Trading Shots: Downes, Fowlkes on injury TKOs and the search for a contender

In this week’s Trading Shots, MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes and retired UFC/WEC fighter Danny Downes weigh in on whether Carlos Condit’s blown out knee should torpedo Tyron Woodley’s claim to top contendership, and wonder what’s to be done with this Nick Diaz guy now that Johny Hendricks is our UFC welterweight champ.

* * * *

Fowlkes: You know Danny, I can think of a lot of topics for debate after UFC 171. We could discuss the scorecards in the Hendricks-Lawler fight. We could breakdown Hector Lombard‘s strategy of building up a lead and then running out the clock. We could put our heads together to try and figure out what the hell “Johny Vision” is.

But no, instead I want to start by looking at Tyron Woodley’s win over Carlos Condit, since I have a feeling it’s going to come up a lot as we discuss possible welterweight title contenders. The way you see it, what does this TKO via injury mean? You hurt a guy’s knee on a takedown, then leg kick him until that knee explodes on a pirouette, does that count as you stopping him? Does a fighter get to thump his chest and take pride in that win, or is it just nasty bad luck for the other guy?

Downes: With an injury TKO, you have to look at two main factors: 1) What caused the injury, and 2) at what point in the fight did it occur? In Saturday’s Woodly-Condit fight, neither one of these elements work out well for the “Chosen One.” When you kick someone in the leg, you’re purposely trying to cause damage. When you take someone down, that’s not the case. As for the second point, the official time of the stoppage was at the 2:00 mark of the second round. Woodley definitely took the first round, but I wouldn’t say that a victory was inevitable.

In his post-fight interview, he tried to immediately dispel these doubts, but I don’t think it worked. MMA is one of those sports where we talk about how “anything can happen,” and the tides can change with one punch, so I think most people want to give Condit the benefit of the doubt. Like you said, the only reason this discussion matters has to due with title implications. We’ve seen guys get title shots after losses, so a not-so-emphatic TKO win seems like something much easier to spin. Who do you think deserves the next opportunity at the welterweight championship?  Woodley, Rory MacDonald, Lombard or does the Sultan of Stockton come out of retirement and get his wish?

Fowlkes: With that current field of contenders, it feels like any title shot is going to be handed at least in part based on our speculative feelings about how good the eventual challenger might be. It also feels like there’s not a fighter in that bunch who you couldn’t make a case against, if you were so inclined.

Woodley? Man, he only beat Condit because his knee blew out, and he only has two wins in the UFC, both of which came against dudes who are either now retired or at least thinking about it. Lombard? All he did was cruise to a snoozer of a decision win over Jake Shields. MacDonald? His current win streak is stuck at one, and even when he had Demian Maia staggering with exhaustion he couldn’t put him away.

Which brings us to the Sultan himself, Mr. Nick Diaz. That’s the fight that you know the UFC wants to make, right? Diaz has the kind of crazy that sells, and he’s one of the only welterweights who can say that at the moment. Thing is, if we’re going on merit it’s hard to justify. He’s lost his past two fights, both of which were for some form of the UFC welterweight strap. He hasn’t won a fight since 2011, and that was against true lightweight B.J. Penn. Obviously he’s a great fighter, but how can the UFC give him another title shot right now without admitting that it’s purely about money? Or is that enough? Where’s the line between giving the people what they want (or want to pay for) and making the sport into some kind of half-ass viewer’s choice reality show?

Downes: I suppose this is the part where we bring up the fact that Chael Sonnen fought Jon Jones for the light-heavyweight title after a loss. At least Diaz isn’t asking to fight Chris Weidman (though we know he would if given the opportunity). It was a stretch, but the Sonnen-Jones angle worked because of the cancellation of UFC 151. What’s the hook for Diaz vs. Hendricks? One man is the welterweight champion. The other man yelled at him when he was trying to make weight for a fight. This. Time. It’s. Personal.

On the other hand, what’s the point of business? If MMA were purely objective, then wouldn’t Jon Fitch or Yushin Okami still be around? If the fans really want it, why would it be such a bad thing? Lombard, MacDonald and Woodley all have their pros and cons. So does Diaz, but he does bring something special to the table that the others don’t. As they say in the 209, Mr. Diaz possesses  a certain, “je ne sais quoi.” Do you really think that some greater integrity of the sport would be sacrificed if Diaz were given a title shot? The only real question besides if he deserves the title shot would be how competitive of a fight it would be. We all know that the lead up would give a share of quotes and noteworthy pronouncements, but if we just wanted personalities to hype a fight, we’d throw in professional wrestlers with no fight experience. We’d never do that, right?

Reporters have to do stories based on the public’s interest even if they don’t really see the merit (remember when you have to report on an in-cage flatulence?), why shouldn’t that apply to Joe Silva and the UFC?

Fowlkes: Do I think the sport would sacrifice some integrity by giving a nominally retired fighter on a two-fight losing streak a shot at the title? Maybe not, but only because, as you so helpfully pointed out, we already sacrificed that particular brand of integrity when Sonnen got a shot just for saying yes. It seemed like a dumb, cynical, borderline indefensible cash grab then, but now I see the genius of it. That move by the UFC set such a low-water mark that any subsequent cash grabs that aren’t quite as bad look perfectly reasonable by comparison. Ronda Rousey vs. Gina Carano? Hey, we’ve done worse!

Not that I think Hendricks-Diaz would be as bad as that. It has a certain siren’s song kind of appeal. I want to see it in spite of myself, but I’d also like to see it if and when it makes at least a little bit of sense. Here we have guys who are winning fights, guys who, in Woodley’s case, are saying yes via steady stream of text messages (and he even has the wherewithal to plug UFC sponsor MetroPCS!) before the question is even asked. If you skip over him to give a shot to a guy who has refused any non-title bouts, what have you told us about your priorities?

As for the defense that it’s our fault for being willing to pay for the fight in the first place, it’s funny how that doesn’t seem to work in the other direction. For instance, Rousey vs. Cris “Cyborg” Justino seems like a fight a lot of us would pay for, and instead we get excuses and evasions all while the Carano rumor gains a troubling amount of steam. Just give “Cyborg” a contract and take my money!

Look, I get why the UFC would be willing to do whatever it takes to get that sweet, sweet paper. What I don’t get is why that justification alone is enough for so many fans and even media members. They even throw it around at each other. It’s ridiculous. We are not UFC shareholders. The Zuffa bottom line is Zuffa’s concern – not ours. “Because it sells” might be reason enough to make a fight, but shouldn’t we be asking for a little more when deciding whether to buy?

Downes: It may feel that there is a double standard at play, but that doesn’t mean fans don’t have a responsibility. Any choice that the UFC (or any business for that matter) makes involves a cost-benefit analysis. What are the costs of making a Diaz/Hendricks fight? If fans become upset (and that’s a big if), there have to be tangible consequences. Dana White jokes that the “media” will find anything to complain about, and he’s probably right. It’s a journalist’s job to critique, and that’s not going to change any time soon. The UFC can withstand and deflect media pressure. Fan pressure is an entirely different matter.

I know your typical Montana elitism may think that I’m overestimating the power of the people, but I don’t think so. Just look at the flyweight division. The majority of fans still haven’t warmed up to the 125-pound division despite media pronouncements of its excellence. As a result, we still see the flyweight champion relegated to free TV and not wholly embraced. If there’s a backlash against “cash grabs,” as you put it, things will change. Perhaps not as fast as some would like it, but it’ll happen.

Personally I’d like to see a Diaz vs. Robbie Lawler rematch. Diaz would reject the idea because he thinks he deservers a title shot (and because he thinks beating a guy a decade ago still counts for something). Despite that, if the financial offer is big enough, he’ll fight. A sport’s integrity, however, can’t be measured with a dollar sign. Diaz can sacrifice some pride for enough zeros on a paycheck. Every fighter has his price. What’s ours?

For the latest on UFC 171, stay tuned to the UFC Events section of the site.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who also writes for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.

* * * *

Check out video highlights and a recap of UFC 171: