UFC results

Like I said, give UFC all the space normally devoted to WSOP and World's Strongest Man.

 

Ah yes. Fair enough. Not all that cognizant after spending all night waiting, waiting, waiting for last night's Buffalo Wings to make their encore.

Never happened, either. I don't know what's worse.

 

Did his paralyzed brother rise at the end?

 

Well, Mert, I can't say what I'd take out of your section because (thankfully for you lol) I'm not an editor at your newspaper. However, with such a small section I agree, there's very little room for UFC right now.
Bottom line, no matter what you or I think, 2007 is going to be interesting. MMA as a whole may prove to be just a fad. Or it could continue to grow. Our debates are moot. There are so many variables to it all, no one really knows what the future holds for the sport, or for the newspaper industry for that matter.

 

No, they went with the alternate ending on the DVD. Kimo choked the paralyzed brother out by making him eat the bandana he stole. Poor bastard couldn't get it down.

 

Look, I have no problem, in principle, with running MMA stuff in the sports section. But I won't just do it because it's getting popular. I won't just do it because it's on cable. And I certainly won't just do it if ESPN decides to show (more of) it. If we start getting letters, calls, emails, etc., if there's a local angle, or it takes national prominence, then yes, it's newsworthy. But at the moment, in terms of actual value to my readers, I place it no higher than the same level upon which extreme sports now sit. At best. We'll run some xgames stuff, but not much, and that's all we'll run. Give me a couple of years of solid growth and the proof that MMA is built for a big audience, and it goes in the section.

 

Well, I think television ratings, expansion (they've gone from running shows almost exclusively in Las Vegas to running events in major arenas in Los Angeles, Anaheim, Sacramento ... and in 2007, they have events scheduled for Ohio, Texas and the U.K.) and the dramatic increase in pay-per-view buyrates shows "solid growth over the past couple of years.
As for the other point, what do you consider proof as far as MMA proving it's build for a big audience? What exactly are you looking for?
How are football, baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, golf, tennis and high school athletics (which all receive regular coverage in newspapers) built for a big audience? I'm only asking for comparison sake. Again, not trying to be a smart ass, just wanting to know where you're coming from.

 

The porn industry's conventions are very popular events in many of the same places. As are video game conventions. Hell, electric football's even growing that way. And frankly, the burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you, and more specifically the folks involved in MMA.

 

I think a lot of the arguments against UFC coverage mimic the arguments against NASCAR coverage 15-20 years ago.

 

Wow. So, you'll ignore the facts I've laid out about expansion, buy rates, TV ratings in comparison to the MLB and the NBA ... you ask me to prove growth and I lay it out for you. And, I ask you to explain what you mean by being built for a big audience in comparison to "mainstream" sports and the response I get is comparing it to porn and electronic football and tell me that I have to prove it's worthy of coverage?

Weak. Very, very weak.

 

Oh good, I'm glad you're still not being a smartass. Instead, just a jackass. I didn't ignore shit, pal. I showed you how things like buyrates hold little water in this argument. But you think that's all that matters, and can't comprehend why someone would disagree with you. You wanna talk about fucking WEAK? Please.

 

It was weak. You said to show you growth, but you want to ignore the numbers AND expansion. So, how else can one show you growth?