brashleyholland Posted January 1, 2010 Share Posted January 1, 2010 i also read it was not logistically possible or as simple as saying "we will make it free" in lieu of the injuries. Spot on. They have contracts in place with PPV providers to produce X amount of shows per year. The only reason you get numbered UFC's on Spike is because they take place overseas. The time difference hugely effects PPV buys (I don't thing they've done over 250k for an overseas show), so they air them for free on Spike. They can't just break a contract with the PPV company because some of the fighters get hurt - no more than a boxing match or American football game could switch to a free to air TV station if one of the fighters/Quarterbacks has to pull out. (Just as an aside, I have no idea whether or not American Football is shown on free TV in the states - but you get the point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franchise22 Posted January 2, 2010 Share Posted January 2, 2010 For us old-timers though, it holds a different significance. This is one of those bouts everyone used to talk about. It's two of the UFC's original tournement champions, two of the most significant wrestlers the sport has ever seen finaly locking horns. It's nostalgia at it's best. based on a few points made id say it is more equivelent to hogan vs flair from the austrialia tour than hbk vs sting today...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapCee Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 The undercard is looking really good so far. These guys are starting off 2010 with a bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACCBiggz Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 At least the UFC is going to get some play out of Semtex until they put him in there with a guy with legit takedowns. Too bad Koscheck and Fitch are booked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 100% worth it. Lots of exciting fights, and the 3rd round of Evans/Silva was fun to watch. Won't spoil anything just in case somebody is watching the replay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crayon Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Bottom line, name value means jack to me. I don't pay for names, I pay for fights. Not to get into semantics, but isn't that the same thing? Do you mean you'll pay for any fight, regardless of who's in it? Or you pay for the quality of a fight after it's already taken place and you've got word of mouth that it was good? I mean, I guess if it's either of the above then fair enough, but it seemed like your statement meant more than blind signing to any fight or only paying for fights which have been guaranteed as a good match. Because I don't really know how name value can mean "jack" unless you're basing your purchasing habits on one of the above, and not on anything like the past quality of matches a fighter has put on (directly tied to their "name value"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Not to get into semantics, but isn't that the same thing? Do you mean you'll pay for any fight, regardless of who's in it? Or you pay for the quality of a fight after it's already taken place and you've got word of mouth that it was good? Because I don't really know how name value can mean "jack" unless you're basing your purchasing habits on one of the above, and not on anything like the past quality of matches a fighter has put on (directly tied to their "name value"). What he means is that he would rather pay to watch good fighters that have been matched up in a competetive bout than for a card full of 'name' fighters with uninspired matchmaking or mismatches. While a lot of idiots on message boards were running this crowd into the ground because it didn't have the 'big fights' of previous 'end of year' shows - people who knew the rest of the fighters on the card, or even those who bothered to get on youtube and watch a couple of the guys fights, knew that 108 would have some great bouts on it. And it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACCBiggz Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Not to get into semantics, but isn't that the same thing? Do you mean you'll pay for any fight, regardless of who's in it? Or you pay for the quality of a fight after it's already taken place and you've got word of mouth that it was good? I mean, I guess if it's either of the above then fair enough, but it seemed like your statement meant more than blind signing to any fight or only paying for fights which have been guaranteed as a good match. Because I don't really know how name value can mean "jack" unless you're basing your purchasing habits on one of the above, and not on anything like the past quality of matches a fighter has put on (directly tied to their "name value"). It means I don't say, "Couture is on the card? I'm buying it because he's fighting." Or, probably more appropriately, I don't say, "Neither Thiago Silva or Rashad Evans are big enough names for me to spend my money on." I purchase PPV's because I want to see the fights. If a card in general doesn't catch my eye then I may skip it, but this card had MANY exciting match-ups and delivered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.