Trading Shots: On Hendricks' welterweight exile, and Woodley's hopes for a title shot

Johny Hendricks

In this week’s Trading Shots, MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes and retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes discuss changes in the UFC’s welterweight division even after the lone welterweight fight booked for UFC 192 in Houston failed to materialize.

Fowlkes: Despite the fact that the original co-main event at UFC 192 didn’t actually happen, Danny, it still seems like at least two interesting developments took place in the UFC’s welterweight division over the weekend.

The first is that Johny Hendricks was effectively exiled from it. After his weight cut resulted in a scratched fight and a hospital visit, UFC President Dana White said he now considers the former UFC welterweight champ a middleweight. The second thing that happened is that Tyron Woodley, who did his part to compete in what looked like a no. 1 contender fight, is going to get the title shot anyway. You know, maybe.

Two questions about these related, but separate developments: 1) I know we’re all bummed about Hendricks’ weight issues, but is it fair to kick the former champ out of the division the first time he misses weight? 2) As we’ve seen, the promise of a UFC title shot is worth about as much as air into which the words are uttered. Almost as soon as we heard that Woodley was next, we heard that claim walked back to the land of mere possibility.

Is that a problem for would-be contenders, who don’t always know what they need to do to get a crack at the champ?

Downes: The first question is difficult to answer. Hendricks hurt the organization, and the UFC had to respond. You could argue that Hendricks missing out on a top contender fight (and the paycheck that goes along with it) is punishment enough. At the same time, how do you trust him again?

It is important to note that this is the first official time he’s missed weight in the UFC. Yes, he had some difficulties before the first Robbie Lawler fight, but he still made weight on the second attempt. If title shots come and go, we have to think that weight class directives are the same. It’s like being the pound-for-pound greatest fighter in the world. That list changes depending on who’s fighting.

We can debate whether or not the punishment is fair, but if the punishment doesn’t stick, why bother?

As for the second question, it’s definitely a problem. When it comes to title shots, winning isn’t everything. It’s an important factor, but ask Miesha Tate about it. Combat sports aren’t a perfect meritocracy. Popularity, novelty, and the elusive “it factor” all come into play. That may be unfortunate for a couple unlucky fighters, but isn’t it best for the fans?

We often complain about promoters being intractable and stubborn, but now we want them to keep their promises absolutely? It may be a bad look to be so reactionary, but most fans are reactionary. Are you not entertained? Aren’t the people getting what they (mostly) want?

Fowlkes: You’re right to point out that it’s a delicate balance trying to be responsive to fans without being frustratingly undependable in the eyes of fighters. We have all this sympathy for Tate now that she had the title fight rug pulled out from under her feet, but when it was announced that she’d get a third shot at Ronda Rousey after losing the first two fights I don’t recall a ton of enthusiasm for that match-up.

I’m similarly torn when it comes to kicking a guy out of his preferred weight class – the weight class where, for crying out loud, he was very recently the champion – because of one bad weight cut. On one hand, I’m in total agreement that something needs to be done about fighters putting themselves through extreme weight cuts right before engaging in what is already, as California State Athletic Commission executive director Andy Foster once described it, the “traumatic event” known as a fight. It’s kind of crazy, when you stop and think about it.

Then again, the UFC doesn’t seem to have a problem with it when it works. It’s only when the fight falls through in advance that we see a sudden concern for fighter health on the part of the promoter.

I guess what I’m getting to with both these topics is the extent to which the promoter should get to decide how a fighter’s career unfolds. If I were a fighter, I could see wanting a little more consistency. At the very least, I could see wanting a clearer sense of what actions will lead to what repercussions and/or rewards. Right now, it seems like so much is left up to a guess, some vague calculation of where you stand with the boss, whether you’re in the doghouse or the penthouse at the time of your screw-up.

You can lose and get a title shot. You can do literally nothing and get a title shot. Or you get do exactly what you’re told and still end up stuck in the same place. Same thing with missing weight, which might result in exile or a mild scolding and commission fine. Do fighters not want this stuff spelled out more clearly? Do they just not think they deserve it?

Downes: They’d like it, but it falls into that “wouldn’t it be nice?” territory. People want to think that fighters are these no-nonsense tough guys and girls who don’t take orders from anyone. There are some of those types, but the vast majority just do what they’re told. It doesn’t occur to them that should ask for or demand certain things.

What would you think should be a fighter’s chief concern, after training? I would say money. But most fighters (even UFC fighters) have little to no clue about their finances. I don’t mean paying your credit card bill on time. I mean having a basic understanding of your compensation and payment.

There were some fighters who were upset with the Reebok deal, but a majority of them shrugged their shoulders. Part of it was because they didn’t want to upset brass, but a lot of it had to do with the fact that they didn’t understand sponsorships or their management. Much like the Ronco Rotisserie oven, fighters adopt a “set it and forget it” philosophy.

There aren’t clear policies in place. Whether it’s missing weight or saying something offensive on Twitter, there isn’t a uniform policy, and some of those punishments for various missteps should be codified. When it comes to title shots, though, how do you create a standard? It’s a problem, but perhaps it’s something inherent in the fight game.

What are Dana White and Scott Coker’s jobs? The business cards may say president, but that’s not accurate. They’re promoters. How come all UFC debutants don’t get treated like Sage Northcutt? Because the promoters think there’s something more marketable about him. Why did Conor McGregor get to a title shot quicker than others? Same thing. Aren’t we just in another situation of this being the fight business instead of the fight game?

Fowlkes: I suppose we are. But then I can’t help but think about Alexander Gustafsson’s recent comments about fighter pay, when he pointed out that more money gets more people and better athletes involved. The reverse is also true. If the money’s not there, anyone with other options is likely to exercise them and stay away from this crazy fight business.

That has to have an impact, doesn’t it? Not only on the overall quality of competition, but on the public perception. We see NFL players occasionally retire early because of fears about the physical toll of the sport, but we see fighters call it quits because they need money and a job. Maybe the key to fixing that isn’t as simple as codifying the consequences of botched weight cuts or laying out the precise, unchangeable path to the title, but those issues do seem symptomatic of something larger.

If a bright-eyed youngster were to ask you tomorrow whether he should go all-in on an MMA career, Danny, what would you tell him? Because I think my questions, in order, would be: 1) Are you likely to become the best in the world at your weight class? If not, 2) Is this something you absolutely, positively must do to be happy about your life? Because otherwise, Danny, there’s a lot about this fight business that seems like a hard sell.

Downes: To tell you the truth, I’m not sure what I would tell this hypothetical youngster. I can think of a lot of pros and a lot of cons. That’s not really the point, though. Yes, it would be nice if there were more money and autonomy, but you could say that about any job. That doesn’t mean that we should tolerate MMA’s faults, but I don’t see any real alternatives.

We’re not talking about per diem money or some other small issue. You’re talking about fundamentally changing the sport. It would be great if there were checks and balances and your career didn’t depend on one or two individuals’ opinion of you. How could you possibly change that? How do you convince an owner to do something that is better for the sport, but bad for the bottom line? If you find a way to change human nature, I can’t wait to live in the Fowlkes utopian community. Even there, though, you’d still probably tell us what to wear.

Fighters may be independent contractors, but they don’t have a lot of independence. Then again, maybe the “love it or leave it” attitude is one of the largest contributors to MMA’s troubles. Whether it’s a fear of reprisal or simple ignorance, fighters rarely ask to improve their lot. And we have a lot to improve.

or complete coverage of UFC 192, check out the UFC Events section of the site.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who also writes for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.