...OH, ONE MORE THING - PLEASE BOOKMARK US & VISIT DAILY!
Alex Williams is a PhD student in clinical health psychology. Tom Suter is a PhD student in molecular biology. The lower the stakes, the pettier the arguments. This is Sayre's Law.
This week's topic: Are gimmick matches good for MMA?
Suter: Yes, they're Good for the Sport!
The Gimmick match: Conseco vs. Choi; Toney vs. Couture. Bob Sapp(aru) vs. anyone he's faced in the last few years. Marious Pudgzianewski [for the record, this was my pre-google attempt at spelling his name through random typing---and I'm impressed enough with how close I got that I'm going to leave it up) vs. people who actually know how to fight. Women vs. each other.
We see them time and again (largely through youtube; I mean, are you really going to pay to see this sort of shit?), and they usually pique our interest sufficiently to talk about them with our friends. However, are these sorts of fights good for the sport?
First off, I guess it's important to define what a "Gimmick match" really is. That answer's going to be quite different from person to person, and there will often be some grey area (e.g, Sonnen vs. Jones... I mean, who really thought that that clown Sonnen stood a chance in that fight?). For the sake of this column, I'm going to define "Gimmick matches" as fights where the draw of the fight in question is no longer its "legitimate MMA competition" aspect, but rather the presence of an oddity (and I would appreciate if Alex defines "Gimmick matches" in the same way...otherwise this whole thing becomes a bit petty and pointless...err...it becomes MORE petty and pointless).
At a surface level, it would seem counterintuitive to suggest that non-legitimate competition would be good for the sport of MMA. We've all seen the sorry state of boxing due to the role of alphabet titles delegitimizing fights and championships (full disclosure: I haven't actually seen any part of this role; I just hear Alex bitching about it every time I talk with him, so I'm going to assume that's accurate). And the lopsided bloodbaths that Gimmick matches tend to produce won't really help out on the quest to legalize MMA in New York.
So...why am I pro Gimmick?
1) Gimmick matches draw people in to the sport. My first experience with MMA was debating whether wrestling would beat karate, and then seeing a martial arts rock-paper-scissors tournament in the form of the early UFCs (though, at this point, one might argue this sort of thing was legitimate competition). Non-fans don't know who Johny Hendricks is, but they may know who Butterbean is, and they want to see him get the s*** beat out of him. And some people may leave after watching the gimmick. But, unless they're a State Senator of New York, I don't really care. The rest may then get hooked and want to see the real stuff.
2. Gimmick matches are fun. To this day, one of my top five MMA moments was seeing Patrick Smith beat the crap out of a fetal-position-assuming Butterbean.
And watching Shinya Aoki getting knocked out by a kickboxer after the former spent an entire round abusing a Gimmick match's rule-set. I enjoy legitimate competition too, but Gimmick matches fill an entertainment niche for hardened MMA fans as well.
3. Gimmick matches pose no danger to the legitimization of the sport as long as there's a clear delineation between Gimmick and Legitimate matches. No one was claiming Couture was the leading heavyweight contender after beating James Toney with a middle-school level take down. And I didn't see any "SMITH IS BACK!@##!@#!@" headlines after his Butterbean victory (yes; that's the third time I've referenced that fight in this article; I can only think of like five of these matches as I write this at 1:17 AM so that I don't get another e-mail from Alex with "Sayre's ????" as the subject line). We're in on the joke. And as long as that rings true, these matches aren't a threat to the sport.
Williams: Are they Good for the Sport? Perhaps . . .
There's always going to be a crowd of people who pay money to see Butterbean-types fight or people wrestle bears. Do they become loyal buyers once the gimmick runs its course? Bob Arum routinely featured Butterbean on his pay-per-view undercards, but I don't know of any data that this attracted regular new customers. Maybe the best evidence it didn't is that Arum hasn't attempted it since.
2. "Gimmick matches are fun."
Yes, if not overdone, they are.
3. "Gimmick matches pose no danger to the legitimization of the sport as long as there's a clear delineation between Gimmick and Legitimate matches."
Yeah, I'm not sure how clear that delineation can be kept. True, nobody thought Randy Couture deserved to rise in the rankings because he manhandled James Toney; however, it doesn't take many gimmick matches before the mainstream sports media starts harping on MMA as a sideshow whenever they mention it. Is the loss in mainstream prestige (and maybe sponsors) balanced out by Gimmick matches potentially drawing new fans to the sport? I don't know.
Look, I enjoy Gimmick bouts. If Herschel Walker fights again, I'll watch. It's painting with too broad of strokes to say they're "Bad for the Sport." The position I'm comfortable taking is that Tom is both overconfident in his appraisal that Gimmick matches are harmless and unseemly in how he fetishizes them.
And yes, as long as Tom, uh, "nudges" Sayre's Law deadlines, he'll continue to receive reminder emails that include, in his words, "oddly threatening clips of I Love Lucy."
Jamie Penick, editor-in-chief
(mmatorcheditor@gmail.com)
STAFF COLUMNISTS: Shawn Ennis - Jason Amadi
Frank Hyden - Rich Hansen
Chris Park - Matt Pelkey
Interested in joining MMATorch's writing team? Send idea for a theme to your column (for Specialist section) or area of interest (i.e. TV Reporter) along with a sample of writing to mmatorch@gmail.com.
