Ask the Torch
ASK THE TORCH: Amadi answers reader questions on how to get a UFC title shot, and UFC on Fox model
Nov 27, 2011 - 8:00:29 PM ASK THE TORCH: Amadi answers reader questions on how to get a UFC title shot, and UFC on Fox model

DISCUSS ALL THIS IN OUR NEW MMATORCH FORUM

...OH, ONE MORE THING - PLEASE BOOKMARK US & VISIT DAILY!

By: Jason Amadi, MMATorch Columnist

Austin writes: What's the most important factor for progressing through the UFC to a title fight? Your no. of wins (or win streak), who you've beaten, or the manner in which you won your fights?

A: This is a difficult question to answer because a fighter's road to a UFC title opportunity depends on who they are and what their experience level is heading into the UFC. If you're a highly touted prospect, then obviously justifying the hype through impressive performances will get you to a title fight a bit quicker than usual. But if you're of average skills and personality, then you'll have to put more work in and string together enough wins to get noticed.

Once you're a contender or "in the mix," as UFC President Dana White likes to say, you're now trying to go from contender to number one contender. In other words, you must do whatever you can to separate yourself from the elite of the division. At that point, impressive wins over well known fighters is the name of the game. Well that, and talking trash.

It's also important to remember that a fighter's path to a UFC championship depends on what division the fighter is in. If your goal is to get a crack at Dominick Cruz or Jose Aldo, a solid win streak gets you there for sure. If you're after Frank Edgar, then you probably need to either be close to the UFC record for consecutive victories or beat someone who is. However, if your goal is to get a shot at a long reigning champion like Anderson Silva or Georges St. Pierre, then you have to actually convince people that you're a legitimate threat.

At the end of the day the UFC is still a business, and as long as a title fight makes dollars for the UFC, then it makes sense.

Pete writes: I am a 34 year old male that enjoys watching MMA. I do not purchase every PPV nor am I an expert in the history of MMA, but I try to follow as closely as I can. I have been puzzled by the recent Fox involvement with the UFC and comments made by the top brass of UFC. The idea that the Velasquez, dos Santos fight was deemed better in RETROSPECT, than the Henderson, Rua fight for Fox really speaks volumes about the future of MMA on "free" TV. If the UFC continues to have fights on Fox, are they going to avoid the "bleeders" because the general public isn't ready? This may be why Guida and Henderson missed out! I like the UFC, and I think the attempt to grow is admirable, but this new model will be very difficult to sustain. Why am I wrong?

A: Anything that happens once the fights begin is completely out of the hands of Fox and the UFC. There is no way to "avoid bleeders" or to have fights "suitable for broadcast television." As much as we like to speculate on what fights the UFC should put on, the fact is over the course of the next seven years there's going to be 28 UFC broadcasts on Fox. The UFC is looking to do around four fights per event, so we're looking at roughly 112 fights on Fox over the next seven years.

There's no way the UFC can put on 112 fights without blood, gore, and the usual level of violence that we've come to know and love. The first UFC on Fox broadcast contained 58 minutes of fluff with just 64 seconds of action. If that doesn't properly illustrate how little control the UFC and Fox have over what takes place in the cage, I'm not sure what else could.

Feel free to follow me on Twitter @JasonAmadi. There, I'll be explaining how to properly live your dash.