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 *

Yes after a failed title shot you should get two more chances at the champ and then get cut from the UFC.I just don't understand your reasoning.It's the only way it can work.You lose you have to work your way back up.

RANKINGS, the UFC needs official rankings!!, the UFC not having an official ranking system it's because they WANT to build fighters or at least that's what it seems, there's no reason why such an important league/promotion like the UFC shouldn't have an official ranking for fighters, every major sport/league/promotion has it. it's just Dana White wanting to "play with his toys" and that pisses me off, these are persons with families and needs, and not every fighter has the same opportunity to have his efforts compensated, because it not only depends of his results as a fighter but it also depends in how many fans do you have, how markatable are you and how well Dana likes you. 
I know Dana has made great things for the sport in general not only the UFC and he cares a lot about his fighters, but he doesn't treat them equally, and that's ********

Rankings would be nice, but they'll still take marketability into account.

Plus, we might not have as much fun making our rankings if there were official ones.

@Dakej, I agree they will always take into account marketability, and that could become a motivator for fighters to try and have impressive performances, but It shouldn't be the dominant factor, ti shouldn't be the goal of the sport and sometimes it looks like that. and with the ranking I think we would actually have more fun, talking about how come the UFC has this or that fighter in that spot, it would create a bit of controversy but at the same time it would motivate the fighters to improve their place in the ranking and I think overall it would make things more interesting

I haven't seen anything in this thread that successfully challenges the TS's position. Ask yourself if you can honestly disagree with this statement:

"...it's not like I can't see the possibilities, but the effort to match equal fighters if possible should still be the goal."

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

What the UFC's been doing is exactly backwards. They take the new guys and throw them into the fire with high-level fighters instead of investing in them and building them up gradually. On the other hand they constantly baby their vets by providing easy fights after a loss. Fights that I can't imagine anyone would want to watch.

Thinking about it, Strikeforce would make a good "rebound" league for struggling fighters (since it's never been correctly set up as a feeder league). AFTER a top-tier guy loses 3 fights in a row against appropriate competition--rather than cut him--send him over to SF and let him reinvent and build himself back up that way. This would enable the UFC to streamline things and operate on all cylinders.

The whole "gradual progression" system may seem too mechanical, but it's the fairest way to operate and injuries are always a wildcard that will allow things to be shaken up and provide fast-track opportunities for rookie and mid-level fighters. In short, what the TS is proposing is a sensible way to run an organization. Unfortunately, having official rankings is probably the only way to make it happen (which I'm not a fan of official rankings).

The way things function now, I feel it shows a lack of faith in both the new guys AND the vets who don't win every fight they're "supposed" to.

Thank you Stealing!  Well-spoken.  I appreciate that you affirm my common-sense, fair approach.  It seems that those who agree with me, don't feel the need to post.  And those that can't see the obvious, think that all the nit-pickers posting are forming a consensus.

Trying to match equal fighters against each other is the best approach to exciting fights.  And the difficulties in making those fights is not a reason to throw out the principle.  Watching a better guy dominate a lesser one is not only unfair and boring, but unsafe. 

You've made all the nit-pickers look foolish.  It's not our fault they can't see the forest for the trees.  We're doing our job of discussing important, interesting subjects, Stealing.  Thanks for the support and great input.  

Today, I was day-dreaming about the UFC and how I'd feel if my company assigned me a project they were assuming I'd fail.

If I were a UFC fighter, and was called and asked to take a fight with someone that I knew I was expected to lose to, I'd feel pretty taken for granted.  Really!  Think about the implications.

Your bosses are basicly telling you that they value your record less than that of someone else.  You are being asked to bend over and take a loss ********** for Uncle Dana.  How insulting.  How humiliating.  How inappropriate.

They telling you your UFC career is expendable, disposable.  

And it is equally insulting to the supposed 'better fighter'.  Consider the implications of being asked to take a fight with a guy who is clearly less in status, less in name-recognition, less in his expectations to win the fight.

When the better guy is asked to take a fight with a lesser guy, it is the same as telling him, "Hey, you lost your last fight.  We no longer believe in you.  We have to find you a ***** to fight because you can't cut it any more or hang with the big boys.  

We don't care if all your fans are embarrassed for your drop in stature.  You are not qualified to get the good fighters so we had to find you a suitable *****.  And you had just better beat this punk or your status will sink further into the toilet.  And if you beat this guy, you will still not be proven to fight at the top.  We might have to give you a second bum to prove yourself.

How do you think Shogun felt when they offered him Brandon Vera?  Good?  How do you think Randy Couture felt when they offered HIM Brandon Vera?  

* Edited at 06.12.2012, 10:27 PM ET *

Brandon Vera beat Randy Couture IMO.

As for Shogun, he was offered Glover and Shogun's crew said he'd rather be cut than fight Chuck's boy.

* Edited at 06.12.2012, 10:30 PM ET *

Shogun takes this fight ... he turned down a fight with Glover because he knew Texiera would lay him the **** out! Sorry Shogun fans.

Worst article I've read in a long time.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1218527-mauricio-shogun-rua-battles-dana-white-for-the-ufcs-soul?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=mma

I knew you'd come around to seeing why so many of us won't click on a Bleacher Report link! :)

It was so God-awful I wanted to kill the writer, Jonathan Snoden.  He knows absolutely **** about his subjects.  His premise is that the UFC cannot afford to lose the battle to impose fights on the fighters.  He thinks a fighter's right to refuse a fight is a threat to the UFC's authority and must be squashed.

He never mentioned BJ's refusal to fight Melendez or Kos.  Total ********.

But I've read other articles that are good and reasonable. 

* Edited at 06.13.2012, 1:45 AM ET *

Yeah it's basically if you want to write for them they'll let you.  Which means there's just so much to weed through to find knowledgeable writers.

My browser's spell check used to work before I visited Bleacher Report a few times.  Now it doesn't.  If my computer's IQ is dropping from visiting the site, I can only imagine the toll the site has taken on their regular readers.

Dam, I always go on bleacher report.  In fact, it's one of the 5 tabs that I have saved for when I go on google chrome.

I now feel the need to rethink everything I've ever read about MMA.

It's kind of like panning for gold, some days you just come up empty.  Some people enjoy it as a hobby, some people don't.

As someone who was actually in the middle of Hurricane Katrina and have been to the casinos that have blown down, **** the author of that article.  It doesn't matter how "substantial" a building is when 175 mph winds are blowing **** around.

Plus he doesn't know anything about MMA.

* Edited at 06.13.2012, 3:06 AM ET *