$55? That's why I don't watch boxing anymoreI can watch a UFC for $40.
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.
2 million would be solid...
o 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 o, but many fans don't know that yet.
No offense, but are you sure you follow MMA very closely?
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.2 million would be solid...
o 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 o, but many fans don't know that yet.
No offense, but are you sure you follow MMA very closely?
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...
Where did I make the point that the biggest fighters won't fight each other??
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.Where did I make the point that the biggest fighters won't fight each other??
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...
Wow... I think you just cut/pasted one of my old posts.
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.
You lost me man...
If MMA doesn't produce dominant fighters because of the nature of the sport, and then I think long-term it will have trouble.You lost me man...
Have you ever heard of Fedor?
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.
Still confused over here...where did I say that every card doesn't need a big name?
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...
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.
I was wondering the same thing.
No offense, but are you sure you follow MMA very closely?
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.
Again, why do you think there won't continue to be dominant fighters???
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...
Not in MMA. What in the 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.
Last edited by IX_Equilibrium; 04-11-2007 at 05:39 PM.
My last attempt, because it doesn't mean that much to me.
I'm basing that opinion on the only combat sport that has a history or generating billions of dollars.
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 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.
blanket statementMMA 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.
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.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.[/QUOTE]
People want to see GSP fight again to see what he does next time. That is part of the fun. Arlovsky, Franklin, o, 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 .
hardcore fans yes, but big bucks fan base no. That is only my opinion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
