After Andrei Arlovski's victory over Fabricio Werdum at UFC 70, he apologized to the crowd in his post-fight interview for not winning the fight in a more exciting fashion. This was a fight that Arlovski clearly dominated in the rare exchanges that took place, but neither fighter pushed the pace in the later rounds and the crowd booed the general lack of aggression.
Arlovski established a lead early on in the scorecards and his corner saw no reason to jeopardize the lead and instructed him to keep the fight standing and trade conservatively from the outside. To Werdum and his corner's discredit, despite obviously being behind on the scorecards, they saw no urgency to take the fight to Arlovski or perhaps Werdum was physically unable to do so due to injury or damage. The result was a boring technical fight that saw more dancing than punches or kicks.
The question is should Arlovski have jeopardized his sure-fire victory by recklessly attacking or should we, as spectators, appreciate what he did to achieve victory rather than boo his efforts?
If you consider MMA to be an athletic competition, then you have to accept that coaches, trainers, and fighters do not strategize and plan on how to "beat the crap out of someone" or "take his head off." They strategize on how to achieve victory and, unfortunately, those goals don't always include knocking someone out or even finishing the fight. This may be in direct contrast to what spectators want to see in terms of violence and excitement, but the reality is that victory can often be boring.
After Heath Herring's debut lose to Jake O'Brien on an Ultimate Fight Night, I was astounded by his post-fight interview where he said he wasn't accustomed to the style of fighting in the UFC, as if to imply that fighters in Japan don't strategize and simply stand in front of one another, throwing bombs till someone drops. For anyone who's seen the much-publicized Pride fight between Don Frye and Yoshihiro Takayama, who repeatedly and simultaneously bludgeoned each in the face, this shouldn't be a surprise. In Japan, MMA is more akin to pro-wrestling (which seeks to thrill) than sport (which seeks to compete). Putting on a "show" is clearly prioritized over legitimacy and competition. Hence the continued presence of freakish sumo-sized combatants and fighters with embarrassingly poor losing records in all the top promotions in Japan.
But isn't the importance and legitimacy of victory what separates a true sport from pro-wrestling? If the UFC prioritized entertainment over wins, doesn't that make it no different than the WWE?
This dilemma has no easy answers and could even be considered paradoxical. If you ask a promoter what's most important in a fight, they'll usually say being exciting. Ask fighters the same question and they'll usually say winning is more important. Excitement is what spectators want to see, but if the fights aren't legitimately real, people wouldn't be interested to begin with.
Boring fights are tough to stomach, but if you consider MMA to be a competitive sport to legitimately test one's skill and determine the superior fighter, then you have accept that boring fights are a part of the game.