Future of MMA in Question?

Off Topic
21

[quote]oboffill wrote:
Pride fighting is marketed much differently than is UFC. There is less hype and fireworks, which coincidentally, makes me care less about the result of the match.

Just because WWE is fake, does not mean that they don’t know how to entertain an audience. Zuffa has learned this lesson.

Xen, at the end of the day, there are two fighters in a cage with lots of money and fame on the line. The “show” factor attracts viewers, which brings in money. More money is always better for the sport.[/quote]

I have to disagree also, rent a PrideFC DVD and tell me there is no fanfare, fireworks, or the likes.

22

[quote]Donut62 wrote:
the two biggest UFC fights this year will have UFC fighters against fighters from other leagues. Hughes vs Gracie was UFC/K-1, and if Silva/Lidell happens it will be UFC/Pride. [/quote]

Lidell-Silva or silva-babalu (which I assume will happen if babalu wins, but I dunno) will be the biggest fight of the year, if for no other reason than because it’s cross-promotional (dunno if that’s a word.) But by the end of the year I dont think hughes-gracie will be considered one of the two biggest fights.

Lidell-Couture 3 involved the two best lhw in ufc and resulted in coutures retirement. You also have hughes-gsp, which I believe is still set for november. That one will involve a dominant champ, one whose name is mentioned whenever people talk about which ufc fighters could survive in pride, and a young up-and-comer. To me, either one of those matches would be better than a squash match between the champ and a washed-up legend who shouldn’t’ve taken the match. Just my opinion.

23

[quote]oboffill wrote:
Pride fighting is marketed much differently than is UFC. There is less hype and fireworks, which coincidentally, makes me care less about the result of the match.

Just because WWE is fake, does not mean that they don’t know how to entertain an audience. Zuffa has learned this lesson.

Xen, at the end of the day, there are two fighters in a cage with lots of money and fame on the line. The “show” factor attracts viewers, which brings in money. More money is always better for the sport.[/quote]

I don’t know anything about Pride’s fireworks but I think you are right up until a point.

More money is almost always better for a sport up until the point millionaires start pulling shit like TO did last season and money leads players to bounce around so frequently that there is no continuity. Perhaos that is still good for the sport but it takes away from my enjoyment.

UFC is nowhere near that point.

24

[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
the two biggest UFC fights this year will have UFC fighters against fighters from other leagues. Hughes vs Gracie was UFC/K-1, and if Silva/Lidell happens it will be UFC/Pride.

Lidell-Silva or silva-babalu (which I assume will happen if babalu wins, but I dunno) will be the biggest fight of the year, if for no other reason than because it’s cross-promotional (dunno if that’s a word.) But by the end of the year I dont think hughes-gracie will be considered one of the two biggest fights.

Lidell-Couture 3 involved the two best lhw in ufc and resulted in coutures retirement. You also have hughes-gsp, which I believe is still set for november. That one will involve a dominant champ, one whose name is mentioned whenever people talk about which ufc fighters could survive in pride, and a young up-and-comer. To me, either one of those matches would be better than a squash match between the champ and a washed-up legend who shouldn’t’ve taken the match. Just my opinion.[/quote]

You’re right, there will be far bigger fights than Gracie-Hughes as far as what it means to the rankings. But I heard more hype about Gracie-Hughes from people I know (probably because of BJJ) than any other UFC fight up to this point, and I think it had the most PPV buys yet. Don’t quote me on that.

25

[quote]oboffill wrote:
Pride fighting is marketed much differently than is UFC. There is less hype and fireworks, which coincidentally, makes me care less about the result of the match. [/quote]

Less hype?

Bringing two fighters who are going to fight into the middle of the ring to trash talk and have a shoving match is LESS HYPE?

The UFC didn’t start that stuff until they saw how it hyped the fight in the PRIDE organization.

26

The problem with MMA is the quick knockout. Remember how boring it was watching Tyson knock everybody out in the first round? Heavyweight boxing really suffered, nobody wanted to go to his fights after a while. MMA is the same way. It seems like every super-hyped fight ends with a knockout in 2 minutes or less. Maybe they should introduce bigger gloves, or a standing 8-count or something to make the fights more interesting and entertaining. The few fights that do go to a decision or past the first round are amazing and the crowd goes nuts the whole time. They need to figure out how to make the fights longer. Who wants to pay money for a 2 minute fight? Just my observations.

What it really needs is a cross-over superstar, kind of how Schwartzeneggger became the embassador of the bodybuilding. MMA is still underground and somewhat considered human cockfighting. MMA needs a charasmatic star to really promote the sport and help is gain some respect. Perhaps someone should be politicing to get it into the Olympics (with some watered down rules to make it more palatable to the general public). I can’t think of any sport more pure and Olympic-like, in an ancient sense, than simple hand-to-hand fighting.

27

[quote]PGJ wrote:
The few fights that do go to a decision or past the first round are amazing and the crowd goes nuts the whole time. They need to figure out how to make the fights longer. [/quote]

Two words: “arlovski” and “sylvia”

in my opinion a good fight is a good fight, regardless of duration. A poor fight is a poor one. i’d say it all depends on how closely it’s contested. Again, I bring up the Lidell Couture match, none of the 3 fights lasted a LONG time. Take 3 for example. It wasnt a lucky punch that knocked couture out, but it wasnt like he was overwhelmed or embarassed either. The two fights that come to mind where I said to myself “I dont know, I could really see it going EITHER way, A could squash B, B could squash A or it could be a squeaker” were Lidell-Couture and Ortiz-Griffin. Both great fights. Of course, now that I think about it, I was pretty uncertain of who would win arlovski-silvia. so i clearly dont know what the hell I’m tlaking about

oh, and one more 5 round abortion that dispells the idea htat long fights=happy fans: Franklin - Loiseau. AWFUL

28

I think UFC fights are more likely to end in 2 mins because this a bigger disparity between the top guys and the lower level fighters. In Pride, this is not the case because skill level overall is higher.

Over time, the sport will be more refined. It’s still in its infancy, in my opinion. Guys will get better.

In the UFC the ground game is heavily emphasized. In Pride, fighters are stood up immediately if there is no action. I like the use of yellow cards (a 10% deduction in purse prize) when there is no action from the fighters. Lastly, the use of a ring instead of a caged octagon provides much better visibility of the fight.

The best thing UFC has going is that the fighters are more charismatic and it is located right here in the USA. Hopefully, Dana makes some tweaks in the future.

29

[quote]oboffill wrote:

In the UFC the ground game is heavily emphasized. In Pride, fighters are stood up immediately if there is no action. I like the use of yellow cards (a 10% deduction in purse prize) when there is no action from the fighters. Lastly, the use of a ring instead of a caged octagon provides much better visibility of the fight.

[/quote]

Do they get a red card for head butting?

30

[quote]TWalton wrote:
oboffill wrote:

In the UFC the ground game is heavily emphasized. In Pride, fighters are stood up immediately if there is no action. I like the use of yellow cards (a 10% deduction in purse prize) when there is no action from the fighters. Lastly, the use of a ring instead of a caged octagon provides much better visibility of the fight.

Do they get a red card for head butting?[/quote]

Nope…

Which means Zidane might have a future in Pride.

31

I like mma, but I think it will never be boxing in terms of the level of competition. If a guy can train for 3-4 years and become the world champion the sport is hardly comptetive, but granted mma is a relatively new sport.

I hate mma fights that turn into a glorified wrestling match. In boxing there is no where to run and no where to hide. you have to stand there and fight like a man. I think mma will always be a sideshow in comparison to boxing

32

[quote]pitbull314 wrote:
I hate mma fights that turn into a glorified wrestling match. In boxing there is no where to run and no where to hide.

[/quote]

I don’t know what you are trying to get at here, but I take it you’ve never tried to run and hide while a strong motherfucker who wants to kill you has you in side control.

33

[quote]pitbull314 wrote:
I like mma, but I think it will never be boxing in terms of the level of competition. If a guy can train for 3-4 years and become the world champion the sport is hardly comptetive, but granted mma is a relatively new sport.

I hate mma fights that turn into a glorified wrestling match. In boxing there is no where to run and no where to hide. you have to stand there and fight like a man. I think mma will always be a sideshow in comparison to boxing[/quote]

Boxers piss me off with the assertion that standing in the middle of the ring and throwing punches until one of the guys goes down is fighting like a man…you fight like a man, I’ll be content to beat your ass on the ground, hard to be manly after I’ve broken off your arms and beaten you with them.

Anyways, the future of MMA is looking very bright. The sports appeal is picking up as more and more fans are brought in…the popularity is only growing. Boxing has become stale with the lack of superstar talent and exciting matches.

34

[quote]PGJ wrote:
The problem with MMA is the quick knockout. Remember how boring it was watching Tyson knock everybody out in the first round? Heavyweight boxing really suffered, nobody wanted to go to his fights after a while. [/quote]

Not to take this on a boxing tangent, but Tyson always drew an audience. Always. People love brutal knock outs. I think where MMA may lose some people is when 2 fighters are on the floor trying to work the mount and escape. Those who aren’t familiar with MMA can find it boring. Knock outs everyone loves.

35

Xen Nova, way to start up a GRAET THREAD! This has been an outstanding discussion so far. There have been a lot of great points made.

Here are several points I’d like to add into the mix:

Yes, there are quick knockouts in MMA these days, but that has a lot to do with the rules, which state all fighters must wear 4-6 oz. gloves. Back when MMA and more specifically, the UFC, first started, there were no gloves. Guys were more concerned about breaking their hands because they didn’t want an injury to knock them out of the tournament (guys typically fought 2-4 times in one night), and thus, threw less punches, or at least made sure that if they threw a punch, it was going to connect.

With the gloves, guys can just swing for the fences hoping for a KO because their hands are protected by the gloves…although bones can still break, as Rich Franklin proved.

I also think UFC is doing a great job in promoting their marquee fights to the mainstream. Like it or not, UFC and MMA need to draw in the mainstream crowd to make more money.

To compare it to pro wrestling, when WWE was hot with Hulk Hogan and later Stone Cold, why was it? It wasn’t because of the hard-core fan base, who were going to come out and support the product no matter what, they were successful because a whole new, larger fan base was created around a single star and promotion.

UFC is doing the right thing in hyping up guys like Ortiz, Griffin, Liddell, Franklin, Hughes, GSP. You have to try and push the fighters you think that not only will appeal to hardcore fans, but also appeal to people who may be new to the sport or may be tuning into the sport for the first time.

For example, my wife hated UFC when I first started watching it. But, once the Ultimate Fighter 3 started and I made her watch the first episode, she got hooked in by the Ortiz-Shamrock rivalry. She sided with Tito and has since become a huge fan of the sport. She even went with me to watch the PPV two weeks ago.

The Hughes-Gracie fight, which most who follow MMA knew was going to be a one-sided affair, did 600,000 buys in the U.S. That’s more than 3x the amount WWE’s Backlash PPV did in the same month (I think the domestic total was 150,000. WWE now includes international PPV buys to their total b/c the domestic numbers have decreased so much).

36

STYLES MAKE FIGHTS NOT HYPE

37

[quote]nikolo wrote:
PGJ wrote:
The problem with MMA is the quick knockout. Remember how boring it was watching Tyson knock everybody out in the first round? Heavyweight boxing really suffered, nobody wanted to go to his fights after a while.

Not to take this on a boxing tangent, but Tyson always drew an audience. Always. People love brutal knock outs. I think where MMA may lose some people is when 2 fighters are on the floor trying to work the mount and escape. Those who aren’t familiar with MMA can find it boring. Knock outs everyone loves.
[/quote]

Pay-per-view orders were very low for Tyson fights because everyone knew it would be over in the first round. As I remember, attendace at this fights declined as well.

38

A problem I have with MMA in general is that some people just take it far too seriously.

A wolf among sheep? You’re little more than boxers, not vicious killers. There were loads of examples of this attitude in the comments following TC’s “One Man Army” article from a couple of months back.

I feel this attitude is smarmy and contrived, and it seems that a significant percentage of MMA enthusiasts have adopted it. And quite frankly, it turns me off of MMA.

Now I’m not trying to just piss in everyone’s cereal or change anybody’s opinion, and I personally am not going to hijack this thread any further. I’m giving you all an outsider’s perspective of why I personally don’t like MMA. I would be stunned if I am alone in my opinion, but it could possibly be a reason why MMA has not become and might not ever be a mainstream American sport.

My $0.02, FWIW.

39

I think the reality show TUF has hurt the legitimacy of the sport. Every card features match after match of eliminated rejects from TUF.

But, you just can’t have the UFC of old and expect mainstream TV coverage. You have to water it down, give it flash and colorful characters. Just look at the rest of the “reality” shit on TV. That is what people want.

40

tGunslinger,

Have you ever been around an MMA fighter?

Most men that I’ve met who have fought in MMA are pretty humble, nice guys. They don’t really think they’re all that tough. But they can hold their heads a little higher knowing they had the balls to put it all on the line against someone who was trying to break their face, in front of all their friends and family. That takes some guts and deserves respect.

“Wolf in sheep’s clothing”, not really, definitely exagerated. But they do have the ability to kick a little ass if they need to.

Have you ever trained?

Hell, even grappling is tough even though you don’t have to take the pounding that kickboxing/boxing gives you (not saying grappling is easy just slightly less punishment). These guys have a right to separate themselves a little from the rest of society and feel a little prouder. Sort of the same thing as any smart person or even bodybuilder has the right to do if they put a lot of effort into whatever their goals are, especially considering most people don’t have what it takes to do that. It takes courage and every man should be proud of their courage.

Anyway I’m not exactly sure why any of that would turn you off from the sport. Could you explain a little more?

BTW, hopefully I’m not hijacking this thread guys. Sorry.