On Tuesday night, the UFC made the news official – they would be canceling UFC 176, scheduled to take place on August 2nd from Los Angeles. Last week, featherweight champion Jose Aldo was forced to pull out of title defense against Chad Mendes in the main event of the show due to a shoulder injury. Aldo backing out of the event is what led to awkward Dana White/Joe Rogan incident during UFC 175 on Sautrday, when White got angry at Rogan being told by the production truck to ask Ronda Rousey whether or not she’d be willing to fight in the main event of that card.
This cancellation is immediately drawing comparisons to UFC 151 two summers ago, which was canceled when Dan Henderson had to pull out of his fight with Jon Jones barely over a week before the event. But this most recent cancellation has some very important differences compared to the cancellation two years ago that make me think it’s not necessarily a bad thing.
When UFC 151 was cancelled, the promotion was in a bad place because their next event wasn’t for another three weeks. when they’d embark on a schedule of four shows in four weeks. With the UFC’s newly-expanded schedule this year, there are fight cards seemingly every week. In fact, the week before UFC 176 was scheduled, the UFC is airing a show on Fox that lacks starpower on the Fox Sports 1 undercard. There are also four fight cards in the final three weeks of August, including another pay-per-view with lighter weight fighters in the main event that has a completely empty card so far. Instead of forcing some fans to choose one or two PPV events in a four week span that might not appeal to them, there’s just the one PPV in the entire month.
Obviously, it’s never a good thing when a promotion has to cancel a show, especially a pay-per-view at a massive venue like the Staples Center in Los Angeles. But when it comes down to it, if you’re going to have to cancel an event, canceling one with a main event that would have drawn many buys in a month where the company is flooded with events is the best possible choice.
Comments are closed.