Superfight Year in the UFC? Depends on your definition

When UFC play-by-play man Mike Goldberg stood in front of the octagon to start the UFC 156 broadcast and confidently declared 2013 to be "superfight year" in the UFC, it was hard to tell whether he was being overly optimistic or just dangerously presumptuous.

For one thing, dude, it's early February. I believe Goldberg knows what the next 10 months hold in store about as much as I believe that a groundhog can tell us when the ice will melt.

For another, this is the UFC we're talking about, the organization that spent much of the last two years watching one fight after another fall apart due to injury or illness or gypsy curse. After all that, what would possibly make the UFC think it could guarantee a year's worth of superfights? What would even make it think that next month's main events are completely safe?

But then I read the news that Anthony Pettis would get the next shot at Jose Aldo's UFC featherweight title this August – and that this, too, would be dubbed a superfight – and suddenly it started to make sense. We're just going to make up a new meaning for this word, aren't we? Problem solved.

"It's a superfight, and I want to be part of these fights," Pettis said of the pairing.

That sentiment was echoed by the UFC's official Twitter, which almost hinted at some awareness of its own overuse of the term when it tweeted a link to the story accompanied by the words, "It's a superfight... again!!"

Yes, again. Though that's only if you counted Saturday night's main event bout between Aldo and former UFC lightweight champ Frankie Edgar as a superfight. And if you count that, why not put Aldo vs. Pettis in the same category? Why not say the same of any title fight where one fighter is going up or down in weight to make it happen?

Jon Jones vs. Vitor Belfort? There's a superfight. Jones vs. Chael Sonnen? There's another. Anderson Silva vs. Stephan Bonnar? Superfight City, bro. If only Rashad Evans hadn't dropped a decision on Saturday night, he might have set himself up for a major superfight with Anderson Silva. I guess now we'll have to settle for a totally non-super regular old middleweight title fight. Kind of a downer, considering this is superfight year and all.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought "superfight" – especially when it's all one word like that – was one of those combat sports terms with a pretty clear definition. I thought it referred to fights that pitted a reigning champion from one weight class against a reigning champion from another. You know, like what happened when then-UFC lightweight champ B.J. Penn went up a division to challenge UFC welterweight champ Georges St-Pierre in 2009. Now that was a superfight. It was also, according to my strict definition of the word, the last superfight the UFC had.

What makes those fights so "super" is that they're pretty rare. You need two dominant champions who have solidified their respective standings in their own divisions and are able and willing to meet and each other in a champion vs. champion showdown. That doesn't happen often. That's why it's special.

See how much trouble the UFC has had getting St-Pierre to agree to face Silva, or Silva to agree to face Jones? Superfights don't come together so easily. Maybe that's why the UFC has decided, screw it, let's just change the definition of the word so that almost anything can be called a superfight.

The worst part is, there's no need for it. Aldo vs. Pettis? That's a great matchup no matter what you call it. I want to see that fight. I don't understand why we have to wait six months for it, but hey, as long as both guys can keep from falling off their motorcycles in the interim, I'm willing to be patient. But this is no more a superfight than Aldo vs. Edgar was. It's the featherweight champ defending his belt against a featherweight contender who was, until recently, a lightweight. Why can't we just call it that?

I guess I know the answer to that, and it's because the UFC's job is to promote fights. It seems to think that nothing accomplishes that task quite like hyperbole, which is probably why every prelim broadcast ends with color commentator Joe Rogan and UFC president Dana White yelling at each other about how awesome (!!!) the pay-per-view portion of the card is going to be (!!!*%@&!!).

What I wonder is, don't they realize that they are killing the term superfight, and at a time when they might prefer it to be in robust health?

Think about the current triumvirate of GSP, Silva, and Jones. Think there's a chance that, between the three of them, we might see at least one big money superfight soon? Seems not-so far-fetched to me, which is why it seems not-so smart to render the word completely meaningless now in order to sell fights that sell themselves.

Aldo and Pettis? People who like fights will pay to watch that one whether it's for the UFC featherweight belt or a World's Greatest Grandpa mug. Calling it a superfight doesn't make it true, but it does add the word superfight to a long list of fight promoter cliches we've learned to ignore. It's like when you hear Rogan call someone a "monster," or White declare a fighter to be "in the mix." Those words don't mean anything anymore. It's all dead language now, just more loud noises to shout at the end of the cable TV broadcast.

If the UFC wants to add superfight to that list, I suppose we can't stop it. I just don't see why, if you're trying to sell me a perfectly good Mercedes that I'm already eager to buy, you feel the need to first try and convince me that it's a helicopter.