When Dana White says he’s going to unveil “the future of fighting” soon, what could that possibly mean? And Ronda Rousey doesn’t think we “deserve” to hear her opinion on her legacy in MMA. So what conclusion should we arrive at on our own?

That and other pressing questions in this week’s Twitter Mailbag. To ask a question of your own, tweet to @BenFowlkesMMA.

* * * *

You know how some people say that the best approach is to under promise and over deliver? Dana White typically prefers to do the opposite. He can’t help himself. Maybe it’s the fight promoter in him. The man loves a big build-up, even when he’d be better off keeping expectations manageable so as to avoid making the final product seem disappointing by comparison.

The truth is that “the future of fighting” probably looks a lot like its past. In the basic, fundamental ways, the combat sports world has changed very little since the bare-knuckle days. Whatever developments the UFC has in store might be a big deal to the company itself, but they will almost certainly not change any significant aspects of the nature of combat sports.

And if you’re the UFC, why would you even want to alter the future of fighting? As White keeps telling us, the company is monstrously successful. You don’t go looking for ways to change the game if you’re already winning.

As you point out, attempts at massive change are typically the province of the little guys, the companies that are just starting out and desperate for a unique selling proposition of their own. Even if it’s a terrible idea, you have to get our attention somehow.

For established giants like the UFC, the only positive change is to exert even more control over even more areas of combat sports, which is what I expect this “unveiling” to amount to in the end.

My hope is that Max Holloway will return to his division and focus on reminding us that while he’s a very good lightweight, he is the absolute best featherweight.

The pound-for-pound stuff, it’s a made-up thing anyway. It’s this weird hypothetical conversation that we can’t seem to stop having. It’s not something I’d want to see Holloway chase at the expense of what could very well turn out to be a dominant title reign at 145 pounds. Go beat up some featherweights, Max. See if that doesn’t make you feel better.

The best way to think of Ronda Rousey’s legacy in MMA is to focus only on what she did and ignore virtually all of what she said. Or maybe that’s just the kindest way to think about it.

Rousey has often been a poor spokesperson for herself. We know this. We saw it in action often. While she undeniably did a ton for women’s MMA, she didn’t always sound like she cared about any women in MMA other than Ronda Rousey.

Still, I don’t see how anyone could deny that Rousey is the single most important female fighter in the history of MMA to date. She pried open the doors of the UFC. She proved that women could headline blockbuster events. She laid the foundation for everything that women’s MMA has since become, even if she herself benefitted from a foundation laid down by others (which is still too often ignored in the ongoing Rousey myth-building).

But whatever we may think of Rousey the person, we have to give Rousey the fighter credit. Was she the best women’s fighter ever? No, clearly not. But did she shatter the sport’s biggest glass ceiling? Absolutely. And that, more than anything, is what she’ll be remembered for in MMA.

I don’t get this one either, and not solely for that reason. Israel Adesanya just won the interim middleweight title. That means he has to face actual champion Robert Whittaker next, and “Bobby Knuckles” is a handful for absolutely anybody.

Will Adesanya beat him? I seriously doubt it, at least if Whittaker is healthy. And even if Adesanya does win, we might need to see him defend that title once or twice before we start talking about him moving up in weight.

Meanwhile, Jon Jones has more interesting future possibilities at heavyweight, assuming he can stay out of his own way that long. He gains nothing by beating up smaller fighters. What fans would really like to see him do is take on someone bigger.

Point is, just because two fighters from different weight classes start sniping at each other on social media, it doesn’t mean we need to jump on it like it’s the most pressing issue of our times. It’s not. It’s a dumb thing between two fighters who are probably separated by at least 40 pounds on most days. We ought to be capable of just letting that one go.

When it comes to international expansion, the UFC is a like McDonald’s. It knows one way to do this, and it will do it more or less the same whether the event is in Sao Paulo or St. Petersburg.

The formula is pretty simple: You get some fighters from the region you’re visiting, put at least a few of them in advantageous match-ups so the crowd can get hyped when they win, then make sure Bruce Buffer knows just enough of the language to do his usual spiel in Russian or whatever, and boom, there you are.

The appeal of this is that, like McDonald’s, you know what you’re getting regardless of where you are. It’s also efficient. The UFC can put up its tent, do its thing, then move on the next city without ever having to sweat the details of trying too hard to tailor the product to the local audience. The machine rolls on.

Is that underwhelming for a Russian MMA crowd that’s used to a lot more pageantry? Maybe. But the brand name is what’s doing the bulk of work in this sales pitch. The UFC goes to Russia seldom enough that, if you’re a fight fan there, you probably want to buy your ticket and see the show while you can. Even if there’s a noticeable lack of giant spiders and dance routines.

Ben Fowlkes is MMA Junkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Follow him on Twitter at @BenFowlkesMMA. Twitter Mailbag appears every Thursday on MMA Junkie.