Will UFC 331 offer more proof that the lighter weight classes are no place for aging ex-champs? Mailbag
· Yahoo Sports
UFC 331 brings us another old dog vs. young pup title fight, so what does that mean for Alexandre Pantoja's plan to get his belt back from Joshua Van on Saturday? Plus, will Arman Tsarukyan really be the next lightweight challenger with a win, or is he about to get hit with the old switcheroo once again?
Visit newsbetting.cv for more information.
All that and more in this week's mailbag. To ask a question of your own, hit up @BenFowlkesMMA on X or @Ben_Fowlkes on Threads.
@Beastin364: Any one else noticing that Pantoja is now 36 and trying to get his belt back? When it was Volk people couldn't stop talking about 35 as the cutoff for the light classes. FlyW is the lightest of all so is he screwed?
Alexandre Pantoja's only loss in the last five years was a freak arm injury, so anyone thinking he's washed is operating on pure speculation. Yes, fighters in the lighter divisions (anything under 170 pounds, basically) tend to struggle in the championship fights when they are older. But let's not forget that Pantoja was on an absolute heater right up until that weird loss to Joshua Van in their first fight.
What concerns me more is that Pantoja hasn't fought since, and he's going up against a young gun with tons of momentum and confidence. It's not easy to come back after almost a year away and jump right back into a title fight (at the age of 36). I still think Pantoja could have the kind of night where he reminds us all that he really is that dude, but Van really has the juice right now — and we already know he won't go away quietly.
@bodkins_nick: We can't really be buying that Arman vs Ruffy is a number one contender fight.
And see, there's the problem with going back on your own promises too many times. At a certain point, people just don't believe you anymore.
Arman Tsarukyan's last fight was supposed to be to determine the top contender at lightweight. That's what UFC president Dana White said before the fight, anyway. Now look. Tsarukyan won that and won it easily, but 10 months later he's right back in another fight that's supposedly for top contender status. So why should we believe it this time? Especially with Justin Gaethje and Ilia Topuria chirping at each other about a rematch?
It gets us into a conversation about how much the stakes of these fights should (and actually do) matter. Are we tuning in just to see any two humans fight in a cage, regardless of why or what the outcome proves? Or are we motivated by the desire to see each division sort out its own pecking order through sanctioned violence? For me, the latter is a lot more interesting. It's also what helps this feel like an actual sport and not just random beatings. Once people no longer trust that there's any upwardly mobile system at work, I think you lose something important.
@shadore66: Using your own money, what's the limit you would pay for a ticket to see a UFC event
Here's what people should understand if they've only watched this sport on TV and have never been to a live UFC event: It genuinely is an entirely different experience. There's an energy in the building for a big fight night that can never fully transfer to the broadcast. You have to be there. It's all much bigger and louder and more exciting than you think it's going to be. The punches seem harder and more visceral. The heartbreak and elation is more real. I've been to tons of these events, and the magnitude still surprises me each time.
All of which is to say, it's an experience that is worth paying for, and I think every fight fan should make a personal pilgrimage to see at least one big MMA event live. Last hockey season I paid over $600 for two tickets up close to see Alex Ovechkin barely skate, and the experience was nowhere as thrilling or memorable as any UFC event I've been to.
But you know what I absolutely would not do, especially in the current era? I wouldn't buy tickets without seeing the whole fight card first. The days when you could confidently cough up the dough the moment the event goes on sale and trust that the UFC would fill it out later are long gone, man. Salt Lake City is finding that out. I would need to know the lineup before I buy. Then I would pray the whole thing holds together with limited injuries and withdrawals.
@LCombatsports: With the ali revival act clearing committee, what are your immediate reactions to it and why do you think there has been such little attention on it from the media?
My immediate reaction is that it's probably bad to change a law at the request of one company that wants to dominate every combat sport from pro wrestling to MMA to boxing. If you believe that TKO and its political allies really pushed for this thing in order to give fighters more protections, then you're more gullible than those people who got scammed by the fake 49ers player.
As for the media piece of it, I think there's a general fatigue around legal and regulatory matters. People are just fed up and tired of hearing about this stuff. Plus, it all feels like such a foregone conclusion. TKO wants this and so it will get it. That's not a particularly fun story to tell.
@MarkWaldoWard: If the skill level of Tommy Gunn is subpar but his style is monetizable, why don't more fighters emulate it?
Because there's a cost to it. Fans and promoters like a little rock 'em, sock 'em action, but the fighters who ply that trade always pay for it. But I also don't think it's the kind of thing many people could just choose. You either are that type of fighter or you're not. It's also why, for those who only know that way of doing things, it can be so hard to change even when they want to. Some people, when they hear the music, they can't help but dance.
@GhosterCoaster: As it's September and we're currently out of headlining champions for November/December, is now the time to introduce 165 division and split 155 and 175 (new) respectively?
Morales vs Prates for 175.
Islam is the new 165 champ & gets a new belt on his first defence.
I've long been in favor of a 165-pound division. And the UFC seems to love any excuse to put a belt on the event poster, so why not add a division and a title? I can't see it watering down the meaning of these belts any more than these interim titles already have.
@welcometothe559: Honest thoughts on Ki MMA?
It's hard to have too many opinions on an organization that hasn't put on a single fight yet. For now, I'm trying to remain open to the possibilities. A part of me says that a 32-man tournament presents too many opportunities for things to go way wrong, and anyway doesn't every promotion that starts out doing tournaments eventually ditch that model? Another part of me says, well, this sport needs something right now. Go out there and take a big swing and let's see what happens.
I believe in Scott Coker and Rich Chou, though. So that helps. These are people with experience in this space. They've run a successful MMA promotion before, and there are so few people who can say that.
@jaypettry: You mentioned earlier the difficulty of ending a combat sports career, especially as it pertains to going out on the right note.
How would you craft the perfect exit for someone like Tyron Woodley?
Like Joe Lauzon at Fenway against an 0-2 BKFC guy to win one more time at home?
I wish fighters would stop thinking so much about "going out" in the best way. For most of them, there is no such thing. That's because the ones who are still capable of beating relevant opponents don't want to stop. And if you bring in some bum just for the purposes of putting one last win at the end of your record, how satisfying is that, really?
I think the Joe Lauzon thing was a crime of opportunity. BKFC wanted to do that event at Fenway Park anyway, and Lauzon just happened to fit as an attraction for that crowd in that place. I don't think there are many opportunities for fighters to craft that kind of moment for themselves, though. It either arises organically or it doesn't.
Mostly I wish fighters wouldn't put so much emphasis on the end. Except for a few outliers — some good, some bad — we don't remember the end all that much. What we remember are the highlights along the way. As years pass and we look back on someone's career, the thing that happened last doesn't hold so much importance anymore.
@EyeofMihawk: Did you see award-winning writer Annie Dillard passed and are you familiar with her work?
Yes to both. Annie Dillard was one of the first non-fiction writers I really got into. Both "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek" and "The Writing Life" really blew my mind the first time I encountered them. She could write about absolutely anything and make it totally fascinating. The world is poorer for having lost her.