Dana's Biggest Mistake of 2007

by Michael Rome on Dec 3, 2007 12:30 PM EST in News

I've defended Dana White a lot of late from what I thought were unfair criticisms. However, the one business decision he made in 2007 that hurt the UFC the most was the one he did purely out of spite: The demotion of Tito Ortiz. He may not be popular among the hardcores online, but about a year ago Tito was the biggest draw in the UFC.

When Tito Ortiz returned to the UFC and fought Forrest Griffin, the show broke the UFC PPV record set two months earlier by Liddell/Couture 3. Months later, when he fought Ken Shamrock in July, following TUF 3, the fight once again broke the UFC PPV record. Two months later he fought Ken Shamrock on free TV, and set a TV ratings record in the main event that still stands today. Finally, 2 months later, he set yet another all time UFC PPV record with his title fight against Chuck Liddell. Instead of continuing to promote their top draw, the UFC basically ignored him for 7 months, and then stuck him in the middle of a card with a fight with Rashad Evans, which was only made so Tito would lose.

At Arco that night, it was pretty obvious who the star of the show was. Tito Ortiz was a giant among men. Even in a draw, people knew who won. Now, as we go into 2008, nobody really knows what the hell is going on with him, or when we'll see him again. It's heavily rumored now that Nogueira/Sylvia has been signed for February, because they couldn't work things out with Couture. If this is true, they've lost a huge drawing card, but they have a guy waiting in the wings who can make up for any losses. Quinton Jackson v. Tito Ortiz at the end of 2008 has the potential to be the biggest MMA fight ever. It's just a matter of whether Dana will put animosity aside and do what is right for business. If he can't, UFC may find itself stalling out this year.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Dana's Biggest Mistake of 2007

I couldn't disagree with you more.

From an entirely unbias perspective, leaving whether or not I am a fan of Tito or not out of it, I can't see where you're argument holds weight.

First off, analyzing your buyrate figures, it's clear from any perspective that while Tito was most definitely a major part of the high draws for those cards he was certainly not the only part. Forrest Griffin is most definitely one of the most popular fighters in the UFC and one of the biggest draws. Tito was not alone in that. The following fight against Shamrock was a guaranteed money maker as well. First off, the reason the first Shamrock-Tito fight broke records had a lot to do with Shamrocks crossover status from wrestling. The second fight you're talking about relied maybe a little on that but mostly on the fact that it had months of buildup with TUF. The third fight basically had that same buildup with the added fact that it was on FREE TV and that the previous fight ended somewhat controversially. People love controversy. Then the Chuck fight was basically Tito fighting the top draw in the company. Tito himself is a big draw and put him against the number one guy and you have the formula for success. The point is that while Tito was a part of all those big draw cards he was not solely responsible in any way nor do I think his name alone would draw those numbers.

The UFC didn't "ignore" Tito for 7 months. Tito got the title fight he wanted and lost. No one loses in a title fight and comes back 2 or 3 months later. They get time off to come back stronger and for other contenders to be built up. Tim Sylvia lost to Randy and didn't fight again for 7 months. Marquardt lost to Silva and by the time he fights again it will be 6 months.

Tito basically did little to deserve that title fight in the first place in reality and got the fight based on his drawing power. He got his time off and he was put in a fight against a top contender. Was he supposed to get a title fight against Quinton? A rematch against Chuck even though he lost twice? The only other fight that would've made sense would be a rematch with Forrest since that fight was so close. Point is that Rashad was an up and coming top contender at that point and that fight made a lot of sense.

You said that Tito was stuck in the middle of the card. Were they supposed to put him in the main event on a card with two other title fights despite the fact that he lost his last outing? That would undermine their championships. He was supposed to lose? No. That fight was billed as Rashads chance to rise to true contender status and Tito to prove that he still belongs after a dissappointing knockout loss.

While he dominated most of that fight he did grab the fence when he was about to get slammed. Chances are that wouldn't have done too much to change the outcome but who knows? Maybe Rashad would've finished the fight. The rematch was offered to Tito in a MAIN EVENT (see: not the middle of the card) bout to finish a fight he believed he won. He turned it down because he was filming the Celebrity Apprentice.

Say what you want about how that is a good business decision (which it is) but the point is the UFC still offered Tito the fight to keep him in the limelight. He turned it down. While Rampage vs Tito would definitely be a huge draw, Tito does not deserve number one contender status. He has to beat at the LEAST one more contender to deserve that. With Jardine just decisioning Liddell, Forrest finishing Shogun, the unbeaten Machida facing the seemingly unstoppable Sokodjou, and the potential for Wanderlei to beat Chuck, how could Tito be close to the top of the heap?

by dropkick101 on Dec 3, 2007 1:37 PM EST 0 recs

Re: Dana's Biggest Mistake of 2007

You're partly right in that Tito has brought some of this upon himself. He didn't perform well against Rashad and turned down a rematch main event (he says he's injured).

And while I agree it takes two to tango, the sheer frequency with which Tito brings out PPV buys and attendance cannot be explained away by crediting his partners as much as him. The fact of the matter is that Tito is arguably the biggest draw the UFC has, his rankings and actual ability notwithstanding. To point out that Forrest Griffin is also marketable doesn't change much. Tito is still the anchor, as he was in his fight with Ken and to a lesser extent, Liddell. He is a powder keg that's going to deliver what the promoters want to see; if he's got a supporting cast, that makes the response even bigger.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 3, 2007 1:55 PM EST up 0 recs

Re: Dana's Biggest Mistake of 2007

First, thanks for the long feedback. I still maintain that holding Tito out 7 months after his loss was a mistake, he should have been back by May. However, putting that aside, look at the treatment other stars in the UFC get after losing. Hughes got Lytle, Franklin got Macdonald, and Liddell got Jardine. Liddell lost, but he was given that fight because Dana White was in a jam without Silva, and thought it would be a Liddell KO. The Rashad fight was a fight designed to screw Ortiz over by finding the one guy in the division who Ortiz wouldn't be able to take down. The design turned out to be flawed, so it just made for a boring ass fight instead. I think we've seen this year that Rashad is nowhere near that top level, and as a result didn't get anywhere near the rub Forrest got from Tito. It'll be interesting to see who he fights going forward. The decline of Liddell has really opened things up for Tito at LHW. Frankly I have no interest in seeing Rampage out for 7 months before defending his title, I'd rather see Forrest and Tito do the coaching gig and fight at the end for a shot.

by Michael Rome on Dec 3, 2007 4:57 PM EST 0 recs

Re: Dana's Biggest Mistake of 2007

You're entirely correct in that Tito may be "the anchor" and "if he's got a supporting cast, that makes the response even bigger." I have no doubt that Tito Ortiz is a big draw. My question is in what way was he demoted? One of the big reasons Tito has stayed on top is because his appearances come in doses. First he came out and basically dominated the majority of competition put in front of him, sparking the war of words with Shamrock that culminated in him destroying Ken the first time. Then he took time off and came back only to get bested by Randy and Chuck in two of the biggest fights ever, further heightening the star power of those two guys. After two more fights he took another hiatus from the UFC only to come back and take on a star from the maga popular reality show. He lost to Chuck and took a 7 month break and we probably won't see him again until March or April where he'll put together another string of fights in the hopes of another championship run.

The point is the reason Tito has stayed such a big draw is because he, as well as the UFC, knows when to to come and go to keep the excitement going. Tito has fought only once in the past year yet people STILL talk about rematches with Forrest and Rashad and a potential showdown with Rampage, not to mention people like yourself that are coming on the internet claiming he has been "misused". Tito Ortiz knows how to keep the attention going.

I just really don't understand how he has been demoted or when Dana and company have shown they are putting personal animosity before business.

by dropkick101 on Dec 3, 2007 5:00 PM EST 0 recs

Re: Dana's Biggest Mistake of 2007

I think you're right that Tito is strategic, and his decision to skip out on the Rashad fight in November was clearly a strategic one. Why go for a rematch that'll be just as boring as the first, and probably won't draw any money? I just think the idea of saddling your biggest draw with such a dud like Rashad is completely idiotic to begin with. Why book a rematch to a fight that was a draw only because of a fence grab, especially when the fight was terrible? I think Dana thought that with all the pride guys and new stars he'd finally be able to go big without Tito, and it hasn't really been the case. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the use of Ortiz in 2007. I hope you're right that Tito makes a run in 2008. His big fights are usually very dramatic, and I think he's pretty central to a succesful 2008 for them now that Randy is gone.

by Michael Rome on Dec 3, 2007 5:29 PM EST 0 recs