The Trilogy Trap: Why MMA Fans Might Be Over Strickland vs. Du Plessis
There’s something about a trilogy in combat sports that feels both inevitable and exhausting. Personally, I think the allure of a third fight between Sean Strickland and Dricus Du Plessis is fading faster than a post-fight bruise. Daniel Cormier’s recent comments on his YouTube channel have me nodding in agreement—and not just because he’s a legend in the sport. What makes this particularly fascinating is how the dynamics of their rivalry have shifted, leaving fans in a strange limbo of apathy and anticipation.
The Dominance Dilemma
Let’s start with the elephant in the octagon: Du Plessis is 2-0 against Strickland, with the last fight being a masterclass in dominance. From my perspective, this is where the problem lies. When a fighter wins decisively twice, the narrative loses its spark. Fans don’t want to see a foregone conclusion; they want drama, unpredictability, and the thrill of the unknown. What many people don’t realize is that MMA is as much about storytelling as it is about skill. If the story feels finished, why keep reading?
The Purist vs. The Casual Fan
Cormier’s take as a purist is understandable. He wants to see the two best fighters in the division settle the score. But here’s the thing: the general fan isn’t a purist. They’re not invested in the technical nuances or the historical significance of a trilogy. They want excitement, and a one-sided rivalry doesn’t deliver that. If you take a step back and think about it, the UFC is as much a entertainment product as it is a sport. If the product isn’t selling, why keep producing it?
The Rise of Imavov: A New Contender?
This brings us to Nassourdine Imavov, who’s been quietly climbing the ranks with a five-fight winning streak. One thing that immediately stands out is his reaction to Du Plessis’s title shot callout—it’s clear he feels he’s earned his shot. And honestly, he has a point. Imavov represents something fresh, something unpredictable. In a division that’s starting to feel stale, he’s the wildcard that could shake things up. What this really suggests is that the UFC might need to pivot away from the Strickland-Du Plessis narrative and focus on new blood.
The Psychology of Rivalries
What’s especially interesting to me is the psychological fatigue that comes with a trilogy. Fans remember the first fight, the second fight, and the outcome. By the third fight, it’s not just about who wins—it’s about whether anyone cares. This raises a deeper question: how many times can you sell the same story before it loses its impact? In my opinion, the UFC is walking a fine line here. Pushing for a third fight could alienate casual fans who are already tuning out.
Looking Ahead: What’s Next for the Middleweight Division?
If the UFC decides to move away from Strickland vs. Du Plessis III, the division suddenly opens up. Imavov is the obvious choice, but there are other contenders waiting in the wings. A detail that I find especially interesting is how Khamzat Chimaev’s loss to Strickland has reshuffled the deck. Chimaev was once seen as unstoppable, but now? The division feels more open than ever. This could be the perfect time to introduce new matchups and rebuild the narrative.
Final Thoughts: The Art of Knowing When to Walk Away
As much as I love a good rivalry, there’s an art to knowing when to walk away. Personally, I think the UFC should let the Strickland-Du Plessis story rest. It’s had its moment, and forcing a third fight risks tarnishing what’s already been achieved. Instead, they should focus on building new rivalries, new stories, and new stars. After all, MMA is a sport that thrives on evolution. If it doesn’t evolve, it risks becoming irrelevant.
So, do we really need Strickland vs. Du Plessis III? In my opinion, no. But as a fan, I’ll watch whatever the UFC puts in front of me. Because at the end of the day, it’s not about the fighters—it’s about the fight. And as long as there’s a fight, there’s hope for something extraordinary.
