Since there’s been a heavyweight division in MMA there has always been a discussion about its lack of depth.
It’s not a discussion without merit, it’s just being looked at from the wrong lens.
Back in 2005-06 it seemed like Tim Sylvia and Andrei Arlovski fought a dozen times. In actuality, they fought three times, but for a time they were the only decent big guys on the UFC’s roster. Basically, there was no one else for them to fight but each other.
It’s a problem that has always plagued the heavyweight division. Lighter-weight classes are strong up to 15, sometimes 20 fighters. Of course they’re not all realistic title contenders, but they’re high-quality fighters. At heavyweight, we’ve always been lucky to have eight or nine top guys.
The reason there are more quality lighter weight fighters is quite simple: There just aren’t that many athletic, 6-3, 250-pound guys in the world. And most of the gargantuan kids who will grow into these monstrous men are groomed from adolescence for the more traditional stick-and-ball sports. This waters down an already shallow gene pool.
There’s no shortage of guys standing 5-7 to 5-11 and weighing between 160 and 190 pounds. They’re called lightweights and welterweights, and it’s no wonder why those divisions are the deepest; they’re comprised of average-sized adult males and therefore have much larger talent pools.
Mark Hunt has recently been hoisted up on the shoulders of MMA fans, not without strain, and shoved into the title discussion. He’s won three straight in the UFC, but with no win coming against top-10 competition he’s a tough sell.
However, the fact that he’s had such forceful lobbying on his behalf, including the influential voice of Joe Rogan, is a verification of the heavyweight division’s lack of depth and how a fighter needs only a few decent wins to be in title consideration.
Brock Lesnar was granted a title shot after only a single win in the Octagon. Granted, that was due to his immense popularity, but even with his legion of fans it wouldn’t have been possible to rush him into a title shot in any other division considering his inadequate resume.
Contrast that with welterweights such as Jim Miller, who even with seven straight victories never earned a title shot, or Jon Fitch, who had to win eight straight to get his shot.
A heavyweight can get a title fight after only a few wins because there just aren’t that many nimble monsters roaming the planet.
Call it unfair, but it’s basic economics. It’s the same reason why there’s a pay disparity. Why does a mid-level heavyweight generally earn more than a top-level lightweight? Because there’s a shortage of them, and shortages bring about higher prices.
On the other hand, surpluses lead to lower prices, and there’s certainly a surplus of lightweights in MMA.
It’s the same reason why you can get a 37” flat-screen LCD for $250 right now.
During the heyday of the UFC vs. Pride rivalry, the focus was on who had the better fighters. Most divisions were relatively comparable, but Pride was seen as having the superior heavyweight division. In reality, it only had four or five really top-shelf heavyweights to the UFC’s two or three, but in such a shallow talent pool even the slightest disparity has great significance.
It may seem like a problem, but the heavyweight picture has actually never been better. With a monopoly over the upper level of the sport, the UFC has been able to bring all the best heavyweights under one banner.
The division will probably always be looked upon as the most shallow, but it’s only because of biology and evolution.
Look around. Chances are most of the really big guys you see walking around don’t have the athleticism to bowl 10 frames, let alone compete in a physically demanding, multifaceted sport like MMA.
The heavyweight division doesn’t have a shortage of quality fighters. The human race has a shortage of enormous athletes.
Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com