Matchmaking: WEC style
Posted by Fraser on March 5th, 2009
Coming out of this weekend’s solid and entertaining WEC show, the big talk once again revolved around the company’s flagship Featherweight division. Since gaining a higher profile through Versus and the Zuffa purchase, the Featherweights, and particularly former FW kingpin Urijah Faber, have been the focus of the company. As a result, Faber has been the biggest ratings draw for the company – the first Faber v. Pulver fight last year drew a record 1.4 rating, while the rematch this January drew a 0.65 – a significant drop, but still the second highest rated Versus event in WEC history. So it should be no surprise that at the end of the show the talk was not about up and comer Jose Aldo or even truly about new FW champ Mike Brown himself. The talk was, once again, about Urijah Faber and his pending rematch with Brown.
While there has been some question if Faber deserves such a quick rematch, this is a move that perfectly captures WEC’s matchmaking style. And it’s a style that their parent company could learn something from.
Unlike the UFC, the WEC focuses heavily on a fast rotating, small number of names. Fighters are built up in one show, get their title shot and, if they lose, in many cases are never heard from again. For a perfect example look to Yoshiro Maeda, who was given a shot at BW champ Miguel Torres after just one WEC fight. The two had a tremendous fight that WEC fans voted fight of the year, but Maeda lost, and found himself curtain jerking in his very next fight. There’s also Chase Beebe, the former BW champion who after his title loss to Torres was shuffled down to the prelims, Hiromitsu Miura, the WW with the exact same fate as Maeda, and on and on.
What is perhaps most interesting about this style is the message it sends to fighters and the way that message impacts the fights. In the WEC you are quite literally fighting for your spot at any time. With the exception of Faber, Torres and (inexplicably) Rob McCullough, every fighter in the WEC is seemingly one loss away from obscurity. What’s more, even winning is not always enough if that win is not exciting, as in the case of Wagnney Fabiano, who won a somewhat lackluster fight against the talented Akitoshi Tamura, and has since seen himself leapfrogged in the title hunt by the more exciting but less experienced Jose Aldo. This emphasis on wins typically leads to high paced fights with both men giving it their all. Compare that to the UFC, where much has been made recently of their use of Fight of the Night bonuses to encourage a string of fighters patting themselves on the back after yet another generic 3 round slugfest.
Beyond the quality of fights, this fast paced matchmaking style also has benefits for fans, allowing them to get invested in a fighter and quickly watch him rise to the top. This again is in sharp contrast to the UFC, where fighters must prove themselves slowly. Undoubtedly this is due to a higher and vaster level of talent in the UFC, but it does lead to situations like Gonzaga v. CroCop where the UFC squandered a big money fight (Couture v. CroCop) by insisting on building up a name.
Now, as the WEC heads towards Brown v. Faber II and a possible PPV debut, there are interesting questions that will need to be answered about this style. If Faber loses again, can he keep the interest of WEC fans? And will those fans who have tuned in to watch him for free be willing to pay to see him? These are interesting questions, and will be a fascinating test of the model. If they can keep interest in Faber alive, and use that interest to become a viable PPV company, it will be worth watching to see what role WEC plays in the ever expanding Zuffa empire.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I seriously don’t see WEC on PPV working out for anybody, regardless of Faber vs. Brown II being on there. I gotta say, Faber vs. Brown II is probably one of the few fights that I am really looking forward to right now, if just to see exactly how good Brown is. A lot of people, including myself were saying “eh, it was just a lucky shot” when he beat Faber, but the absolute destruction of Garcia brings up some questions.
When you use roundabout MMA logic, Faber had a long fight with Pulver, Pulver was decimated by Garcia. Faber then decimated Pulver. Garcia was decimated by Brown.
When you look at that situation, what becomes clear is that Brown vs. Faber II should be incredible and Brown should be taken a lot more seriously. In their first meeting, Brown embarrassed Faber who tried to get his cred back doing something stupid and, well, was made to look even more foolish.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I’m completely with you on thinking the PPV won’t work. The real problem they have in selling the PPV is a lack of names and star power. This isn’t really their fault - they’ve actually done a great job building up Faber’s name in a little over a year, plus done good work establishing Torres and reestablishing Pulver, despite him having a platry 1-5 record in the post-TUF era. But the BW and FW divisions are just too new to American fans and there simply aren’t many sellable names in those divisions. As I said, Faber is one, but even he only did those really strong numbers when paired with Pulver. The Faber v. Brown and Pulver v. Garcia card didn’t have the same pull. Short of BJ Penn miraculously dropping down to 145 or moving Torres up for a Faber v. Torres fight, I don’t see anything else being able to draw as a PPV. And even those (admitedly far out there) scenerios are just one fight a piece and not sustainable.
What WEC really needs to make it fly is some sort of show to serve the same purpose of a TUF where they can get over the personalities of their fighters and create their own names. Which again, is a stretch.
So no, I don’t see PPV working, which is a shame since WEC is working well for them right now. If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it, you know?