Ultimate Fighting coverage

Well, I'd call that a step in the right direction. I'm beginning to think we'll have to settle this in the cage.

 

Yeah, but I came in thinking UFC was a joke. Now I'm not so sure.

 

I'll admit this. Part of what bothers me about UFC is that it has a unique following. In other words, your typical sports fan likes the big three and then maybe a little hockey and some heavyweight boxing. Of course, I'm generalizing somewhat. But that's how I see it. But some of the people I know who enjoy UFC might only have a glancing interest in one of the big sports, if any at all. So I'm under the impression that they like UFC because it's almost like the anti-sport. I recall guys in high school who liked pro wrestling. Almost without waver, they all hated baseball, football and basketball. So I suppose I've always seen UFC as anything but a sport because it grew out of being an alternative to mainstream sports. For me, though, the bottom line is that too few people care enough for UFC for it to be anything more than an agate thing. Of course, if you have a local angle, that's great. But I'm not even sure that belongs on the sports page.

 

But maybe that unique following is what gets new readers to your section. I'm sure that would be something you cannot possible argue against. I could be wrong.

 

There are two reasons why newspapers aren't covering it. Space and Resources.

Where are they going to put it? And who's going to cover it?

Whether you think the sports is barbaric or not, people definitely want to read about it.

It's a perfect example of how staff and space cuts are only worsening the industry's ability to be successful. If you added space and staff for coverage of this, think of all the new readers that would be attracted to the newspaper, not to mention the advertisers (supplement companies, GNC, Spike TV, etc.)

 

I think I've figured out what bothers me about this. And this is not to bash, WSKY; yours is not a bad point.

But I really believe, in our zeal to keep "newspapers from dying," we would sacrifice 200 old readers to get 15 new ones. And if we insist on changing the rules too much, that's just what we're going to do.

"Because that's the way we always done it"? Sometimes, it has merit.

 

I'll say this ...
Whether or not the UFC is a legit sport
and whether or not newspapers should devote resources and space to it are two entirely different questions.
The first one, I feel, cannot be argued.
The second, however, is an entirely different matter.
I would agree that, as it stands now, unless you have a dog in the fight or are a Vegas paper, it's hard to justify sacrificing coverage. They suffer from the same problems boxing does -- you can't half-cover it, because then your readers aren't going to have any idea who these guys are, and the deadlines aren't newspaper friendly. And it gets much more complete coverage on the net. Why run the results on Monday morning of something that happened Saturday night, when the people that care about the sport already know what happened?

 

The question as to whether MMA is a sport is ridiculous. If you consider boxing a sport, there's no vaguely valid argument to say that this isn't a sport. Just because boxing has had better movies doesn't make it more of a sport.

Is it a new white-trash sport? The ancient Greek Olympics had a sport called "pankration", which was basically the same as UFC, even down to the rules against gouging and biting. So, if 2.650 years is a "new" sport for you, I'd hate to see what kind of coverage you give basketball.

Do you cover it? I suspect the "right" answer is to cover it like you cover any other niche sport. Boxing would be the obvious analogy. If UFC ran a show in your town, or a hometown guy was fighting in the main event, maybe you do a feature and a short game story. If a local group has a show, cover it (or not) like you would cover a local club boxing show.

 

That's a throwaway argument. The ancient Greeks showed as much propensity toward white trashiness as later cultures.

 

What part of "new" is confusing you?

 

No, XGames would be the obvious analogy, for the reasons you stated. Most major papers have boxing columnists and analysts, and discussion and coverage of the sport dates back decades. I wouldn't describe it as niche as far as the amount of coverage it merits and receives.

UFC is a new sport, especially as far as newspapers are concerned. Wow, the ancient Greeks had something similar. In its current incarnation, UFC is still pretty new. People are still figuring out just what it merits. Unfortunately, it has yet to really make inroads from the coasts as far as holding major events, and lacks the national following that would merit weekly updates in the newspaper.

Now, on the Web is a different story. Plenty of space there. And I know it gets a lot of hits on newspaper Web sites (whatever that means in this day and age, when we are long past thinking hits mean anything tangible). But I'm not sure how much pertinent news there is out there, stuff that's fit to run every week.

I would take shotglass' point further, and wonder if its necessary to bend over backwards to cover something like this to try to bring in readers, when A. those readers don't help the paper's bottom line, since they're Web kids, and B. would find the more passionate, more interested, more informed writers at the various Web sites that cover this stuff more to their liking.

 

You're right, but maybe the old readers will like it, too. Anyway, I think there are many pros and cons to this whole UFC deal, and I'm sure if it continues to gain steam, it might rid some of the stereotypes.