So Why’d ESPN Ignore the UFC All Weekend?
ESPN, MMA, UFC July 7th. 2008, 5:30pm
Couple of readers wrote in wondering why the mighty WWL elected to pay very little mind to Rampage Jackson’s UFC loss to Forrest Griffin over the weekend (it was a title fight). These readers wondered why, about a year ago, ESPN the Magazine plastered UFC’s Chuck Liddell on the cover (and his weigh-in was aired on ESPNews, maybe?), and relentlessly pushed him on the .com. These readers wondered why, a month or so ago, this same fawning ESPN treatment was heaped upon Kimbo Slice, a MMA fighter who toils in Elite XC.
Is it a “star” thing? Are the stodgy, old school corner offices in Bristol still not sold on the sport? Or did MMA simply fall victim to a Red Sox-Yankees weekend that also included allegations that A-Rod has been cheating on his wife with Madonna, a significant MLB trade and an epic tennis match?
Perhaps. Or is it simply that Dana White didn’t want to play ball with ESPN last year, and when the two couldn’t reach a partnership, sports fans – that’s you guys – get stuck with Spelling Bees and Hot Dog Eating contests and MMA is relegated to the ‘other sports tab’ on the front page of ESPN’s website. This must be how hockey fans feel.
82 Responses to “So Why’d ESPN Ignore the UFC All Weekend?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Or did MMA simply fall victim to a Red Sox-Yankees weekend that also included allegations that A-Rod has been cheating on his wife with Madonna, a significant MLB trade and an epic tennis match?
Considering two of those things happened after the MMA fight I would have to say no.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
ESPN does a poor-ass job covering MMA. They do not take the sport seriously. Fox Sports takes it seriously, so does NBC, CBS, even Yahoo Sports.
I never go to ESPN for MMA coverage.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Another note: They go to Joe Rogan to break down events. Joe freakin Rogan!
That’s a red flag right there. ESPN doesn’t take MMA seriously!
July 7th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I want ESPN to cover the story of your server, because I care about it more than MMA, and I feel like it’s the only way you’re going to upgrade. I was lost all day, man.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Isn’t Rogan a commentator for UFC? Why would it be unbelievable to get insight from him?
July 7th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
This whole server mess deserves its own post.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
They can do better than Rogan.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
So Why’d ESPN Ignore the UFC All Weekend?
No idea, but I support this pattern continuing.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
For once, I’m on ESPN’s side here. The old AWA matches they’ve been showing on Classic are more watchable than MMA.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
That must mean I’m in the minority! Que sorpresa!
July 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
just heard on cnbc that the Steelers may go up for sale as the family can’t decide who’s in charge.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Because nobody gives a crap about UFC, except CRM.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Because on a 3-day holiday weekend, the number of drunks who were going to tune in was low? Even if it was free at Hooters?
July 7th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
If it isn’t Yankees, Red Sox or Patriots, ESPN has no interest.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
and this is why ESPN loses more 18-34 year old’s eyeballs, and interests.. UFC is the fastest growing sport of the world and its more popular than ever with young people.. ESPN needs to change the way they operate soon, because they look pretty damn clue less
July 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
The weekend before last, ESPN only mentioned the Pacquiao-Diaz fight at the end of the show (when the music was playing). Not a single video montage or photo — just “Manny Pacquiao defeats David Diaz.” How can you do that for the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world?
July 7th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Joey Chesnut > Forrest Griffin
July 7th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Some true, some false.
ESPN did not do a great job of hyping UFC 86. I’m not sure why. They did have an article or two about the fight on scrolling story thing just below the Main headline.
ESPN also does a internet show called “MMA Live” which “airs” every Thursday night. It’s not a bad show either, and they cover all the MMA leagues, not just UFC. Kenny Florian, a UFC lightweight, is one of the analyst.
Maybe they haven’t figured out how to market it yet because they have no TV rights to any league. The UFC also has really tight rules/regs about their highlights being re-air on non-UFC channels (like HD Net’s MMA show with Bas Ruten).
And CRM is not the only one who cares about MMA. Its CRM, cortes and I.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
@RocketsFAN3035
Ahem, me too
July 7th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Count me in as someone who cares about MMA. And ESPNNews did a decent job of covering it that night and the next day. Notice the WWL put it on probably the least-watched channel of thiers, though.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
and Oh No Romo, and RDT4
/sorry for not including you all sooner.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
It’s cool man
July 7th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Not a problem. Wonder why Chuck makes such a better poster boy than Forrest or Rampage? Both are much funnier, imo, than Liddell. And Forrest has now come full circle, having brought the UFC into the mainstream (well, as much as it is, anyway) with TUF One. That should be a good enough story for ESPN.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Remember: there was a time when ESPN/ABC wouldn’t allow any mention of MMA at all on anything it owned, to the point where they once edited a Bill Simmons chat to remove a reference to UFC. That past history doesn’t excuse the poor coverage, but it sure beats pretending MMA doesn’t exist.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Because nobody gives a crap about UFC, except CRM.
Perhaps Mike from NYC feels this way b/c the New York State Athletic Commission has yet to sanction the events. I’m not even going to address your point with buy rates, merchandizing numbers, attendance totals or enrollment in “MMA” gyms in 2008, I’ll just instead tell you flatly that you’re wrong that “Nobody gives a crap about MMA.”
ESPN missed the ball indeed this week, and it’s inexplicable given their growing coverage over the last year and a half. They don’t cover the NBA finals any less when it’s Detroit/San Antonio as opposed to Boston/ Cleveland, so I’m not sure that star power is the end-all here. Something must have happened here and I’m hoping you’re embedded sources will reveal the details.
Still not sure why Rampage doesn’t have star power, but Chuck does. Rampage is a far more entertaining interview and has some nasty fight endings, (Arona anyone??).
With Anderson Silva jumping a weight class, there’s all the makings of a Silva/Liddel right (now that Rampage lost the belt), and that one would be enormous, even though Siva’s English is as good as Liddel’s Portugese.
Sorry to be so hard on Mike from NYC, I could care less if you’re not into MMA, just don’t dismiss it b/c you don’t like it!
July 7th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Freudian slip.. I meant Boston/LA
July 7th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Is it because of all of the bad press MMA got when it was showed on CBS? I think ESPN still view it as a niche sport, and a violent one as well. If EliteXC made the jump to big time after it’s brush with the mainstream audience, then UFC 86 would have gotten more coverage. But it dropped the ball(Kimbo esp.), and now MMA has to climb back up all over again.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
No, it’s because MMA is a fringe sport, whether it is on the rise or not. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but you can’t cry foul when the world’s biggest sports media doesn’t give it your desired level of coverage. It’s not popular enough and really, never will be.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Mike, you might be right about “fringe” but on those paramters, wouldn’t ESPN only cover basketball, football and baseball, and NOTHING else? They used to cover boxing and now MMA is unquestionably bigger.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
And I’d be careful about saying it “never will be.” UFC is wisely holding some of their PPV’s overseas, the now defunct Pride organization was gigantic in Japan – MMA is truly a world sport. And it’s continuing to blow up in the states. (And not in the way that soccer is supposedly growing, which it’s been allegedly doing for 15 years in the USA, when ratings say otherwise).
MMA is relatively new to this country and it’s got the 18-35 on lockdown. No reason to believe those people are going to abandon the sport anytime soon.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Honestly, I don’t really care either way. But my guess is that MMA is behind all of these sports in catching ESPN’s eye:
1. NFL
2. MLB
3. NBA
4. CFB
5. CBB
6. Tennis
7. Golf
8. NASCAR
9. NHL
10. Soccer
So it’s outside of the Top 10, at least from where I’m looking at it. Do you have any links to TV ratings, relative to other sports? Can’t seem to find any.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Mike, keep in mind that ALL corporations are looking for that coveted 18-34 demo (they draw the most advertisers). Your list then would be arranged thusly:
Keep the top 6, although after the NFL, the order is up for debate, but #7 is MMA.
It’s what poker was in 2005, but with more staying power.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
1. NFL
2. MLB
3. NBA
4. CFB
5. CBB
6. Tennis
7. Golf
8. NASCAR
9. NHL
10. Soccer
where’s the WNBA? Don’t they have next?
July 7th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Off topic, but thought you guys would enjoy this. I’m doing a fantasy draft on Yahoo. I have the 4th pick.
1st pick – Tomlinson
2nd pick – AP
So I’m sitting here thinking to myself, I have either Westbrook or Addai.
And with the 3rd pick in Mozatta’s NFL Fantasy Draft, some dude named VCRyder selects…….
Jeremy F’n Shockey! I shook my head a few times. Turned my monitor off, then on again. Jeremy frickin Shockey with the 3rd pick. The rest of the participants flood the message screen with an obscene amounts of “what the f?”
Dude was completely serious. It wasn’t an auto draft, he made the rest of his picks, dude was a friend of a friend, so it wasn’t some schmuck who knew nothing about football.
Never have I made a selection quicker than I did at that moment. Picked Westbrook up and continued on.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Golf with Tiger way ahead of tennis. Golf without Tiger somewhere between soccer and paintball.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
just one guy, but i’d be skittish about Addai. Marvin Harrison situation could have an impact …
July 7th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Since when have I liked the UFC?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Harrison was out most of last year and Addai still had a great season. That being said I’ll take Peterson before I’ll take Addai.
1. LT
2. WestBrook
3. Peterson
4. Marion Barber
5. Addai/Steven Jackson
July 7th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Mike NYC – if I followed your reasoning to a conclusion then soccer, because it is ingnored by the #1 media, is a fringe sport. Is that your view?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
i spot started Adam Eaton tonight. Mother Fer …
Talk about a terrible start to a week. And I just drilled the 2nd place team 8-2. SOB!!!
At least David Wright hit a slam and McClouth homered. Of course, my opponent had Torii Hunter ..
July 7th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
In America, it’s a fringe sport. Last I checked, ESPN covered (mostly) American sports. And ESPN is one of the subjects of this post.
So what, again, is the point you’re trying to make?
July 7th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Is it really a “fringe” sport? Last time I checked, CBS, albeit douchey, covered MMA.
Off topic, what do yall think of Cliff Lee? Do you think he will win 20 games? I need to dump him in FBB.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
As far as the ranking of sports, I’m not sure how we can compare different sports and their events, but I will do my best with some random information.
The “Ultimate Fighter” (UFC’s reality show), has topped the MLB on ESPN in 18-34. That’s not even a major fight or a title fight, that’s a reality show with essentially minor league fighters.
In fact, UFC Fight Night in October of 06 (Shamrock/Tito), beat out the MLB Playoffs by 500,000 viewers in the 18-34 (see link).
Now, I was suprised to see Wimbledon get a 12 share (insane) for the Feder/Nadal Match at it’s peak. The Kimbo fight on CBS got 6.3 million at it’s peak, although the share numbers weren’t available for the Kimbo fight b/c it was after peak hours, but it got roughly a 7 share. Now had it have been Liddell or Tito on CBS, it would have outdrawn that bigtime. (Keep in mind, the event was on a Saturday night, and people are out on Saturdays, and they don’t through Wimbledon parties like they through UFC viewing parties, which dilute the ratings.
Now, tough to compare one baseball game with one UFC event, considering there are many baseball teams. But you can clearly see with those numbers, despite mitigating factors, that UFC and MMA as a whole has tons of reason to be optimistic.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Regardless of what I think of MMA, ESPN is going to cover it to the extent that the popularity of the sport dictates. At present, it is a relative blip on the sports radar. I’m not sure the order is exactly right (I’m thinking NASCAR rates higher–though this is also not one of my personal favorites), but MikeNYC has done a fair job of capturing the top 10. MMA is certainly not a top 5 sport–and most likely not in the top 10 either.
As a hockey fan, I’m also frustrated that ESPN gives short shrift to the NHL. This is a legitimate sport, played by world class athletes, and enjoyed with some level of popularity on 3 continents–and yet, even the Stanley Cup playoffs are somewhat invisible. Forget about seeing regular season NHL highlights during the first 20 minutes of Sportscenter. Still, I realize that the NHL is well behind the NFL, MLB, NBA, and college football and basketball in terms of overall popularity and, hence, the relative lack of airtime.
We shall see what becomes of MMA in the coming months and years. Personally, I think it’s taking viewers from a current (and very possibly permanent) downturn in boxing and “pro” wrestling interest. If an increasing # of people tune in, it will show up on ESPN in some form. The boys in Bristol are all about $, and will not pass up the opportunity to get on board with MMA if there is any merit to doing so.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Good points Cursed. To elaborate, one reason I like MMA is because sports bars carry it, giving me a reason to leave the fiance at home and go watch it with my friends. There are atleast 100 people watching this at bars that wouldnt otherwise be there.
(added bonus: everytime some roided bag gets liquored up and fights another bag after the main event. guaranteed. MMA should have the rights to those fights.)
July 7th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
The 412, I agreed with one thing, ESPN’s coverage of the Stanley Cup was embarrassing.
They can point to television ratings as an excuse, but is that necessarily the end all? To see Barry Melrose and Steve Levy essentially in front of a tarp which might or might not have been at the finals sight – and calling that “Live from the Stanley Cup,” was atrocious.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
By the way, MMA is blowing up right now and people don’t even know the fighters. That will be vastly different in 5 years, b/c people will have been following these guys up from the reality show and from just being more aware.
and I’m listening to this morning’s Opie and Anthony right now, and they led the show with the UFC talk… Norton and Bob Kelly were at the event. Just thought I would throw that in there.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Yes Cool Rick, Bars are taking notice, and they are having UFC nights, not NHL nights.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
That cracked me up.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Bars also have frozen t-shirt nights. Should ESPN be covering that as well?
/Yes.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Perhaps if somebody breaks out in the manner that Tyson did in the mid 80s we’ll have a level of interest to merit further coverage. If people don’t know who the hell is fighting you can’t expect a major sports newscast to give it the time of day.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
The 412, in principle I agree with you, but nobody knows who Anthony Kim is yet, and ESPN covered that tournament, even though Tiger wasn’t there.
All I’m saying is that people will know these fighters, and unlike boxing, people will know 50 or so fighters. In boxing,, people never knew more than 10 boxers at a time.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
cursed – Golfing always has and always will be covered due to the demographics. Even with Tiger out and a relative unknown at the top of the leaderboard, enough people will be interested–and, more importantly, the people that are tuned in for golf are precisely the demos the advertisers are after.
MMA may end up crushing boxing in the coming years. When I was a kid (sounding really, really old) I would tune in for Tyson, Holyfield, Leonard, etc. There is virtually no star power in today’s boxing. At least MMA has Kimbo Slice. I don’t think he’d last 30 seconds with Tyson in his prime, but at least he’s a name.
Does your station give MMA any coverage? And, if so, how much?
July 7th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Derivative rights for bags hurting one another? I wonder what the complaint for damages would look like.
MMA
v.
Two Drunk Brawling Bags
On July 5th, 2008 two aforementioned bags engaged in a roid raged battle following the viewing of an MMA fight. Such a fight was a violation of MMA’s property rights. MMA owns all rights to douchebag fights. Period.
Respectfully Submited,
Carl Lazlo
July 7th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
By the way, you don’t have to call me The 412. I’ll allow just 412. That’s just how I roll.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
mma has been the next big thing for a few years now it seems, just like soccer is always going to catch on.
dont care for it, much prefer boxing. i enjoy watching people beat the christ out of each other standing up
July 7th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
412, tough for us to cover the events b/c they’re going on during the news and they are not generous with their rights (which is understandable given pay per view..).
I’ve done some stories with local MMA fighters, but I’m not trying to shove it down our viewers throats (like I am here on this thread!). I’ve shown the occasional free fight on Spike b/c it’s free TV.
When Anderson Silva fights in two weeks, I’ll show it. He’s arguably the best pound for pound fighter in the world. If Boxing had some free fights that were big, I’d show it.
Our station is considering showing a local small-time event. We’re still trying to gauge the interest level. (We’re in a really, really small market).
July 7th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Then watch Saturday Night’s main event with Rampage and Forrest. You won’t be disappointed.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
saturday is canasta night
in middle school back in the mid nineties we used to watch the old school UFC videos, i enjoyed those. but to me it seems a lot different now for some reason. maybe because there is no longer the ‘dangerous’ vibe to it.
if im flipping channels and come across boxing ill stop and watch to see if its a good fight. i wont stop for mma anymore, i just dont like most of it. i tried watching the cbs thing, there was just no fighting. all crap and buildup. one of the things i love about boxing is when there are undercards and theyre lower weight divisions there is rarely a knockout, so youre usually guaranteed a good amount of actual action
July 7th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
cursed – One other thing that probably plays no small role in ESPN not covering MMA to any great extent: it’s ugly and violent. I think some people may choose to change the channel rather than subject themselves to the blood and guts that accompanies these events. If I’m a Sportscenter advertiser that is obviously not desirable.
Just my $0.02.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
not to say i dont think boxing is in great shape. the heavyweights are what draw the people, and due to the lack of a real superstar and the horrific belt divisions, thats going to be a soft area for a while. but i think the lower weight classes are doing very well, there is a ton of talent in those divisions.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
that was supposed to be ‘not to say i think boxing is in great shape’
opposite day!
July 7th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Cursed- near T-Town? My trainer has an MMA team (sounds really gay).
July 7th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
does watching ‘invincible’ make him want to do pushups?
July 7th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
412, I’m not sure about that. I’ve wavered in both directions. When people are letting out from the bars and see a street fight, they don’t run away, they all gather and watch. (At least I don’t think that’s unique to OSU).
Mole, the early UFC days were something else. Bare knuckles, with guys having no ideas about martial arts (hence the 160 pound Royce Gracie mopping up on all the brawlers). John Mccain was the best thing to happen to it’s exposure though. When he regulated it, that’s when it started going mainstream. Then ESPN started covering it a year and half ago.. and boom, here we are.
I don’t watch it anymore for the badass knockouts, I watch it b/c I follow the fighters and I actually know what’s going on and I’m intrigued by the matchups. Although those watching Kimbo, were probably watching for the knockout (and they got a ruptured ear..either way, everyone wins!).
July 7th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
+1 moleman – I’m kind of stingy with the pluses, but I have to applaud that one!
July 7th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
mole- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaysMLcvuyM&feature=related
a little sabotage
//dupont still cant control me (although they probably have some sort of my home access)
July 7th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
what i really liked what K-1, that stuff was the shit. im not really watching because i care about the fighters or their backstory (filipović being the exception, modern renaissance man), i want to see ass beatings. when stuff goes to the ground, i dont care for that at all. if most of these guys were standing up the whole time fighting, i would definitely watch that because undeniably there are some great fighters there.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Moleman- dont we all have that boss, that enemy, that douchebag, that we would pin and drop massive bombs on? I dont want to get all Hunter S. Thompson, but a certain part of us lives vicariously through the pinning and haymakers. You are all liars if you deny it.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
thats what macho man’s flying elbow drop is for my friend
July 7th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
The artistry and discipline that goes along with the badass knockouts is why I enjoy watching MMA. Until you’ve seen mixed martial artists train in person, you can’t truly appreciate how much discipline is involved (my brother is a small-time fighter). Jujitsu is awesome to watch.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am
yep. dont care.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Boxing has always been a sport driven by names and personalities(Sugar Ray Robinson, Ali, Leonard, etc.) MMA tried to capitalize on this with Kimbo Slice and Chuck Liddell. They both failed in different ways. Chuck lost to a relative nobody(Jackson). Kimbo was DOMINATED by a tomato can(Big ear guy). The only other name people know is Tito Ortiz and he’s past his prime.
What the MMA really need to do is merge the two main organizations( UFC and EliteXC) into one. Budget a straight to dvd movie used to show the different styles of fighting(think bloodsport). Make one last media(internet) blitz with Gina Carano(sex symbol, good fighter, wants to be a celeb), Kimbo(has the look you want), Jackson(great peronality and a great fighter), Tyson(don’t laugh, his name still draws more interest than anyone in MMA), while it’s still fresh in the mainstream eyes. The videogame coming out will grab younger fans, but you’re still one last strike away from either being “the new boxing” or “you actually watch that?”
July 8th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Mak, Elite XC is on the verge of bankruptcy. So that merging won’t be happening anytime soon. You say that Chuck’s loss was a “failure.” But what about that failed. UFC’s ratings didn’t go out the window after that. Chuck got his assed killed by Rampage in Pride 5 years ago, so it was nothing new. Now that MMA has gotten big across the country and kids are enrolling in jiu jitso and Muy Thai schools, better and better athletes are getting involved. So the fighters are only getting better.
Another interesting tidbit is that almost all of these fighters have college degrees b/c they’ve all wrestled in college. So they can all put sentences together than the average NBA player. I’m not sure if it even means anything, but it can’t hurt the marketing.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Also Mak, there will be a Tyson of MMA. I’m sure people thought another Nicklaus would ever come by in golf, and look what happened. Someone will come through MMA and dominate and have that wow factor.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:24 am
“I think some people may choose to change the channel rather than subject themselves to the blood and guts that accompanies these events.”
Is the violence really all that worse than Boxing, or dare I say, the NFL?
If ESPN had the rights, we’d probably get a “JAKKED UP” UFC show in no time.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Wasn’t CART on the edge of bankruptcy and it still merged with IRC. Same with ABA and NBA. Chuck Liddell’s loss was more of a failure now because of all the hype that led up to it. 5 years ago that hype didn’t exist.
I think Tyson or Mayweather, or any other boxer with a mainstream name will build interest. After the last two hyped events, that audience was left disappointed. And Cursed, you have to have a Nicklaus to begin with before you talk about replacing him. As it stands now, The MMA has no one fighter that fits tha mold, and they probably never will. It’s kind of a mixed bag because not knowing who will win is what really draws the hardcore fans to it. In boxing, you knew Tyson was going to win. When and how was the only reason to watch his fights. You actually have to re-train you audience into wanting the unexpected.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Good points there Mak, although one thing I think that is never talked about is that Tyson was fed a ton of cans. I loved watching the guy fight, and still would tomorrow if he fought..(let’s get him and kimbo in the ring!), but isn’t Tyson’s legacy just that he had unparalleled power and that he knocked out a bunch of bums early in fights?
July 8th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Tyson vs. Kimbo would be perfect. Kimbo isn’t ready for a real MMA fighter, and Tyson needs the money(and would lose badly). It would be all over the news programs. Back it up with the real fighters and you’ll have the PPV that will actually be talked about years later. You’ll still need to find a way to let the fans know when a fight goes to the mat, it’s not a rest hold. I really think MMA has a chance to be right up there with the NBA, MLB and every other top tier sport. Even if you hate to admit it, everyone loves to see someone get a beatdown.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Great idea except it would be a terrible representation of the sport. Can’t we just introduce people to BJ Penn and Anderson Silva and Urijah Faber instead? Good, skilled, always-exciting fighters that might make people stop and say “Wow, that was pretty impressive.”
July 8th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Your not going to see much mainstream hype until Liddell (if he wins) fights Forrest for the title. UFC in my opinion sort of dropped the ball in hyping the Griffin-Jackson fight.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:41 am
You see, I’m confused. ESPN did a lengthy bit covering the Hot Dog gross out contest on Friday, and that doesn’t bring in any money at all, and there is no way in hell anyone can argue that comp eating isn’t more of a “fringe sport” then MMA.
Two points…
1. EliteXC’s primetime event was a terrible representation of the sport. Kimbo is crap and it is unfortunate he is one of the “faces” of MMA. He is unskilled. CRM is right. If you want to be impressed and get into the sport, watch some BJ Penn, Silva and Faber fights. What they do is amazing.
2. I wonder if the lack of coverage has anything to do with brakdowns in talks with Zuffa and a TV deal. ESPN can be vindictive and if Dana is giving them shit to work with or they had a messy breakdown in negotiations, then it might all make sense, bc no coverage for a PPV athletic event with such calibre is not accepting for the WWL.
MMA is real and it will be a while. In the next year you will be seeing merchandise everywhere and kids wearing Iceman shirts to school with this new merch deal.