When is a win not a win?

The "Yo Quiero Taco Bell" Chihuahua is a rather famous case in the history of advertising. Anyone who was alive in the mid-nineties remembers that diminutive canine. My sister owned a Chihuahua and had "Yo Quiero Taco Bell" screamed at her by more than one excited toddler. The stupid thing was everywhere: on billboards, on radio, and in every other TV commercial. The recognition percentage among the general populace was in the high 90s. As far as advertising campaigns go, it was an unprecedented success.

But when Taco Bell crunched the actual numbers they made an amazing discovery: the campaign was a total failure. All of the recognition that the advertisers were so proud of didn't help sell a single extra taco. Taco Bell has created a pop phenomenon, but had wasted millions of dollars on an ad campaign that hadn't increased sales. They immediately stopped the campaign and the talking dog went into permanent retirement. The executives at Taco Bell learned a costly lesson: ALWAYS keep your eye on the bottom line. If you are in the taco-selling business your livelihood depends on selling tacos, anything that doesn't help you do that, regardless of how successful it might seem, is a waste of valuable resources.

MMA is, like every other sport, essentially part of the entertainment industry. You can wax philosophical all day about the nobility and beauty of athletic competition, but marathon runners are amazing athletes and no one will spend 60$ on a pay-per-view to watch them. For a promoter the bottom line has two simple parts: does a fighter sell pay-per-views (or increase viewership in the case of a free TV show) or put asses in seats? If a promoter pays a fighter X amount, they need to recoup that X amount in some way based on that fighters performance. If they fail to do so they have lost money and, if that trend continues, they will soon go the way of Affliction Fights, the IFL, and Elite XC.

The mantra of the boring fighter is "A win is a win". Keeping the preceding criteria in mind, it becomes clear that they have little understanding of the statement they are making. While its true that win is considerably better in almost every instance than a loss, the entertainment value of a fighter is really what the promoter is keeping his eye on. A person who values the integrity of MMA as a sport may often find himself at odds with promotional logic when it comes to which fighters are kicked out of an organization (or never get there to begin with) and which ones are given a seemingly endless ride. Phil Baroni lost a staggering 4 fights in a row before being released by the UFC in 2005. Chris Leben has the promotion talking about a title shot for him, despite the fact that the Akiyama win put him just one win over.500 in his last 11 fights. Ken Shamrock is still headlining shows despite an ABYSMAL record over the last ten years. All of these fighters share one thing in common: they are popular fighters who win or lose (in the case of Ken, just lose) in spectacular fashion. People will pay money to watch them, and that is ALL promoters care about. They are entertainers in the entertainment business, pure and simple. Watching Chris Leben fight with his face is an amazing spectacle 9 times out of 10 and will mean pay-per-view dollars every single time. Fans love him, and that means promoters love him.

Antonio McKee fought recently on the MFC card in Alberta, Canada. I read some articles leading up to the fight, including one on Sherdog by Tomas Rios that called McKee's absence from the UFC despite a 7-year win streak "puzzling". Its not puzzling at all, he's boring. From 2001 to 2010 Antonio fought 20 times and finished ONE opponent, and that was due to an injury (Gabe Rivas in the IFL). He has finished his last two opponents in 2010 (increasing his finishes by 40%) so there is a chance he can turn things around, but at 40 yrs old it may be too little too late. He has spent his career compiling a fantastic winning percentage and has never gotten into a major promotion.

And why should he? What motivation could a promotion like the UFC or Strikeforce have to sign him? Don't get me wrong, I think Antonio is a FANTASTIC fighter, but that ability to beat anyone in the world makes him a promotional pariah. He could actually beat most, if not all, of the lightweight fighters in both promotions. The problem is that no one will pay to see it. Once someone like Antonio is in your promotion you have a serious problem. He can climb the ladder to the point that you are virtually forced to give him a title shot, but his style is too methodical to appeal to the fans. NOTHING kills a promotion faster than an unpopular champion. Antonio simply isn't worth the risk. He can beat anyone you put in front of him, but he doesn't sell pay-per-views and he doesn't put asses in seats. "But he can beat anyone!!", his supporters cry, sure he can, but everyone knew the chihuahua too and it didn't sell tacos.

There are some great fighters who are stuck in this holding pattern. John Fitch can beat anyone in the UFC not named St. Pierre and his current streak should have landed him a rematch with the champ a long time ago. Unfortunately he is a methodical fighter who relies on his outstanding wrestling to grind out decisions and doesn't have a ton of charisma. Anderson Silva got a shot at UFC gold after ONE fight, Yushin Okami won 4 fights in a row against solid competition and you could almost hear the sighs of relief from UFC brass when he was beaten by Rich Franklin and Chael Sonnen. Matt Lindland was cut from the UFC in 2005, despite being on a 4 fight win streak (2 in the UFC) and never losing consecutive fights. The question is: do these fighters make an impact on the UFC's bottom line? Does anyone buy a pay-per-view to see another solid, if underwhelming, decision win by John Fitch or Yushin Okami?

Jake Shields was another fighter who seemed doomed to middle-of-the-road status. Contrary to what most people might think, he is a solid finisher (his has stopped just over half of his opponents) and has taken on some big names in his career. His weakness is that he is soft spoken and relies heavily on his grappling, not a great combination for a fan favorite. I was cageside for his win over Jason Miller, and while I thought he taught a grappling CLINIC that night, the fans didn't appreciate it and boos rained down the whole time. The best thing he ever did for his career was put himself in a position to screw Strikeforce, an opportunity Dana White was not about to pass up. Now Dana has to wait and see if he can put on exciting performances in a stacked division, or whether he bought himself another John Fitch.

There is certainly a middle ground between Phil Baroni and Antonio McKee that every successful fighter has to walk. You have to win and be entertaining at the same time. But its important to keep in mind the lesson of the talking dog: a win is almost never just a win...

The Mythical 10-8 Round

Sherdog hosts an online chat during Bellator shows that I occasionally check out to see how fans felt about the event. The internet is just a bad place to look for opinions about ANYTHING you are personally involved in. My broadcast partner Sean Wheelock was depressed for a week after the Huerta-Curran because he made the mistake of looking at online opinions of his call on that fight. A lot of people thought he made too big of a deal about the upset and had no problem saying so. Still, I'm a fairly resilient dude and so I periodically check out the chat to see what fans have to say.

During the last show I made a call that REALLY seemed to piss a lot of people off for some reason. During the first round of the Pitbull-Warren fight I stated that while it could have been a 10-8 round (Pitbull MASSACRED Warren for the full five minutes and almost finished him at the end of the round), judges rarely give them, so I was calling it 10-9 for Pitbull on my unofficial scorecard. A lot of people in the chat thought I was insane for that.

I sometimes think I should have two unofficial scorecards; one for what I think, and one for what I feel the judges will think. In this particular fight, the two cards would have been very different. I thought that the first round should have gone 10-8 to Pitbull for a complete wipeout. The problem is that judges almost NEVER give 10-8 rounds in MMA. In boxing the rule is pretty clear, if you get knocked down it's a 10-8. In MMA it simply isn't that clear-cut and knockdowns occur quite often for a variety of reasons. I have seen merciless ass-whippings that were scored 10-9. The only 10-8 rounds that I can remember recently were in the Alves-GSP fight and the Quarry-Starnes track-meet.

It turns out I was right, none of the judges gave Pitbull a 10-8 1st round. I also knew they wouldn't give him the 2nd round, although he won it on my scorecard.

There are two factors that consistently influence judges that were present in the Warren-Pitbull fight. The first was the crowd. Warren came out to chants of "U-S-A", while Pitbull got booed, it was pretty obvious from the beginning who the crowd was behind. Every time Warren did anything, the fans went nuts, its hard for the judges not to score for someone who's getting that kind of a reaction.

The 2nd factor is that judges, and fans for that matter, tend to put more emphasis on what happens at the end of a round. Boxers know this well and try to "steal rounds" whenever possible by putting on last-minute flurries in the closing seconds of the round (anyone remember Hagler-Leonard?). The disputed round in the Warren-Pitbull fight was the 2nd round and while I felt Pitbull won most of the round, Warren made his charge at the end and finally got his takedown going.

As soon as the fight ended I knew Warren was the winner. Only one judge scored it the way I did and even that surprised me. I'll see if I can talk the producers into a new system that takes into account the fact that I know judges are going to score the bout differently that I did. They probably wont go for it, but its worth a shot. It would certainly help explain some things to the fans in the chatrooms...

The Personal Side of Picking...

There is a picture of me and Alexander Schlemenko that one of my co-workers and friends, Adam Geller, posted on Facebook. I have my famous "I Must Break You" Ivan Drago tee on and Schlemenko is pointing at it and smiling. It a nice pic I think. As soon as Adam posted it someone posted a comment asking if that was before or after I picked Bryan Baker to beat him in the middleweight final. I guess he thought I had no business smiling next to someone I thought would lose, or that my pick was somehow an underhanded stab in the back and NOT made on national TV.

Its a small example, but it highlights one of the difficulties in being commentator in a sport as intimate and unpredictable as MMA.

I have interviewed about 800 or so fighters in the last 3 years. Most of them are damn nice guys, I can count on 1 hand the number of fighters who rubbed me the wrong way, and even then their hostility was rarely directed at me. Due to the tournament formats of both M-1 and Bellator, I've had the pleasure of getting to know the fighters pretty well as I often see them many times as they advance in the tournament. There are always after-parties etc., and some of the fighters already know me from training in so-cal. As a result, the relationship between the fighters and the production crew can get a little personal.

In the end it doesn't matter, I still have a job to do. The fact that I thought both Jared Hess and Bryan Baker were going to beat Schlemenko doesn't mean I don't like him, I actually think he is a great guy. Of course Hess and Baker are decent guys as well, but I have to forget about those factors when making a prediction about who is going to get their hand raised at the end of the fight.

Unlike a lot of MMA insiders, I generally don't like making picks. With M-1 I almost never did it. With Bellator I do a lot of preview work, talking about upcoming fights etc. In that capacity a big part of my job is talking about who I think will win. I'm not worried about personally offending anyone, Its just that MMA is an EXTREMELY unpredictable sport. There are always favorites, but even the most mismatched fight can go the other was as the result of a single mistake.

I prefer talking about what each fighter needs to do in order to win and what mistakes they need to avoid. Breaking down the ins and outs of the fight is, to me, a lot more fun than simply saying who I think will win. In MMA just about anyone can win a fight, especially at the higher levels where competitive fights are the norm. Describing the pathways to victory, or defeat, and letting the audience perhaps see them unfold is a fun part of the job.

Even when making picks I try to stay away from the kind of phrases that make it sound as though i have some kind of personal crystal ball in front of me. Too often MMA writers make every fight sound like a blowout from the start, maybe because the hyperboles make for such exciting reading, I don't know. I might pick who I think will win, but I certainly never say that the other fighter has no chance.

Some fighters understand the professional distance required in my job, others do not. Joe Warren and I had a great laugh over the fact that I picked Pitbull to beat him. He said he thought I would have been insane to say otherwise, even his wife understood the pick. After his dominant win over Dan Hornbuckle, Ben Askren said he won in spite of a lot of people "not believing in him". I have no idea if that comment was directed at me, as I , along with most people, picked Hornbuckle to win. His comment does point out a certain double-standard among fighters: they thrive on being the underdog, and yet get pissed when no one thinks they will win. They simply can't have it both ways, you cant fly under the radar and feel disrespected when people favor your opponent.

I loved seeing Warren win, any fan of MMA has to love a performance like the one he put on.

Its certainly a common misconception that I would want my picks to work out in order to seem more knowledgeable, that isn't true at all. I can only speak for myself, but I love an upset. If that upset comes at the expense of my perceived MMA intelligence, then so be it.

I see the same fighters over and over again, and have yet to get into a Shields-Shamrock cycle of animosity. I consider that kind of thing to be extremely unprofessional and hope i never have to deal with it. That doesn't mean I'll back off of any of the comments I have made while doing my job, even when I have been wrong I still said what I firmly believed and that's all that can be asked of anyone. As long s the fighters keep doing their jobs, I'll keep doing mine...