Dropping in competition following losses must end.

Whenever I hear that someone lost a fight, therefore they must be dropped down in competition to get them some soft wins to build them back, I cringe.

That comes very close to fight-fixing.  Not in the overt sense, but in arranging to have expected results.  Much too political for my tastes.  If we notice that over 80% of our members favor a fighter, then we should question if that fight is a setup to get someone's record padded to build them up.  If a guy loses, he should not be dropped down.  That is bad.  If the UFC is arranging fights with expected results, is that not manipulating the rankings?

The UFC should NOT, NOT, NOT be in the business of building anyone UP.  It should try hard to find someone of as close to comparable toughness as possible.  The best matches pit guys of equal quality against each other.  Of course, that is not always possible, but that is the goal, the aim, the quest.  

If Shogun must be dropped down to rebuild him, he is washed up.  I say he is NOT washed up, doesn't deserve to be insulted with Vera, and is still deserving of Rashad Evans.  Give him someone like Stephan Bonnar maybe.  Someone who will still give him a really tough fight.  NO SOFT FIGHTS!  Padding his resume with easy competition is immoral, unethical and ********.  Same as forcing Fitch to fight mid-tier guys who can't build his case for #2.  TOTAL ********!!!

* Edited at 06.09.2012, 7:11 PM ET *

So. When Rashad lost to Jones ... does that mean put him right back in there with Jones? Or even in there with Hendo? No that would be completely ludicrous. 

I dont agree with the UFC putting Shogun in there with Vera after having that awesome fight with Hendo and losing. That is just a stupid idea, and a **** fight period.

but they need to drop in competition atleast a little bit. 

When President Dana White likes someone, he doesn't drop them in competition following their losses.  He never dropped his friend, Chuck Liddell.  He never drops BJ Penn.  He never drops Wanderlei Silva.  He respects them and continues to feed them top contenders, as they deserve.

On the other hand, if President Dana White doesn't particularly feel bonded to you, he drops you to lesser competition.  And I say that is total ********.  It pads their resume to build them back up.  That is very close to fight fixing.  He did that to Chris Leben and Josh Koscheck.  

Giving Shogun Brandon Vera is an insult and I can't fathom why the fans aren't giving him Holy Hell for his chutzpah.  Brandon Vera will not prove Shogun still has the goods but obscure it.  If Shogun devastates Vera, how the hell will fans know that he's ready to fight top guys anymore.  It will prove NOTHING!  Padding a man's record with soft wins is fight fixing.  They assume he'll win.  He is supposed to win.  How is that any different from the corruption of Don King or Bob Arum.  Allowing kingmakers to manipulate rankings is corruption.

The only credible role of a match-maker is to pit fighters of equal levels against each other, or die trying.  To come as close as humanly possible to making matches that are hard to call.  That are not obvious, self-evident in the result.  Whenever members favor a fighter by over 80%, we should suspect it is a setup to build and pad someone's resume for a calculated purpose.  The UFC has no legitimate interest in fixing fights to goose the gate.  

@Mike  Did I say put Rashad right back in there with Jones???  Of course not.  But don't make him fight guys that don't make sense!  

There are some fighters that Shogun should be fighting.  Henderson, Machida, Evans, Bonnar, Rampage, Franklin, Gufstafsson .  There is no reason why rematches and trilogies at the top should not be considered.

The next tier might be Phil Davis, Ryan Bader.  These 2 might make more sense than Brandon Vera.  Guys like Vera and even Thiago Silva, while good fighters, are just not appropriate.  The match-maker must make greater efforts to minimize the disparity between fighters.  

* Edited at 06.09.2012, 5:44 PM ET *

You are going off name recognition, not fighting ability. Phil Davis and Bader are above Bonnar, Franklin (who is going to middleweight and is no where near anything at LHW after losing to Griffin), and Rampage. Thiago Silva has never beat a top 10 fighter I don't think.

Machida, Davis, and Bader are all tied up. Hendo is probably about to retire after Jones and Bonnar and Franklin are insignificant to Shogun.

Gufstafsson would be my best match up to be honest. Glover was a good match up though, but it's Shogun's fault he doesn't want to fight a person that is good with a name.

Also Jone's fights have mostly come in around 80% people picking in his favor if I remember correctly. I guess that's fight fixing?

EDIT: Also Rampage is refusing to fight as of late from what I remember and the UFC tried to set up Rampage/Shogun (which Rampage was asking for).

* Edited at 06.09.2012, 4:57 PM ET *

Bill I agree with the Shogun fight but it wasn't exactly the UFC's first choice being it was an injury replacement, it wasn't even their first choice FOR the replacement so their hands were tied 

My point is simple.  Fighters have a pool of opponents that are appropriate and some matches are not.  That's it.  

Jon Jones is an exception due to his great ability.  You know that but seem to be looking to argue for arguing sake.  Do you have a problem with me?  

And I wasn't saying the pool were all available this moment, but you knew that, too.  So, why quibble?  

I honestly forgot about Gufstafsson, but he's obviously appropriate, too.

* Edited at 06.09.2012, 5:38 PM ET *

i agree with bill, the UFC shouldn't be in the business of building fighters back up.  the vera fight makes NO sense whatsoever from a fan/fighter/management/promotional standpoint.  i am also surprised no one has been pointing this out to dana white.  everyone will get on the #givehuntatitleshot bandwagon, but not the #giveshogunachallenge cart???  i guess it just doesn't work that way.

Is this still about Fitch getting screwed in the butt ? If so you really should let that go man.

I think the UFC and their matchmakers are doing a good job. You have to take in perspective that in the UFC is evolving, with the FOX deal there are fights almost every weekend. Of course some mismatches will happen, with this amount of fights and injurys but the UFC still makes a very good job for the most part.

No, this thread is not related to Fitch.  He is an example, but the problem really is bigger than that.  It is more profound.

The UFC might be doing a somewhat credible job in its match-making, but they still make about 20% of their fights that shouldn't be made.  

I totally realize that fighters might refuse fights, the wave of injuries is way high recently, but there is a solution to that.  And that solution is - to wait.  If an appropriate fight isn't available at the moment, wait until one is.

The problem is the UFC tries to help fighters and that is really tricky.  They should not like anyone so much that they feed them a fighter they feel he should be able to beat, just because he is expected to win.  That is fight fixing and corrupt.  They should try to arrange matches that they have no idea who will win.

But we all know that that is not always possible.  But there should be no intention of feeding soft fights to anyone, just to help them build their resumes and look better.  

All I know is that Serra/GSP I, MacDonald/Mills, Hendricks/Fitch, Simpson/Fitch, Shogun/Vera were and are gross mismatches and should never have been made.

Match-making might be a lot harder than I realize from the outside.  It might have many hidden, subtle problems and frustrations that I never hear about.  That is more than probable.  It is almost certain.

But still, Joe Silva must try a lot harder to avoid the MacDonald/Mills and Shogun/Vera ********.  Padding resumes is corrupt, regardless of the difficulties and frustrations.  Helping fighters with soft, easy fights to rebuild their resumes must end.  It is corrupt and if you can't see it, you are probably not wanting to see anything wrong with the UFC.  

The UFC is not a church.  It's a business and should not be subject to manipulation.  It needs to be clean.  And its horrific for the losers to get slaughtered and lose their chances to continue in the UFC.  Che Mills deserved better than the UFC treated him.

* Edited at 06.09.2012, 5:58 PM ET *

You are saying I'm arguing for the sake of arguing when I'm giving valid points. Shogun doesn't really have a pool of people  to choose from currently. **** happens and the UFC has to do with what they got. Did I ever say Vera was a good match up? No. All I'm saying is that with the UFC trying to find a replacement fighter they make do with what they got. Glover was a decent replacement on somewhat of short notice and Shogun turned that fight down. Half of what you spew is UFC hate (apparently in this and the Karma for Fitch thread). I'm just trying to get the point across that **** happens. Enjoy the fights and don't get pissed off when about 5%-10% of the fights are mismatches. Silva does a better job than almost everyone in the business and you can't seem to understand that you have to make do with what you got. How the hell are we suppose to know if Rashad or Gufstafsson want to fight anyways? If other fighters are refusing to fight Shogun the UFC can't force them since both fighters sign a contract to fight each other. Look at Palhares, Belcher was litterally the only fighter that would fight him. From the sound what came out a good portion of the top 10 refused to fight Palhares. What do you expect the UFC to do in that situation?

It's stupid that you are basically accusing me of being a troll when my post score pretty much shows people look at my arguments and see I have valid points, when half of what I see in your posts from other threads is basically arguing for the sake of arguing. I've debated for a while giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a troll until now. You basically didn't say **** for a few months (no much at least) then out of the blue you come out with a thread bring religious arguments in an MMA forum, then go around arguing with people for what seems the sake of arguing. From what I noticed, your Fitch thread would go away for a day or two and you bump it to get people arguing again. You do make valid points here and there, but how the **** do you argue in threads where you say Dana is getting hit with Karma or something when there is no way to prove that Karma ******* exists. I'm done with arguing with you and I will most likely just ignore you and I hope everyone else does it to because the **** you've done lately with the Fitch thread alone makes you worth ignoring.

@Wish I just went to the other thread and looked over your posts.  You were neutral.  And I didn't fire on you. 

I questioned your motives because your tone was condescending.  I held back.  I didn't call you names, but you need to realize I have been under a lot of pressure.  theMMAmessiah and crum have been attacking me viciously, questioning my motives, calling me a troll and worse, and teeing off with free-wheeling abandon.  

I have tried to show restraint, keep my composure and not attack back.  But when you accuse me of arguing for the sake of arguing.  When I believe something, even if I'm wrong in your opinion, what should I do?  Lie and say I believe things I don't?  If I believe in a principle called 'karma', and a lot of people call me names for my belief, am I being argumentative for defending an opinion.  

I suppose I should give up my path since you don't believe in it.  Should I ask you for any other opinions before I believe them?  I assure you, you'd soon tire of the phone calls!  So, should I ignore all the posts when people ask me questions or attack me?  

I was not going to mention that other thread or Fitch in this thread.  This thread is legitimate and has issues that can and should be explored and discussed.  In my personal life, I have not mentioned stuff like this in years.  I have no need to change anyone or argue.  I didn't post here for a while because I had nothing to say.

I came back because I had some things to say.  Here is something I posted but you evidently missed it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And by the way, this is called, 'Creative Writing', 101.

If I had just said, 'Dana White is mistreating one of his fighters.  Bad things might happen if he doesn't change', no one would read further.  No one would care.  Boring writing style.

But if you doll it up, make it jazzy, infuse a little creative juices into the piece, it comes alive!  It has a life of its own.  People find it fun.  A wonderful time is had by all.  A fun day at the picnic!

That's not trolling.  It's creative writing.  And the difference is that I believe every single word I write.  Every single letter.  I just happen to enjoy having some fun, and if some grouches take it too seriously, that's their problem.

The majority of members here get the playful tone, the jesting spirit, the colorful, entertaining style of a gifted writer.
If some don't, they need to get more fun out of life.

And for the record, I do indeed believe that Dana White got on the wrong side of the Law of Karma and it is making him its *****, just to get his attention and let him know how it feels to be helpless and someone's *****.
------------------------------------------------
And lastly, the word 'karma' describes stuff that is not religious.  If you understood what the word meant, you would not possibly say the ridiculous **** you do.  But, guess what?  I don't care.  Your life is yours and I don't have a need to talk to you, either.  So, I'm done with you, too.  Total waste of my time to try to explain simple things like karma to someone not qualified to understand it.  

Gentlemen.  Please disregard the useless sniping here.  I am not the issue.  The ideas and content are all that matters.  Let's keep this focused on MMA.  

Do you or don't you believe that a fighter has a certain pool of fighters that are appropriate to match up with.  It's a yes or no question.  

Or do you think it's legitimate for the organization to try to help its fighters to rebuild their resumes by feeding them soft, easy fights that they would be expected to win?  Is that what the UFC should be doing? 

I ask the house in sincerity.

@ Bill Burgess

I agree with you almost entirely. Guy likes Fitch and Rua don't need to be coddled and babied, they need to get back on the horse and make a statement. Just like Cain did. If they can't do that, maybe they ARE washed up.

The only thing is that I'd allow them a couple extra months to make adjustments to their game and reinvent themselves (if necessary).

Now I'm off to start a thread that completely contradicts you. The UFC certainly should be in the business of building fighters up (imo), just not the ones you mention.

Thanks, StealingFire.  The best way to build someone up is to continue to feed them top contenders, affirming they are still relevant.  In other words, not to discredit them in the first place.  
If a top fighter loses a fight, give them another top contender to show your confidence in them.  Not undermine them with lesser competition, thereby telling the world that they are suddenly no longer top contenders themselves.  

Show some respect.  Don't pull the trap door under their feet.

* Edited at 06.09.2012, 7:40 PM ET *

Bill your opinions are so whack

How would any young up and comer get anywhere if top tier guys were given top tier opponents all the time even after they lost?

Jake Ellenberger would not have fought Jake Shields and knocked him thus creating a new contender @ 170
Johny Hendricks would never have fought Jon Fitch and knocked him out thus creating another new contender @ 170
John Hathaway would never have fought Diego Sanchez. New English star in the UFC
Tim Boetsch would never have fought Yushin Okami and knocked him out. Now a contender @185

They lost,so if they have to fight lesser competition to prove their worth then tough **** and so be it

excellent post, +1

After reading Jaffa's post, there should be no question at all as to why people get a step down in competition after a loss. It's solid, sound, logical reasoning.
The drop isn't just a punishment for the loser, it's creating an opportunity for the up-and-comer.

@Jaffa  So whack or so solid that you don't see it yet?  But I'll break it down.

Since I'm more familiar with WW, I'll use them as example.

Not long ago, maybe 2 years ago, the WW division had an amazing set of exciting, rising guys.

Condit, Kampmann, MacDonald, Story, Ellenberger, Kim, Hathaway, Saddollah.

Most of them were allowed to fight their way up the ladder and sort out the pecking order.  In time, Condit, Kampmann, MacDonald and Ellenberger separated from the chase pack and fought their way to the top of the rising studs group.  They naturally worked their way up the ladder, without getting shots at the Top Tier of that time: GSP, Penn, Hughes, Shields, Alves, Fitch.  In general.  Ellenberger did get a shot at Shields, but in general, you get the concept.

So, in time they were established as ready for prime time.  So, by that time, they were considered top contenders themselves without having the Top Tier to go down to fight them.  It should be a systematic and gradual process of allowing the guys to sort out the pecking order.

Today, Condit, Kampmann, MacDonald and Ellenberger are considered top contenders and the Top Tier never had to drop to mid-tier to accomadate them.  

So, Jaffa, that is how it can and should be done.  Patiently, easily, naturally.  Make the mid-tier raise their status.  No need for the Top End to drop down. 

Make sense?  What's so complicated?  No more abrupt jumps like Hendricks to the #2, or drop-downs like MacDonald to Che Mills.  Iron out the uneven bumps and jumps.  Smooth it out.  It might not always be perfect, but that's the main idea.  And guess what??  It actually works, if its allowed to proceed without drama.

* Edited at 06.09.2012, 10:22 PM ET *