All Purpose UFC/MMA/That Kind Of Thing Thread

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

From...

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-ufc3mar03,1,2999537.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

 

Re: UFC beats boxing, crushes WWE in 2006 PPV revenue

From Dave Meltzer's daily update...

 

Re: UFC beats boxing, crushes WWE in 2006 PPV revenue

And now they have team fighting on FSN, anyone seen this shit?

 

Re: UFC beats boxing, crushes WWE in 2006 PPV revenue

UFC ... another reason why nobody in their 20s read newspapers. All the big internet sites cover what they want ... it's a shame, really.

 

Re: UFC beats boxing, crushes WWE in 2006 PPV revenue

When have people in their 20s ever read the newspaper?

Again, less than 2 million PPV buys for the biggest event of the year. That's 2 million spread across America. In my MSA, that works out to maybe 10 homes ordering it in my coverage area. How much coverage should I devote to a sport that interests only 10 households?

 

Re: UFC beats boxing, crushes WWE in 2006 PPV revenue

Not to bust you on this, Inky, but ...

You are overstating the interest with the 2Mill number.

Again, I'm not saying MMA/UFC doesn't deserve coverage -- occasional features, local angles and (when it happens) AP reports. I'm also saying AFL and MLS have higher reader and viewer interest by a large margin.

 

Re: UFC beats boxing, crushes WWE in 2006 PPV revenue

After having a long, drawn out debate with Mert Windu on this topic, I've come to one conclusion: Both sides of this argument are mistaken with what the other wants.

Side A (pro MMA coverage) is seeking a presence in the section when there's an event. Not display or above the fold. Maybe 8-10 inches for the major events. It doesn't deserve much more than that, unless there's a local angle of some sort.

Side B (opposing view) Often says that MMA doesn't deserve the coverage that most proponents want, and it should be minimal at best. I think this group would agree that 8-10 inches for a major event would be fine, since there's some obvious interest out there for the growing sport.


However, and I made this mistake with Mert, when arguing, both sides get stuck on the polar opposite ends of the spectrum and Side A comes off like we want NFL-type coverage for the sport, while Side B comes off as MMA deserves NO COVERAGE AT ALL.
I think both sides are a lot closer to agreeing than not.

It'll be interesting tonight because there's word that tonight's event will be the first that ESPN will show highlights of on SportsCenter. If it's not this one, then most likely the next. Apparently there was a meeting not to long ago in Bristol on how they wanted to handle MMA, after the huge success of the Dec. 30 show featuring Chuck Liddell vs. Tito Ortiz.

No matter what side of the fence you're in, no one can deny it's going to be an interesting ride in regards to the future of this sport.

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

Randy Couture dropped Tim Sylvia with his first right hand. He then proceeded to win every round and, quite simply, absolutely dominate Sylvia on his way to a unanimous decision.

It's great that Couture won. It also makes me sad though. Now Randy is going to have to fight Cro-Cop.

That isn't good.

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

So, if I mentioned Mike French, would anyone recognize him as one of the UFC fighters?

I understand that he's involved in this stuff. He's from my hometown. I remember him as a little cocky kid who liked to start fights. Ironically, he seemed to welcome fights. I recall him pushing people to the brink of hand-to-hand combat as if he enjoyed it.

I'm just curious as to whether he's considered a bad ass in the sport. I always thought I could pound the little guy into the dirt. Now, though, I'm not so sure I was right about it back then. And I'm absolutely positive that he could whip me now.

 

Re: UFC beats boxing, crushes WWE in 2006 PPV revenue

Shoebottom keeps mentioning the papers which cover it. The LA Times has a guy, and I thought the Baltimore Sun was just using his stuff (they did once last November). Pugmire has been around, though I can't comment on the quality of his coverage.

But the Sun has this dude covering it for them, from the Sun's Web site:

"Pramit Mohapatra is a mixed martial arts enthusiast – a die-hard fan of the Ultimate Fighting Championship and PRIDE professional circuits and an amateur participant – who will be covering the sport for baltimoresun.com."

No comment, just got a kick out of this. Basically, it's a fanboy they contracted to cover it. Don't know if that's a commentary on the business as far as size of staff, or if it's more about not wanting to shuffle a staff that may not have wanted to be shuffled. Just thought that at a time when newspapers are trying to figure out what to do with this UFC thing, it's interesting to see how those that decide to pay attention will structure their coverage.

As for Idaho's assertion regarding MLS and AFL having more interest and readers . . . I would say SOCCER has more interest (ratings on Fox soccer channel for foreign games and US national team rankings don't lie), but MLS certainly does not. Can't comment on AFL, though it's worth asking oneself how many AFL fans one knows, as opposed to how many people one knows who enjoy UFC.

 

Re: UFC beats boxing, crushes WWE in 2006 PPV revenue

I though AFL only because it is now kickoff time for that season and the team in those 19 markets (I know, not a lot of markets) will be 'packing' arenas now. The game in my area had 14,000-plus and will probably see the same attendance all season. Games will be on free local TV and a few on ESPN or FSN.

I know they are apples and oranges ...

I remain unconvinced there is a large public demand for frequent coverage. I've never said MMA/UFC deserves no coverage.

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

Is this the Mike French you mean?

http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?FighterID=6774