UFC's potential downfall..

**Vulgar42Ox** · Posted On: 2/03/2008 10:52pm

Forgive me if its already been discussed, but I dont feel its been discussed to its potential....

I am the president of the Brock Lesnar Fan Club (BLFC) first of all. But however this comes to my attention, just because certain fighters can *draw* crowds and sell ppv's, they are almost guarantee'd to always be in the running for title shots.

I'd make and educated guess that more people bought the last UFC ppv, because of the Brock Lesnar fight, and although I am the president of his prestigous fanclub, that kind of drawing power is found in the Chuck Liddells, Coutures, Ortiz's, Shamrocks, and you have to admitt, if you have the power to put asses in seats, your almost always going to be at the top of the UFC getting the best fights and publicity, because it is sports entertainment, although not in the WWE sense. The way they set up their fight cards, there is basically a monthly PPV like pro wrestling, and 1 main selling fight on that card.

If Brock Lesnar won that fight, then won perhaps his next fight, you cant say he wouldnt be getting a title shot ASAP just because he can put the asses in the seats, love him or hate him.

I also think that the UFC picks who they want to win a fight, and calls are made accordingly. Although they cant make people take dives or anything like that, I think certain calls and judges decisions are made in mind with the fact that they can sell a certain guy at the next PPV, like the Tyson Griffin fight. I dont believe he lost 30-27 every round. Examples escape me now, but pay attention to who would logically be a better fight for UFC to promote in their next PPV appearance.

This has been my rant on behalf of the BLFC.

**The Question** · Posted On: 2/03/2008 10:57pm

The judging at the UFC is certainly questionable.

**Ke?poFist** · Posted On: 2/03/2008 10:59pm

I agree. There are a few fighters -Machida and Marcus Davis being a notable examples- that have been on a ridiculous winning streak but never get put into the contention spot. There is much time cultivating the top 4-6 fighters into a neat hierarchy that lower level talent can miss their time in the limelight unless they put on a clinic to get noticed.

It's annoying, because I sometimes see fans say things like, "oh so and so may have won his last 54 fights, but they were against nobodies...he needs a real test." Well duh he needs a real test, and he needs the UFC to give it to him by putting him in with the big names, instead of cycling them against each other 2-4 times.

I think Joe Lauzon, a relative UFC newcomer, is on the right track with his performance and aggression in winning fans, and situating himself in the path to rise to the top. Unfortunately despite your record sometimes, you have to put on a show to get where you want to go.

**Kentucky Fried Chokin** · Posted On: 2/03/2008 11:00pm

You could have picked a better example that Brock Lesnar, especially since he didn't win and no one is offering him a title shot. What about Werdun? He lost to Arlovski and is next in line for a title shot while Arklovski is sitting on the bench. Forest Griffen hadn't beat anyone notworthy until he beat a very crappy Shogun and now he not only gets to coach on the next TUF but gets a title shot at the end.

By the way, the judges don't work for UFC, they just don't know very much about fighting.

**Ke?poFist** · Posted On: 2/03/2008 11:00pm

Though playing Devil's advocate, match-making isn't an exact science, and working with such a massive roster in an unpredictable sport can be quite overwhelming. There is also the undeniable fact, that feuds and cultivated big names bring in $$$...kinda part of the sport.

**Vulgar42Ox** · Posted On: 2/03/2008 11:05pm

Originally Posted by Razamataz

You could have picked a better example that Brock Lesnar, especially since he didn't win and no one is offering him a title shot. What about Werdun? He lost to Arlovski and is next in line for a title shot while Arklovski is sitting on the bench. Forest Griffen hadn't beat anyone notworthy until he beat a very crappy Shogun and now he not only gets to coach on the next TUF but gets a title shot at the end.

By the way, the judges don't work for UFC, they just don't know very much about fighting.

I know brock lost, but you have to admitt if he won like 3 fights he'd be fighting for the title because he can draw. They already promote the crap out of him

**PizDoff** · Posted On: 2/03/2008 11:52pm

And the thread title had so much potential.......

I thought this thread was going to be about how the UFC is going 'the brand is above the fighters.'

Originally Posted by The Question

The judging at the UFC is certainly questionable.

Thank Cecil Peoples.

Originally Posted by Razamataz

By the way, the judges don't work for UFC, they just don't know very much about fighting.

Correct.
BUT WHAT ABOUT A CONSPIRACY??!?!!? The must be getting paid off!

**Fearless Ukemi** · Posted On: 2/04/2008 12:08am

Originally Posted by Vulgar42Ox

Forgive me if its already been discussed, but I dont feel its been discussed to its potential....

I am the president of the Brock Lesnar Fan Club (BLFC) first of all. But however this comes to my attention, just because certain fighters can *draw* crowds and sell ppv's, they are almost guarantee'd to always be in the running for title shots.

I'd make and educated guess that more people bought the last UFC ppv, because of the Brock Lesnar fight, and although I am the president of his prestigous fanclub, that kind of drawing power is found in the Chuck Liddells, Coutures, Ortiz's, Shamrocks, and you have to admitt, if you have the power to put asses in seats, your almost always going to be at the top of the UFC getting the best fights and publicity, because it is sports entertainment, although not in the WWE sense. The way they set up their fight cards, there is basically a monthly PPV like pro wrestling, and 1 main selling fight on that card.

If Brock Lesnar won that fight, then won perhaps his next fight, you cant say he wouldnt be getting a title shot ASAP just because he can put the asses in the seats, love him or hate him.

I also think that the UFC picks who they want to win a fight, and calls are made accordingly. Although they cant make people take dives or anything like that, I think certain calls and judges decisions are made in mind with the fact that they can sell a certain guy at the next PPV, like the Tyson Griffin fight. I dont believe he lost 30-27 every round. Examples escape me now, but pay attention to who would logically be a better fight for UFC to promote in their next PPV appearance.

This has been my rant on behalf of the BLFC.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am disputing the bold. Griffin won 30-27, as he should have.

**sambosteve** · Posted On: 2/04/2008 12:08am

Originally Posted by Razamataz

By the way, the judges don't work for UFC, they just don't know very much about fighting.

Not in the US, but in the UK shows they do work for the UFC as there is no commission regulating those shows...the refs and judges are brought in and paid for by the UFC. It is completely UFC controlled (at least that is my understanding). And, IMO one of the clearest examples of F'd up decisions came in the England UFC with Matt Hamill's loss to Michael Bisping (the England hometown boy).

And, yes Cecil Peoples should never work MMA again.

**h_sh_m** · Posted On: 2/04/2008 12:31am

Yeah, Brock would get a title shot much easier than a no-name, and generally i don't disagree with what you're saying.

But it is kinda funny that it sometimes cuts both ways. Brock was the victim of a clearly biased ref. and it's obvious they matched him up specifically to maximize his chances of losing. It's like they wanted him to bring in the crowds, but lose in front of them.

you know, to cement the tufness of the UFC.