Tag: miesha tate

T.J. Dillashaw and Renan Barao will finally rematch on Saturday at UFC on Fox 16.

It’s a repeat pairing the fight company has been trying to put together for more than a year, ever since Dillashaw shocked the world by taking the men’s bantamweight title from Barao last May at UFC 173.

In the aftermath, their second meeting has been put off by a weight-cutting snafu (by Barao) and an injury (to Dillashaw). The former resulted in what stands as Dillashaw‘s only successful title defense to date, a win over newcomer and short-notice replacement Joe Soto at UFC 177.

Suffice to say, there’s still a lot we stand to learn by watching Dillashaw and Barao go at it again. This fight should conclusively prove if what we witnessed last year was a true changing of the guard, or if it was just a dominant champion having one bad night.

Right now, it’s anybody’s best guess. Here, Bleacher Report lead writers Chad Dundas (that’s me) and Jonathan Snowden help separate fact from fiction leading up to Barao vs. Dillashaw: Part Deux.

---

 

Fact or Fiction: We’ve all overlooked Barao leading up to his rematch with Dillashaw. He teaches us a lesson and leaves with the title.

Chad: Fact. T’was a time not too long ago this feud was the hottest thing going under 155 pounds. After Dillashaw upset Barao, however, their rematch has been 14 months in the making, allowing it to slip out of the spotlight.

The same goes for Barao’s dominance. Before last May, his streak of nine years and 33 fights without a loss was the talk of the industry. Afterward? It was largely forgotten. It feels as though we sort of take it for granted now that Dillashaw will be the man moving forward—as evidenced by the prefight odds.

Funny thing about MMA, though: This sport has a way of taking a hammer to our expectations just when we’ve grown comfortable with them. This fight will be markedly different than the first. The “old” Barao returns, storms though Dillashaw and takes the title back to Nova Uniao.

Jonathan: Fiction. One of the hardest lessons I’ve learned is the one that is most counter to my entire ethos as an amateur historian. But, like it or not, MMA is a “what have you done for me lately” industry.

That means, with respect, the 22 guys without Wikipedia entries Barao beat up before joining Zuffa in 2010 are irrelevant when it comes to picking this fight. So are the nine guys he blew through in the WEC and UFC between 2010 and 2014.

What matters is the now. And, today, Barao is a very shopworn 28 years of age. He’s also the same guy who had to be checked into the hospital the last time he tried to make weight for a bantamweight title fight and struggled more than I expected with a very ordinary Mitch Gagnon.

If Barao has a bright future in MMA, it’s at 145 pounds. His days as the top dog at bantamweight are over.

Chad: I guess I’m just not there yet on Barao, or on our industry’s peculiar love for the instant about-face. For years, Barao was regarded among the top pound-for-pound fighters in the world. Then he lost one fight, and now he’s treated like lost property. Maybe this Saturday is the night Barao shows up looking suddenly old and unable to run with the big dogs at 135, but I’m going to have to see it with my own eyes to believe it.

---

 

Fact or Fiction: Live and free on national television is a better spot to showcase the men’s bantamweight title than, say, the main event of a doomed pay-per-view.

Jonathan: Fact! No matter how much we, the hardcore fans, admire smaller fighters like Dillashaw and Demetrious Johnson, the pay-per-view audience has flat out rejected them time and time again. The bantam and flyweight champions, respectively, the two men also share the dubious honor of recording the worst PPV numbers of any fighters since UFC launched on national television back in 2005.

Would Dillashaw‘s return match with former champ Barao have topped his last fight’s dismal showing? Most likely. It’s not hard to do better than “worst ever.” But cards like this one simply don’t merit a spot on pay-per-view. In fact, the combination of declining sales and expanded television requirements may soon force the UFC to abandon a decade-long strategy that requires them to offer a monthly pay-per-view.

The promotion just doesn’t have the star power to warrant 12 or more pay-per-view events a year anymore. But, just maybe, putting promising champions like Dillashaw on free television will have the ironic effect of producing a new crop of fighters worthy of our $60.

Chad: Fact, and also a shame, since the action in MMA’s lightest weight classes is consistently among the best. It’s so reliably good, in fact, the best thing for them is to put them on free network TV, where they might garner the most eyeballs. Who knows, perhaps fans tuning in will like what they see and want to come back for more, perhaps someday even at a price.

The bummer, obviously, is for the fighters. With job security lacking and pay what it is, guys work their entire careers to earn a cut of the PPV money. Now that they’ve arrived, some of them find that reward isn’t there.

Jonathan: I guess this is a weird silver lining, but for most UFC fighters, pay-per-view money only starts rolling in when they reach certain baseline sales. Dillashaw and Johnson don’t attract enough interest to hit those sweet spots—so the money they are missing out on by being on free television is likely only hypothetical.

The best way for them to attract casual interest is to take matters into their own hands. Aggressive, decisive and brave—those three attributes earn a fighter more fans than words like “measured” and “cautious” and “technical.” 

At some point, champions with athletic success but no money in their pocket will have a tough decision to make, the same one that haunts MMA on every level—sport or spectacle?

---

 

Fact or Fiction: Miesha Tate beats Jessica Eye, seeing to it that the women’s bantamweight elite remains a closed and sparsely populated circle.

Chad: Fiction. Look, I like Miesha Tate. Since its inception, she’s been the second biggest star in the women’s 135-pound division. She was a champion in Strikeforce, quarterbacked a season of The Ultimate Fighter and to this point certainly qualifies as Ronda Rousey’s most successful foil.

I’m just not that confident in her as an elite fighter.

Even in fights she should win, Tate has a knack for leaving the door open for her opponent. She lost to Cat Zingano in her UFC debut, and her Octagon victories haven’t been overly impressive, either—eking out a unanimous decision over Liz Carmouche and a majority verdict over Sara McMann. Even her gimme putt against 3-to-1 underdog Rin Nakai went the distance last September.

I’m not going to tell you I’m crazy about Eye—certainly not as a future challenger for Double R—but I see a Tate letdown coming in Saturday’s big, co-main event spot.

Jonathan: Fact. Forgive me in advance for relying on the world’s oldest sports writing cliche. But in this case, I think it’s apropos—Miesha Tate is a winner.

Yes, her last three fights all went to the judges’ scorecards. I understand why you would consider that a checkmark on the negative side of the docket. Every time she’s fought since her loss to Ronda Rousey, she’s allowed the three jokers in MMA’s deck of cards to have a say in the outcome.

But, each time, she had her hand raised when it was all said and done. In a close fight, you can count on Tate to seize the little advantages that make all the difference. I expect the same here. She’ll spend just enough time in top control to secure win No. 17.

Chad: I wish I could be that confident. It would probably be best for the division if Tate could stomp through Eye here, jump on the mic and compare Rousey to a farm animal in order to stoke some interest in a third fight between the UFC’s two best-known female fighters. But where you see a winner, I see a fighter who’s just been scraping by and one who won’t surprise me a lick if she comes up short just when the spotlight might shine brightest.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com