As Herring said after the Kongo fight, “I don’t think the world is ready for Nog-Herring IV.” And there’s good reason for that, Nogueira is 3-0. Under that scenario I agree with Rossen.

But if a series is 2-1, is it really that bad to have a fourth fight? If Rampage beats Silva this month, is either fighter conclusively better than the other?

Back to Liddell/Couture, I don’t mind fight four because I really don’t want to see them fight anyone else. They’re both in the twilight of their careers and neither will be significant parts of MMA in a few years. Looking at Sherdog’s rankings, I really have no interest with them fighting anyone in the top ten at LHW or HW.

So just stick ’em together in a new market and make some monies.

The UFC is trying to keep the draw power of at least one of their major stars alive in a time where it is needed. If Randy and Chuck both lose their PPV credibility, Brock Lesnar is really the only huge draw, followed possibly by Georges St. Pierre. Matt Hughes will not be the same money making machine as he has been previously following his recent two defeats. It is unclear whether Tito Ortiz will re-sign with the company and even if he does, he too has lost a lot of his previous drawing power. Forrest Griffin is a proven fan favorite but it is unclear whether he can carry a pay-per-view on his name alone, with his two big fights being against perennial money makers Ortiz and Quinton Jackson. Anderson Silva is having trouble breaking the 300k-330k tier he has been hitting consistently with his main events.

In a time where the UFC needs superstars for the immediate future, it is a smart idea to keep either Chuck or Randy a viable draw. While it might not make the most sense from a rankings perspective, it is undoubtedly a marquee fights that will draw huge interest from the mainstream media as well as both casual and hardcore fans alike.

The other thing that has to be considered, it seems to me, is whether the fighters have changed since the previous encounters. Since Liddell/Couture III, both fighters have changed quite a bit. Randy went up to HW, took the crown, seemed to keep getting better for a bit, sat out a year, and now looked game if overpowered in the Lesnar fight. Liddell also seemed to keep getting better for a bit, but has now hit a major slump and been knocked out a couple of times, lost a decision, etc. At this point in time, Liddell/Couture is potentially a much different fight than the last one (or any of the previous three, for that matter) because both fighters are different now than they were during that/those fight(s).

I’m not particularly keen to see the fight, either. I’d prefer to see Liddell moving up to HW in a more linear fashion, taking on somebody new and maybe “mid-tier” in the HW class to see how he will handle the change in weight class, etc. Let him take a couple of fights over the next year to work his way into the weight class and see where things are at that point. That’s just me, though.

where if boxer A beats boxer B 3 times, there’s really no way boxer B will be able to beat boxer A the fourth time. However, in MMA, anything is possible. Fighter A may beat fighter B three times, if fighter B trains in a discipline that fighter A is weak in, fighter B could conceivably beat fighter A the fourth time with a good game plan.

Having said that, I think Couture would beat Liddell the fourth time. Couture has improved with age, but Liddell hasn’t fare so well. He’s turning into the next Ken Shamrock, skills and chin falls off a cliff as the big 4-0 approaches.

“Couture/Liddell IV would likely be the first time a fourth fight has been arranged for warring parties in mixed martial arts.”

Rossen missed the epic Fulton/Prazak series I guess

“Three fights give you a pretty concrete indication of who the better combat athlete is, which is supposed to be the whole point of the sport.”

I disagree with the premise. Maybe he was rushing through that part of the paragraph, but “who the better combat athlete is” is a muddled goal. How do you even define “combat athlete”? Does a fight really get won or lost purely on athletics? Don’t variations in the rules make such a goal impossible? Really, that’s just to concrete a statement about too mushy of a subject.

And thinking like this leads to the idea that the point of the sport is to find out who the “best fighter” is. If we define that by who wins the fight, should guys that don’t have what it takes to be champion be banished from the sport? Rich Franklin doesn’t stand a chance against Silva. Should we kick him out of the sport? Or is there something else he can do?

Fighting exists for a whole host of reasons. I like the idea of it being all about the purity of sport and the strive for blah blah blah, but I admit that one of those reasons is entertainment. And even I like entertaining fights! I want to know who wins a fight between a polar bear and the whole roster at Hammer House. GSP and BJ vs. Brock. The top 10 bantamweights against the top 3 heavyweights. Fedor vs. Choi didn’t prove anything, but it was pretty fun.

This doesn’t mean that I give up on the idea of serious athletic achievement. But I don’t pretend that the winner is the better man or that he deserved to win. When ‘Page slammed Arona, did he win by knockout or illegal head-butt? Don’t care. I was entertained.

Let’s not get caught up in some intellectual exercise about making fights that matter. Let’s just admit that we like watching two (or 12) people (or bears) go at it, and leave the great truths out of it.