All Purpose UFC/MMA/That Kind Of Thing Thread

Seems like hell broke loose in the post-fight presser. Not surprisingly, Tito was involved.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AlpKLmVuCLTIN1IV8qQCdVo5nYcB?slug=dm-tito052508&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/mma_experts/post/Bedlam-at-UFC-press-conference?urn=mma,84210

 

A piece on Jens Pulver from the USA Today web site.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/boxing/2008-05-28-pulver-mma_N.htm

 

Mr7134, instead of doing a copy-and-paste job, here's how you post a story ...

MMA fighter DQed after soiling himself

http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080526/SPORTS/805260324/1006

 

Dude literally had the shit knocked out of him.

I'll now boo myself.

 

Versus has done a great job promoting this Faber-Pulver fight. They are likely going to sell around 12,000 tickets in Sacramento for this and the card is very good.
Miguel Torres is 32-1 at 135 pounds and is an amazing fighter at that weight. He's in the co-main event and is just incredible on the ground.
The Pulver-Faber fight should be good as well. Faber is just unbelievably fast and has a motor that never stops.
Hockey, it's well worth checking out on Sunday.

 

I'll give it a try.

A, better, Yahoo piece on Pulver…

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=ArobrRpvCEqUUJgUJRiTdDE9Eo14?slug=dm-pulver052608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Also, not to get into another debate, I honestly see no problem with cut and paste jobs so long as you include a link to the original story before the cut and paste. That is so long as you include the author and title in the cut and paste. The source, of course, being covered in the URL that prefaces the story.

I'd say most people click the link and read the story at the source web site. If they don’t. Then they don’t. People see the article though. Sure, some people read the article on a forum for free (I know that free is the wrong word). Other’s who wouldn’t have come across it though click through to the web site.

One of the reasons why some papers have got such big hits on MMA coverage is because of articles, with links to the original piece, being posted on boxing and mma forums.

 

But if you post the entire article, word-for-word, then nobody will visit the source site.

 

Maybe, but this is going to be on CBS, not pay-per-view or Spike. Interesting column by Dan Wetzel on the topic.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AifWOfsn3WPJH_xjLJFKWUg5nYcB?slug=dw-slice052808&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

 

Though that did read a little bit too much like a UFC PR piece, it was still well done. I find myself thinking that a lot after finishing a Wetzel column (the well done part, not the PR part).

 

Here is where we fundamentally disagree.

If I post the article word for word that is prefaced by the url then I would suggest that it adds more hits than it takes away.

Sure, some people will read the article on the forum. Other’s though will click through and read it at the original source. That is what I always do. That goes for articles relating to a whole gambit of subjects.

Even if people don’t click through and read the article at the original source then all that happens is that a bunch of people who wouldn’t, in a lot of cases, have gone to the article anyway read it. Maybe they like the article and then go to the website and read other articles by the same writer.

 

I guess you'd be OK with somebody pirating a UFC show and streaming on the net?

 

Gotta remember, for whatever it's worth, Yahoo has a business partnership with UFC. They sells UFC PPV's on the web.

Here I think is a fairer examination of Kimbo: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24682027/