Sportscenter just showed UFC highlights

[mardigan]

Wow, totally took me off guard, did commentary and everything :dizzy
I didnt know they were going to start doing it. Pretty cool cause I didnt get to see the fight

[LEONARD]

Yep...another big step for the UFC...

The biggest surprise to me was that they showed the end to the fight, not an hr after it aired on PPV. That doesn't usually happen with boxing...they'll show 3 or 4 pictures. To me this says that the UFC and ESPN have a really good relationship...

I've been looking for a video clip of the coverage, but haven't found it yet...

:fro

[dbreiden83080]

Yep...another big step for the UFC...

The biggest surprise to me was that they showed the end to the fight, not an hr after it aired on PPV. That doesn't usually happen with boxing...they'll show 3 or 4 pictures. To me this says that the UFC and ESPN have a really good relationship...

I've been looking for a video clip of the coverage, but haven't found it yet...

:fro

That is really good and it is about damn time as well. MMA is twice the sport that boxing is and they get highlights all the time. It is just a matter of time before MMA totally replaces boxing anyway so it's good that ESPN is coming around.

[LEONARD]

http://ufcjunkie.com/2007/04/08/espn-apparently-on-board-for-ufc-event-coverage/

you can see the segment that aired here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=ufc&page=multimedia&src=m_fp&rT=sports

[dallaskd]

Not bad. I just dont want ESPN guys to start analyzing the fights and making themselves look stupid.

[TheTruth]

That is really good and it is about damn time as well. MMA is twice the sport that boxing is and they get highlights all the time. It is just a matter of time before MMA totally replaces boxing anyway so it's good that ESPN is coming around.
never going to happen.

[IX_Equilibrium]

never going to happen.


While it may never totally replace boxing, it's safe to say that it is on track to overcoming boxing in popularity.

[MajorMike]

E$PN is about to have another contender series.

[TheTruth]

While it may never totally replace boxing, it's safe to say that it is on track to overcoming boxing in popularity.
How is it on track? You do realize 20 million people are about to purchase the next Delahoya fight? There is no way UFC will ever approach the popularity of Boxing.

I love MMA, it's a good time. I hope it keeps getting bigger, but to say it will replace boxing is just dumb.

[LEONARD]

How is it on track? You do realize 20 million people are about to purchase the next Delahoya fight? There is no way UFC will ever approach the popularity of Boxing.

I love MMA, it's a good time. I hope it keeps getting bigger, but to say it will replace boxing is just dumb.

20 million PPV buys???? :dizzy Are you sure about that??

The UFC is already more popular than boxing...and 2007 will only be bigger than 2006. And that's just the UFC...there is also Pride, Bodogfight, Elite XC, IFL, WEC, etc.

UFC PPV REVENUE TOPS $200 MILLION IN 2006
http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=3520

UFC Surpasses Boxing and Blows Away WWE in Battle for U.S. PPV Dollars with Over $200 Million in Gross PPV Sales, PLUS: Early Word on UFC 67's PPV Buyrate


The UFC broke the pay-per-view industry's all-time records for a single year of business and generated over $200 million in revenue during 2006, according to two credible media outlets.

Both the Associated Press and the Wrestling Observer have reported that Zuffa's pay-per-view revenue in 2006 exceeded $200 million, with the Wrestling Observer reporting the specific figure of $222,766,000. As the Observer put it, "UFC grossed more money this past year on PPV than any promotion in history ever has."

Many fans of both boxing and MMA have wondered whether the UFC has already surpassed boxing. The numbers show that not only is the UFC bigger than boxing today, but it's also bigger than boxing ever was from a PPV revenue standpoint. The all-time record year for boxing was 1999, with just over $200 million in combined PPV revenue, and the UFC broke that record by over $20 million in 2006.


Specific UFC PPV Buyrates

In addition to the broader, annual statistics in the Associated Press report, the Wrestling Observer has also reported on the PPV buyrates of specific UFC events.

Leading the way was UFC 66 (Chuck Liddell vs. Tito Ortiz), which drew approximately 1,050,000 pay-per-view buys and grossed approximately $41.95 million in PPV revenue.

Prior to UFC 66, Zuffa publicly and repeatedly predicted that the event would draw 1.2 million PPV buys. While the event fell short of meeting that prediction, the total of 1,050,000 still topped boxing's biggest event of 2006 (Oscar de la Hoya vs. Ricardo Mayorga) by more than 100,000 buys, as De la Hoya vs. Mayorga drew approximately 925,000 PPV buys.

The UFC's second-biggest pay-per-view event of 2006 was UFC 61 (Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock and Tim Sylvia vs. Andrei Arlovski), which drew approximately 775,000 PPV buys and grossed approximately $30.96 million in PPV revenue.

The UFC's third-biggest PPV event of 2006 was UFC 60 (Matt Hughes vs. Royce Gracie), which drew a final number of approximately 620,000 PPV buys and generated approximately $24.77 million in PPV revenue.

Several other UFC PPV events in 2006 surpassed the mark of 500,000 PPV buys (and thus $20 million in PPV revenue), as the UFC's average for its ten PPV events in 2006 was approximately 522,500 buys per event.

Even if one were to take the three biggest UFC events of 2006 out of the equation, the seven remaining UFC PPVs in 2006 still managed to average approximately 400,000 PPV buys per event.


Boxing Has Second-Biggest Year Ever, WWE's Domestic PPV Buyrates Collapse

The only records that the UFC has not broken are the all-time boxing records for individual events, which still stand at approximately 2.0 million buys for a heavyweight fight and approximately 1.4 million buys for a non-heavyweight fight. The upcoming fight between Oscar de la Hoya and Floyd Mayweather, Jr. is expected to break the 1.4 million mark and perhaps even approach the 2.0 million mark.

While the perception is that boxing's PPV business has rapidly declined, the fact of the matter is that 2006 was the second-biggest year in boxing history at the PPV box office, with gross PPV revenue of $177 million. That would likely be seen as a far bigger news story than it currently is, if it weren't for the fact that the UFC blew away boxing's all-time records during the same year.

It's not boxing that the UFC's explosion in PPV business appears to have severely hurt; it's pro wrestling and specifically World Wrestling Entertainment that the UFC is hurting.

The UFC launched on national cable television with the highly-watched pro wrestling program WWE Raw as its lead-in, and two years later the UFC's domestic PPV business has skyrocketed during the same period that WWE's domestic PPV business has collapsed.

From a promotional standpoint, the UFC has out-done WWE at its own game with money-drawing, exaggerated personal feuds like Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock, only with real fights in place of the simulated fights that pro wrestling offers. Indeed, the same publication that broke the story of the UFC's PPV totals for 2006, the Wrestling Observer, has also written in the past year that they have been specifically told by UFC president Dana White that WWE's business model "is the business model that they're trying to emulate."

The data could not be any more clear in demonstrating that the UFC is drawing fans away from pro wrestling far more than it's drawing fans away from boxing.

The management of WWE, led by Vince McMahon, continues to publicly downplay the negative affect that the rise of the UFC has had on WWE's domestic PPV buyrates. Indeed, a WWE executive is quoted in the Associated Press story on this subject as saying, "We are not worried about UFC."

Nonetheless, WWE's domestic PPV buyrates for its monthly shows have fallen under the 200,000 mark regularly over the past year, and recently fell to as low as 55,000 for a PPV event in December. In addition to the alarming number of 55,000 domestic buys for the "December to Dismember" event, several of WWE's pay-per-view events in the second half of 2006 failed to draw 150,000 domestic buys, including Great American Bash (140,000); No Mercy (120,000); Cyber Sunday (140,000); and Armageddon (145,000).

With its total of 1,050,000 domestic PPV buys, UFC 66 actually drew more domestic buys than WWE's last six pay-per-events of 2006 combined. The last six WWE PPVs of 2006 combined to draw approximately 880,000 domestic PPV buys, which is still 170,000 buys short of UFC 66.

In addition, annual mega-events that used to be huge for WWE are now drawing domestic PPV buyrates that are far below the average UFC PPV buyrate. Two prominent examples are Royal Rumble and SummerSlam from January 2006 and August 2006, respectively. Royal Rumble and SummerSlam are traditionally WWE's second and third biggest events of the year, but the 2006 editions of these events only managed to draw 340,000 domestic buys and 330,000 domestic buys, respectively.

Even WWE's biggest event of the year, WrestleMania, was actually out-drawn at the domestic box office by the UFC's second-biggest PPV of the year, and not by a close margin (775,000 to 640,000).

The total revenue generated by domestic buys of WWE PPVs in 2006 was $131,793,000, according to the Wrestling Observer, and that's with WWE having held 16 pay-per-view events in 2006, as compared with ten events for the UFC in 2006 and eleven for boxing.

The average number of domestic PPV buys per event was a mere 208,000 for WWE; which is less than half of the UFC's average of 522,500.


UFC 67 Establishes Strong "Base-Line" for Non-Marquee Events

The Wrestling Observer also reports that the UFC's first PPV event of 2007, UFC 67, drew a much stronger than expected PPV buyrate and has established a "rock bottom" for UFC PPV buyrates that would still be highly profitable.

With Georges St. Pierre having pulled out of UFC 67 due to injury, the PPV main event was Anderson Silva vs. Travis Lutter, which was expected to draw the lowest buyrate that the UFC could possibly draw at this time. The Observer added, "Anything more than 300,000 would have been considered a huge success."

As it turns out, the early estimates for UFC 67 are that it drew between 350,000 and 400,000 PPV buys, meaning that it grossed between $13.98 million and $15.98 million in PPV revenue. The early estimates are always lower than the final numbers, which have replays and "late buys" included in the figures.

It's a positive sign for the UFC if the absolute minimum number of buys that UFC PPVs are going to draw is still in the range of 350,000 to 400,000 buys.

[LEONARD]

"UFC boxes out spot in sports marketplace" - 3/9/07 in Washington Times
http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20070309-124715-1071r.htm

"UFC Fighters Take Over Ring" - 3/17/07 Waco Tribune
http://www.wacotrib.com/hp/content/sports/stories/2007/03/17/03172007wacbrice.html

ESPN column responding to Floyd Mayweather Jr's ripping of the UFC on 4/5/07
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=buckheit/070405

Just the fact that there are articles about it daily says something, whether you think it'll replace boxing or not. It's here and here to stay...

They tried to bring boxing back by copying Spike TV's "The Ultimate Fighter" model and giving us "The Contender." The first season bombed (didn't even finish it did they?) so they sent it to ESPN where it's not very talked about. I do watch it, but it's so over-done with sound effects, edited fights, a new camera angle ever 2 seconds, and crowd shots that it's extremely difficult to sit through...

[IX_Equilibrium]

How is it on track? You do realize 20 million people are about to purchase the next Delahoya fight? There is no way UFC will ever approach the popularity of Boxing.

I love MMA, it's a good time. I hope it keeps getting bigger, but to say it will replace boxing is just dumb.


I never said it will replace boxing. Boxing will always be around and there will always be a market for it. My statement referred to the popularity of boxing vs. MMA. As you see from the info Leonard provided, there is nothing "dumb" about my statement.

[LEONARD]

Where'd "TheTruth" go?????????????????

at 1:50 (central) today on The Ticket in Dallas, Mayweather will be on the radio. I've armed one of the hosts who is an MMA fan with Mayweather's comments, Dana White's response, and PPV numbers from 2006.

"UFC ain’t shit," he said. "It ain’t but a fad. Anyone can put a tattoo on their head and get in a street fight." He singled out UFC poster boy Chuck Liddell for an extra overhand right. "We should put Liddell against a good heavyweight, under Mayweather Promotions, and if Chuck wins, then I’ll give him a million dollars out of my own pocket." PBF then shoe-shined all MMA fighters. "These are guys who couldn’t make it in boxing," he said. "So they do (MMA). Boxing is the best sport in the world and it’s here to stay."

soure - http://www.thesweetscience.com/boxing-article/5017/floyd-mayweather-rips-oscar-liddell-mma/

and the response to his comments from Dana White...

Irritated by the criticism pugilist Floyd Mayweather Jr. made about MMA and the UFC, and mainly Chuck Liddell, White went public in defending his brood. "Mayweather said he would give a million dollars if Chuck would defeat a good boxing heavyweight. What about paying one million to see if a good heavyweight can stand up to Liddell in MMA? Or even better, I will put down a milllion dollars of my own money if Mayweather could sell 10 tickets without the help of Oscar de la Hoya," said White, referring to the fight between Mayweather and De La Hoya, a success in terms of spectators, set for May 5th. After his irritation had subsided White talked of the initial comparison Mayweather had made: "Boxing and MMA are completely different. You distribute your weight differently, since you have to worry about takedowns and kicks. Boxing and MMA are like apples and oranges," he completed.

Source - http://www.graciemag.com/?c=144&a=6785


stream it here: www.theticket.com

[2centsworth]

While it may never totally replace boxing, it's safe to say that it is on track to overcoming boxing in popularity.
MMA could still be a fad. At one time Wrestling was bigger than boxing. I like MMA and wish fans could just enjoy it without trying to attack boxing. Remember, Boxing has reached levels MMA will probably never reach. Plus, as a reminder of boxing's greatness wait and see the PPV #'2 from the De la Hoya Vs Mayweather fight. That fight alone will be larger than any fight in the history of MMA.

I may sound like I'm criticizing MMA, but I'm not. Just want to defend boxing a little and make it clear that it's possible to appreciate both sports.

[LEONARD]

Remember, Boxing has reached levels MMA will probably never reach. Plus, as a reminder of boxing's greatness wait and see the PPV #'2 from the De la Hoya Vs Mayweather fight. That fight alone will be larger than any fight in the history of MMA

Levels based on what?? PPV revenue? Fighter pay?? As far as PPV revenues go, the UFC pulled in more in 2006 than boxing ever has in ANY year. 2007 will only be bigger...

"The numbers show that not only is the UFC bigger than boxing today, but it's also bigger than boxing ever was from a PPV revenue standpoint. The all-time record year for boxing was 1999, with just over $200 million in combined PPV revenue, and the UFC broke that record by over $20 million in 2006."

and yes, that fight should do very well, but how often is there a boxing card with a big fight like this? Not very...

I'm not saying that MMA will replace boxing all together, but I do think it will replace boxing as the #1 combat sport. I used to watch a little boxing, but it bores me to tears now...

[mardigan]

MMA could still be a fad. At one time Wrestling was bigger than boxing. I like MMA and wish fans could just enjoy it without trying to attack boxing. Remember, Boxing has reached levels MMA will probably never reach. Plus, as a reminder of boxing's greatness wait and see the PPV #'2 from the De la Hoya Vs Mayweather fight. That fight alone will be larger than any fight in the history of MMA.

I may sound like I'm criticizing MMA, but I'm not. Just want to defend boxing a little and make it clear that it's possible to appreciate both sports.
Ummm, did you read the thread? Matweather attacked UFC, not the other way around

[2centsworth]

Levels based on what?? PPV revenue? Fighter pay?? As far as PPV revenues go, the UFC pulled in more in 2006 than boxing ever has in ANY year. 2007 will only be bigger...

"The numbers show that not only is the UFC bigger than boxing today, but it's also bigger than boxing ever was from a PPV revenue standpoint. The all-time record year for boxing was 1999, with just over $200 million in combined PPV revenue, and the UFC broke that record by over $20 million in 2006."

and yes, that fight should do very well, but how often is there a boxing card with a big fight like this? Not very...

I'm not saying that MMA will replace boxing all together, but I do think it will replace boxing as the #1 combat sport. I used to watch a little boxing, but it bores me to tears now...
as far as your 1999 to 2006 comparison for PPV you fail to take into account two things, inflation and number of events. Again, I'm a big UFC fan and watch the reality shows and big events. However, for me the best UFC fight hasn't generated the amount of excitement that I got from Tyson vs Holyfield, Ali vs Foreman, Sugar Ray vs Hearnes or Hagler, Hagler vs Hearnes, and now the excitement that De la Hoya brings.

[mardigan]

as far as your 1999 to 2006 comparison for PPV you fail to take into account two things, inflation and number of events. Again, I'm a big UFC fan and watch the reality shows and big events. However, for me the best UFC fight has generated the amount of excitement that I got from Tyson vs Holyfield, Ali vs Foreman, Sugar Ray vs Hearnes or Hagler, Hagler vs Hearnes, and now the excitement that De la Hoya brings.
There arent any good fighters left in boxing, bottom line. I used to love boxing, when there was good fighters in it, but thats not the case anymore. If boxing put out a good product, UFC probably wouldnt have taken it over so quickly

[LEONARD]

as far as your 1999 to 2006 comparison for PPV you fail to take into account two things, inflation and number of events.

True...

That's why I asked what basis your statement was founded on...they could be compared many different ways. Revenue/yr, avg revenue/card, PPV buys/yr, avg buys/card,etc etc...

2007 should blow past $200 million...and who knows about 2008 when they start having the occasional supercard between Pride and UFC...

[2centsworth]

There arent any good fighters left in boxing, bottom line.
I think the May 5th fight proves you wrong.


And the infalation works for both sports, so it would still be above boxing. You make absolutely no sense here.

I used to love boxing, when their was good fighters in it, but thats not the case anymore. If boxing put out a good product, UFC probably wouldnt have taken it over so quickly UFC hasn't taken over from a fighters perspective. De la Hoya is going to make $25 million on this fight and mayweather $15mil or so. And again, from a fans perspective this one fight will generate more PPV and better ratings than any fight in the history of MMA.

[2centsworth]

True...

That's why I asked what basis your statement was founded on...they could be compared many different ways. Revenue/yr, avg revenue/card, PPV buys/yr, avg buys/card,etc etc...

2007 should blow past $200 million...and who knows about 2008 when they start having the occasional supercard between Pride and UFC...as a whole MMA as definitely more popular than boxing in the US, so i'm not going to argue that. However, I will argue that boxing can put on single events like De la Hoya vs Mayweather that would shatter any one MMA bout.

Also, if UFC 69 is more than a fluke I think MMA will be in some trouble longer term. People are mezmorized by the dominate fighter and that's what brings in the money. Chuck Lidell being a perfect example.

[LEONARD]

as a whole MMA as definitely more popular than boxing in the US, so i'm not going to argue that. However, I will argue that boxing can put on single events like De la Hoya vs Mayweather that would shatter any one MMA bout.

Also, if UFC 69 is more than a fluke I think MMA will be in some trouble longer term. People are mezmorized by the dominate fighter and that's what brings in the money. Chuck Lidell being a perfect example.

Fighter pay is definitely higher in boxing...especially for the big names (the few that are left).

What is the projected # of PPV buys for ODLH vs Mayweather?

Chuck vs Rampage should shatter the Chuck vs Tito fight from Dec...if it doesn't, then I'll lose even more faith in a lot of UFC fans...

[mardigan]

as a whole MMA as definitely more popular than boxing in the US, so i'm not going to argue that. However, I will argue that boxing can put on single events like De la Hoya vs Mayweather that would shatter any one MMA bout.

Also, if UFC 69 is more than a fluke I think MMA will be in some trouble longer term. People are mezmorized by the dominate fighter and that's what brings in the money. Chuck Lidell being a perfect example.
And thats is why people have turned away from boxing, there arent very many dominate fighters.

[2centsworth]

Fighter pay is definitely higher in boxing...especially for the big names (the few that are left).
I agree with you that boxing is headed for disaster unless they can turn around USA boxing and get some gold medalist.

What is the projected # of PPV buys for ODLH vs Mayweather?
I'm reading over 2 million buys at $55.

Chuck vs Rampage should shatter the Chuck vs Tito fight from Dec...if it doesn't, then I'll lose even more faith in a lot of UFC fans... I'm gonna watch that one, but Chuck vs Tito seemed bigger to me. Maybe because Tito is almost as big an attraction as Chuck. Rampage isn't as well known. However, if Rampage beats Chuck and then Rampage loses to Crocop and then Crocop loses to Chuck who then loses to Slyvia who then beats Rampage etc.... then that would be boring as all can be.

[desflood]

$55? That's why I don't watch boxing anymore :lol I can watch a UFC for $40.

[mardigan]

$55? That's why I don't watch boxing anymore :lol I can watch a UFC for $40.
:lol

[2centsworth]

And thats is why people have turned away from boxing, there arent very many dominate fighters. true there are few, but the ones who are get paid huge.

My question is there a possiblity of a dominant fighter in MMA or do they all lose to one another? Royce Gracie's dominance is what initially attracted me and I think most fans. Same can be said of Matt Hughs and now Chuck, but if they all lose then what fun is that? Dominance is what sells.

[LEONARD]

I agree with you that boxing is headed for disaster unless they can turn around USA boxing and get some gold medalist.

I'm reading over 2 million buys at $55.

I'm gonna watch that one, but Chuck vs Tito seemed bigger to me. Maybe because Tito is almost as big an attraction as Chuck. Rampage isn't as well known.

2 million would be solid...

Tito is an attraction for his personality...highly over-rated as a fighter. That's why I said I'd be annoyed with fans if LESS bought Chuck vs Rampage. It's a MUCH more intriguing fight, technically speaking. Rampage is also a better personality than Tito, but many fans don't know that yet.

However, if Rampage beats Chuck and then Rampage loses to Crocop and then Crocop loses to Chuck who then loses to Slyvia who then beats Rampage etc.... then that would be boring as all can be.

No offense, but are you sure you follow MMA very closely? :oops

Rampage and Chuck are LHW's. Crocop and Sylvia is a HW. And Sylvia is horrible and shouldn't even be talked about among the best fighters...

Chuck has mentioned fighting at HW but Rampage never would...CC wouldn't cut to 205 either...

[2centsworth]

2 million would be solid...

Tito is an attraction for his personality...highly over-rated as a fighter. That's why I said I'd be annoyed with fans if LESS bought Chuck vs Rampage. It's a MUCH more intriguing fight, technically speaking. Rampage is also a better personality than Tito, but many fans don't know that yet.



No offense, but are you sure you follow MMA very closely? :oops

Rampage and Chuck are LHW's. Crocop and Sylvia is a HW. And Sylvia is horrible and shouldn't even be talked about among the best fighters...

Chuck has mentioned fighting at HW but Rampage never would...CC wouldn't cut to 205 either...
just an example of what the lack of dominance would look like. However, your point that the biggest names won't fight each other is noted. Boxer move up and down weight classes all the time to make the biggest fights.

[LEONARD]

just an example of what the lack of dominance would look like. However, your point that the biggest names won't fight each other is noted. Boxer move up and down weight classes all the time to make the biggest fights.

Where did I make the point that the biggest fighters won't fight each other?? :wtf

My point was that you're clearly a very casual MMA fan based on what you said about Chuck, Rampage, CC, and Sylvia...

Some guys in the UFC fight in multiple weight classes...other org's like Pride (in the past anyway...not under NSAC rules now) had fights with guys in different classes. Bodogfight has the #1 HW vs the #1 MW in the world this weekend...

[2centsworth]

Where did I make the point that the biggest fighters won't fight each other?? :wtf

My point was that you're clearly a very casual MMA fan based on what you said about Chuck, Rampage, CC, and Sylvia...

Some guys in the UFC fight in multiple weight classes...other org's like Pride (in the past anyway...not under NSAC rules now) had fights with guys in different classes. Bodogfight has the #1 HW vs the #1 MW in the world this weekend...
I'm not the hardcore fan but I probably know more than most. However, the point of the example was taking the biggest names in UFC and pitting them up against each other. If they all lose to each other and there is no clear cut winner then I think that is a very serious weakness in the sport if we're talking about long-term success.

[MajorMike]

MMA could still be a fad. At one time Wrestling was bigger than boxing. I like MMA and wish fans could just enjoy it without trying to attack boxing. Remember, Boxing has reached levels MMA will probably never reach.

I may sound like I'm criticizing MMA, but I'm not. Just want to defend boxing a little and make it clear that it's possible to appreciate both sports.

Wow... I think you just cut/pasted one of my old posts.

[MajorMike]

I read they were a little disappointed in the PPV #s for 69, is that true? I haven't looked to see what it did.

[LEONARD]

I'm not the hardcore fan but I probably know more than most. However, the point of the example was taking the biggest names in UFC and pitting them up against each other. If they all lose to each other and there is no clear cut winner then I think that is a very serious weakness in the sport if we're talking about long-term success.

You lost me man... :wtf

[2centsworth]

You lost me man... :wtf
If MMA doesn't produce dominant fighters because of the nature of the sport, and then I think long-term it will have trouble.

[mardigan]

If MMA doesn't produce dominant fighters because of the nature of the sport, and then I think long-term it will have trouble.
Have you ever heard of Fedor?

[LEONARD]

If MMA doesn't produce dominant fighters because of the nature of the sport, and then I think long-term it will have trouble.

I still don't see how your statement about if A beats B and B beats C and C beats A it won't be good for the future of the sport? That happens all the time in MMA and it doesn't mean anything, especially as far as the future of the sport goes. Everybody loses at some point...

[2centsworth]

I still don't see how your statement about if A beats B and B beats C and C beats A it won't be good for the future of the sport? That happens all the time in MMA and it doesn't mean anything, especially as far as the future of the sport goes. Everybody loses at some point...that's where you and I disagree. Every card needs an attraction like Hughs, Liddell, St. Pierre, etc... What made those guys a hugh draw is that they are/were perceived to be the best in their sport. If they all beat each other and the records of good fighters looks like 20-12 and then I think the sport long term will have trouble.

What creates mega-fights is when A beats everybody but over time eventually loses. UFC 69 made MMA look like a crap shoot.

[LEONARD]

that's where you and I disagree. Every card needs an attraction like Hughs, Liddell, St. Pierre, etc... What made those guys a hugh draw is that they are/were perceived to be the best in their sport. If they all beat each other and the records of good fighters looks like 20-12 and then I think the sport long term will have trouble.

What creates mega-fights is when A beats everybody but over time eventually loses. UFC 69 made MMA look like a crap shoot.

Still confused over here...where did I say that every card doesn't need a big name? :wtf

I still don't see why you think we'll end up with a bunch of good fighters with records just above .500. There will always be guys that rarely lose...there will always be dominant fighters. 2007 has been full of crazy upsets so far, but I don't think that will have any effect on the future of the sport...

UFC 69 was the weakest card in a while on paper. It turned out to be pretty entertaining (- Kos vs Diego) though. GSP is a big name, but most didn't give Serra a chance so it wasn't an overly hyped fight. They did ok at the gate (over 15k) but who knows about PPV's.

We'll see the real mega-fights within a year since the UFC owners bought Pride FC...

[romsho]

that's where you and I disagree. Every card needs an attraction like Hughs, Liddell, St. Pierre, etc... What made those guys a hugh draw is that they are/were perceived to be the best in their sport. If they all beat each other and the records of good fighters looks like 20-12 and then I think the sport long term will have trouble.

What creates mega-fights is when A beats everybody but over time eventually loses. UFC 69 made MMA look like a crap shoot.

You can look at it that way, or you might also think that the reason boxing is not the success it used to be is the time it takes to actually put one of these "mega-fights" together. Boxing for years, when there actually were more than a handful of fighters capable of drawing huge interest, dragged it's feet on putting fights together. The promoters and governing bodies were the culprit, but this is exactly why MMA works so well. The best fight the best...and it doesn't take forever to put fights together- they happen on a continuous basis. Boxers are protected, you might have four or five crappy fights to get to the one people really want to see. The system in boxing sucks.

In MMA, what you see is what you get- the talent pool is alot deeper than boxing, and because of that even the best fighters stand a chance of losing on a given night-it's the nature of the sport. Obviously, running the sport this way works, the numbers don't lie. Hopefully the money won't do to MMA what it did to boxing.

[IX_Equilibrium]

No offense, but are you sure you follow MMA very closely? :oops



I was wondering the same thing.

[IX_Equilibrium]

I'm gonna watch that one, but Chuck vs Tito seemed bigger to me. Maybe because Tito is almost as big an attraction as Chuck. Rampage isn't as well known. However, if Rampage beats Chuck and then Rampage loses to Crocop and then Crocop loses to Chuck who then loses to Slyvia who then beats Rampage etc.... then that would be boring as all can be.


WTF?? This post, along with your whole "dominance is what sells in MMA", shows that your depth of knowledge in MMA is pretty limited.

[2centsworth]

WTF?? This post, along with your whole "dominance is what sells in MMA", shows that your depth of knowledge in MMA is pretty limited.
No, it shows your reading comprehension is limited. Dominance is what sells big combat events. If MMA turns into a bunch of good fighters who are barely above .500 it will struggle.

btw, a fan of the sport can criticize it no? For instance, the NBA regular season stinks, the gangstas are ruining the league, Dallas sucks.

[LEONARD]

No, it shows your reading comprehension is limited. Dominance is what sells big combat events. If MMA turns into a bunch of good fighters who are barely above .500 it will struggle.

Again, why do you think there won't continue to be dominant fighters??? :dizzy

[TheTruth]

I did mean 2 million, but I had no idea MMA events pulled those kinds of numbers. My apologies.

[LEONARD]

I did mean 2 million, but I had no idea MMA events pulled those kinds of numbers. My apologies.

No sweat man...I was hoping you meant 2 million... ;)

I'll probably stream the fight since there is so much hype over it... :fro

[IX_Equilibrium]

Dominance is what sells big combat events.



Not in MMA. What in the hell are you basing that statement on?

MMA fans don't want predictability and monotony, as you mistakenly think. They want a deep talent pool with many fighters who can provide a real challenge to each other in any given fight. MMA is big because of the wide array of skills it takes to compete at a high level, and the exciting manner in which these skills are displayed.

Your whole argument is just off.


If you can provide a specific example of MMA popularity taking a dive because a dominant fighter (i.e. Matt Hughes) was defeated, I may be inclined to take your argument more seriously.

[2centsworth]

My last attempt, because it doesn't mean that much to me.

Not in MMA. What in the hell are you basing that statement on? I'm basing that opinion on the only combat sport that has a history or generating billions of dollars.



MMA fans don't want predictability and monotony, as you mistakenly think. They want a deep talent pool with many fighters who can provide a real challenge to each other in any given fight.
Where do you come up with this? Please support your argument, because didn't just recently the UFC brought Royce Gracie out of retirment?


MMA is big because of the wide array of skills it takes to compete at a high level, and the exciting manner in which these skills are displayed.
blanket statement

Your whole argument is just off. nope, do you think St.Pierre is less or more marketable after the last fight? How about Diego? I guess it doesn't matter because Matt Serra and Josh Koushnek will pick up where those other fighters left off.


If you can provide a specific example of MMA popularity taking a dive because a dominant fighter (i.e. Matt Hughes) was defeated, I may be inclined to take your argument more seriously.[/QUOTE]

[mardigan]

People want to see GSP fight again to see what he does next time. That is part of the fun. Arlovsky, Franklin, Tito, have all been beat, and there next fights were huge. Part of the fun of UFC are the unpredictable things that happen. I disagree with you that fans dont want to see upsets, they love that shit.

[2centsworth]

People want to see GSP fight again to see what he does next time. That is part of the fun. Arlovsky, Franklin, Tito, have all been beat, and there next fights were huge. Part of the fun of UFC are the unpredictable things that happen. I disagree with you that fans dont want to see upsets, they love that shit.
hardcore fans yes, but big bucks fan base no. That is only my opinion.

[IX_Equilibrium]

I'm basing that opinion on the only combat sport that has a history or generating billions of dollars.



And that is exactly where you are going wrong. You are trying to equate boxing with MMA, a totally different animal. If you say dominance is what sells in boxing, I'll take your word for it since I give a shit less about boxing and don't follow it at all. But to claim this is the case in MMA in asinine.




Where do you come up with this? Please support your argument, because didn't just recently the UFC brought Royce Gracie out of retirment?



Support my argument? Sure, since you didn't support yours. You couldn't provide me with one specific example of MMA popularity taking a dive because a dominant fighter was defeated. I'll provide you with several dominant fighters being defeated, and the sport still growing in popularity. The 1st example that comes to mind is Matt Hughes. He is one of the most dominant champs in MMA history. When he was defeated by GSP, the UFC's revenues and popularity kept growing to record numbers. When Rich Franklin lost his belt to Anderson Silva, did that hurt MMA's popularity? No.

You're telling me that Royce Gracie came out of retirement as a dominant fighter to face Hughes? A guy who demands speacial rules for himself at every bout? A guy who has fought 6 times in the last 6 years to only have 2 wins? That's dominant? Royce drew attention because he was the first champ of the UFC, but hardly anyone gave him a chance against Hughes. Royce was annihilated by Hughes. The sport certainly didn't suffer after that.

About your question of GSP being marketable...yes, he is just as marketable. In Matt Serra's post fight interview, he even referred to GSP as being the future of the sport. MMA fans know that a fighter can have an off night and get defeated. It doesn't mean that fans will stop caring about MMA just because their favorite fighter happens to lose a bout or two.

[mardigan]

And that is exactly where you are going wrong. You are trying to equate boxing with MMA, a totally different animal. If you say dominance is what sells in boxing, I'll take your word for it since I give a shit less about boxing and don't follow it at all. But to claim this is the case in MMA in asinine.






Support my argument? Sure, since you didn't support yours. You couldn't provide me with one specific example of MMA popularity taking a dive because a dominant fighter was defeated. I'll provide you with several dominant fighters being defeated, and the sport still growing in popularity. The 1st example that comes to mind is Matt Hughes. He is one of the most dominant champs in MMA history. When he was defeated by GSP, the UFC's revenues and popularity kept growing to record numbers. When Rich Franklin lost his belt to Anderson Silva, did that hurt MMA's popularity? No.

You're telling me that Royce Gracie came out of retirement as a dominant fighter to face Hughes? A guy who demands speacial rules for himself at every bout? A guy who has fought 6 times in the last 6 years to only have 2 wins? That's dominant? Royce drew attention because he was the first champ of the UFC, but hardly anyone gave him a chance against Hughes. Royce was annihilated by Hughes. The sport certainly didn't suffer after that.

About your question of GSP being marketable...yes, he is just as marketable. In Matt Serra's post fight interview, he even referred to GSP as being the future of the sport. MMA fans know that a fighter can have an off night and get defeated. It doesn't mean that fans will stop caring about MMA just because their favorite fighter happens to lose a bout or two.
Great post IX, my favorite fighter (behind Barnett), has always been Arlovsky, and still is even after his past couple of crappy fights, you gots to stick with your guys

[IX_Equilibrium]

Great post IX, my favorite fighter (behind Barnett), has always been Arlovsky, and still is even after his past couple of crappy fights, you gots to stick with your guys

I really like watching Arlovski fight. Arlovski give Sylvia way too much respect and could have taken him down and submitted him at any time. His fight with Werdum shoould be awesome. It should be the fight of the night.