Staff Columnists
AMADI: Matchmaking in MMA - Does the approach have to change for MMA to be perceived as a legitimate top-tier pro sport?
Mar 12, 2010 - 12:22:51 PM AMADI: Matchmaking in MMA - Does the approach have to change for MMA to be perceived as a legitimate top-tier pro sport?

DISCUSS ALL THIS IN OUR NEW MMATORCH FORUM

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

By Jason Amadi, MMATorch columnistth interview.

The concept of matchmaking in MMA is constantly under scrutiny by fans, fighters, and media. It is often said that matchmaking is the one aspect of the fight game that has to change for MMA to make that final leap to becoming a legitimate professional sport on the level of the NBA, NFL, NHL, or Major League Baseball.

*Spoiler Alert*

No, it isn't.

This is probably going to ruffle a few feathers, and I don't want to be "that guy" who is controversial for the sake of being controversial. But in what way do the aforementioned sports leagues represent pure sport better than MMA? I certainly don't get it.

Simply put, the goal of MMA, even more so than boxing, is to answer the question "who is the best in the world?" The glitz and prestige of other professional sports today are what MMA is after, not the format.

When fans suggest that MMA organizations need to become more like other pro sports leagues, what they're really suggesting is that MMA adopt their tournament style model, because, let's face it, that is what most of America's favorite sports boil down to - tournaments.

The tournament style used in a lot of pro sports is entertaining, yet ultimately doesn't quite prove what MMA does, at least to me. Yes, it's true that there is no matchmaking in a lot of professional sports, but there is no clear superiority determined by the tournament structure either. The Los Angeles Lakers won the NBA Championship last year, yet have had an unspectacular February. In the month of February alone the Lakers have suffered four defeats. Yes, that's correct, the champions and supposed best team in the league have suffered four defeats to lesser teams.

Basketball fans can get behind their team when they're losing, and support them to triumph. Combat sports fans aren't nearly as generous with their support. Looking at boxing, it's unfortunate, but anyone who isn't 100-0 is thought to be a bum. The latest major acquisition for the UFC, pro boxer James Toney, is thought to be horribly past his prime with a record of 76 wins, with just 6 recorded losses. I'm not arguing by any means that Toney is still in the prime of his career, but obviously our expectations of our favorite fights are much higher than our expectations of other professional athletes.

Dana White actually put it best in a hype video for UFC 111 when speaking about UFC Welterweight Champion, Georges St. Pierre. He said something to the effect of "He (Georges St. Pierre) has to go out and fight whoever we put in front of him, and beat them decisively." What proves more than that? In MMA, generally you keep winning and eventually they put a really neat strip of leather and a couple of pieces of gold around you. Ownership of that makes you the target for every top fighter in the world, and beyond that, to quote GSP, once you win the title you "fight for legacy."

If fighters don't belong, the world will quickly find out, and if you don't believe that, ask former placeholder champions like Matt Serra, or anyone who held the UFC Light Heavyweight Championship between Quinton Jackson and Lyoto Machida.

If you really believe this to be the ramblings of an insulated MMA writer, I recommend you seek out the next season of fights produced by the Bellator Fighting Championships, an organization which is actually attempting to appease casual sports enthusiasts.

This season will feature a tournament to determine a challenger for the promotion's biggest star and reigning lightweight champion, Eddie Alvarez. Despite the fact that Bellator subscribes to the tournament style philosophy, as an MMA organization, they have to make a few adaptations. One of those adaptations is due to the fact that there are championships involved. Eddie Alvarez won't be able to compete at his best, nor will be able to support himself and his family, if he doesn't have regular competition. So Bellator has scheduled a "super fight" at a catchweight of 160 lbs for Alvarez, against UFC veteran, Josh Neer.

The obvious question here is: "What happens if Alvarez loses to Neer? " Should he lose in a non-title fight, the entire concept of Bellator is invalidated. Neer would be the rightful number one contender and would deserve a title shot against the champion, but that spot is reserved for the tournament winner. How unfair would it be to those who have to compete in the tournaments if Bellator just leapfrogs them for bigger names? That is exactly why if you beat the champion, you simply take his belt.

I just don't see the major flaw in today's matchmaking. I personally believe the current system held by the majority of organizations is the best and the proof of that is the fact that it works. There is no argument from anyone that the world's top ranked fighters are all holding Zuffa gold, sans Fedor Emelianenko. If you're the top ranked fighter in your weight class, you hold the championship to prove it. If you hold that championship, and forge a legacy as champion, you have the potential to go down as the greatest fighter of all time. That simply doesn't exist in other popular team sports. (For readers, I will concede that tennis has a system in place which sort of accomplishes that, but only if you concede that tennis is an infinitely less masculine sport.)

If there really is a system that works better for the fighters, the fans, public interest, and works better than the current system, I'd love to hear it. But as of now, I don't see how the current system proves any less than it should, when the best fighters are where they should be.

===

Post feedback on the website's reader comment area below or App readers send to mmatorch@gmail.com.