With UFC 120 just around the corner, the talk about the card has gone into overdrive. Several sources have criticised the card’s depth and have raised questions about value for money. Whereas it’s obvious the card is a good advertisement for how far UK mma has come in the last few years, are the fans in the UK due bigger fights?

It’s hard to underestimate just what Michael Bisping has done for the sport in the UK; from his breakthrough in TUF 3, to his impressive 9-3 record for the promotion and his high profile bouts with main eventers like Wanderlei Silva, Rashad Evans and Dan Henderson.

Bisping has undoubtedly been the linchpin in the British leg of  Zuffa’s international campaign. At present The Count has featured in five of the UFC’s nine trips to the UK and is slated to be in the main event at UFC 120.

The real issue, however, is how long will Zuffa continue to sell cards overseas, simply on the back of blind patriotism? With the educated community evolving at a comparable rate to the sport, will a love of great fights eventually overtake an unwavering sense of national pride?

The epicentre of the criticism, from both English and American fans alike, is that UFC 120 is too centred on fighters from the UK; but so long as this doesn’t result in a poor night of fights, does it really matter?

A stacked card doesn’t always produce the best fights and there’s a whole host of examples that illustrate this perfectly.

UFC 33 was famously condemned by Dana White as being boring, despite the five star talent that made up the card. The likes of Pulver, Liddell, Ortiz and Bustamante were all featured in the event but six of the eight fights went to the judges, three of which were five rounders, and the response in general was incredibly negative. White went on to condemn the event recently saying:

UFC 33 is the only one I can remember where every fight sucked.

It took a spectacular follow up at UFC 34 to repair the damage.

Moving forward to the modern day there have been several examples of stacked cards that didn’t produce entertaining fights, or indeed deliver what they promised. UFC 76 Knockout produced no knockouts, UFC 67 All or Nothing produced more nothing than all and UFC 74 Respect, featured the infamous Babalu “Anaconda Choke” incident.

Conversely it often seems that cards that don’t have superstar value often produce legitimately exciting fights. The drawing power may not be there but you only have to look back at UFC 95 to see a card that was exciting from top to bottom, despite not really having the talent to back it up.

The fights were all fast paced, perhaps with the exception of the main event, and it was one of the few opportunities that the UFC had to show every bout on the live broadcast.

Do good fighters always equal good fights? Anderson Silva fans would probably have a word to say about that, as would fans of almost any other fighter you care to mention. Even hugely popular fighters have disappointing showings, but the effect this has on their careers depends a lot on the individual.

George St. Pierre hasn’t really produced anything to write home about in his last few title defences, but his demeanour and athleticism do a lot to endear him to the public.

A good style match up can often be way more important than the name value of bout; I’m reminded of Thiago Alves vs. Chris Lytle at this point. On the other side of the coin, a bad style match up can result in a popular fighter struggling to entertain, as Tito Ortiz learned in his somnambulistic encounter with Vladimir Matyushenko.

Irrespective of just who makes up the card at UFC 120, there’s no doubt that fans will flock in their droves. It might be because they wish to support local fighters or maybe because they accept that the UFC doesn’t come to the UK all that often. One thing’s for sure, it’s certainly possible for a fight card to be good on paper but bad on canvas.