Trading Shots: Why can't anyone agree on why Miesha Tate is fighting Amanda Nunes?

In this week’s Trading Shots, we heard differing accounts of how the next UFC women’s bantamweight title fight came together, but did we actually learn anything in the process? MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes and retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes discuss.

Fowlkes: Danny, I don’t know if you’ve been following the scene over in the UFC women’s bantamweight division, but it seems that no one can agree who wanted what title fight for what reason.

Obviously, Miesha Tate is the champ. And, as we know now, she will defend her title against Amanda Nunes at UFC 200. This is disappointing to Holly Holm’s team, which said last week that, according to the UFC, it was Tate’s decision to face Nunes over Holm. Tate said no, that was the UFC’s idea, and so we find ourselves in a classic he said/she said situation.

It makes me wonder, do we put too much stock in stuff like who wants what fight, when, and for what reasons? Especially when we’re talking about experienced, battle-tested champions, why are we still looking for these excuses to accuse them of being scared to fight?

Downes: People always like to accuse fighters of “ducking” someone. Whenever there’s a matchup somebody doesn’t like, the UFC is either protecting someone or a fighter is too scared to compete. I would venture a guess that the reason people lob these accusations is because they personally don’t like someone.

Take Conor McGregor. People that didn’t like him said that the UFC was protecting their golden boy from wrestlers. Chad Mendes fought him, but that didn’t count because it was short notice. Then, when McGregor lost to Nate Diaz and wanted a rematch, he’s ducking Frankie Edgar.

Could you make the argument that Diaz is a better matchup for McGregor even though “Mystic Mac” has already lost to him? Sure, there are stylistic and technical grounds for that argument. Is that why people are accusing McGregor? Absolutely not.

The current situation in the women’s bantamweight division is another example of fans wanting to have to have their Jack Link’s Beef Jerky and eat it too. Take Sage Northcutt. The popular notion at the time was that the UFC was protecting their blond karate superstar. Even when he agreed to fight Bryan Barberena for his third fight in four months, “Super Sage” was just getting another easy meal ticket. After Northcutt loses, though, then maybe fighting so often was a bad idea.

But imagine if Northcutt had turned down a fight. He would have been branded a coward. The idea that a “real” fighter should fight anytime, anywhere is stupid. We expect fighters to be tactical inside the cage, why is it a crime to be tactical in the matchmaking process?

Fowlkes: Not to get all conspiracy theorist on you, but does it not seem like the women’s bantamweight situation is also an example of the UFC getting tactical with its matchmaking?

Obviously, the company brass wasn’t thrilled with Holm’s push to defend her title instead of waiting for Ronda Rousey’s return. UFC President Dana White seizes on any opportunity to criticize Holm’s management, and it’s been that way since before she even signed with the UFC. Then she wins the belt, gets to call her own shots, but ends up losing. Would it be totally crazy to think that the UFC is in no hurry to reward her with an instant rematch due to everything that preceded it?

Where it gets weird is with the UFC’s own track record for selectively discussing who did and did not want certain fights at certain times. It almost becomes weaponized information in the MMA world, given fans’ predilection for seizing on that stuff as proof of fear.

If the UFC comes to you and offers you a fight, do you really feel like you can angle for something different? Especially when you know that someone might feed that information to the media just to make you look bad? Then again, depending on who are (Northcutt, perhaps), maybe that information wouldn’t go public.

On some level, I get it. The UFC can’t have everyone trying to pick and choose their own fights. Sometimes you have to fight who’s available. I guess I just wish fans wouldn’t buy into this mindset that anyone who has their own ideas about the future of their own career is a coward who somehow also makes a living fighting people in cages.

Downes: “Not to get all conspiracy theorist on you, but I think that the UFC is consciously punishing Holm and sending an implicit message to other fighters.” Well, Ben. With all due respect, I think you’re stupid. See how everything I said after the comma is OK because what I said before it?

What we can agree on, though, is that the idea that someone turning down a fight means someone is a coward. If a fighter wants to go the Donald Cerrone route and fight any and all comers regardless of weight class, good for him or her. That doesn’t mean it should be the standard for every fighter. If a fighter wants to go to Bellator and make some more money against a roster that’s not as deep as the UFC, that’s fine, too.

Like any profession, fighters approach their career in a variety of different ways. Some value money over everything. Others value the more abstract notions of titles and other accomplishments. Some of them just like to fight. Whatever their motivations for competing or for choosing opponents, I think we should be celebrating the fact that they actually have that power.

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.

For more on UFC 200, check out the UFC Rumors section of the site.