Trading Shots: Downes and Fowlkes on 'TUF 20,' and a gimmick by any other name

In this week’s Trading Shots, retired UFC/WEC fighter Danny Downes takes MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes to task for his take on women’s MMA and the ad campaign for “The Ultimate Fighter” season 20, while Fowlkes wonders whether the ends are truly justifying the means for the first all-female season of the UFC’s long-running reality show.

Downes: Well Ben, barring another 11th-hour email from you telling me you’re “on vacation” and too preoccupied to write, I’d actually like to get a column done this week. Even though you were too busy stuffing your face with lobster rolls and exploiting open bar policies to work, you still found enough time to get into a Twitter beef with UFC Senior Director of Public Relations Dave Sholler. To get right to the point, why you mad bro? Don’t you think you jumped the gun on the outrage meter a little bit?

Fowlkes: Let’s take a look at the so-called “outrage” that got this while thing started, shall we?

Does that look like outrage to you, Mr. Downes? If anything, that’s me jumping the gun on the exasperation meter, or maybe just the fatigue meter, though I’d argue that it was warranted. Those “Ultimate Fighter” ads were a bummer, man. Female fighters already put up with so much more crap than male fighters do. Now the 115-pounders are finally getting their shot in the UFC, and all the UFC can talk about is how sexy they are?

Put yourself in their shoes (which, according to the ads, are heels so high that they’re basically stilts), Danny. You’ve struggled to a position of prominence in a sport that views you as a novelty. You’ve fought and bled in little arenas where they catcalled you like a ring girl on your way to the cage. You’ve fought basically for free, often without any realistic hope that the biggest organization in the sport will even consider hiring fighters of your size and gender. Then you finally get your shot and the first thing you hear is, “Hey pretty-pretty.”

But you’d never really have to worry about that because the UFC would never market male fighters that way, which is kind of the whole point. Of course, when I made that point on Twitter, Mr. Sholler chose instead to focus on why I hadn’t interviewed the castmembers about these ads. When I said, sure, by all means, put me on the phone with them so I can ask … yeah, that didn’t happen. Weird.

But you know who did talk about it with my colleague John Morgan in Brazil last night? UFC women’s bantamweight champ Ronda Rousey. Here’s what she had to say:

That, I have to admit, makes a lot of sense, especially if you’re the person trying to break through by any means necessary. Rousey had to deal with the MMA landscape as it was, rather than as she’d like it to be. My question to you is, did the UFC necessarily have that same problem? Couldn’t it have treated the female strawweights as serious athletes from the jump, the way the show itself seems to be doing? Doesn’t the attempt to use the promise of women who are “easy on the eyes and hard on the face” betray a lack of confidence in the audience?

Downes: I think that’s the real point of discussion here. Instead of accusing the UFC of misogyny, the worst thing it could be guilty of is low expectations of its audience.

The WNBA finals were this past week. Every time a commercial for it came on, it reminded me of this clip from the show Futurama (skip to the 50-second mark). You can sit on your high horse and pretend that there’s no difference between the marketing of male and female athletes, but aren’t you being a bit naive? Look at Danica Patrick, Anna Kournikova, Lolo Jones and a whole host of other female athletes. For better or worse, they’ve all capitalized on their looks for profit. Some would argue that those actions only perpetuate the objectification of women, but that’s each individual’s choice.

When you actually watch the episodes of “The Ultimate Fighter,” they address this issue. It’s the crux of the conflict between Felice Herrig and Heather Clark. If you look at Herrig’s Instagram page, you can see why Clark might take issue with it. At the same time, though, Herrig has gained a large following (and more sponsorship money in the process) by the way she presents herself. Isn’t this just the age old rule of, “If you got it, flaunt it”?

More than that, I think the main argument we have here is, do the ends justify the means? When you really look at it, the commercials are the old advertising switcheroo. When you watch the show, it’s no different from any other season. You have each fighter’s background, a short clip of her training, the weigh-ins, the fight itself, and a sneak peak for next week. I’ve done “TUF” recaps for the last couple of years and the format hasn’t changed. If more people watch these women compete and see their abilities, isn’t that all that really matters?

Fowlkes: Danica Patrick, Anna Kournikova, and Lolo Jones. Did you intentionally name three women who weren’t really that good at their respective sports (with the possible exception of Patrick), or did it just happen that way on accident once you tried to name the most famous female pro athletes you could think of?

I agree that they’ve all cashed in to one degree or another. I don’t blame them, just like I don’t blame Herrig for using what she’s got (looks and a willingness to do just about anything to get noticed) to make up for what she doesn’t (a bunch of wins over high-quality opponents). Everyone plays the game they think they have the best chance of winning. That’s life. But the UFC is in a position to not just play the game but also make the rules. It has a choice that individual female fighters don’t have, and so when it decides to go with an ad campaign that says, basically, “Bro, you gotta see these broads … and they can fight, too!” that’s disappointing.

But you’re right, this is essentially a question about means and ends. That’s Rousey’s argument in a nutshell, and for her it’s worked out pretty well. (Then again, it helps to be way, way better than everyone else.) But so far at least, those means don’t seem to be bringing the ends. The initial ratings for the “TUF 20? premiere were not so great, despite the fact that the first episode itself was pretty damn fantastic, culminating in a really good fight. So what does that tell us?

Maybe it’s that fans are just sick of “TUF,” in all its forms. Maybe it’s that FOX Sports 1 still doesn’t have the availability or the traction with sports fans in general. Or maybe it tells us that “sex sells” is not, in fact, the brilliant advertising mantra we’ve been led to believe. If you were looking for a serious fight show, nothing about those “TUF” ads made you think you were about to get one. And if you were intrigued by the prospect of foxy boxing in four-ounce gloves, odds are you were disappointed by the serious fight show you saw once you tuned in.

I guess my point is, it seems like we’ve been counting on sex appeal in women’s MMA to get people in the door for so long. Once they’re in, we’re promised, those people will eventually be won over by the action and the human drama that works for men’s MMA, and then we won’t need the other stuff anymore. But when is that some day finally going to become today? If we keep acting like female fighters have to be pretty girls willing to take their clothes off in order to get noticed, aren’t we just telling fans that that’s what they should expect, now and forever?

Downes: So you want women to be sold in on the “action and human drama that works for men’s MMA?” You mean like the honest, straight-shooting we got from Chael Sonnen? Or do we need Stephan Bonnar revealing a masked fighter in the middle of the cage? Maybe another cell phone commercial talking about how Carla Esparza is, like, super into St. Catherine of Siena.

One problem with your analysis of the “TUF” commercials is that you’re assuming these beauty images are solely intended for a male audience. Agencies use attractive females to cater to female clientele. Look at any Maybelline ad or Under Armour’s latest campaign. Too often young girls are told that if they like sports they’re a “tomboy” or “butch.” They’re constantly told that they can’t be pretty and athletic. UFC fighter Julianna Pena has talked about this at length. She takes pride in knowing that she can be a “girly girl” (her words, not mine) and still go out and punch people in the face.

Is it unfair that female fighters have to combat those notions? Absolutely. But it’s also wildly unfair that Elena Kagan had to have her looks talked about when she was nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court. I can’t remember that ever happening to Antonin Scalia.

You’re asking for the female cast to be presented solely on their merit and ability. That’s something I support fully. My only question though, is when has that ever been the case in men’s MMA? I seem to recall a lot of talk about grudge matches, GSP’s dark place, people being figurative and literal “monsters,” and a whole host of other things. Isn’t the “action and human drama” you’re asking for just another gimmick by a different name?

Fowlkes: I’ve talked to a lot of female fighters over the years about the pressures and the problems they face. One thing I don’t hear from them much? Complaints that they aren’t sexualized enough in the world of mixed martial arts. This notion that the big problem for women is that society refuses to let a woman be strong and sexy, that’s crap. The problem is that society insists of the sexy part first before it’ll even pay enough attention to a woman to find out about the strength. Why else do you think Rousey gets praised for being a “Diaz brother in a beautiful f—ing body,” while “Cyborg” Justino gets mocked for looking like “Wanderlei Silva in a dress”? It ain’t because one of them is considered not sufficiently strong enough, I can tell you that much.

I’m sure female fighters occasionally hear from people who think their profession automatically makes them mannish she-barbarians, the same way I’m sure you’ve heard from people who think that because you used to punch people for a living you must not know how to spell. But let’s not kid ourselves that this was all a groundbreaking attempt by the UFC to help female fighters reclaim their femininity. If anything, the ad campaign’s insistence on presenting beauty and strength (note that beauty always comes first in these ads) as if they’re a notable contrast does more to reinforce that stereotype than break it down. Beauty and strength are not being presented as complimentary features so much as opposing ones. And please, the “heartbreaker” and “love at first fight” lines? You’re trying to tell me that’s not aimed at men? C’mon son.

But you raise a good point about the extracurriculars used to promote men’s fights. Obviously, it’s not just skill and athletic ability that’s selling the men’s side of the sport. The difference is, male fighters get more of a choice in the matter. If they want to play up a grudge match or pretend to be a crazy person, they can. If they want to craft themselves as humble churchboys or counterculture anti-heroes, they can do that too. But with the women it always comes backs to their looks, and they don’t have any say in the matter. Their looks will be an issue with the mostly male fan base whether they like it or not, and that sucks because it becomes a game they can’t win. Play up the looks angle, and they’re deemed too hungry for attention. Refuse to enter that arena, and they’re largely ignored. Try it and fail, and they just get made fun of. Male fighters don’t have to deal with any of that.

Look at your boy Ben Askren. I might not be the best judge of men’s attractiveness, but that is not a handsome dude. Still, while he takes crap for just about everything else, from his fighting style to his perceived intelligence, it’s weird how seldom anyone mentions that he looks like the enforcer for the Muppet mafia. Not even UFC President Dana White, who never misses an opportunity to put Askren down, thinks to attack his looks. Same with Renan Barao, who is not exactly the Brazilian James Bond. But as White said when defending Barao’s marketability, “if you’re showing up to see handsome guys speak on Saturday you’re coming to the wrong f—ing show, OK?”

Unless that show is “TUF 20,” apparently. Fortunately, the people producing the episodes didn’t take their cues from the people producing the ads. But then, they didn’t have to. They had a good product, thanks to skilled, experienced fighters competing for clear, meaningful stakes. It’s just a shame that they didn’t have enough faith in the audience to see that, for the people who follow this sport, that’s all you really need.