Sucks that the best FOX card on paper turned out to give us 4 total mismatches. And most being borind decision types too. Shogun should retire so should BJ Penn.
I heard from a very good friend that I consider to be a very valid source, that Dana White told Nate Diaz after the fight he would never put him on a Fox show again. I guess Fox was really pissed off that they had to keep going away from Nate Diaz because of him using the finger at Ben constantly and using horrible language.
Another one of those cards that look great on paper and turn out to be just ok. I wasn't really all that entertained by any of these fights. I would say not one of them lived up to the hype. They all fell flat.
The Edwards/Stephens fight was pretty awesome. I know it was a prelim, but that counter was pretty. I really enjoyed the Rua/Gustafsson(sp) fight. Ben straight up dominated Nate, but I agree, it really wasn't that entertaining. Rory put on a clinic, but it was almost sad to watch.
Yeah, I enjoyed both of those as well. It was also cool to see Matt Brown run through Mike Swick. I always thought Brown would be a journeyman kind of fighter that just hung around the UFC because he's tough as nails and normally entertaining. However, Brown is on an impressive 4 fight win streak with 3 finishes. The lone decision was an absolutely one-side UD over kickboxing mega-stud Stephen "Wonderboy" Thompson. But for me, I thought ALL of the prelim fights were very good with the exception of Easton-Assuncao. I loved watching Dennis Siver give a beatdown to Nam Phan. I think Siver is fighting for the featherweight title before 2013 is over. And Darren Cruickshank's highlight reel, head kick over Henry Martinez was an amazing end to a good slugfest. The main card disappointed but the prelims were solid.
Seriously? Network Television homey. You are crazy to think they would allow that. You think they are going to take an FCC violation for Nate Diaz? Guaranteed that Dana White got his ass chewed by Network execs and Dana might act tough in front of the camera, but I guarantee all he said back was "I'm so sorry, won't happen again sir"
They wouldnt get an FCC violation for that. There wasnt recently a rulling that said that Network television is not responsible for what happens in situations likes this. That being said, they could have blurred the fingers. They didnt need to cut away. It was stupid.
[h=3]Supreme Court rules against FCC in TV profanity, nudity cases[/h]6/21/2012 COMMENTS (0) WASHINGTON, June 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against a government crackdown on broadcast profanity and nudity, saying the Federal Communications Commission had not given fair notice of its policy change in three high-profile incidents. The unanimous high court ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, declared that the FCC's standards were vague as applied to the broadcasts at issue in the case. It did not decide the larger question of whether the indecency policy violated constitutional free-speech rights. Under the policy which dated to 2001 and was amended in 2004, broadcasters can be fined for airing a single profanity blurted out on a live show or for brief nudity. Government lawyers said it covered the "F-word" and the "S-word" that denote "sexual or excretory activities," respectively. The justices threw out a U.S. appeals court ruling that struck down the policy on speech grounds and the justices said several options are before the commission, including reviewing the current policy and modifying it. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the agency is reviewing the Supreme Court decision, which he said appeared narrowly limited to procedural issues over actions taken years ago. "Consistent with vital First Amendment principles, the FCC will carry out Congress's directive to protect young TV viewers," Genachowski said in a statement. Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell said the agency should quickly implement the Court's decision and move on to address a backlog of nearly 1.5 million pending indecency complaints, dating as far back as 2003 and involving some 9,700 TV broadcasts. "We owe it to the American public and the broadcast licensees involved to carry out our statutory duties with all deliberate speed," he said. The case involved 2002 and 2003 awards shows on News Corp's Fox television network when singer Cher blurted out an expletive and actress Nicole Richie used two expletives. The FCC said the network violated its indecency rules. The case also involved a seven-second shot of a woman's nude buttocks on a 2003 "NYPD Blue" episode on Walt Disney Co's ABC network that led to $1.21 million in fines. The FCC already had launched its indecency crackdown when pop star Janet Jackson briefly exposed her breast during a 2004 broadcast of a halftime show for the Super Bowl football game, drawing half a million complaints. Kennedy in the ruling based the decision on the constitutional due process requirement, saying that broadcasters had to be given fair notice of the policy and the restrictions. "A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required," he wrote in the 18-page opinion. He said there was no need to address the constitutional free-speech issue under the First Amendment. The FCC can impose fines of $325,000 on each station that airs indecent material, including images and words, between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Critics including the broadcast industry said the policy had been applied inconsistently, with the FCC allowing the television broadcast of profanity in the World War Two movie "Saving Private Ryan" and of nudity in the movie "Schindler's List." "NAB has long believed that responsible industry self-regulation is preferable to government regulation in areas of programming content," said Dennis Wharton, executive vice president of communications at the National Association of Broadcasters. The FCC policy applies only to broadcast television and radio. Neither cable nor satellite channels are subject to FCC content regulation. Wharton said viewers can continue to expect broadcast programming to be less explicit than pay-TV offerings despite the ruling in their favor. The Supreme Court ruled in 2009 on narrower grounds that the FCC's indecency policy was a rational and legally permissible use of the FCC's administrative powers, but did not reach the free-speech issue at that time. In the cases decided Thursday, the networks also had asked the high court to overturn its 1978 ruling that upheld the FCC's power to regulate indecency in a case about comedian George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue on radio, arguing the media landscape had changed dramatically. In the main opinion by Kennedy, the court did not address that ruling. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with Justice Clarence Thomas concurring, issued a one-paragraph opinion saying the 1978 decision was wrong when it was issued. "Time, technological advances and the commission's untenable rulings in the cases now before the court show why" the 1978 ruling should be reconsidered, Ginsburg wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not take part in the latest ruling. She considered the dispute previously as a U.S. appeals court judge in New York. The Supreme Court case is FCC v. Fox Television Stations and FCC v. ABC Inc, No. 10-1293. For the FCC: Donald Verrilli Jr., Solicitor General of the United States.
Yeah, the prelims were off the hook. Siver looked great almost forgot about that. Matt Brown is a fucking stud. All heart and hard work. He doesn't have the talent that many possess in the UFC, but has the training, work ethic, and straight up toughness to make a little noise. I love watching him fight. Shit, I would love to see him fight for a title. I know he doesn't "deserve" it, but I would have no problem with giving him a shot and saying its due to a 4 fight action packed win streak. I think right now you have to give Gustaffsson a title shot. Get some new blood in there with Jones. I don't think he'll win, but fuck, he just beat up Rua, who was a fight or two away from another title shot. Give it to the kid.
That is great, doesn't mean Fox is going to allow Diaz to be shown on Network T.V. flipping off his opponent. The UFC wants to be considered a mainstream sport. You really think showing Nate Diaz flipping off Ben helps that?
Not that we could ever prove it one way or the other, but I would bet Dana wanted something controversial from the Diaz gang. I can't remember a Nate Diaz fight where he DIDN'T flip somebody off. I'll give all of my Fightbeat credits (16775) to anyone that can post or link video of Nate locking in the triangle against Kurt Pelligrino and flipping off the Kurt and his corner while waiting for him to tap. Awesome. By the way, I was doing a little research after Anthony commented on not being impressed with the Diaz's BJJ. I can't find anyone on the UFC's current roster that has more submissions wins in MMA versus BJJ blackbelts than Nate Diaz. I obviously couldn't check everyone, but Nate's tapped some pretty decent guys.
Yeah, that was pretty badass,:giggle: I remember watching that with friends, Diaz was an instant favorite amongst many of my friends. artie:
In boxing they curse all the time. It's mainstream. Everyone knew what Diaz did. It's not like they caught it. We saw it. And then they cut away. They could have blurred it. It was dumb IMO. Guys like Nate and Nick Diaz increase the popularity of the sport. Guys like nate and Nick helped get the UFC to the place it's at now. those antics are part of them.
Boxing hasn't been on network t.v. since Howard Cosell. Sure they curse on HBO, so does Inside Sports. Great point Anthony.
My point was that they should have blurred it out instead of cutting away to an empty theater during a good moment in the fight. It looked amateurish. You have Nick Diaz, who consistently flips off his opponent on a fox card and you get mad at him for being him? They can blur people's mouths on Music Awards show, they can blur people's middle fingers on music awards shows, but they cant do it durring a fight? It's stupid. And it's stupid to even be upset about it. That is, of course, if White was even upset at all
I agree, I expected a very fun night of fights but the UFC turned out to be putrid. Thank god Pac-Manny IV was the bomb.
yep, 1 years of inactivity later. At the time Diaz fought him, Penn was coming of a draw vs the n.2 in the division. And you have to consider that the draw was the best cast scenario possible for Fitch in that fight, no way he won it.
