Opinion: The UFC Keeps Spitting on its Own History

.@jakepaul JUST PUT THE WOOD IN WOODLEY

He scores the KO win in the 6th round to stay unbeaten #PaulWoodley pic.twitter.com/kxr4rG0SNB

— SHOWTIME Boxing (@ShowtimeBoxing) December 19, 2021

Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed below are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Sherdog.com, its affiliates and sponsors or its parent company, Evolve Media. * * *
Last Saturday night, former Ultimate Fighting Championship welterweight king Tyron Woodley was knocked out cold by YouTube clown Jake Paul. My tongue-in-cheek description aside, I don't consider this shameful or embarrassing. Speaking as someone who used to box during my teens, Paul impressed me as a perfectly competent professional boxer in his first victory over Woodley and looked even better in the rematch. The overhand right he knocked Woodley out with was gorgeous, and many good contenders would be proud of such a blow.

And yet, it's instructive to recall that less than three years ago, in early 2019, after submitting Darren Till and just before he fought Kamaru Usman as a considerable favorite, many were debating whether Woodley was the greatest welterweight ever, surpassing Georges St. Pierre. I've touched on this before in an article about Woodley, but let me reiterate that Woodley was genuinely great and a prime Tyron would have an excellent chance of defeating GSP. However, as I noted in that same article, this is a poor way of determining greatness. Fighters improve each year and one has to take their era into account. Any current top 100 lightweight would obliterate Royce Gracie in his prime, but does that mean they're greater than Royce? I would hope not. If so, it renders the history of the sport irrelevant.

In my view, Woodley was only the third best welterweight champion historically in early 2019, trailing Matt Hughes as well as GSP. And who was initially pushing the narrative that Woodley was the best ever? Why, the UFC of course.

In fact, the UFC does this all the time, at every weight class. Now that Usman is the champion, Dana White and the UFC press releases constantly refer to him as the greatest welterweight ever. While I think he has already accomplished more than Woodley did and also surpassed Matt Hughes, from the standpoint of era and accomplishments, he's not even close to GSP. But to truly understand how ridiculous this is, take a gander at other weight classes.

At featherweight, despite Jose Aldo's legendary dominance, Max Holloway was anointed the greatest featherweight ever by the promotion after he defeated Aldo, defended once against Brian Ortega, went up to lightweight and soundly lost to Dustin Poirier in a fight he was heavily favored in, and then returned to featherweight to decision a nearly 38 year-old Frankie Edgar who arguably should be 0-4 after that match. And now that Volkanovski is king, the UFC is calling him the greatest ever, after a razor-thin split decision rematch win over Holloway that most journalists and fans alike scored for the Hawaiian, and a nice victory over that very same Ortega. According to the UFC, whoever is the most recent is best, or “latest is greatest”.

The worst case of this is at bantamweight. Despite Dominick Cruz's long-time, if injury-plagued dominance of the division, the UFC proclaimed T.J. Dillashaw the best bantamweight ever after his second victory over Cody Garbrandt. Obviously, this aged poorly, as he was decimated in 32 seconds by Henry Cejudo and then given a lengthy suspension for PEDs.

The UFC's latest is greatest mentality is very self-serving. They're promoting their current champions as the best ever, and thus making its increasingly weak PPVs appear better based off mere hyperbole. Additionally, in case previous champions are fighting in other organizations, or venturing into boxing since it pays far more than UFC gold, the promotion invalidates their accomplishments by anointing their most current champ as greater.

What's interesting is how many journalists and fans are willing to go along with this transparently dishonest narrative. Even those who often mock Dana for his ridiculous statements. Why didn't more people laugh when Dillashaw was proclaimed the best ever despite losing to Cruz head-to-head? Or note that the past three featherweight champs were all called “the greatest featherweight ever” during their respective reigns? (Yes, I know that Aldo was technically only the interim champ when he fought Holloway for the vacant belt)

Clearly, a lot of us are affected by the “latest is greatest” mentality, too. However, I want to note that this amounts to spitting on the UFC's history, and not only is that bad for MMA, it's bad for the UFC, too. Think about a sport like basketball, baseball, or football. As a new fan delves into each one, they learn about the rich history and legends of the sport. They learn what an unbelievable, clutch, perennial champion Joe Montana was back in the 80s. How insane Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak was, how it hasn't been broken in over 70 years, and likely never will be. About what a larger-than-life, ahead of his time giant, metaphorically and physically, Wilt Chamberlain was. This history is more than just neat trivia. It makes the sport more grand and magical, and causes many, myself included, to fall in love with it. Furthermore, knowing the history lays the proper context for record-breaking or championship performances nowadays, giving them meaning. It's one thing to hear about accomplishments in a vacuum. It's another when one knows all the legendary teams and players who fell short of that mark. Any sports fan who tried to explain to a bored girlfriend or spouse why they just witnessed history will appreciate this.

As one can tell by my articles, I'm a huge fan of old-school MMA, and can spend hours talking about the history of this great sport. I hate seeing it dismissed, but it's also bad business. Invalidating one's previous champions doesn't elevate the UFC, it devalues it. Without its history, what makes the UFC better than any rival promotion? Only its current roster, and since there aren't cross-promotional fights, it's debatable whether they're actually the best. And as I've also noted in the past, former UFC champions always do worse than expected in outside promotions (just consider Benson Henderson, Anthony Pettis, Eddie Alvarez and Demetrious Johnson, off the top of my head) and champions from rival promotions always do better than expected in the UFC, even guys past their prime like Michael Chandler.

Furthermore, “greatest featherweight ever” loses its luster when it's applied to every single new champion, and when the UFC encourages its fans to ignore the past. It just becomes a meaningless buzzword after a while, and those fans are more likely to tune out the UFC's absurd narratives from here on out.

As with so much of its poor promotion, the UFC is hurting not only the sport, but themselves when they insist on disrespecting its own history.