San Francisco Chronicle refuses to cover MMA and UFC and UFC President bashes em

Twitter crashed for about 15 minutes after the end of every single World Cup match. It also crashed within 30 seconds of a goal being scored, damn near every time.

Currently on the top trending US topics on Twitter: Chivas.

 

With all due respect, Harley, this argument doesn't wash.

Someone was making essentially the same argument to me not long ago while watching MMA highlights -- it's not a bloodsport, people who say that haven't watched it, etc.

I pointed out that in the highlights we were watching the ring was literally soaked in blood. I mean, it looked like someone butchered an elk in the ring, and then it got up and ran around. I suspect they needed a squeegee to get all of that blood off the canvas.

I have no huge moral qualms with MMA. It does nothing for me, but if people are into that, whatever. And there's probably a good case to be made that long-term, boxing in gloves does more damage than cracking someone's head open in MMA.

But seriously, don't act like it's ballroom dancing.

 

My reservations about MMA/UFC have less to do these days with it being a bloodsport than the fact that it is absolutely boring as fuck.

For all of the "skill", it usually devolves into two dudes grabbing each other as they eventually fall to the mat. Once down, there's an occasional body punch thrown in as they embrace in a death-lock.

Knock me over with a Tapout T-shirt. Even if I put myself into the heads of one of its fans, I don't understand the appeal. It really is boring.

Three ... two ... one ... BUT YOU DON'T WATCH IT ENOUGH! YOU DON'T APPRECIATE IT!

Riiiiight.

 

I saw that tweet and the first thing I thought was "JDV runs the UFC?"

 

You don't watch it enough. You don't appreciate it.

Seriously, some MMA fights are boring as hell. But the main event this past week was considered one of the most exciting in recent memory. And the Lesnar-Carwin card was filled with some damn good fights.

Boring, exciting, brutal, whatever. It's hard to understand why the Chron would ignore an event this big in their back yard.

 

says soccer boy...

 

Pretty much irrelevant from a journalistic standpoint whether White's an idiot or who was rude to who in the MMA flack vs. Chron SE exchange. The more interesting question is whether the Chronicle served its readers well by completely ignoring the event.

 

Not that I was there, so I wouldn't know, but can you imagine the head of any other sports league telling a major newspaper or website to F off? That's why there are people who have a tough time taking UFC seriously. When its leader is using profanities in reference to a newspaper, that's a telling glimpse into his mentality. As Bill Veeck once said, "Foul language is primarily a reflection on a man's inadequate vocabulary."

 

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/7/15/

 

Perhaps, but these things are always judged in a vacuum, rarely are coverage decisions judged based on the reality on the ground.

Did the Chron have its resources tied into something or equal or superior value to its readers? I don't know, I'm asking.

 

Should the paper centerpiece it every month? No. Should the paper have at least tried to cover a large event in its back yard? Sure. Do fight fans care either way? No.

I love to watch the fights, and I know the newspaper is the last place to turn for fight previews, coverage or any other news from upcoming events because it's still on the fringe. Doesn't bother me a bit. When I want news from traditional sports, I might go to the newspaper depending on how gutted and crappy the coverage is these days.

 

http://prommanow.com/index.php/2010/08/10/mark-cuban-questions-dana-white-about-denying-inside-mma-press-credentials/

So, he won't credential the longest-running show dedicated to his sport, but he throws a fit when the newspaper doesn't cover it?

Seems like he's tweeting out of both sides of his mouth. ???