In this week's Trading Shots, MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes and retired UFC/WEC fighter Danny Downes look at the UFC's decision to sign Phil ' CM Punk ' Brooks, a former WWE wrestler with zero professional fights. Buckle up.
Fowlkes: To start off this week, Danny, let me set a scene for you. I'm sitting in the media room at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas late Saturday night. The UFC 181 post-fight presser has just wrapped up, at which Anthony Pettis had a weird non-confrontation (non-frontation?) with Khabib Nurmagomedov, got asked a couple questions by a representative from Wheaties, then passed the mic off to a victorious and almost visibly happy Robbie Lawler, who had just become the UFC welterweight champion. And what was the reporter sitting next to me doing after this momentous night in MMA? From the sound of it, he was calling up a friend who follows pro wrestling, pleading with him, 'Tell me everything you know about CM Punk.'
Really? This is happening? The UFC has signed a 36-year-old former pro wrestler with zero actual fight experience and no competitive background in combat sports, and UFC execs are not even pretending like it's not a play for increased viewership and pay-per-view buys. Is this a bad thing, Danny? I mean, I get it. More people will watch, the same way more people watched (and then, what, stopped?) when Brock Lesnar fought. But Lesnar was a former NCAA national champion wrestler. Who is CM Punk?
Downes: First off, his name is Phil Brooks. Now that he's a UFC fighter, we can call him by his actual name. Kayfabe isn't a thing you have to worry about in MMA. Just a friendly tip Ben, I don't want you to get smacked around like John Stossel. There's lots of info I could give you about Brooks, but something tells me you don't really care about his background or interest in comic books.
I actually think it's a mistake to make it about Brooks. That opens us to comments like, 'He's reaching for the stars. Who are we to deny him this opportunity?' We can't blame Brooks for taking this chance. He said so himself, his first fight is the one that matters. He's 36 years old and if this MMA thing doesn't work, he missed out on a big payday. Having said that, using your fame for leverage may be good business, but is it good for the sport? And what does that even mean?
MMA has always had this weird balance between sport and spectacle. Doesn't this Brooks signing swing the pendulum too far the other way? We can joke about Bon Sapp fights or Justin McCully in a mask, but those never happened in the UFC. I think fans and media held it to a different standard. I know you and I debated the Patrick Cummins vs. Daniel Cormier fight, but this is an entirely different matter. At least he had amateur wrestling experience and a couple fights of his own. Even though Cormier walked right through him, Cummins has turned out to be a promising fighter. For the sake of argument, let's say Brooks turns out the same way. Would that justify all of this?
Fowlkes: It's weird that we feel the need to look for something that would justify this, isn't it? Just like it's weird to see fans and media arguing that this is a good move solely because it will probably make the UFC money. For the last time, a) the UFC is owned by mega-rich dudes who import snow into the desert for fun, so they're probably going to be just fine, and b) making money for the UFC is the UFC's problem, not ours. The fact that this will put money in Zuffa's pocket is not, in and of itself, a reason for us to shut up about it. It's our money, after all.
At the same time, I'm trying to keep an open mind here. Maybe the guy can fight. (Although, damn, is that the best we can say for the UFC's new hire?) Maybe he'll be the rising tide that lifts all ships. Maybe he'll just get smashed by some nobody who the UFC hires specifically for the purpose of losing to CM Punk (a jobber, in pro wrestling parlance, standing there in plain blue trunks, adjusting his kneepads during the star's elaborate entrance), since Dana White isn't even pretending like he's going to get someone tough in his UFC debut. Maybe that in itself would be a kind of satisfaction, just being reminded that MMA is not something absolutely anybody can do.
In other words, however it turns out, maybe it'll be fun. I guess my question to you is, is fun enough? Is it enough to justify the UFC essentially changing all its own rules, and all while still claiming that a guy like Ben Askren needs more wins to prove himself UFC-worthy? Does the hypocrisy ruin the pure, crazy, carnival fun of it all for you, or does it matter how the fight turns out?
Downes: Hey, let's not write the guy off yet. He'll train for a little while at an undetermined weight class and all those pesky details will hammer themselves out. Is that MTV show 'Made' still around? The UFC is like that time Joan wanted to become a wakeboarder. A few months of coaching and BAM! You can do whatever you put your mind to.
We can all agree that this is good business. That point isn't up for debate. Just because something is good business, though, it doesn't mean we should support it. In some ways, this could be a no-win. If Punk can just walk in and win a fight in the UFC, doesn't that cheapen the UFC roster as a whole? I'm not saying that he couldn't have success. In that article you just linked, Dana White says, '(Brooks) is going to fight a guy that's 1-0, 1-1, 2-1, something like that.' So now guys with only a couple of professional fights are in the UFC?
But what about Justin Jones? Last night Jones fought Corey Anderson. I trained/coached Jones over at Victory MMA in San Diego. Jones made his pro debut less than a year ago and has only had three professional fights. Isn't that the same thing? No. Jones took a fight on short notice and had a number of amateur MMA fights. Brooks has none of that. The Askren situation is almost comical at this point. If he wasn't signed because of money or his perceived 'boringness' then say so. You can't tell us that Askren needs more experience, but Brooks deserves a roster spot.
Which brings me to your friends in the so-called media. We can point the finger at the UFC, but at least we know its motivations. Cash Rules Everything Around Me. Dollar-dollar bills and what have you. What were your colleagues doing last night? Marking out (that's another pro wrestling term for you). Aren't journalists supposed to challenge those in power?
Fowlkes: Can I interest you in a giant can of paint to go along with that broad brush of yours? I'd describe the reaction to this news from the MMA media as ... varied. Some people are into it. Some aren't. Some are going to wait and see. One thing I don't think the UFC is going to suffer from is a lack of challenges on this. White didn't show up to the presser, so there was no chance for us to press him on this signing. His comments above were made in a hurried talk with a few reporters on media row right after the announcement was made, and the questions he was asked - isn't this the kind of 'freak show' fight you said the UFC didn't do? Is this just because your pay-per-view sales are down? - forced him to defend it.
What surprised me was, he didn't even try to spin it all that hard. He basically admitted that the UFC was looking to sell pay-per-views, and it has no idea if Punk can even fight.
'He could be one and done, or he could have a career here,' White said. 'I don't know. We'll see.'
On one hand, that's the beauty of this sport, right? The truth always reveals itself if you stay in that cage long enough. Maybe seeing a tough guy who's a decent athlete with some martial arts hobbying in his past come in and get trounced will give us a new appreciation for what real fighters do. On the other hand, am I the only one who feels like this is the latest about-face in a troubling series of them?
We used to say that the great thing about UFC events was that the whole card was worth buying, not just the top one or two fights, like boxing. Now, with the exception of the rare card like UFC 181, that seems to be changing. We (or more accurately, they) used to say that the UFC was where the best fought the best. Now we get people who are popular, but completely untested, while proven, unpopular people go ignored. We used to say that the UFC was the organization that didn't put together weirdo fights just for the short-term rubbernecking value of them. Now it finds itself scouring the ranks, looking for a 1-0 fighter for a pro wrestler to beat. We seem to be drifting in a very specific direction here.
Is that a bad thing? I really don't know. On some level, pro fighting needs to constantly find new ways to get potential customers to stop on the street and say, 'Now this I gotta see!' That's why you need a carnival barker out front, herding people into the tent with grandiose promises of pound-for-pound greats and Diaz brothers in beautiful bodies. But even the carnival has to have some principles, doesn't it?
Downes: I don't know. Maybe Chris Rock is right. 'A man is basically as faithful as his options.' When a curly haired University of Missouri wrestler comes by, he needs some more experience. When a global superstar shows up, how do you pass on that opportunity? Even the great Ben Fowlkes has been talking about the general sense of ennui that's afflicted MMA (and the UFC in particular) as of late. Perhaps this Mr. Brooks is the shot of adrenaline and excitement needed. The sport is desperate for characters and stars. Brooks provides all of that. This situation makes the whole Conor McGregor debate seem silly by comparison.
I think it's important to think about the winners in this agreement. Phil Brooks certainly wins. I doubt that MMA was a 'childhood dream,' but he's an MMA enthusiast and now he can compete in the foremost promotion in the world. The UFC wins because of attention and money. The media wins because of increased traffic and page views. Prepare yourself for all the unnecessary headlines making a big deal of the smallest details. BREAKING NEWS! FORMER WWE SUPERSTAR CM PUNK BUYS A PAIR OF SHIN GUARDS!
People have also been trying to tell me that the rest of the UFC roster benefits from this. Brooks will bring increased attention which means more PPV buys, which means more money for fighters. How did we come to that conclusion, exactly? My other favorite retort is the classic, 'Don't be a hater,' line. Another classic straw man argument. This is not about Phil Brooks the person. It's not even about Phil Brooks the fighter. This is about the sport. Do we even want to call it a sport?
Will this experiment be fun? Yes. Will a lot of people (myself included) be interested? Absolutely. But let's not act like this doesn't change things, because it certainly does. It may be for the better, it may be for the worse, but we can't play both sides of the fence anymore. And that's as real as it gets.
Post By http://mmajunkie.com/2014/12/trading-shots-cm-punk-may-be-good-business-for-the-ufc-but-is-that-enough
0 comments Blogger 0 Facebook
Post a Comment