Extreme Fighting A Sport?

Well said, Playthrough. Some things should just be conceded to the Net.

 

I worked at a paper that did some market research and discovered that women weren't reading the sports section. So the beancounters mandated we greatly increase stories that would attract women.

We did.

Next market research comes around.

Numbers were identical.

 

I hear the mocking tone in your voice, yet I prefer boxing as well. I think, however, that in the right situation it does warrant coverage.

For example, my shop has a few big-name boxers who reside and train in the area, and so we cover them pretty well as far as upcoming fights being announced, fight previews, follow-ups etc. However, we are also starting to do some things with MMA in the area because it has reached a level here where it needs to be taken seriously.

To say "I'm not going to sully my paper with that," if there's a local fighter who's working his way up the UFC or WEC seems short-sighted to me.

 

Thank you for providing a very good point against coverage instead of "it's choke holds," "it's a fad" and "it's for young, dumb people."

I agree with your point completely, but I still think bigger papers could cover the sport from time to time. It probably wouldn't work everywhere, but I believe it would work in some regions.

I also don't believe that just because the internet has taken it means we should back off.

 

I am hardly a fanboi. I've just tried to make some points. So be it. All I can say is that the current model of American newspaper journalism is clearly flawed. I see no harm in trying something a little different if such an approach can be justified.

 

OK, GB, you're making a value judgment as to which governing bodies are legit. The market hasn't done that yet. If anything, MMA is a damn interesting business story more so than a sports one.

And yes, I'll mock "it's been on Spike for seven years" relentlessly.

 

What Pets.com has to do with the powers-that-be at places like CBSSports.com, FOXSports.com, Yahoo, -- all of whom come from newspaper backgrounds -- sizing up MMA and deciding it is worth investing in the sport's coverage, is unclear.

 

Of course you have to make a value judgement on what is legit and which isn't. It's why the NFL is what it is, and the XFL is what it is.

It's why boxing got killed when the alphabet soup of organziations left us with four our different world champions in the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO, and its even escalated from there. The fact that they now announce that someone is 'The Ring magazine title-holder' says something.

But the public buys the UFC as the leader in the MMA field. The pay-per-view buys back that up. To dismiss it as a fad, or not to do a piece on it when a local fighter is entering a prominent bout in his chosen field, whether boxing or MMA, seems short-sighted.

 

Please read all my posts, including the one about "it shouldn't be a beat" and "yes, it very well could be a fad, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't show up in the newspaper."

Also, fighting and violence isn't a fad. They have been popular "long before you or I was born."

I've never said MMA coverage would save newspapers. I just want to know why we shouldn't have stories covering events people obviously like.

 

UFC's going on 15 years now. Longest fad in history.

 

How many people buy newspapers for boxing coverage?