I figured rather than just keep posting in the last UFC/Pride thread I'd start a new one where we can discuss all things MMA. To start off, I'll post an awesome article from MMAChronical.com that goes over UFC PPV #'s since UFC 33. Enjoy.
--------------------------------------------------------------
With MMAChronicle.com's releasing of the pay per view buyrates for UFCs 43, 44, 46 and 47 based on Zuffa's pay per view revenue for each show as recorded by the Nevada State Athletic Commission, we're going to take a look at the biggest pay per view draws currently in the UFC.
Here is a list of the buyrates for each UFC show since they came back on cable starting with UFC 33 in September 2001. We don't have buyrates for every show, and please take note that any buyrates other than UFCs 43, 44, 46 and 47 are only rumored numbers, and aren't anywhere close to official. The idea with presenting these numbers, though, is to use them as a guide to help analyze who and what draws and pay per view:
CHART #1
EVENT NAME DATE HEADLINER BUYRATE
UFC 33 Sept 28 2001 Ortiz vs. Matyushenko 75,000
UFC 34 Nov 2 2001 Couture vs. Rizzo 45,000-60,000*
UFC 35 Jan 11 2001 Penn vs. Pulver 35,000
UFC 36 March 22 2002 Barnett vs. Couture 45,000-60,000*
UFC 37 May 10 2002 Lindland vs. Bustamante 45,000-60,000*
UFC 38 July 13 2002 Hughes vs. Newton 45,000-60,000*
UFC 39 Sept 27 2002 Rodriguez vs. Couture 45,000-60,000*
UFC 40 Nov 22 2002 Ortiz vs. Shamrock 150,000
UFC 41 Feb 28 2003 Tank vs. Mir 60,000
UFC 42 Apr 25 2003 Hughes vs. Sherk 35,000
UFC 43 June 6 2003 Couture vs. Liddell 49,000
UFC 44 Sept 26 2003 Couture vs. Ortiz 94,000
UFC 45 Nov 21 2003 Tank vs. Cabbage 40,000
UFC 46 Jan 31 2004 Couture vs. Belfort 77,000
UFC 47 Apr 2, 2004 Ortiz vs. Liddell 104,000
UFC 48 June 19 2004 Shamrock vs. Kimo 110,000
UFC 49 Aug 21 2004 Couture vs. Belfort N/A
*These pay per views were figured as doing between 45,000 and 60,000+ buys
A few notes on the above chart. UFC 37.5 isn't included on the list because it was shown on tape delay on pay per view and was set up as a TV taping for Fox Sportsnet. We don't have pay per view figures for UFC 49, but, for the sake of argument, we'll figure that the show will end up doing between 70,000 and 80,000 buys, same as UFC 46 which was also headlined by Couture vs. Belfort. Also, although UFC 43 was presented as an "all-star" show, the clear headliner was Couture vs. Liddell for the interim 205-pound title. UFC 45's main event live was Hughes vs. Trigg, which went on last that night, but Cabbage vs. Tank was the fight that the show was built around in pay per view advertising. Same thing with UFC 41 in regards to Tank vs. Mir and with Rodriguez defending the Heavyweight title last that night against Tim Sylvia. Also, Vitor Belfort was the original opponent for Ortiz at UFC 33 and pulled out late to be replaced by Matyushenko.
The following fighters headlined more than one pay per view in the above chart (the amount of shows they headlined is in parenthesis): Tito Ortiz (4), Ken Shamrock (2), Randy Couture (7), Matt Hughes (2), Tank Abbott (2), Chuck Liddell (2), Vitor Belfort (2). If you count UFC 45 for Matt Hughes, then he's headlined three shows. If you count UFC 33 towards Belfort (even though he didn't fight, he was a late replacement), he's headlined three shows.
Now, adding the buyrates together for each of the above fighters and averaging them, you end up with the following ranking of average buyrates (for the shows listed as having done 45,000 to 60,000 buys we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and average them as 60,000 buys, which is probably high for most of them). We also assumed that UFC 49 has done 77,000 buys:
CHART #2
1. Ken Shamrock - 130,000
2. Tito Ortiz - 105,750
3. Vitor Belfort - 77,000
4. Chuck Liddell - 76,500
5. Randy Couture - 68,143
6. Tank Abbott - 50,000
7. Matt Hughes - 47,500
What this chart means is that Ken Shamrock is their biggest draw, Tito is a big draw, Vitor, Chuck and Randy are all moderate draws, and Tank Abbott and Matt Hughes don't draw flies. If you add in UFC 45 for Hughes, then his average goes down even further.
Below we have a chart with Randy Couture broken up as two people, Heavyweight Randy Couture, with only his buyrates from his heavyweight headline fights averaged in, and Light-Heavyweight Randy Couture, the same thing but with only 205-pound fights averaged in:
CHART #3
1. Ken Shamrock - 130,000
2. Tito Ortiz - 105,750
3. Vitor Belfort - 77,000
4. Chuck Liddell - 76,500
5. Randy Couture (Light-Heavyweight) - 74,250
6. Randy Couture (Heavyweight) - 60,000
7. Tank Abbott - 50,000
8. Matt Hughes - 47,500
Clearly, Couture was never a draw as a heavyweight, averaging out a buyrate of 60,000 buys for his fights against Pedro Rizzo (the rematch), Josh Barnett and Ricco Rodriguez. This would probably explain why UFC 43 did 49,000 buys, because Chuck Liddell was never a headliner before that and Couture had never headlined a show that drew well.
Now, below is an even better chart. We've taken the same pay per view numbers used in Chart #1, but when a fighter has taken on an opponent that is listed as a better draw than him in Chart #2 in the headline of a pay per view, we don't include that fight. Basically, the chart below is a ranking of headline fighters when they fight someone in the main event of a show who is a lesser draw than they are. Couture is listed as only one fighter, rather than being broken down into weight divisions:
CHART #4
1. Ken Shamrock - 130,000
2. Tito Ortiz - 91,000
3. Vitor Belfort - 77,000
4. Randy Couture - 60,000
5. Tank Abbott - 50,000
6. Matt Hughes - 47,500
It ends up being almost the exact same list, with Chuck Liddell being dropped from it because I didn't include his fight against Tito at UFC 47, and beyond that he only headlined one more show (UFC 43 against Couture), and a fighter needed to headline at least two shows to be on the list.
Overall, it's very clear that Ken Shamrock is the company's biggest draw, which is why protecting him and booking him as a headliner is so important right now. I had figured that his bad loss to Tito at UFC 40 would damage his drawing power and people would see him as being over the hill, but Shamrock's name value prevailed at UFC 48, which was reported by the Wrestling Observer as doing 110,000 buys, which of course is tremendous, and it's not like Kimo is a top drawing opponent (although he does have some name value from his days in SEG and his fight with Royce Gracie). They've got some problems right now with the way they are booking Shamrock, because the booking of Tito vs. Belfort in December leaves Shamrock out in the cold without a decent opponent unless they can coax Tank Abbott to fight him (and, despite the fact that Tank has never drawn a dime, I believe he would draw in a headline position against Ken Shamrock in a fight with the right amount and right kind of hype).
Tito Oriz is really the only other draw in the company, and his drawing power may have evaporated with this his lost two losses. Ken Shamrock's drawing power wasn't damaged at all by losing to Tito, but Tito also has the combined effect of dodging Chuck Liddell for ages, causing fans to lose respect for him, and Tito doesn't have the name value with so many casual pro wrestling fans that Ken Shamrock does, which makes it easier for Shamrock to bounce back as a draw. Tito needs to beat Mezger, though, or his career as a headliner may be all done.
I think these charts are misleading towards both Vitor Belfort and Randy Couture. Belfort has only headlined twice against the same opponent (Couture), and we don't even know what their latest fight realistically did on pay per view (I used 77,000 buys when doing the mathematics for the charts). Couture's position on these charts is hampered by not being a draw as a heavyweight, and his position on the chart where his heavyweight and light-heavyweight fights are broken up into two figures is hampered as well by a bad buyrate against Chuck Liddell in his first fight at light-heavyweight. If you average together Couture's two fights against Belfort and his fight against Ortiz, you end up with an average buyrate of 82,667, which puts him in third place far behind Tito, but which I think is a more realistic position right now for Couture as a draw. I think Couture is a slightly bigger draw than these charts indicate, and Belfort is a less of a draw than these charts indicate.
Tank Abbott's drawing power is non-existent. Same with Matt Hughes, although in two of his three biggest fights (against Sherk and Trigg), Hughes was facing guys who had never actually competed on a UFC pay per view before. The internet makes up like 2% of the fanbase that watches these shows. Only those internet fans would have had any inkling as to who Frank Trigg was. Hughes is also a welterweight and isn't tremendously charismatic, which works against him as well.
Zuffa actually has a problem right now with creating new stars on pay per view. Stars, especially in MMA because of the nature of the competition, don't have a long shelf life. Tito's drawing power may already be used up, and is he even thirty years old yet? Shamrock is over the age of forty. Couture is over the age of forty. Liddell isn't young, as he's around thirty-five. Belfort's never going to be that top draw or fighter that everyone had envisioned him as, and has never drawn a huge buyrate anyway. That's all of their good headline guys. Liddell could be the company's top star if he were to defeat Couture next year for the Light-Heavyweight title, but I don't see Liddell being a long-term solution because he's not charismatic and he's not young.
They need to build new stars out of guys like Justin Eilers, Lee Murray, Joe Riggs, etc.. Guys who are charismatic and are good fighters. Hopefully we'll see a few guys of that potential on "The Ultimate Fighter" reality show and the exposure of these guys on national free TV will help build new superstars, but if the show fails or none of the personalities of these new fighters get over with the audience, then, long-term, they have serious problems because eventually the shelf lives of the current top guys are going to be all used up, and that may not be far off.
--------------------------------------------------------------
With MMAChronicle.com's releasing of the pay per view buyrates for UFCs 43, 44, 46 and 47 based on Zuffa's pay per view revenue for each show as recorded by the Nevada State Athletic Commission, we're going to take a look at the biggest pay per view draws currently in the UFC.
Here is a list of the buyrates for each UFC show since they came back on cable starting with UFC 33 in September 2001. We don't have buyrates for every show, and please take note that any buyrates other than UFCs 43, 44, 46 and 47 are only rumored numbers, and aren't anywhere close to official. The idea with presenting these numbers, though, is to use them as a guide to help analyze who and what draws and pay per view:
CHART #1
EVENT NAME DATE HEADLINER BUYRATE
UFC 33 Sept 28 2001 Ortiz vs. Matyushenko 75,000
UFC 34 Nov 2 2001 Couture vs. Rizzo 45,000-60,000*
UFC 35 Jan 11 2001 Penn vs. Pulver 35,000
UFC 36 March 22 2002 Barnett vs. Couture 45,000-60,000*
UFC 37 May 10 2002 Lindland vs. Bustamante 45,000-60,000*
UFC 38 July 13 2002 Hughes vs. Newton 45,000-60,000*
UFC 39 Sept 27 2002 Rodriguez vs. Couture 45,000-60,000*
UFC 40 Nov 22 2002 Ortiz vs. Shamrock 150,000
UFC 41 Feb 28 2003 Tank vs. Mir 60,000
UFC 42 Apr 25 2003 Hughes vs. Sherk 35,000
UFC 43 June 6 2003 Couture vs. Liddell 49,000
UFC 44 Sept 26 2003 Couture vs. Ortiz 94,000
UFC 45 Nov 21 2003 Tank vs. Cabbage 40,000
UFC 46 Jan 31 2004 Couture vs. Belfort 77,000
UFC 47 Apr 2, 2004 Ortiz vs. Liddell 104,000
UFC 48 June 19 2004 Shamrock vs. Kimo 110,000
UFC 49 Aug 21 2004 Couture vs. Belfort N/A
*These pay per views were figured as doing between 45,000 and 60,000+ buys
A few notes on the above chart. UFC 37.5 isn't included on the list because it was shown on tape delay on pay per view and was set up as a TV taping for Fox Sportsnet. We don't have pay per view figures for UFC 49, but, for the sake of argument, we'll figure that the show will end up doing between 70,000 and 80,000 buys, same as UFC 46 which was also headlined by Couture vs. Belfort. Also, although UFC 43 was presented as an "all-star" show, the clear headliner was Couture vs. Liddell for the interim 205-pound title. UFC 45's main event live was Hughes vs. Trigg, which went on last that night, but Cabbage vs. Tank was the fight that the show was built around in pay per view advertising. Same thing with UFC 41 in regards to Tank vs. Mir and with Rodriguez defending the Heavyweight title last that night against Tim Sylvia. Also, Vitor Belfort was the original opponent for Ortiz at UFC 33 and pulled out late to be replaced by Matyushenko.
The following fighters headlined more than one pay per view in the above chart (the amount of shows they headlined is in parenthesis): Tito Ortiz (4), Ken Shamrock (2), Randy Couture (7), Matt Hughes (2), Tank Abbott (2), Chuck Liddell (2), Vitor Belfort (2). If you count UFC 45 for Matt Hughes, then he's headlined three shows. If you count UFC 33 towards Belfort (even though he didn't fight, he was a late replacement), he's headlined three shows.
Now, adding the buyrates together for each of the above fighters and averaging them, you end up with the following ranking of average buyrates (for the shows listed as having done 45,000 to 60,000 buys we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and average them as 60,000 buys, which is probably high for most of them). We also assumed that UFC 49 has done 77,000 buys:
CHART #2
1. Ken Shamrock - 130,000
2. Tito Ortiz - 105,750
3. Vitor Belfort - 77,000
4. Chuck Liddell - 76,500
5. Randy Couture - 68,143
6. Tank Abbott - 50,000
7. Matt Hughes - 47,500
What this chart means is that Ken Shamrock is their biggest draw, Tito is a big draw, Vitor, Chuck and Randy are all moderate draws, and Tank Abbott and Matt Hughes don't draw flies. If you add in UFC 45 for Hughes, then his average goes down even further.
Below we have a chart with Randy Couture broken up as two people, Heavyweight Randy Couture, with only his buyrates from his heavyweight headline fights averaged in, and Light-Heavyweight Randy Couture, the same thing but with only 205-pound fights averaged in:
CHART #3
1. Ken Shamrock - 130,000
2. Tito Ortiz - 105,750
3. Vitor Belfort - 77,000
4. Chuck Liddell - 76,500
5. Randy Couture (Light-Heavyweight) - 74,250
6. Randy Couture (Heavyweight) - 60,000
7. Tank Abbott - 50,000
8. Matt Hughes - 47,500
Clearly, Couture was never a draw as a heavyweight, averaging out a buyrate of 60,000 buys for his fights against Pedro Rizzo (the rematch), Josh Barnett and Ricco Rodriguez. This would probably explain why UFC 43 did 49,000 buys, because Chuck Liddell was never a headliner before that and Couture had never headlined a show that drew well.
Now, below is an even better chart. We've taken the same pay per view numbers used in Chart #1, but when a fighter has taken on an opponent that is listed as a better draw than him in Chart #2 in the headline of a pay per view, we don't include that fight. Basically, the chart below is a ranking of headline fighters when they fight someone in the main event of a show who is a lesser draw than they are. Couture is listed as only one fighter, rather than being broken down into weight divisions:
CHART #4
1. Ken Shamrock - 130,000
2. Tito Ortiz - 91,000
3. Vitor Belfort - 77,000
4. Randy Couture - 60,000
5. Tank Abbott - 50,000
6. Matt Hughes - 47,500
It ends up being almost the exact same list, with Chuck Liddell being dropped from it because I didn't include his fight against Tito at UFC 47, and beyond that he only headlined one more show (UFC 43 against Couture), and a fighter needed to headline at least two shows to be on the list.
Overall, it's very clear that Ken Shamrock is the company's biggest draw, which is why protecting him and booking him as a headliner is so important right now. I had figured that his bad loss to Tito at UFC 40 would damage his drawing power and people would see him as being over the hill, but Shamrock's name value prevailed at UFC 48, which was reported by the Wrestling Observer as doing 110,000 buys, which of course is tremendous, and it's not like Kimo is a top drawing opponent (although he does have some name value from his days in SEG and his fight with Royce Gracie). They've got some problems right now with the way they are booking Shamrock, because the booking of Tito vs. Belfort in December leaves Shamrock out in the cold without a decent opponent unless they can coax Tank Abbott to fight him (and, despite the fact that Tank has never drawn a dime, I believe he would draw in a headline position against Ken Shamrock in a fight with the right amount and right kind of hype).
Tito Oriz is really the only other draw in the company, and his drawing power may have evaporated with this his lost two losses. Ken Shamrock's drawing power wasn't damaged at all by losing to Tito, but Tito also has the combined effect of dodging Chuck Liddell for ages, causing fans to lose respect for him, and Tito doesn't have the name value with so many casual pro wrestling fans that Ken Shamrock does, which makes it easier for Shamrock to bounce back as a draw. Tito needs to beat Mezger, though, or his career as a headliner may be all done.
I think these charts are misleading towards both Vitor Belfort and Randy Couture. Belfort has only headlined twice against the same opponent (Couture), and we don't even know what their latest fight realistically did on pay per view (I used 77,000 buys when doing the mathematics for the charts). Couture's position on these charts is hampered by not being a draw as a heavyweight, and his position on the chart where his heavyweight and light-heavyweight fights are broken up into two figures is hampered as well by a bad buyrate against Chuck Liddell in his first fight at light-heavyweight. If you average together Couture's two fights against Belfort and his fight against Ortiz, you end up with an average buyrate of 82,667, which puts him in third place far behind Tito, but which I think is a more realistic position right now for Couture as a draw. I think Couture is a slightly bigger draw than these charts indicate, and Belfort is a less of a draw than these charts indicate.
Tank Abbott's drawing power is non-existent. Same with Matt Hughes, although in two of his three biggest fights (against Sherk and Trigg), Hughes was facing guys who had never actually competed on a UFC pay per view before. The internet makes up like 2% of the fanbase that watches these shows. Only those internet fans would have had any inkling as to who Frank Trigg was. Hughes is also a welterweight and isn't tremendously charismatic, which works against him as well.
Zuffa actually has a problem right now with creating new stars on pay per view. Stars, especially in MMA because of the nature of the competition, don't have a long shelf life. Tito's drawing power may already be used up, and is he even thirty years old yet? Shamrock is over the age of forty. Couture is over the age of forty. Liddell isn't young, as he's around thirty-five. Belfort's never going to be that top draw or fighter that everyone had envisioned him as, and has never drawn a huge buyrate anyway. That's all of their good headline guys. Liddell could be the company's top star if he were to defeat Couture next year for the Light-Heavyweight title, but I don't see Liddell being a long-term solution because he's not charismatic and he's not young.
They need to build new stars out of guys like Justin Eilers, Lee Murray, Joe Riggs, etc.. Guys who are charismatic and are good fighters. Hopefully we'll see a few guys of that potential on "The Ultimate Fighter" reality show and the exposure of these guys on national free TV will help build new superstars, but if the show fails or none of the personalities of these new fighters get over with the audience, then, long-term, they have serious problems because eventually the shelf lives of the current top guys are going to be all used up, and that may not be far off.
