What's funny is that 3 of the guys you listed as PFP recently got ko'ed. 2 of them by huge underdogs. It just shows how competitive this sport is IMO. Some people turn that against MMA, suggesting that they're a bunch of bums, but that "anything can happen" dimension really adds to the enjoyment of the sport IMO. Another guy that really impresses me is Mauricio Rua. I'm no connoisseur but I think that's one fighter that could dominate the sport for a while.
Watching Fedor survive that vicious slam on his neck by Randleman only to kimura his ass seconds later is all you need to know. The guy is a beast that never seems to get upset or out of control...
St-Pierre, Nogueira and Couture. But my bad, it's 2 of them actually... Rogerio got ko'd not minotauro...:shit::dunno:
After a lay-off Couture has since stepped back up in weight and taken out the semi-dominant UFC champ with ease... so I'd hardly say that he was recently knocked out, or at least not in the way you were referring to it.
Agreed, I didn't have the Sylvia fight in mind but wasn't it a decision? Good point though. Still, you rarely see fighters as good as Couture get knocked out in boxing, even by the bests. It was no shot at the sport, personnally I think it really enhance the product.
Whatever happened to the guy who was featured in "The Fighting Machine?" it was a documentary HBO did on a guy who was the best fighter then disappeared. From what I recall, they showed him getting 'roided up then he came back. The last match they showed him in, he was winning then completely fell apat and got his butt kicked. The documentary said something about him being affected by rule changes which took away the best parts of his game. What rules changed?
I wouldn't even consider myself an MMA "newbie," but a complete novice altogether. I follow the sport from afar and have somewhat of an understanding of who the top guys are. I root for Liddell (although I have never ordered a show or seen him fight live), but only because I sat next to him at a fight card in Fresno one time and chatted with him for the better part of 2 hours. He was a really nice guy. Anyway, here is the main two problems I see with UFC as we look towards the future. I am sure that I am not the first guy to think of these, but I would like to get the thoughts of some MMA fans: - first, from what I understand Liddell will make about 1-1.5 million by the time everything is said and done. Rampage will make about half of that. If you add up EVERYTHING paid to all of the undercard guys, I suspect the grand total will be about 3 million paid to the fighters of that show. It seems that with the PPV sales and gate receipts, the card will generate at least 30-35 million in revenue. My question: how long until the top UFC guys start saying "wait a second... why is the rest of the pot going somewhere else? I should be making more money." They would be correct to think that, wouldn't they? I have ZERO clue what type of contract that UFC has these guys under, but it seems to me that it won't be long until the top guys start to splinter off to make the megafights on their own, outside of the UFC banner. UFC's monopoloy (at least in this country) doesn't seem right, nor does it seem like it can last very long. - second, it seems that UFC needs to focus on how they are going to market their up-and-comers. I know they addressed that with the reality show a while back, but I don't know any non-UFC fans that watched that show. It doesn't seem to me that UFC can build its future stars solely by having them fight on Mega Fight undercards. Most casual fans (the "crossover" fans that UFC is after) aren't going to always tune in for the u/c and hence won't always be on board with the up-and-comers. The sport is probably still too contreversial and violent for network TV, or ESPN for that matter. So it may be hard to develope household names in the future exclusively on a PPV basis. I hesitate to believe that casual followers of UFC will continue to pay for 8-12 PPV cards per year when all they are getting is 2-3 minutes of action in most healiner fights. I'd like to get the thoughts of some MMA followers on these issues and how you think they'll be addressed. Keep in mind that in no way am I an MMA hater. I think there is plenty of room for both sports and I did the excitement of last weekend's promotion. I just wonder about these things as UFC moves forward. It is much easier to get to the top than to stay there, and that is the challenge for UFC as a company.
The money situation is just crazy too me. These guys must know how much boxers get for doing LESS PPV NUMBERS then they are and less money at the LIVE GATE. I find it incredible that Dana White can call boxing promoters crooks because something doesn't add up when you look at the fighters paychecks.
For the past month I've started MMA training, I love it. I've been watching MMA since the early 90's on and off. Then started watching consistently since 1999. Its too bad some of the new guys getting into the sport don't get to see Pride in at its absolute best 2 or 3 years ago. Everybody on here in on point about Fedor. He is ab absolute beast who fights with a lot of intensity and can do pretty much do anything in the ring (striking, submissions). Other pound for pound guys are Dan Henderson (this guys a jbadass) and Shogun.
There seems to be a really large number of ignorant posters here. There are boxing cards, where under carder's have to PAY to get onto the card. Just to be seen and get the exposure on a PPV event. Where are you assholes crying about that? Not all PPV is on HBO.
I am not sure what your point is, or if you think in general the main UFC stars are going to gladly accept 1/40th of the revenue pot forever.
Of course not and I've been arguing that case since this topic first came up here @ fightbeat. The point is these boxing fanatics arguing this point, while ignoring that it goes on in boxing as well and sometimes even worse than with the UFC payouts. In other words, I'm not sure if thats something a boxing fan can use to 'win' this argument.
Dude, you're being a bit defensive. Who is trying to "win" an argument? I don't understand why people must argue against one sport to prop up the other. What I was saying has nothing to do with boxing. Boxing has hundreds of flaws and issues that keep it from returning to the mainstream. But my thought is that UFC is going to start experiencing some of the problems that come with the succes they've achieved. One of those is going to be how they address the issue of paying their marquee fighters a little more in tune with their value. If you don't think they need to revisit how they structure their payouts, then fine. If you do, then we're in agreement. But either way, boxing has nothing to do with how UFC pays their fighters. If you want to defend the UFC, please do so based on its own merit, and not at the expense of boxing. It cheapens the message.
I agree. And if you think I'm doing that here, you're wrong. I'm not being defensive, but I've had this discussion a thousand times. To be fair, what I posted wasn't in direct reference to you at all. I agree. Ugh. That was my point all along. People here are defending boxing, by attempting to degrade MMA. I was simply stating that their methods of doing this and the example they're using to do it, is a stupid one, because boxing is guilty in this respect as well.
