Each week, ESPN.com writer and MMA Live Extra analyst Brett Okamoto provides his take on the hottest topics in the world of mixed martial arts.
This week, Okamoto squares off with former Bellator MMA welterweight champion and current ONE welterweight champion Ben Askren to debate the latest news and trends. Askren (14-0), a former amateur wrestler, will defend his title against Luis Santos on Nov. 13.
1. Did Bellator: Dynamite's MMA/GLORY kickboxing hybrid event work?
Askren: I would say yes and no. From GLORY's perspective, they probably did better ratings that night than they've ever done. So, if you're GLORY, yeah it worked out brilliantly. That being said, two of the kickboxing matches were actually MMA-based fighters -- one of which was a matchup between a punching bag and Gilbert Melendez' wife (Keri Taylor-Melendez), which was terrible. But the light heavyweight title fight on the card was high-level and fun to watch. For someone who doesn't quite understand all the rules, they weren't letting them hold at all. I thought they let them hold a little more so I was confused. If you're Bellator, the answer on this is no. I don't think casual fans really got the kickboxing. You punch, kick and whoever does that a little more wins, right?
Okamoto: No. These "hybrid" shows never really do. I've actually attended quite a few of them on the regional or amateur level and they just don't flow. They seem like a good idea in theory, but from my experience, the non-MMA bouts, whether it's kickboxing, Muay Thai, boxing, etc., they tend to suck the energy out of a building (and/or broadcast). I think there is a part of the audience that subconsciously shuts down when bouncing back and forth between 4 oz. gloves and 8 oz. or 10 oz. gloves. All three of the kickboxing matches on Bellator's main card on Saturday were halfway entertaining, but sitting in that arena and then re-watching the event on TV from home, they don't add to the experience, they subtract from it.
2. Did Bellator: Dynamite's one-night light heavyweight tournament idea (won by Phil Davis) work?
Askren: It's always a great idea, but it's hard to execute. It's so hard to execute because of the commission and injuries -- man, it's hard. I think from the perspective they wanted to make Phil Davis a star, it was great. He kicked Emanuel Newton's a--, who was a former champion and then Francis Carmont. What Bellator was probably thinking going into the tournament was, 'Hey, we want to make Phil Davis a star,' and they did. You know what, it probably turned out better for Bellator that Mo (Muhammed Lawal) didn't get to fight in the finals (due to a rib injury) because now they can set him up in a title fight later. Phil gets Liam McGeary and Mo hasn't fought either one of them, so you can have him get another win and get a title shot.
Okamoto: It did, although I wonder if my answer would be different if Davis hadn't won. If Carmont had snuck in there and won the tournament (and, therefore, a title shot), I'm fairly certain we'd all be referring to this as a disaster, Bellator included. Can you imagine if the night had ended with Carmont squaring of against McGeary in the cage? Take a look at your next 205-pound championship fight, Bellator fans! Check your local listings! Regardless of Davis winning though, I do think this worked. There was a level of excitement associated with these fights, which was far higher than it would have been had they just been normal, run-of-the-mill undercard bouts. With the right players, this is a fun idea that offers fans something different, which Bellator needs to embrace until it builds a deeper roster with more elite talent.
3. Now that (some) details of Fedor Emelianenko's return have been announced, are you excited for it to happen on Dec. 31?
Askren: No, and I don't know that I was ever excited to see him return, under any circumstances. This has been one of my favorite topics since I was 10 years old -- and it's hard, because now that I'm getting older, I understand it -- the decline is not fast, the decline is so, right? You can compete at a high level even if you're not who you used to be. So, with Fedor, we already saw his decline when he came from PRIDE over to Strikeforce and lost those fights. He wasn't who he was before. Now, I can only imagine, three years down the road. Is he still going to be a top 20 heavyweight? Yeah, probably. Is he who Fedor was at his peak? Definitely no. So, I don't know that I was excited to see him under any circumstances -- and he was one of my favorite fighters at one point in time. I'm coming to the point in my career where I ask myself, 'Can you hang it up at the right time?' Not a lot of people have.
Okamoto: Ben literally took the words out of my mouth here. I'd rather watch a 20-year-old prospect compete than a former great, pushing 40. If that's your thing, I'm not hating on you -- I just don't see the appeal of constantly trying to dust off the great fighters of past generations. I'm more interested in the world's best fighters now. And any excitement I might have had in Emelianenko's return was attached to him signing with the UFC. Now, I think it's a given he draws an easy opponent on Dec. 31. You think Nobuyuki Sakakibara is going to bring Emelianenko back to Tokyo on New Year's Eve -- to lose? Nah. They'll dig up some overweight, half-retired opponent who represents virtually zero risk. There aren't enough lights or pyrotechnics in Japan to get me truly amped for that.
4. Following the Nevada State Athletic Commission's handling of Nick Diaz, would you be comfortable fighting under its jurisdiction in the state of Nevada?
Askren: Thankfully, I don't do anything illegal or against the rules, so I think I would feel comfortable -- but that's a circus. It's bad. I glanced at the notes of Nick's trial and the one thing I would have gotten to the bottom of is that you have a WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) accredited lab where he passed a pee test, on the same night of the failure. That's as high of an accreditation you can get when it comes to drug testing. So, he passed those on the same night he failed a pee test from a non-accredited lab. Why that wasn't fought over more, I'm not sure -- because I think that's the crux of the argument.
Okamoto: Tough for me to answer, since I (as you may or may not know) do not make my living as a professional fighter. I would love to say that I'd take a stand against the injustice done by the NSAC to Diaz and publicly refuse to fight in Nevada -- but at the same time, if my employer told me, 'You're fighting in Las Vegas or you're not fighting at all,' I can't sit here and say I'd skip the payday. As I mentioned in last week's Five Rounds, I believe fighters need to be paying attention to all aspects of their careers, not just fight preparations. Care about your contract. Care about your management and how that management is benefitting you. Care about the licensing process through an athletic commission -- and the commission's drug testing procedures. Care about the UFC's new anti-doping policy with USADA. Pay attention to these things and educate yourself on them, especially in the current absence of a collective association.
5. Who wins the UFC Fight Night main event this weekend: Josh Barnett or Roy Nelson?
Askren: I would say Barnett is probably better at all aspects. The thing with Roy Nelson is that he's tough and he can hit hard, so you can't ever count him out. I think it's one of those fights where it's hard to say definitively. Sometimes, when a guy doesn't hit that hard and you know he's going to get outwrestled, it's easy to pick a winner. But in a fight like this, it's tough. Roy hits so hard he can knock anyone out. So, while I think Barnett is probably technically better, I could see Roy knocking him out. And you know what, I'm going to be cheering for Roy because I like Roy.
Okamoto: Probably Barnett. It gets tough when you reach a point where you've got two heavyweights who are past their respective primes. Barnett hasn't fought in nearly two years. He's going on his 19th year as a professional cage fighter. God knows what this man has left in the tank. Same can be said for Nelson. They've both had incredible careers and I'm not saying they're finished, but it becomes more and more difficult to predict how they'll look in a fight. I think Barnett's strategic approach to fights, that coach's eyesight, gives him an advantage over someone like Nelson, who essentially takes the same approach to every fight. Given the fact Barnett has five rounds to work, I'll predict him in a knockout.