UFC Super HW Division

Locomotion · 07-05-2009 4:20pm #1

I am not talking about the olden days of fat 285-350 pounders throwing 6 punches and gassing, I'm talking about keeping the current weight limits but splitting the heavyweight division of 206-265 lbs into two separate weight classes.

Make 206-230 Heavyweight and 231-265 Super Heavyweight.

When you have guys like Shane Carwin and Brock Lesnar having to cut to make weight planning to fight against guys like Chieck Kongo who is 230, Andrei Arlovski who is 237, Randy Couture 225, Antonio Nogueira 238, you wonder if the weight is gonna play too much of a factor. After all, it's meant to be mostly about the fighting.

Sure in the lighter weight divisions, you'll have say, a 'big' welterweight in GSP or Thiago Alves or a 'big' light heavyweight in Forrest Griffin but on weigh-in day, these guys are all weighing in within 2-3 lbs of their opponents.

At Heavyweight currently, you can have as much as 40 lbs of difference on the weigh in day. And that only increases before the fight when the bigger man rehydrates.

If these differences aren't going to be utilised by the bigger men, then what's the point in having any weight divisions? It should just be an all out absolute division.

I think it would add a lot of competitiveness adding a 6th UFC title somewhere around the 225-235 lb mark. But what do you think?

dunkamania · 07-05-2009 4:26pm

I am strongly in favour of this. I think in practice it would be a cruiserweight division of 206-230lbs. I can understand why the UFC are reluctant to do it. It dilutes talent in the HW diviion, lessens the significance of the other belts, and majes it harder to make cuts to its fighter roster

Locomotion · 07-05-2009 4:37pm

dunkamania wrote: »

I am strongly in favour of this. I think in practice it would be a cruiserweight division of 206-230lbs. I can understand why the UFC are reluctant to do it. It dilutes talent in the HW diviion, lessens the significance of the other belts, and majes it harder to make cuts to its fighter roster

But it also helps marketing PPVs as there is now a 6th belt so more UFC PPVs can be promoted with a title match as the main event.

I've been to four of the UFCs they've had over in Europe and only one had a title match. As much fun as I had at the other three, there was something different about being 'part of history' and watching a title match.

Some of the lowest buyrates for PPVs in 2008 were the ones which didn't have title matches e.g. UFC 85, UFC 88 and UFC 89

cowzerp · 07-05-2009 4:38pm

Butterbean here we come!!

ginoginelli · 07-05-2009 4:56pm

I think its a bit early in the sport to be adding a superheavy. Firstly, the talent pool is too thin at the moment for guys that couldnt make 230, secondly, it hasnt been proved definetivley that the 230 guys cant hang with the 260, 270 guys..

I say keep it the way it is for the moment.

Fozzy · 07-05-2009 6:50pm

I see no need for it. The guys who weigh under 235lbs could make lightheavyweight with a little bit of dieting and the same weight cutting that practically all the other fighters do. These guys obviously choose to fight at heavyweight, it's not like they're stuck in an unsuitable division by nature

How much talent would there be in a 230-265lbs division? There's a few notable fighters but I really don't see much depth there. You'd probably have the guys currently at that weight cutting down to the under-230lbs division

Obviously a 40lbs difference in weight in the lower classes has a massive effect. But in the higher weight classes it's not so clear cut. The heavier fighters are usually slower and less mobile, with the lighter guys gaining an advantage in speed while being at a weight disadvantage. Of course, then you've got a guy like Brock Lesnar, who's just as quick as a guy 60lbs lighter. But do you make a new division just for the sake of a handful of fighters? I'd say no

rovert · 07-05-2009 9:45pm

How come this never really came up before Lesnar. :pac:

Locomotion wrote: »

But it also helps marketing PPVs as there is now a 6th belt so more UFC PPVs can be promoted with a title match as the main event.

I’m of the school of that the more belts you add the less value all other belts
will have. Just look at much the value of title in boxing have been debased in recent years.

Locomotion wrote: »

I've been to four of the UFCs they've had over in Europe and only one had a title match. As much fun as I had at the other three, there was something different about being 'part of history' and watching a title match.

Some of the lowest buyrates for PPVs in 2008 were the ones which didn't have title matches e.g. UFC 85, UFC 88 and UFC 89.

I don’t think the lack of title fights was the singular or primary reason for low buyrates. The time delay is a way bigger factor. For me the reason why UFC overseas this year have done better is that UFC made a lot of fans post the Lesnar victory over Couture and they are bumping up the numbers for the subsequent shows. Along with UFC as an entity just be a promotional juggernaut picking up fans left and right.

Fozzy wrote: »

I see no need for it. The guys who weigh under 235lbs could make lightheavyweight with a little bit of dieting and the same weight cutting that practically all the other fighters do. These guys obviously choose to fight at heavyweight, it's not like they're stuck in an unsuitable division by nature

How much talent would there be in a 230-265lbs division? There's a few notable fighters but I really don't see much depth there. You'd probably have the guys currently at that weight cutting down to the under-230lbs division

Obviously a 40lbs difference in weight in the lower classes has a massive effect. But in the higher weight classes it's not so clear cut. The heavier fighters are usually slower and less mobile, with the lighter guys gaining an advantage in speed while being at a weight disadvantage. Of course, then you've got a guy like Brock Lesnar, who's just as quick as a guy 60lbs lighter. But do you make a new division just for the sake of a handful of fighters? I'd say no

Good post Fozzy

Realistically I doubt "any" two Super Heavyweight fighters could deliver a reasonably long and entertaining PPV main event fight. So really what is the point in UFC promotioning a title which will deliver lackluster fights which will be hard to confidently give the main event slot more often than not?

Tones69 · 10-05-2009 8:25pm

Good idea but cant see it happening anytime soon

Tones69 · 10-05-2009 8:27pm

rovert wrote: »

How come this never really came up before Lesnar. :pac:

I’m of the school of that the more belts you add the less value all other belts
will have. Just look at much the value of title in boxing have been debased in recent years.

I don’t think the lack of title fights was the singular or primary reason for low buyrates. The time delay is a way bigger factor. For me the reason why UFC overseas this year have done better is that UFC made a lot of fans post the Lesnar victory over Couture and they are bumping up the numbers for the subsequent shows. Along with UFC as an entity just be a promotional juggernaut picking up fans left and right.

Good post Fozzy

Realistically I doubt "any" two Super Heavyweight fighters could deliver a reasonably long and entertaining PPV main event fight. So really what is the point in UFC promotioning a title which will deliver lackluster fights which will be hard to confidently give the main event slot more often than not?

Kongo, carwin, lesnar, mir?!?!?! Theyre all ovr 230lbs and are well capable of entertaining PPV's..If they did put a 230lb cap on HW i bet we would see a few LHW guys moving back up (and moving down from SHW also) Randy would deffo stay there instead of moving back to LHW and i could see Forrest moving up with one or two others also,hell id bet Anderson Silva would give it a shot too

rovert · 10-05-2009 9:15pm

Tones69 wrote: »

Kongo, carwin, lesnar, mir?!?!?! Theyre all ovr 230lbs and are well capable of entertaining PPV's

Four guys aint a division. Anyways removing them the current Heavyweight division weakens it a whole hell of a lot along reducing the amount of fresh fights. Rendering adding a further title pretty pointless.

mikethemouth · 10-05-2009 11:32pm

what ppv numbers did gsp v penn do and what have recent ufc events done...anyone know?

Locomotion · 11-05-2009 9:40am

mikethemouth wrote: »

what ppv numbers did gsp v penn do and what have recent ufc events done...anyone know?

UFC 94 did about 800,000 buys. UFC 96 did about 375,000.

Source: Only Wikipedia so take with a pinch of salt

mikethemouth · 11-05-2009 9:49am

in fairness there pretty decent figures...thought gsp v penn fight would break 1m...whats the the biggest ufc ppv to date ...is it still ortiz v liddell ?

do we have any figures for recent silva ppv (ufc 98) in canada

what do u think ufc 100 will do ? surely that ll break ufc ppv records .....

Tones69 · 12-05-2009 12:55am

mikethemouth wrote: »

in fairness there pretty decent figures...thought gsp v penn fight would break 1m...whats the the biggest ufc ppv to date ...is it still ortiz v liddell ?

do we have any figures for recent silva ppv (ufc 98) in canada

what do u think ufc 100 will do ? surely that ll break ufc ppv records .....

Im pretty sure Lesnar Vs Couture has the most ppv to date

Fozzy · 12-05-2009 5:21am

Tones69 wrote: »

Im pretty sure Lesnar Vs Couture has the most ppv to date

It was over a million last I heard but there was no figure given after that

Locomotion · 12-05-2009 9:31am

Fozzy wrote: »

It was over a million last I heard but there was no figure given after that

Lesnar Couture was 920,000. UFC 92 was over 1m (no official figure disclosed on Wikipedia) and Liddell Vs Ortiz was 1,050,000

Fozzy · 12-05-2009 3:41pm

Locomotion wrote: »

Lesnar Couture was 920,000. UFC 92 was over 1m (no official figure disclosed on Wikipedia) and Liddell Vs Ortiz was 1,050,000

That 920,000 figure was taken from the Wrestling Observer. It had an update a few weeks later saying it was over a million and that's the last I remember reading

mikethemouth · 13-05-2009 1:29am

Fozzy wrote: »

That 920,000 figure was taken from the Wrestling Observer. It had an update a few weeks later saying it was over a million and that's the last I remember reading

sure but lidell v ortiz is the record ppv so far to date

ufc 100 will surely smash this record but then again the economy is bad over there so hard to know but i d be fairly confident that ufc100 will do 1.2m

Fozzy · 13-05-2009 3:29pm

mikethemouth wrote: »

sure but lidell v ortiz is the record ppv so far to date

ufc 100 will surely smash this record but then again the economy is bad over there so hard to know but i d be fairly confident that ufc100 will do 1.2m

It has a better chance than any show that they've ever done anyway. Brock's their biggest draw, and he's got that backstory with Mir that will get people interested now. GSP always drives Canadian buys way up, and there's the 10 week build (or whatever it is) for the Bisping/Henderson fight on TUF. I'd be surprised if it did less than one million

I don't think that you can say for certain either way what their highest buyrate was. They don't release the figures publicly and most of the information comes from the Wrestling Observer because Dave Meltzer has a lot of sources to where he's able to give as close an estimate as you're going to get

mikethemouth · 13-05-2009 4:19pm

Fozzy wrote: »

It has a better chance than any show that they've ever done anyway. Brock's their biggest draw, and he's got that backstory with Mir that will get people interested now. GSP always drives Canadian buys way up, and there's the 10 week build (or whatever it is) for the Bisping/Henderson fight on TUF. I'd be surprised if it did less than one million

I don't think that you can say for certain either way what their highest buyrate was. They don't release the figures publicly and most of the information comes from the Wrestling Observer because Dave Meltzer has a lot of sources to where he's able to give as close an estimate as you're going to get

yeh agreed fella

as ufc is a private company we an never truly have an idea unlike hbo figures etc . meltzer is usually on the ball though.

i think you ll get a fair idea how bad the economy the economy is affecting the fight game from the pacquaio v hatton ppv numbers . they predicted 1.6 -2m but these are been revised apparently .

but like you i would expect this to do a minimum of 1m especially since xmas card of 3 huge fights sold so well after corture v lesnar

interesting article here from dana about potentially signing up fedor

http://www.carmichaeldave.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:a-carmichael-dave-exclusive-dana-white-on-fedor-emelianenko&catid=36:mma

rovert · 13-05-2009 4:47pm

mikethemouth wrote: »

i think you ll get a fair idea how bad the economy the economy is affecting the fight game from the pacquaio v hatton ppv numbers . they predicted 1.6 -2m but these are been revised apparently .

I think that can be more attritubed to the less that stellar promotional job for the fight. For example 24/7 specials werent that effective in making you turn into the next installment let alone convincing you to shell out for the PPV itself. Mayweather / De La Hoya this was not.

mikethemouth · 13-05-2009 5:05pm

rovert wrote: »

I think that can be more attritubed to the less that stellar promotional job for the fight. For example 24/7 specials werent that effective in making you turn into the next installment let alone convincing you to shell out for the PPV itself. Mayweather / De La Hoya this was not.

have to disagree with you there mate . thought it was one of the better 24/7 programmes and thought it still had very strong media coverage especially internationally.

it will deffo do over a million and will prob do i would guess 1.3m - 1.4 m which is huge in the current market plus these guys are foreign fighters on US soil. apparently it did 1.6m ppv in the uk which is massive but not unexpected due to hatton's following.

i dont think you can really compare de la hoya fights with regard to other fighters across all disciplines. the guy's ppv record is astronomical so dont think it would be fair to compare any other fighters to him in ppv respect but if this fight did anything over a million it means pacquaio potentially may over time take over DLH mantle....big ask though.

i think lesnar can be the UFC's de la hoya but for me the ufc need to sign fedor as without him the argument will always be asked why is the best p4p fighter not fighting under the ufc banner. while i,m not a dana white fan i think it was a genius stroke signing brock lesnar ...the only drawback is that your attracting alot of wresting audience which i,m sure mma purists would not be too happy about...

Fozzy · 14-05-2009 5:23pm

mikethemouth wrote: »

the only drawback is that your attracting alot of wresting audience which i,m sure mma purists would not be too happy about...

They've been attracting wrestling fans for years. The WWF used to advertise UFC PPVs on their shows. TUF first aired after a WWE show and kept a lot of the audience watching. I don't think that it matters either way though, fans are fans. A lot of these "MMA purists" were probably pro wrestling fans themselves!

rovert · 14-05-2009 5:46pm

mikethemouth wrote: »

have to disagree with you there mate . thought it was one of the better 24/7 programmes and thought it still had very strong media coverage especially internationally.

It is a matter of opinion on the 24/7.

mikethemouth wrote: »

i dont think you can really compare de la hoya fights with regard to other fighters across all disciplines. the guy's ppv record is astronomical so dont think it would be fair to compare any other fighters to him in ppv respect but if this fight did anything over a million it means pacquaio potentially may over time take over DLH mantle....big ask though.

That’s fair, again I just didn’t think that this 24/7 wasn’t that compelling for me that’s all.

mikethemouth wrote: »

while i,m not a dana white fan i think it was a genius stroke signing brock lesnar ...the only drawback is that your attracting alot of wresting audience which i,m sure mma purists would not be too happy about...

You do know the history of the sport right and which media first covered MMA as a sport in the US? The number "MMA purists" I’ve encountered on Stateside forums mushroomed after Ultimate Fighter started which used to follow WWE RAW on Spike btw.

*Cue a discussion that has been done a millions times on this forum*

Anyway if Brock’s fights proves anything is that “MMA purists” pay to see him lose. So what’s the problem?

mikethemouth · 14-05-2009 6:01pm

Fozzy wrote: »

They've been attracting wrestling fans for years. The WWF used to advertise UFC PPVs on their shows. TUF first aired after a WWE show and kept a lot of the audience watching. I don't think that it matters either way though, fans are fans. A lot of these "MMA purists" were probably pro wrestling fans themselves!

In fairness you make a good point there.

my only point of concern would be is this a good thing having this link if the sport wants to keep growing especially in the mainstream. I mean i agree f"ans are fans" but is their an argument that if MMA continues to attract WWE fans it will reflect lik an image that UFC/ MMA is not a real sport to people who are clueless. I could be completely wrong but just a thought...

regarding 24/7 i respect your view on it . personally i found the mayweather v roach angle very entertaining ...seeing flyod going into taco bell and then walking in on ricky sparring was classic

mikethemouth · 14-05-2009 6:08pm

valid points rovert .

yes i was one of the original teenagers who had to wait a month for the early ppv's to reach the door.....you should have a good idea of my age now ;-)

in fairness your correct about the mma purist point regarding TUF and griffin v bonnar etc.

suppose alot of people forget how you the sport is (maybe 30yrs at most)

regarding brock i agree ...guy is a beast but dont particularly rate him myself ...getting a title shot after 2 fight still irks me ...kinda devalued the belt imo but thats another subject. i would just love to see fedor in the ring with brock ....i d be a happy man !

rovert · 14-05-2009 6:17pm

mikethemouth wrote: »

valid points rovert .

Thanks and I’m a bit relieved to be honest

mikethemouth wrote: »

regarding brock i agree ...guy is a beast but dont particularly rate him myself ...getting a title shot after 2 fight still irks me ...kinda devalued the belt imo but thats another subject.!

Devalued it more than still having two of them and having the "real" Champion only fighting in court for a year?

mikethemouth wrote: »

i would just love to see fedor in the ring with brock ....i d be a happy man !

I would too but that is more up to Fedor than UFC.

mikethemouth wrote: »

my only point of concern would be is this a good thing having this link if the sport wants to keep growing especially in the mainstream. I mean i agree f"ans are fans" but is their an argument that if MMA continues to attract WWE fans it will reflect lik an image that UFC/ MMA is not a real sport to people who are clueless. I could be completely wrong but just a thought...

How would these clueless people identify the Wrestling fans

mikethemouth · 14-05-2009 10:46pm

rovert wrote: »

I would too but that is more up to Fedor than UFC.

disagree dude...if dana decided to pay his fighters the salaries they deserve for the revenues they generate it would become alot easier for fedor to join the ufc

rovert · 15-05-2009 7:13am

mikethemouth wrote: »

disagree dude...if dana decided to pay his fighters the salaries they deserve for the revenues they generate it would become alot easier for fedor to join the ufc

Not signing Fedor has little to with salaries.

mikethemouth · 15-05-2009 9:17am

rovert wrote: »

Not signing Fedor has little to with salaries.

course it does, it s one of the main reasons hes with affliction .....you think the ufc will start him off on a million a fight contract ??? this would seriously affect the status quo in the ufc ..if fedor is looking for this what will the next punk be looking for !!! dana has through the years paid his fighters poorly for the revenues they generate. also the type of contracts theses guys have to sign is fundamentally wrong from a number of points ...handing over lifelong image rights/ripping up contracts after a fight loss/having elite fighters fight 8 times in 2 yrs etc !!! ask jon fitch, tito, Pat Miletich, and randy for more insight ;-)

rovert · 15-05-2009 10:30am

mikethemouth wrote: »

course it does, it s one of the main reasons hes with affliction .....you think the ufc will start him off on a million a fight contract ???

You do know what Dana was willing to pay Fedor and what Fedor and his management wanted right? Along with how much money Afflication has lost after paying all that money to Fedor?

UFC Super HW Division

Comments