a sport so accustomed to the current standards.

Baring that in mind, we must consider if the changes would really empower the fighters toward a fair yet fan-pleasing end, or would it just be a case of freeing one style while encumbering another?

 

Cui bono?

As it stands today, the main problem seems to be in the judging of a round. Even now, with the sport nearly 20 years old, most judges come from the world of boxing where three-minute rounds are the norm and the 10-8 round scoring system is implemented with much more clarity and regularity.

And yet, we still see many boxing bouts that suffer from bad judging and officiating. However, upon closer examination, bad scoring in boxing seems to come about in the rounds where no knockdowns were scored. Even in boxing matches where the decisions were nearly highway robbery, 10-8 rounds were nearly always given out in agreement by all three judges when knockdowns occurred.

As flawed as they may be, boxing judges understand and can consistently apply the 10-8 rule; a constant which would do wonders for the sport of MMA.

Thus, the question morphs: Is that because of shorter rounds or just a clearly defined point system regarding a knockdown?

To be fair, it is probably the latter. The 10-8 system of scoring a knockdown has been established for a very long time. Even boxing novices can score a 10-8 round with relative ease and match that of the official judges.

The same cannot be said for MMA, where there are so many ways to lose at any given moment.

Still, even with shorter rounds and longer bout durations, the mechanics of the competition remain constant. Wrestling-based fighters will still go for the takedown when it is to their advantage and striking based fighters will play to their strengths.

And if three-minute rounds are more accurately digestible for the current crop of judges so they may fairly judge the action and apply the correct judging criteria, then maybe it is worth a second look.

Thus, if it benefits anyone, it would seem to be the judges who have less information to try and process and thus the activity of the fighters has more of a voice in their mind, much like smaller classroom sizes give the students more voice and their work more attention.

Now, one might think that what benefits the judges in turn benefits the fighters by proxy, but is this really true?

 

Conclusion

It is going to be some time before MMA fights are judged by men and women who honestly understand and appreciate the sport, well removed from the shadow of boxing. Those men and women will have been raised on the sport and will be acutely aware of all the nuances needed to accurately assess a true victor.

Imposing three-minute rounds would be a radical change that would not really provide the relief needed for the current problems of judging MMA competition. Takedowns and top-control will still be favored with more appreciation than they are due and so on. Three-minute rounds would not educate judges on how to score all the facets of MMA competition fairly.

As far as knockdown scoring is concerned, that, too, seems to need the passage of time and a more precise understanding of how much a knockdown should be valued in MMA.

In the most recent bout between Miguel Cotto and Sergio Martinez, the latter was knocked down three times in the opening frame, and the judges all agreed upon a score of 10-6 in favor of Cotto.

This can be compared to the second fight between Gray Maynard and Frankie Edgar, where Maynard knocked down the champion three times in the opening frame and was only awarded the round 10-8 on all scorecards.

Should it have been a 10-7 round, or even a 10-6, given that MMA allows a fight to continue on the ground after a knockdown (and thus the downed fighter is without the mandatory 10 count boxing allows for said fighter to regain his wits)?

These are the questions that really impede MMA judging today, and they are not likely to be solved by shorter rounds, no matter how many additional rounds this affords.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com