[ad_1]
UFC Fight Night 139 in Denver provided some unmistakable proof that MMA has come a long way in the 25 years since UFC 1 hit the same city in 1993. So what have we learned? Retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes join MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes to discuss in this week's Trading Shots.
* * * *
Fowlkes: UFC Fight Night 139 broadcast, Danny. The graphics, the music, the old school – UFC 1 is on Monday. And, man, what a ways we've come since then.
I recently went back and re-watched that first event. Not only is it always surprising to be reminded of how poor it is, it is also a shock to think about how much the actual fighting has changed in a quarter-century. Obviously, UFC 1 was a different beast. It is not necessarily the best of the best, necessarily, but from the craziest and the most reckless. More, it was very clearly designed to showcase the supremacy of the Gracie family and their jiu-jitsu.
But still, I watched Yair Rodriguez inventing new techniques against Chan Sung Jung on Saturday night, I had to pause and appreciate the growth. It would make me wonder what the world of martial arts would look like today without the UFC (and other MMA organizations).
If this had not become a sport that changed rapidly over the primordial ooze, would we still have a fractured battle of the sea? Karate studios and totally ineffective art forms and fake black belt wannabes touting their deadly skills? Did the last 25 years never change martial arts forever?
Downes: That's definitely true. The "Human Stun Guns" and strip mall McDojos still exist, but all of them have a "mixed martial arts" program now. I remember being at Duke Roufus's gym 14 years ago. Then it was a strictly Muay Thai / kickboxing gym. The popularity of MMA made it slow to add a jiu-jitsu program and then an MMA fight team. The rest, as they say, is history.
I would have gone further than saying MMA has changed martial arts. I'd say it was an indelible impact on popular culture. Affliction jeans and movies like "Never Back Down" may not be the kind of contributions we'd like to remember, but they happened. Jason DeLucia never became a household name, but MMA has produced superstars like Ronda Rousey and Conor McGregor.
There is no doubt that a lot has changed from UFC 1 to UFC 230. The caliber of athlete and the level of skill of even compares. NBA players from 1993 to those of today. It's more like comparing Bob Cousy to Steph Curry.
I do wonder, though, if the core of the sport is any different. The first UFC event was about show. The modern UFC product may be different (e.g. CM Punk or the McGregor / Aldo world tour), but it's essentially the same, is not it? Is not that part of the problem with the current malaise with fans? Where's the added show?
Fowlkes: That's a fair point, but you want to take a look at the changes in the audience and their expectations. What qualifies as a show for McNichols Sports Arena back in 1993.
Back then, just having an event like that. No one knew what to expect. Even the person involved did not seem entirely aware of what it would be like, as soon as it was broken up. We were so blown away by the lack of rules and style-versus-style that we did not want to go out of their way to get excited. Those days are gone.
Now our shows revolve more around the specific personalities. You can only get so far by doing things with the rules of the game (though you can not do anything about it) Have a look at the backlash of a protective fan base that still fears the consequences of some unscrupulous promoter giving the sport a bad name.
Still, it's true that we're so young at times about what this is. When the UFC tries to make it look like other mainstream sports, stuffing everyone in Reebok gear to "clean up" the look, we complain about the cookie-cutter homogeny of it. When it rolls out this regular weekly schedule, we get bored by the constant low-level hum of the machine.
We still need a hint of show, but the show has to come from the people – not the idea. We're used to the idea. We get it and like it, or we are heard, largely based on the structure of our DNA or whatever. A goal is still going strong. So where's it supposed to go from here?
Downes: Maybe we get one of the Paul brothers to fight? I agree that the show portion of MMA has become more about personalities than the contest itself. The rule set has become unified enough that it is not a lot of things to modify. Even in Japanese MMA, the circus that attracts us with Gabi Garcia fighting an aging politician rather than the concept of an MMA fight.
There was a time when watching an MMA event on TV was a monthly occurrence. One of the biggest appeals of "The Ultimate Fighter" Now it's easier to watch a cage fights than a "Law & Order" marathon. It's like when we have a culture, we decided to bacon on everything – the excess numbed our senses.
The early indications for the ESPN / UFC partnership look like we're in for more of the same. It will help grow the sport further, but it is not synonymous. I suppose in some ways that it is a greater accomplishment than early fans could have hoped for. Then again, is it something we'll celebrate? Or will we just shrug our shoulders and shuffle indifferently onward?
Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY's MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who has also written for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on Twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.
[ad_2]
Source link
