Earlier this week I contributed a little to a Zach Arnold piece on how Forrest could beat Rampage. I'm not saying he will, I'm just saying where I think his best chances are:

There are two paths Griffin could choose to go down.

1) The Wanderlei Silva route — Get inside, fire punches to the body and then lock in the thai plum. Griffin is taller than Rampage and could do some damage if he can connect with knees to the head.

2) The Josh Thomson route — Keep the standup on the outside and use leg kicks and body kicks to keep Rampage out of punching range. Fire knees to the face when Rampage shoots in. I don’t think Griffin has the wrestling skills to pull off #2 and since he’s been training with Wanderlei Silva, I think he’ll go for #1. Can he beat Rampage like that? Seems unlikely, but so did beating Shogun on the ground.

This FightMetric piece on AOL Sports convinced me more than ever that trying to beat Rampage in the clinch is the wrong road for Forrest Griffin to try to go down:

Many people have watched Rampage fall prey to the Muay Thai clinch of Wanderlei Silva and Mauricio "Shogun" Rua and figured that the clinch is where Rampage's game is weakest. That would be a big mistake.

Statistically, the clinch is actually the strongest part of Rampage's game.

Over the course of those 21 fights, Rampage landed 372 HiPer Strikes (meaning, the most significant kind of strikes). A total of 222 of those strikes were landed in the clinch, which comes out to 60%. That means that Rampage has landed more strikes in the clinch than toe-to-toe and on the ground combined.

It's not just volume either. His accuracy on those strikes is an astounding 82%, on 222 of 270 strikes. Rampage picks his shots well in the clinch and uses an underrated Greco clinch for maximum control.

Of course, it also helps that his opponents are distracted by the prospect of a takedown. While known as an excellent freestyle wrestler, nearly all of Rampage's takedowns come from the clinch (31 of 33 successful takedowns). And much like his striking, his takedown success rate is well above-average. Rampage landed 31 of the 46 clinch takedowns he's attempted for a success rate of 67%, compared to the average fighter who lands about 45% of his attempts.

Forrest's best chance is to turn the fight into a bull vs the matador match like Thomson/Melendez. Outscore Rampage on the feet and keep Quinton out of close range by using body kicks to keep him away. Pretty slim thread to cling to, but I think it's Forrest's only hope.

From Sherdog:

A revised edition of the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts was passed Thursday by the Association of Boxing Commissions via a majority vote at the ABC's annual conference.

The amended document -- drafted by the ABC's MMA Chairman Dale Kliparchuk, New Jersey State Athletic Control Board Deputy Attorney Nick Lembo, ABC President Timothy Leuckenhoff and veteran referee "Big" John McCarthy -- primarily provided clarifications to the already existing Unified Rules instituted in April 2001 that serve as a regulatory beacon for the sport throughout North America.

...

Forty regulatory bodies were in attendance for the annual event. The California State Athletic Commission and the Nevada State Athletic Commission, both known for regulating a large amount of MMA events in their states, did not attend.

Notable rules changes include:

• The back of the head is clearly defined as the "Mohawk" definition -- "crown of the head down the centerline of the skull into the spine, with a one-inch variance to each side."
• Downward elbow strikes are now legal unless aimed at protected areas.
• Smothering the mouth or nose of an opponent is now a foul.
• Weight classes are changed as well:

Fourteen weight classes are now defined in the men's division under the Unified Rules, beginning at the 105-pound flyweight division and moving up in 10-pound increments to super heavyweight at 265 pounds and over. In particular, the welterweight division will now range from 165-175 pounds, while light heavyweight fighters will be specified between 205-225 pounds. Heavyweight entrants will be asked to weigh in between 225-265 pounds.

UPDATE: via FightOpinion here's the complete breakdown of the new weight classes:

MEN’S DIVISIONS

Flyweight (Up to 105 pounds)
Super Flyweight (Over 105.1 to 115 lbs)
Bantamweight (Over 115.1 to 125 lbs)
Super Bantamweight (Over 125.1 to 135 lbs)
Featherweight (Over 135.1 to 145 lbs)
Lightweight (Over 145.1 to 155 lbs)
Super Lightweight (Over 155.1 to 165 lbs)
Welterweight (Over 165.1 to 175 lbs)
Super Welterweight (Over 175.1 to 185 lbs)
Middleweight (Over 185.1 to 195 lbs)
Super Middleweight (Over 195.1 to 205 lbs)
Light Heavyweight (Over 205.1 to 225 lbs)
Heavyweight (Over 225.1 to 265 lbs)
Super Heavyweight (Over 265.1 pounds)

WOMEN’S DIVISIONS

Flyweight (95 lbs. and below)
Bantamweight (95.1-105 lbs.)
Featherweight (105.1-115 lbs.)
Lightweight (115.1-125 lbs.)
Welterweight (125.1-135 lbs.)
Middleweight (135.1-145 lbs.)
Light Heavyweight (145.1-155 lbs.)
Cruiserweight (155.1-165 lbs.)
Heavyweight (165.1-185 lbs.)
Super Heavyweight (185.1 and above)

Download the full rules here.

Anyone got vid of Almeida vs. Semenov? Email please.

Hi, UFC OnDemand!

Big thank you to the morning and midday rotations at 106.7 WJFK. "The Junkies" in the morning and "Big O & Dukes" have been nothing but supportive of BloodyElbow.com and MMA in general. As you can see, the Junkies even gave "MMA Nation" a plug on their very own website.

"Big O & Dukes" are on vacation, but they've also been nothing but supportive in plugging the website and giving my dumb ass TONS of air time. So while those two are probably chilling on some beach somewhere and won't read this, thanks anyways, guys.

BTW - "The Junkies" did an hilarious interview with Rampage Jackson this morning. Listen to the whole thing here. If you love racial humor, there's plenty here to go around.

According to Dave Meltzer in this week's Wrestling Observer Newsletter, the October 18th UFC show headlined by Michael Bisping v. Chris Leben will be on Spike TV.  He says the PPV that month will probably be the next weekend.

It's hard to think of what they could headline a show with in October on PPV with Hughes injured.  I suppose it could be another Rampage defense, or an Anderson Silva fight.  I feel like it may be smart in the long run to skip a PPV month in October given most people's financial situation right now, but I doubt they will do that.

Dave also confirmed that Rich Franklin vs. Matt Hamill is official for UFC 88.  Unless Anderson Silva actually does fight again on that card, it should be second from the top below Chuck and Rashad.

If MMA Weekly is right and a match between Thiago Alves and Diego Sanchez is signed for UFC 89, I will be one happy camper:

While the welterweight division looks towards a championship match in August between current titleholder Georges St. Pierre and Jon Fitch, the weight class will continue to build towards a new top contender as MMAWeekly.com has learned that American Top Team knockout artist Thiago “Pitbull” Alves is slated to return on Oct. 18 to face former “Ultimate Fighter” winner Diego Sanchez.

The bout was confirmed to MMAWeekly.com by sources close to the fight. There is currently a verbal agreement with actual bout agreements for the contest expected to be signed in the next few days.

If Alves wins this, he'll clearly be heading for a title shot. If Diego wins he might be on his way to a title shot, or he might have to get past Josh Koscheck in a rematch. Depends on how Koscheck handles Chris Lytle this weekend.

Here's the 170lb edition of the June Meta-Rankings.

The explanation of the Meta-rankings concept and methodology is in the full entry. Just keep in mind that they're not our opinion of who the best fighters are, rather they are an attempt to track how well fighters are regarded across the web.

No real surprises emerge from this month's scores. GSP is almost universally regarded as the #1 welterweight. Only one of the 21 sites surveyed ranked him anywhere else. Fitch is equally clearly the consensus #2. This makes the upcoming GSP/Jon Fitch UFC title bout one of those rarest of all title matches -- the consensus champ vs the consensus #1 contender.

Thiago Alves' quick rise hasn't been fully digested by the MMA world. Some sites haven't updated since he beat Hughes. Others are punishing Alves for missing weight. I expect Thiago will have to beat Koscheck or Diego Sanchez to get a title shot.

The July 26th Jake Shields/Nick Thompson fight is clearly the best matchup possible for a non-UFC promotion. Well done EliteXC. If they sign IFL champ Jay Hieron to go with Hector Lombard, and build both guys up correctly, they could have a decent division of legit challengers to keep Shields busy for the forseeable future.

There are some clear outliers muddying up the charts. Goulet and Kitaoka are both on the list due to one site -- the same site that ranked GSP at #10. I'm looking for ways to discount patently dumb rankings. Perhaps a minimum score of 5 points to make the list? Please chime in with your ideas in the comments. I'm not looking to eliminate any sources as bad decisions are a key part of making rankings and should be reflected.

I'm also looking for a way to reflect the credibility accruing to fighters being ranked in the top 25 by those sites that  rank in greater depth.  Since a first place vote is worth 10 points and a 10th place vote is worth 1 point, what should an 11th place vote get a fighter? Do I have to re-engineer the system? Speak up MMA geeks, lets perfect these rankings.

UPDATE: Alright, alright, we'll drop the hated MMA Ranks from next month's list. Now that that's settled, help me figure out how to account for the fighters that are ranked in the top 25 but not in the top 10.

Continue reading this post »

This video only contains older footage from Rampage's early fights, but it's exciting nevertheless and shows the unpredictable yet athletic style Rampage trademarked for himself. I particularly like the footage of Rampage owning Cyril Abidi in K-1.

Kelsey Philpott has a thoughtful series of posts over at MMA Payout on fighter salaries.  The latest installment, which suggests a $10,000 flat minimum wage for fighters, is here:

The Solution

Get rid of the show/win contracts altogether by moving to a flat-fee and institute a minimum fight payout for all UFC contracts at $10,000/fight.

How does this meet the interests of the fighters?

First and foremost, a UFC contracted fighter entering the octagon four times per year will earn $40,000 before tax and have sufficient funds to cover most of his living expenses. This minimum payout will allow the lower echelon fighters to improve their standard of living and hopefully help them committ to fighting as a full-time occupation.

Tha Realness wrote up a fan post earlier today covering a recent article on why the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act should apply to MMA.

I've touched on this a bit in the past and I don't think anything has happened recently that changed my mind.  But here is what I said back in April:

A lot of people clamor for an "Ali Act" in MMA.  But the point of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act was to provide guidelines for boxing as it had no league or central rule-making body.  MMA has several leagues, each providing their own rules (within the guidelines of state athletic commissions).  An "Ali Act," at least the exact point of the act, doesn't work for MMA.  I don't disagree with the need for slightly more oversight into the contracts fighters sign, but generally I think the current landscape of MMA is a lot better than people credit it as being.  This is especially true when compared to boxing.  When a fighter is a free agent he is able to seek out the best deal from a large group of organizations.  He is not forced to pay fees to compete in these organizations should his ultimate goal be to be champion.  A fighter in MMA has options galore in a sport where promotions want to put on the best and most compelling matches possible.

There are 5 exploitative business practices that the Act is supposed to address which Rob Maysey claims all apply to the current MMA landscape:

In order:

1. long-term promotional contracts and options hurt the boxer and the sport;

Long term promotional contracts in boxing are with individual promoters not with sports franchises such as the UFC.  The freedom to seek another promotional contract is much more important in a sport that is headless than it is with the organized franchise structure of MMA.  If anything, shorter contracts with promotions would damage the landscape of MMA as you'd likely have no stability.  You can not force organizations to allow for cross-promotional fights, so instead you're going to have fighters basically "Fedoring" their way through their career.  One fight here, one fight there and the lack of being tied to a promotion doesn't push for a fighter to fight the best competition.  Look at the way Fedor's career was when he was tied to PRIDE and then compare it to once he became a "free agent" doing single fight deals here and there.  Tell me which you think is better for the landscape of MMA.

2. Organizations do not have credible ratings procedures;

The ranking procedures are pretty minor in MMA compared to boxing.  Each individual franchise is able to make the match-ups that will make themselves (and in turn the fighters) the most money.  In boxing there is a level of corruption with the ranking organizations where promoters routinely get their (unworthy) fighters ranked through underhanded means to get a title fight.  Why?  Because title fights mean more money in boxing.  Plus you get into the sanctioning fee aspect of things with the boxing organizations.  Has the act done anything to address these ranking procedures?  Not a single thing honestly.  In MMA the belts are organizationally dependent.  It does no good for the UFC to put someone unworthy in a title fight.  Has it happened?  Sure, but usually as the result of an injury or lack of better options.  The UFC (or EXC or anyone else) is not going to take money to put someone undeserving in a title fight because that belt represents their company as a whole.  If the status of the belt is diminished then the value of the company is also diminished.

3. Organizations have inconsistent procedures, and state regulations do not adequately regulate promoter contracts;

These are sports franchises, not ranking or sanctioning bodies.  There don't need to be consistent procedures for how they are doing business as long as they are doing so legally.  Pepsi doesn't run its business the same as Coca-Cola...and that is fine.  These franchises should be allowed to operate in any (legal) way that they see fit to make a profit.  Profit made by sports franchises trickles down into the amount of money that fighters make.  So fighters are benefited by organizations putting on cards that they feel will attract the most viewers (read: money).  I don't see any way that MMA contracts need to be regulated in the same manner as boxing contracts simply because these franchises operate daily business differently from each other.

4. Difficulty for state commisssions to individually monitor promoter-boxer contracts, and necessity of a federal mechanism to prevent hidden agreements

I will never argue against a bit more oversight on the contracts fighters are signing.  And the "hidden agreements" thing could easily be applied to the "under the table bonuses" that fighters are getting.  However, I have a feeling if you were to ask the fighters if they'd like to get rid of those bonuses they'd probably say no.  A bit more transparency would be a good thing...But again, you have to remember the difference in how MMA and boxing work.

5. Promoters forcing boxers to give options in return for getting a title fight.

I don't think this really applies in the current MMA landscape in any real way.  I suppose the rumored (I have never heard this actually confirmed) "auto-renewing contracts" if a fighter is a champion in the UFC could fit to a degree.  Even if the contracts which automatically renew if you are champion do exist I can't say that it is a bad thing.  If champions were leaving organizations with regularity you'd have an even more confusing and less stable environment for the sport.  Again, I don't think any major organization is intentionally screwing with the championship situation for any corrupt means.  I guess Forrest Griffin may not be the true number 1 contender for the UFC Light Heavyweight Championship.  But it is a fight that should make a good deal of money, and he did beat who was generally considered the #1 light heavyweight in the world in Shogun.  So that is hardly a "corrupt" move.  I just don't see where things are that bad when it comes to the MMA title scene.

I can not stress enough that the Ali Act was created for a sport with a completely different organizational structure than MMA.  To simply say "what is good for one has to be good for the other" shows an ignorance in understanding the differences and a willingness to play with fire in regards to changing the make-up of the sport's landscape.  If you want to push for an act specifically catered to MMA, with a focus on ensuring that fighters are being compensated fairly, are provided with health insurance and have a pension plan set up (ironically all focal points of WAMMA, an organization which I am not a fan of) I am all for that.  But if you're familiar with boxing you'll notice that the Ali Act has done nothing to address any of those things for the very sport it was created for...do we really think it would do so for our sport?

As the Korean proverb says "Carve the peg by looking at the hole"