Could/would/should the UFC hold a Grand Prix tournament?

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Could/would/should the UFC hold a Grand Prix tournament?
AchillesHeel
2/6/07 4:44:30PM
Three separate questions, I guess.
Could they? I don't see why not.
Should they? I think so, but your mileage may vary.
Would they? I get the impression Dana White doesn't like tourneys, but I'm not sure.

I know that current rules don't allow guys to fight twice in one night. The UFC wouldn't have to run it the same way PRIDE does. If there are 16 guys, they could complete the tourney over 4 different events, 3 months apart.

I think you could easily get 16 guys who could make a 205-lb, 170-lb, or 155-lb GP. I'm not sure if the UFC has enough guys to make a compelling OWGP, but maybe.

And of course, if the UFC and PRIDE ever manage to work together, the possibilities increase by 1000. A PRIDE-UFC 205-lb, 185-lb, or 155-lb tournament would blow the roof off.

Just a thought.
pv3Hpv3p
2/6/07 6:13:12PM
CAN THEY?? I'm not sure if it is only the Nevada state athletic commision that suspends fighters after fights, or if it is all over the US... So they might have to have it on foreign soil... Maybe someone can clarify the rules, but maybe England would be a possibility???

SHOULD THEY?? I think it would be a fantastic idea...
Would love to see a WelterWeight GP... That division is stacked with talent.

WOULD THEY?? Maybe in a few years when the divisions are solidified with more talent, I don't see why not...
hippysmacker
2/6/07 9:16:52PM
They won't and IMo they never should. Any time someone fight's more than once in a night too many factor's come into play. If your draw is against a tougher fighter , even if you win, than your second opponent had you are at a disadvantage. Fatigue comes into play. Adrenaline needs to be rebuilt. Injury is a factor. Age is more prvalent in this circumstance also.It definately favor's jujitsu guy's who fight from thier back well with good cardio( Royce early UFC's) Too many variables that can affect the rightful outcome of any 1 on 1 fight IMO
gimp1967
2/6/07 9:44:13PM
I think they should. It works out good in Pride, & I feel it does show who the best really is. It takes great dedication & training for a tournament, & if a fighter can't handle it, they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Svartorm
2/7/07 2:32:32AM
The athletic commissions wouldn't allow it, and most fighters hate them, so I don't see it happening. I happen to like tournaments though, and personally fight exclusively in tournaments, because I think they're a truer test of a warrior. Anyone can train to fight one specific guy, but to not know who you're facing is a lot different. It adds many real elements to fighting, such as fighting hurt, fighting tired, fighting after huge adrenaline highs, etc, and really shows the mettle of the people involved.
strikefirstgear
2/7/07 2:44:21AM
Could they? Sure
Should they ? IMO they shouldn't mess with what is working for them.
Would they? I dont think they would unless it was a necesary thing to grow the business (ie: should UFC ever need to cross promote with Pride).

My guess is that Dana really wants to continue to be identified with the "standard" of what this MMA sport is. The way to do that is to keep the format the same and just continue to improve the execution. Nascar didn't get where they are by injecting different formats into the racing.
Svartorm
2/7/07 3:13:46AM

Posted by mrsumo

Then again I would like someday to see some crazy gladiatorial style bouts..Like a UFC royal rumble or team match with all fighters in the ring at the same time.



They used to do that with boxing back in the early 1900's. It was called a boombattle, and a lot of the old school bare knuckle boxers were champions of that as well. If only getting punched in the back of the head didn't cause brain damage.
AchillesHeel
2/7/07 9:02:58AM
Well, I tried my best to make it clear that fighters can't fight more than once in a night, but that it wouldn't be necessary for a tournament like this. Try reading the whole post, instead of just responding to the thread title. So glad I wasted my time.
AchillesHeel
2/7/07 9:08:54AM

Posted by pv3Hpv3p

CAN THEY?? I'm not sure if it is only the Nevada state athletic commision that suspends fighters after fights, or if it is all over the US... So they might have to have it on foreign soil... Maybe someone can clarify the rules, but maybe England would be a possibility???



I don't know the legalities, but I think if a fighter is given a medical suspension in one state, the other states enforce it. So this could certainly be an issue. In the tournament I described above, anyone who wins a fight but it unable to fight again 3 months later would be forced to drop out. They could be replaced by someone who lost a Split Decision, or by the guy they defeated.
nate22
2/7/07 9:10:11AM
Cleaned the thread up a little, no offence to anyone so we can try and maintain a serious discussion on the topic.

I personally think they should just hold the tournaments in the UK, that sounds pretty good to me.
nate22
2/7/07 9:13:23AM

Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by pv3Hpv3p

CAN THEY?? I'm not sure if it is only the Nevada state athletic commision that suspends fighters after fights, or if it is all over the US... So they might have to have it on foreign soil... Maybe someone can clarify the rules, but maybe England would be a possibility???



I don't know the legalities, but I think if a fighter is given a medical suspension in one state, the other states enforce it. So this could certainly be an issue. In the tournament I described above, anyone who wins a fight but it unable to fight again 3 months later would be forced to drop out. They could be replaced by someone who lost a Split Decision, or by the guy they defeated.



I think we need a poll for if people would prefer fight 2/3 times in a night or fight once on each event. There are good arguments for both sides of that too really.
AchillesHeel
2/7/07 9:13:25AM

Posted by strikefirstgear

Could they? Sure
Should they ? IMO they shouldn't mess with what is working for them.
Would they? I dont think they would unless it was a necesary thing to grow the business (ie: should UFC ever need to cross promote with Pride).

My guess is that Dana really wants to continue to be identified with the "standard" of what this MMA sport is. The way to do that is to keep the format the same and just continue to improve the execution. Nascar didn't get where they are by injecting different formats into the racing.



Good point. On the other hand, a tournament would make more "title belts" for the organization, which I think is something the casual fan can easily understand and appreciate. It's also possible that the best fighters would want to pursue the "real" title belts instead of participating in a tournament, which might defeat the whole purpose.
AchillesHeel
2/7/07 9:19:10AM

Posted by nate22

Cleaned the thread up a little[...]



Thanks!


Posted by nate22

I think we need a poll for if people would prefer fight 2/3 times in a night or fight once on each event. There are good arguments for both sides of that too really.



Well, I'm pretty sure the sanctioning bodies specifically prohibit a fighter from fighting more than once in a night. I think that's one of the things that Dana had to ditch from the old format in order to "legitimize" the sport. It's one of the things people point to when they call MMA "human cock-fighting" (which of course is stupid, but I wouldn't want to give those people any ammo, if you know what I mean).

I assumed that pv3Hpv3p was talking about medical suspensions issued after fights, which can sometimes last weeks or months at a time.
nate22
2/7/07 9:25:02AM
Could be sanctioned in UK I think, if they ever did decide to do it. I'm sure it will happen at some point, whether it is in UK or US or somewhere else, there are alot of strong arguments and options that having a GP compiles. Uk are getting supercasino's now so we will have just a good a place as any to hold such events.
AchillesHeel
2/7/07 11:18:34AM

Posted by nate22

Could be sanctioned in UK I think[...]



I don't know squat about UK rules or regulations, actually. If you happen across any useful links, I'd be curious to see them. Other people might be interested too, since the UFC is planning events "across the pond." Might be worth a new thread.
strikefirstgear
2/7/07 11:50:28AM

Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by strikefirstgear

Could they? Sure
Should they ? IMO they shouldn't mess with what is working for them.
Would they? I dont think they would unless it was a necesary thing to grow the business (ie: should UFC ever need to cross promote with Pride).

My guess is that Dana really wants to continue to be identified with the "standard" of what this MMA sport is. The way to do that is to keep the format the same and just continue to improve the execution. Nascar didn't get where they are by injecting different formats into the racing.



Good point. On the other hand, a tournament would make more "title belts" for the organization, which I think is something the casual fan can easily understand and appreciate. It's also possible that the best fighters would want to pursue the "real" title belts instead of participating in a tournament, which might defeat the whole purpose.



Absolutely a valid point. One thing about that kind of tournament (one over several months like you said) is that the natural progression of who was to fight who would be laid out. This would take control away from Zuffa as to matchmaking. I can't see them giving up control of anything.

Also I think one of the fun parts of this sport is speculating who is going to fight who in upcoming events (look at how many threads there are about it) If you had the tournament laid out it would be a different animal. Not saying it would be worse just different. I think the fans like the infinite possibilities of the UFC bringing in new fighters or giving beaten fighters (Forrest) a second chance where they could not in a tournament setting.
AchillesHeel
2/7/07 1:28:49PM
Not entirely. Naturally, the eliminated fighters would be... well... eliminated, but I don't know if PRIDE lays out a bracket for their tourneys, I think they set up the matches with each round. At least, if they make a bracket at the beginning, they don't make it public, they announce the upcoming matches after each round is complete. Maybe UFC fans would call B.S. if the matchups were "fixed" like that, I dunno.
pv3Hpv3p
2/7/07 1:51:42PM
I assumed that pv3Hpv3p was talking about medical suspensions issued after fights, which can sometimes last weeks or months at a time.


That was what I was referring to..

I was just thinking of the current Pride format, when they have the early fights seperated into diferent events, and then the semi- and finals on the same night.

I guess they wouldn't have to go with this format, but it is kind of what makes the tournament, IMO...

Otherwise you basically have guys fighting for top contention of a annually vacant belt, as appose to becoming #1 contender to an existing champ. So in essence you are just changing the name, adding a belt, and taking match-making decisions out of it...
strikefirstgear
2/7/07 4:13:31PM

Posted by AchillesHeel

Not entirely. Naturally, the eliminated fighters would be... well... eliminated, but I don't know if PRIDE lays out a bracket for their tourneys, I think they set up the matches with each round. At least, if they make a bracket at the beginning, they don't make it public, they announce the upcoming matches after each round is complete. Maybe UFC fans would call B.S. if the matchups were "fixed" like that, I dunno.



I guess what I mean is that with the bracketed approach (even private) on a single elimination tournament it rules out alot of future match ups. Part of the allure of the UFC is that they do things like Tito vs Forrest 2 or bring back fighters that maybe didn't stack up well against one fighter and lost to fight another because it is an interesting fight.

They are good about the "fans wanted this fight to happen so here it is" even if that means bringing back a fighter who loses alot (Shamrock, Bonner, Eastman).

Maybe the tournament idea would be a fun exercise for the UFC to mix it up but I can't see that happening for many years to come. Right now they are trying to establish the UFC format as the sport standard.

Just my thoughts.
jocksmall
2/7/07 5:15:39PM
thats how they should have decided light weight instead of sean vs kenny.
we all love tournys, so im all for it lets start with the heavy weights
seed them and fight them. i agree that many factors come into play. but luck is a factor in all great sporting events and the champions overcome bad luck ,the most difficult path to win. the ufc may be a more sucessful business than pride but pride is always putting on the best possible show for the fans.
pv3Hpv3p
2/7/07 6:28:15PM
Very good point... It would have been an excellent way to decide the 155 champ
Related Topics