Tag: Sage Northcutt

With a different set of life circumstances, Sage Northcutt and Mickey Gall could top the marquee of a made-for-TV movie—probably about fraternity brothers at war with football players over some German foreign-exchange sisters.

Instead of being on the same side, they’ll square off this Saturday at UFC Fight Night VanZant vs. Waterson in a matchup that is more about star-building than contender-building.

To be blunt, the pairing doesn‘t make much sense. Northcutt has gone unbeaten as a lightweight in the UFC but lost his one start at welterweight. Why, then, would he move up again in order to face the naturally larger Gall? No good reason, other than they’re a pair of guys who have managed to build a bit of name recognition despite little UFC experience.

In today’s WME-IMG-owned UFC world, matching popularity levels is enough.

And to be candid, as compelling pairings go, there’s something there—mostly because it’s weird. After all, no one has any idea how good either of these guys can be.

Northcutt lost the first time he got dragged into deep water in the UFC, but he’s still just 20 years old. And Gall’s Octagon wins over Mike Jackson and CM Punk feature arguably the two most unqualified UFC fighters in the modern era.

So this thing has the possibility of being campy and fun, and for a bout with two guys well outside of the rankings, that sounds enjoyable. But is it fair to the fighters? And what does the winner ultimately get out of it? Bleacher Report MMA Lead Writer Chad Dundas joins me to discuss the fight and its ramifications.

Mike Chiappetta: According to the folks at OddsShark, Gall is a slight favorite to win. To be honest, no one has any idea how this thing will play out. Gall’s UFC opponents have been so inept at MMA that they’re simply useless as barometers.

Still, you can see certain characteristics when he fights.

He’s aggressive, comfortable on the ground and seems to have a finishing instinct. Those are good traits, but we may soon discover they are matched or exceeded. It’s just impossible to know right now.

Anyway, my interest is not just regarding the result but also how we got here. I question whether it’s worth guaranteeing a loss on the record of one of these guys you’ve put marketing dollars behind at this early stage of his career.

Moreover, I question whether this matchup made sense for Northcutt in any way. 

He lost at 170 pounds to Bryan Barberena and then headed right back down to 155 to fight (and eventually beat) Enrique Marin. Shouldn’t he have to pick a division? The UFC hasn’t historically let young fighters jump between classes, and for Northcutt, taking a match against a bigger man seems an unnecessary risk. If he loses, he’s suddenly 1-2 in his last three fights. 

I do realize that we often tend to put the UFC in no-win positions, and maybe we should applaud its risky matchmaking here, but I just don’t see the reason to push a 20-year-old to fight up a weight class unless it’s something he demanded.

How about you, Chad? Do you think this is a wise decision for Northcutt and the UFC?

Chad Dundas: I guess it’ll turn out to be a wise decision if he wins.

How’s that for expert analysis?

In a weird way, this is a fight that simultaneously makes no sense and yet provides each guy with a kind of interesting opportunity. 

Despite the fact that Northcutt will be making his fifth appearance inside the Octagon, Gall actually shapes up as his highest-profile opponent. I realize we’re painting in almost indistinguishable shades of gray here, but for Northcutt to move up to 170 pounds and defeat the man who made a small but impressive splash undressing CM Punk, that might be considered a halfway-meaningful signpost.

For Gall, it gives him the chance to derail a second of the UFC’s pet projects in consecutive fights. He may have gotten a nice rub off the Punk win, but as you mentioned, we have no idea what that victory really means.

If he can go out there and stomp a mudhole in Northcutt, too? Well, it would give him an easy talking point—“Hey Dana, keep sending me your guys!”—and could conceivably go a little ways toward proving he’ll be a quality UFC fighter.

And to be honest with you? I kind of like Gall here. He ought to be bigger than Northcutt and is strongest where Super Sage is weak: on the ground.

Heck, Northcutt damn near got submitted by Marin during the early portion of their fight, and we have at least some reason to believe Gall is just as capable as Marin on the mat. So put me down for Gall via submission—probably another rear-naked choke—in the first round.

In the bigger picture, Mike, am I wrong to think that using Paige VanZant vs. Michelle Waterson and Northcutt vs. Gall as the main and co-main events of a UFC Fight Night event means the UFC has figured out exactly what kind of product these “big” Fox events are?

And that maybe they’re not quite the high-profile boons we once thought they might be? 

Mike: That’s an interesting question. To me, it suggests that Fox is focusing on the entertainment part of the sport, which is something it doesn’t always have the luxury of doing when it comes to the scheduling of other sports.

Some of that works out well. For example, counting January’s UFC Fight Night show starring Valentina Shevchenko and Julianna Pena, Fox will have featured women’s fights as headliners in three of its last four events. That’s the kind of opportunity MMA should be proud of.

On the other hand, we get some confounding matchups, like Northcutt-Gall. I see its allure from a matchmaker-needing-to-fill-out-a-card perspective, but what’s the endgame?

If Northcutt wins, is he now officially a welterweight? Because that division is murderous, and that move is probably not best for his development. And if he goes back down to lightweight, what was the point in the first place?

I guess we just have to shrug and give props to Gall. When 2016 rang in, this guy was a complete nobody in the MMA world, and by the end of the year, he will have had a pay-per-view bout with CM Punk and a fight on national television against Northcutt.

In all honesty, I think the best outcome here for the UFC is Gall winning, as he seems mouthy enough to call out his next challenge and keep building his name in the process.

Other fighters should take note of his path and think about emulating it.

Chad, if you’re the UFC brass, and you’re secretly rooting for one of these young gents to seize the moment, which one has the greatest potential to turn into a cash cow?

Chad: The UFC has seemed very high on Northcutt, perhaps hoping he can offer the same sort of plucky, blond appeal as VanZant. He seems like the sort of young, positive and energetically religious guy combat sports fans will either cheer for or really, really want to see get beat up.

Either way, he’ll probably go on being one of the UFC’s chosen ones—win, lose or draw this weekend.

For that reason, perhaps this shapes up as a more important fight for Gall.

He’s less established than Northcutt and has thus far been sort of a self-made man. He talked his way off Dana White‘s Lookin‘ for a Fight internet reality show and into the fight with Punk. Then he talked himself into this bout with Northcutt.

The UFC historically likes a self-promoter, and Gall has been nothing if not that, but the company also has a whole lot less invested in his success than it does in Northcutt‘s. For that reason, it’s easier for me to imagine Gall slipping back into obscurity with a loss here.

The stakes, I think, are naturally higher for him.

Any way you slice it, however, this is a strange fight. It’s yet another in a line of UFC attractions that reminds me we’re a long way from the halcyon days of competition-based matchmaking and pure sport promotion. 

There was a time during the evolution of this sport when neither Gall nor Northcutt would’ve gotten a sniff at the UFC at this stage in their careers.

Putting a couple of good-looking but green guys on national television to let the chips fall where they may? That’s the new world order in the UFC. To be honest, I’m still getting used to it.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com