ESPN vs. Frank Mir

— --

Each week, ESPN.com writer and MMA Live Extra analyst Brett Okamoto provides ESPN's take on the hottest topics in the world of mixed martial arts.

This week, Okamoto squares off with UFC heavyweight Frank Mir to debate the latest news and trends. Mir, 36, returns to the Octagon on Sept. 5 when he meets Andrei Arlovski in a meeting between former champions at UFC 191 in Las Vegas.

1. Did Anderson Silva's punishment of a one-year suspension and $380,000 fine fit the crime?

Mir: I don't know -- seems pretty stiff. I know he did something he shouldn't have done, but I feel bad for him. I think the one-year suspension is to make sure everything is out of a guy's system. That's what I've always attributed the suspensions to, is time to clean their system and train naturally. I agree with it for that purpose. But $380,000? That's stiff. That's a harsh punishment. Any suspension that lasts more than a year, I do think it hurts the fans. You see a guy out for three or four years, they'll turn away from the world of MMA. You'll never see them again. At the end of the day, we know what's ahead of us and we could just follow the rules -- but it's kind of like, I know I shouldn't speed or I'll get a speeding ticket. I couldn't imagine getting a speeding ticket with a $380,000 fine and having my license taken for four years. That seems excessive. But I guess it depends on what drugs these guys are using and what your opinion is on that.

Okamoto: The one-year suspension doesn't fit the crime. It should have been longer -- and had this failed test taken place in 2016 instead of 2015, it would have been. Suspending Silva for one year really doesn't do all that much. At this point in his career, he's not fighting more than maybe twice in a calendar year anyway. So if the UFC were to book him to its Super Bowl card in February, what did he really miss due to that one-year suspension? Not much. The fine, on the other hand, fits the crime, in my opinion. He doesn't get credit for the win anymore, so why should he get a "win bonus?" In this case, Silva was paid an additional $200,000 for beating Nick Diaz at UFC 183. He shouldn't get that money, because the fight is now changed to a no-contest. So wipe out the $200,000 win bonus and impose a percentage fine on the show purse, which is what the commission did. The $380,000 amount seems like a lot when you first hear it, but it makes sense.

2. If you had to guess: How many more times will Silva fight in the UFC?

Mir: I don't know. I really don't. I still think he's one of the greatest martial artists to ever grace our sport. I'm glad his suspension is up in January and we can see him perform again. When he comes back, I hope he shows everybody how great a fighter he is. Hopefully he fights a few more times so he can put this in his past. I would really hate for somebody as great as Anderson to be defined by a mistake he made. That's life and it happens, but I think it's a disservice to so many people who could follow Anderson in positive ways. He's still a role model.

Okamoto: Quite a few. I think Silva will be one of those guys who hangs around until he's basically told to leave. This isn't a team sport, where Silva burns up an important roster spot by staying in the game. This is a sport based on name value and whether an audience will pay to see you perform. Silva is 40 years old and past his prime, but all things considered, he's not completely worn down physically and his competitive drive is still there (he wouldn't have made it back from that leg injury if it wasn't). I'd set the over/under on remaining Silva fights pretty high, honestly. Something like six or seven.

3. Which of the two featherweights in the main event of UFC Fight Night has more championship potential: Max Holloway or Charles Oliveira?

Mir: I've been impressed with Oliveira. Max, I haven't watched as much to be honest, so I don't want to shortchange him on my opinion. Anybody who is in the top 10 in the UFC has potential to win a title. That's what makes these fights hard to predict. I'll do (predictions) sometimes and I'll sit there and even as close as I am to the sport, trying to have a lock on anybody is difficult. There are so many different ways to win. So many different factors.

Okamoto: Holloway, no doubt. They're both still very young. Oliveira is 25; Holloway is 23. Oliveira is a death trap on the floor, but fights start on the feet and I don't think he has the striking or wrestling chops to take out guys like Jose Aldo, Conor McGregor, Frankie Edgar, Chad Mendes. It wouldn't be impossible for him to catch one of them in a submission on any given night, but there's a reason he's a relatively big underdog against someone like Holloway. Holloway poses serious problems on the feet (which Cub Swanson could attest to), he's big and he appears to have an A-plus gas tank. The question remains on how good his wrestling is -- and that's a big question, considering the different opponents and styles he'd have to beat to win a title.

4. With plenty of UFC title fights (or at least matchups) already announced, which champion is most vulnerable to losing the belt in his/her next defense?

Mir: I think maybe Daniel Cormier, just because I saw Cormier have difficulty with Jon Jones and obviously, Jon is a phenomenal fighter, but I attributed a lot of that to the length and range he possesses. I think Alexander Gustafsson, even though he's not as great of an offensive wrestler as Jon is, defensively he's very hard to take down and he's got that great boxing on the feet. I think height might play a factor for Gustafsson (6-foot-4). Even though I think Cormier (5-11) is phenomenal and it's not that I'm betting against him, but as far as a champion I can look at and articulate a few reasons why he might worry, I would probably point to that fight.

Okamoto: I would say Chris Weidman. Weidman is among the top five pound-for-pound fighters in the game and he's never been beat, but I think Luke Rockhold is the scariest title challenger in the UFC right now. If you look at odds, Fabricio Werdum is considered an underdog whenever he fights Cain Velasquez -- as is Aldo against McGregor in December -- but if I had to bet the house on one title challenger in the UFC right now, it's Rockhold.

5. The UFC's decision to book an immediate rematch between Werdum and Velasquez for the heavyweight title: Agree or disagree with this move?

Mir: I kind of disagreed with that. I thought there were some other fights out there for Werdum. That's one thing that makes you happy when you have a change of guard at the top, is that it mixed the division up. We kind of put ourselves right back into the same spot we were by putting Cain back in there. He could very easily -- well, not very easily -- but he could win that. It's a close fight between the two of them. They both impose a skill set the other has a difficult time with.

Okamoto: I actually agree with it. Seems like I'm in the minority -- but the way I see it, in a perfect world, a championship fight consists of the Nos. 1 and 2 fighters in the world facing each other, right? Now, the UFC can't always book a title fight between its top two ranked guys, because in some instances, they'd just be booking the same fight over and over again. In order to see different matchups, sometimes we have to book No. 1 against No. 4, because No. 2 has already had his/her shot. But in the case of Werdum and Velasquez, I think there's enough doubt on whether Velasquez was at 100 percent coming off a 600-day layoff in that last fight to warrant an immediate rematch. And there's no other matchup at heavyweight that I absolutely have to see ahead of this one. I don't have to see Werdum vs. Stipe Miocic or Arlovski. I wouldn't mind seeing either of those, but I'm not breaking down any doors to see it right now. So, let's run back No. 1 vs. No. 2. Theoretically, that's what a title fight should be, isn't it?