damonster Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Well, it was a bunch of close rounds. Theoretically speaking, you can give the first two Tavares, even the third one. So a close 30-27. anthony njokuni next for Stout, i hope so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 It's not everywhere. That's too much a blanket statement and isn't true, period. Well obviously it's not everywhere. It's not in my mom's garden shack, it's not in the Vatican church and it's not in my anus. I just meant to say that it was omnipresent. Of course there are regional people that will support the visiting team (over here, with footie, for example, that's the case). But most of the people will rally behind their home guy and would die for him to win, which, quite frankly, is favoritism. Surely there are purists who have the mental powers to distance themselves from subjectivity and root for the one that displays qualities they enjoy, but they are not exactly numerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Hey, I wasn't the one that said it was everywhere. anthony njokuni next for Stout, i hope so. Ooh, good idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonster Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Hope you guys are getting ufc undisputed 3, as it was just announced that the pride gp, in tournament & career mode, will feature multiple fights in one night and the damage continues on between fights (ex small cuts become swells, that open up with first punch to that part of body.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 you mean kinda like in the first ever UFC game, for dreamcast, which was awesome btw? Love the addition, but it's hardly anything new. I'll probably get the game if the reviews are a bit positive. Should go and test the game with our local gaming site which offered us that chance, but it probably won't be enough to figure out whether it's worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonster Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 fing ESPN, get fed up the @$$ by ZUFFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 yea ESPN ran a smear piece on them and are coming up looking stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 yea ESPN ran a smear piece on them and are coming up looking stupid. Not really. What's more damaging? A) UFC showing that ESPN creatively edits its interviews to present things in a certain context (which everyone knows anyway, and has gone on since journalism was born). B) ESPN brings to the public's attention via mainstream media an issue that has only previously been discussed amongst hardcore online fans/talking heads? Plus the argument that Lorenzo made about ESPN only paying bottom level fighters $100's was both factually inaccurate and an irrelevant comparison. With that said, the ESPN piece had its flaws. Glaring ones at that. I think if anything though, the UFC's reaction to it has only served to give the issue more publicity. I did lol at ESPN wheeling out bitter, broke old Kenny Shamrock though, and the UFC's little "F*** you, Ken" at the end of their clip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I think ESPN's piece is unfair to the UFC. It's not because I'm an UFC fan, but because, considering where the sport was only a few years ago, it's come quite far. On top of that, the Fertitta's have other business that need... financial help. Regardless of what how you think they handle things, they may need this money for other businesses they may do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brashleyholland Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 I think ESPN's piece is unfair to the UFC. It's not because I'm an UFC fan, but because, considering where the sport was only a few years ago, it's come quite far. You're missing the point of the report. ESPN thinks its great that the UFC has come this far in only a few years. The point of the whole thing is that 7 years ago Chuck Liddell was paid $70,000 basic to fight. Last year he made $500,000 basic to fight. 7 years ago, a guy who fought in the first fight of UFC 52 made $5,000 basic to fight, and guys who are opening now are only making $6,000 basic to fight. See the difference there? On top of that, the Fertitta's have other business that need... financial help. Regardless of what how you think they handle things, they may need this money for other businesses they may do. Do you really think the kind of money that Zuffa LLC makes is relevant to the the numbers associated with Station Casinos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 You're missing the point of the report. ESPN thinks its great that the UFC has come this far in only a few years. The point of the whole thing is that 7 years ago Chuck Liddell was paid $70,000 basic to fight. Last year he made $500,000 basic to fight. 7 years ago, a guy who fought in the first fight of UFC 52 made $5,000 basic to fight, and guys who are opening now are only making $6,000 basic to fight. See the difference there? Do you really think the kind of money that Zuffa LLC makes is relevant to the the numbers associated with Station Casinos? Fair points. I concede those. But I'm not exactly sympathetic to fighter pay. Yes, they can them more. There's no doubt about that. But it's not exactly the worst problem in MMA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 UFC pays bottom card fighters way better than Top Rank pays bottom card boxers. Bottom card boxers certainly do not get $6000 just to show up. UFC also publishes what they pay fighters, whereas most boxing promoters do not. And that's just base pay. thats not sponsor money and discretionary bonuses. I'm not saying they are angels. However, the ESPN piece came off as a smear piece and was fully one-sided. The truth is most of the fighter I know would kill to be paid what UFC pays it's bottom card guys. $6000 just to show up (the figure ESPN used) and the possibility to earn $12,000 (assuming they win) for a bottom level guy who NO ONE pays to see is a decent pay cut in my eyes. I might be wrong and I admit I know very little about the MMA business. Wouldn't sit here and fight about it. But ESPN could have brought awareness to an issue (if there is one) about how little fighters are being paid without coming off so... for lack of a better word... tabloid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackman Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I agree that the pay is at least halfway decent. My opinion is to make them hungry for more. You need those stars that make a lot to keep the lower tier fighters passionate about the business and needy for success. There could be discussion on whether you need this or not. I'm personally in favor. The classic 'work your way up the card'-model. Drive is (imo) the most important characteristic or skill nowadays, as knowledge is basically everywhere. As an elite fighter in MMA, you obviously need technique, but everyone can have access to it nowadays. Drive and passion is more restricted. This method of pay will make sure only the passionate survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Look, the pay for a low card fighter isn't great in the UFC when you compare it to the other "big four" leagues in the USA. That's basically what ESPN's point was. And they aren't wrong. However, there are many factors to consider. In the combat sports world, UFC fighters - even at the lowest levels - make comparatively decent money. Ultimately, the problem I had with it is that it came off like tabloid journalism. I have this problem with many "sports news" shows. They don't report news. They try to make a story. In this case, them building awareness to an issue like this would have seemed more sincere had they maybe presented a more realistic argument. Instead it came off as I said before like a smear piece and tabloid journalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantabulous Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 King Mo Lawal, you have been a naughty boy. Don't tell me, though; it was in something you ate, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Man, is anyone in StrikeForce not juicing? As for the whole ESPN deal, there is a valid point there, even if they are spinning things to get there. The reality is that the UFC is supposed to be the elite of the MMA world. Yet there are guys who can fight 4 or 5 timees a year on PPV and barely make $40k. That might soundslike a decent chunk of money until you consider that they are paying for their own training, don't get full medical insurance from the UFC, and many are trying to support families. Sure you can make additional money from sponsors but that's not going to be significant money for most guys unless they are on the main card of a PPV. As far as I am aware, there are still guys in the UFC who need to hold down a part-time job to make ends meet. Yet they are supposed to be full-time fighters and train full-time as well. Financially it just doesn't work. I'm not saying every undercard guy should be making $300k per year, but being able to train full-time and reasonably support a family doesn't seem like its expecting too much out of what the UFC pays guys, especially if you are trying to "grow the sport". The problem becomes that the UFC is a business first. There are issues with a virtual monopoly existing. The reality is that the situation of the UFC isn't directly comparable to that of the big team sports nor even that of boxing. In boxing, you don't have one dominant promotion who does 2-3 events per month that are broadcast internationally in some format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoutureLegend Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Hope you guys are getting ufc undisputed 3, as it was just announced that the pride gp, in tournament & career mode, will feature multiple fights in one night and the damage continues on between fights (ex small cuts become swells, that open up with first punch to that part of body.) I will be getting it for sure, but the striking still looks very robotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonster Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I will be getting it for sure, but the striking still looks very robotic. well it is a game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantabulous Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Munoz is out and Bisping is in. Sonnen vs. Bisping on FOX. Also, UFC 145, set for Montreal, has been cancelled because they couldn't get a quality card. They'll still run in Montreal, but at a later date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shape Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Woah. Suddenly one much bigger fight than the two there were. This does not end well for Bisping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Woah. Suddenly one much bigger fight than the two there were. This does not end well for Bisping. I don't think anyone cares about that... the amount trash talk this will generate, and Bisping losing his cool, this is going to be hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonster Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I don't think anyone cares about that... the amount trash talk this will generate, and Bisping losing his cool, this is going to be hilarious. to bad they only have 1 and a half weeks to trash each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 to bad they only have 1 and a half weeks to trash each other. I think that's all we need, because Bisping would go nuts if it was longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damonster Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I think that's all we need, because Bisping would go nuts if it was longer. well i am happy to see bisping lose for free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 well i am happy to see bisping lose for free How do you know if he's going to lose? Aww, screw it, you're right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.