The shocking speed that marked his first few UFC fights was gone

This time out…I would say he looked his years, but it hasn’t even been two. Still, for all of Griffin’s intelligent strategizing, Perry looked…flat. Worn out. The shocking speed that marked his first few UFC fights was gone. Perry has always been willing to take three to give one, but in Orlando he took and took, without ever looking particularly willing to do anything about it. He looked like a man who knew there were answers to the problem before him - he had solved Danny Roberts in a similar matchup less than a year prior - but he couldn’t execute.

Phil: The humanitarian question is an interesting lens to look through, because there are always two sides to every fight. If we ask for softer matchups for potential stars, we’re also sort of saying that it’s OK to sacrifice weaker fighters to them. In general I think it’s perhaps too easy to criticize the UFC for its mistakes without taking into account some of the checks and balances which inform the choices they make. The UFC’s current model is harsh, but has a equitable side to it (aside from stylistic concerns: no one likes grapplers, etc), because everyone largely gets someone very close to their own skill level.

Softer matchups put weaker fighters in harm’s way. Do we really want to advocate for fights which come on the spectrum of, say, Shevchenko vs Cachoeira, or this weekend’s “champion vs champion” matchup of Cyborg vs Kunitskaya? Squash matches are undeniably useful from a promotional standpoint (see: PRIDE, or Michael Page), but do we really want to go down that path?

In addition, thinking of fights from a star-building perspective makes for tough questions about factors like fight frequency. Like you said, Mike Perry has fought a lot. Is that good or bad? From a star-building perspective, you want to keep your guy out there (remember Makwan “Mr Finland” Amirkhani? Me neither!). On the other hand, consistent fights also carry the risk the risk physical and mental damage building up over time. Alternatively, it might aid them in learning on the job. It’s a complex question.

I guess what I’d like to see more is just more (and “safer”) variety in the style matchups thrown at developing fighters, not trying to bury every grappler or bash every hitter against one other. Why is someone like Perry endlessly fighting power punchers? Could he not fight sneaky submission aces like a Moraes, or a Nakamura?

Connor: That is a salient point. Fighting is an inescapably horrible business. Still, there has to be a middle road between “if he dies, he dies” and “please no one notice that we aren’t testing this guy at all.” And I think your point about styles sits firmly on that middle road.

If a promotion were to use its journeymen strategically, then they would be slotted into a wide variety of stylistic pairings. Say they give Perry someone like Zak Ottow. That strikes me as a perfectly acceptable matchup for both men, because Ottow has not spent the last year going to war with power punchers. If, however, they gave him Erick Silva…you see my point. Both are matchups which Perry would be expected to win, but one is decidedly more cruel. If matchups are made with just a touch more care, with an eye for long-term strategy, then everyone wins--even the guys who are brought in to lose.


https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2018/3/1/17065300/ufc-matchmaking-mike-perry-max-griffin-platinum-as-a-commodity-mma-editorial