Each week, our ESPN.com panel tackles hot topics in the world of mixed martial arts.
This week, UFC featherweight Frankie Edgar joins our expert panel.
1. Should the winner of this weekend's UFC featherweight bout between Chad Mendes and Ricardo Lamas receive the next title shot?
Frankie Edgar: I think the winner is going to be disappointed because I think I'm next in line. [UFC president] Dana [White] has kind of stated that to me and I believe I should have been next even before Conor McGregor, but you know, things happened that way. Based on what Dana has said in the past -- and it does depend on performances and what not -- but I think those guys fought Jose Aldo much more recent than I did. So, I don't think you want to go back to that right away, especially Chad. He has fought him twice already. You take what Dana says with a grain of salt. He might say one thing one minute and then something changes and they go in a different direction, but I'm going to be in his ear, trying to hold him to that. But, obviously I need to take care of business on May 16.
Brett Okamoto: This is why, when Edgar beat Cub Swanson in November, I wanted to see him fight Mendes next. With all due respect to Lamas, Edgar-Mendes is the No. 1 contender fight at 145 pounds. Now, I'm never going to complain about getting to see Edgar-Urijah Faber ... but it's good when a division has a clear-cut No. 1 contender and the UFC would have had that had they paired Edgar and Mendes. Now, you have a situation where there could be two equally deserving options instead of one obvious no-brainer. End of the day, I think Edgar gets the next shot while the winner of this weekend takes another fight.
Mike Huang: I'm not a huge believer in Lamas, to be honest. So I don't give him great odds this week against Mendes, who has looked spectacular in his "loss" (I thought he won) to Aldo at UFC 179. His striking looked as crisp as ever, which he really attributed to working with Duane Ludwig. I think if Mendes wins this weekend, despite having lost twice to Aldo, he should get a shot at the title if Aldo loses to McGregor on July 11. If Aldo wins, then I'd think about waiting on Mendes and going with our esteemed panelist -- though I love Okamoto -- Edgar. Either way, fans get an awesome fight: Edgar or Mendes.
2. Did McGregor break any unspoken rule when he grabbed Aldo's belt in Dublin?
Edgar: You know, I think it's kind of expected when you're dealing with Conor -- the kind of person he is. I don't know if that's even Aldo's actual belt. Usually they bring a prop belt. I'm sure Aldo's belt is sitting at home. I don't know. If that was me, I wouldn't take it all that personal. You just expect it with Conor.
Okamoto: I've never been a UFC champion (there's still time, right?), so I can't speak to any unspoken rule about belt etiquette. If anything, I would think a challenger might not touch it for superstitious reasons, but McGregor says superstitions are for the weak. I don't think McGregor crossed any line. I'm pretty sure I counted a fan or two (or 100) who crossed the line with drunken, idiotic insults -- but McGregor? He can say what he wants. Part of what makes McGregor so intriguing is that he'll put himself out there. He doesn't play anything safe. As far as his image is concerned, grabbing the belt was a brilliant move.
Huang: Nah, I think part of the appeal of any combat sport is the showmanship. Muhammad Ali was a master of it with his words and interaction with his legion of fans. Mike Tyson did it with his raw ferocity. "Prince" Naseem Hamed did it with flamboyance. I think it's good the UFC has a populist personality like McGregor to get fans riled up. And it worked -- that clip got played around the world millions of times over. We had it on our ESPN.com Page 1 forever.
3. Who is winning the psychological warfare between Aldo and McGregor?
Edgar: I don't think anybody. I don't really get into the whole psychological thing. It doesn't matter. You still have to fight. Obviously, Conor is great at doing this. It's what he does. Aldo is not getting fazed by Conor. He has been the man for so long. He might have gotten excited at the end but that was a long tour, everybody has their limits. I do think Conor gets under people's skin. I think Dustin Poirier was a great example of that. That wasn't the best Dustin Poirier that Conor fought, because he was fighting a little emotional. But I don't see that in Aldo. I don't know Jose personally and I haven't seen anything behind the scenes, but from what I see out of the tour, I think he expected this.
Okamoto: If anyone, McGregor. Do I think Aldo is "crumbling," as McGregor words it? No. But I do think McGregor embraces more the kind of spotlight that's on this fight. That's really where the mental advantage is, the way I see it. I don't think McGregor has wound Aldo up so much that he'll commit a technical error -- but he has created this mega-fight environment that I believe will affect Aldo before it affects him. Aldo has been in some HUGE fights, don't get me wrong. He has been in the "biggest featherweight fight in history" before, multiple times. He walked out to fight Faber in Faber's hometown of Sacramento to the song, "Run this Town" to make a statement. I'm not predicting the Brazilian is going to fold here, but I do think that come the time of the fight, McGregor's heart rate will be lower than Aldo's after everything that has gone on.
Huang: I think McGregor is, although I don't put a lot of stock into that perspective. At this level -- I'm sure Frankie will agree -- most athletes have tuned that out. I think those who become motivated by that, who get annoyed by these tactics, don't have the mental discipline to win. They'll overcompensate and go out of their game plan. I think that's partly what happened to Cat Zingano in her fight with Ronda Rousey. Baseball players are told to stay within themselves at the plate. Fighters are no different. The moment emotions overrule instinct, training and muscle memory, you're done.
4. The Arizona state athletic commission advised Eric Regan, 31, to "stop competing" this week due to safety reasons. Should athletic commissions have the right in post-fight medical suspensions to suggest retirement?
Edgar: I think it depends on the career of the fighter. I'm not exactly sure, but if the guy has been knocked out a bunch of times in a row, I think they're just looking out for the best interest of this guy. [Regan has lost eight of his last nine fights, two by knockout]. As long as they don't have the final say -- but for them to suggest something, I don't think it's so bad. I don't want to see it on a regular basis, but if it's a lot of knockouts and his team doesn't stop him, which they should, maybe the commission has to do it.
Okamoto: Fighter safety is supposed to be any athletic commission's No. 1 priority. So, yeah, it makes perfect sense to welcome these kinds of suggestions. It's a potential slippery slope, though. What are these suggestions based on? Are commissions expressing concerns to a fighter before the fight as well, during the licensing process? You can't rubber stamp a fighter's license, allow him to compete in your state, collect a tax on tickets sold and then tell the guy to hang them up. I don't want random commission members demanding retirements. If these suggestions are based on the recommendations of ringside physicians, that's a different story.
Huang: I'm not exactly clear on what kinds of tests are done during the post-fight examinations that produce the medical suspensions, but I give them the benefit of the doubt because they're trying to protect the fighter's health, short term and long term. As we've seen with other collision sports such as football, it's not just the repeated blows during fights. It's the repeated blows during practice, or in fighters' cases, training. You don't know if Regan got dinged once, twice or several times over the course of camp or how many times over the course of his career. These things might show up on an examination. And if the physicians think it might be best for him to retire, he ought to take that advice seriously.
5. If a fighter wins a contest but tests positive for a banned substance the night of the fight, should the result of the fight change to a loss instead of the standard no-contest?
Edgar: I think if I was the fighter that lost and the other guy that won tested positive for a banned substance, I don't think I'd feel right collecting that win. So, I think it should be a no-contest or I don't know if you can give one no-contest and the other guy gets the loss. If its a performance-enhancing substance then, yeah, I think the other guy should take a loss because that's straight cheating. But again, I don't think if I was the other guy, I would want to collect a win through a bad test. I would say one guy gets a no-contest and the other gets a loss.
Okamoto: Sure. Anything that works as a detriment to use performance-enhancing drugs in combat sports, you can pretty much count me in. The good news is that more and more athletic commissions around the world (and the UFC as a promotion) are hardening their stances on PED use. We are approaching a new era in this sport when it comes to testing for and penalizing PED use. Suffering a loss on your record will be the least of your concerns if you fail a test, but that doesn't mean it's not a nice piece of the overall puzzle to add. I am in favor of the scenario Edgar laid out.
Huang: I guess it depends on what the banned substance is. If it's like Jon Jones and he tested positive for a "recreational" banned substance, then a no-contest might be in order. But if that banned substance is a performing-enhancing drug, then another way to really curtail cheating is to saddle guys with a loss afterward, even if they win the bout. Just can't be too strict on cheaters.