Does UFC need a change in thinking?

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Does UFC need a change in thinking?
dstlvb
2/10/07 4:33:36PM
Everything i have read from Dana and others with the UFC is that they want to get to a point of weekly fights, like boxing had. At this point in time i dont think they have the fighters to pull this off. One of the main reasons for this is there policy of cutting guys lose who lose a couple in a row. I think for the UFC to get to where they want to be they need to fill out there mid-ranks. You need fighters who ar more or less gatekeepers to the title. A fighter who might not ever win the title but puts on great fights. Guys like Karo. When someone tells me Deigo beat Karo that tells me something. I know that when you beat Karo you have done something. Even though his last fight was less than stellar i think it was a mistake to let David Luassio go. You have to work to beat a guy like that. On the other end of the spectrum the UFC keeps Joe Riggs around. I know he is incredibly gifted but he is usually on the end of a Quick Submission in his fights. You tell me that a up and commer beat him that means nothing to me. UFC needs guys that dont get KOed quick or are victims of repeated quick subs.
jocksmall
2/10/07 6:34:37PM
it is the business of the s.port that turns you off. there are contract disputes we know nothing about. it is becoming a sport like football where the money is so big that every decision you make doesnt help you win it just makes someone money( the player or team). some fail to realize if you give the best possible product you will win. i think that dana doesnt think that the best possible show is best for the ufc. he likes to position fighters and save guys protect others. i believe you should put on the best shows with the best match ups and you will make more money so the pay will increase which will draw even more talent.
hathcock32
2/10/07 7:45:25PM
dana White is god!!!!
Trapt1nw0nder
2/10/07 7:51:32PM

Posted by hathcock32

dana White is god!!!!



he really is..
BabbyHughes
2/11/07 2:00:49PM

Posted by jocksmall

it is the business of the s.port that turns you off. there are contract disputes we know nothing about. it is becoming a sport like football where the money is so big that every decision you make doesnt help you win it just makes someone money( the player or team). some fail to realize if you give the best possible product you will win. i think that dana doesnt think that the best possible show is best for the ufc. he likes to position fighters and save guys protect others. i believe you should put on the best shows with the best match ups and you will make more money so the pay will increase which will draw even more talent.



I disagree, I think that Dana White is trying to make big fights happen. I know he protects fighters sometimes, but I think it is part of his job, because he is supposed to build fights up as much as he can.

Most people complain about Dana not trying to negotiate with Pride, but he has numerous times and things didn't work out. I dont know everything that happened in every conversation that Pride has with Dana, but I do remember when the UFC sent Rico Rodriguez over to fight big Nog and LIddell over to fight Rampage. While Pride fighters didn't end up coming over to the UFC.

So I think Dana is actually trying to make big fights. I just hope everything doesn't turn into money, money, money in the future between promotions.
Spud
2/11/07 7:44:43PM

Posted by dstlvb

Everything i have read from Dana and others with the UFC is that they want to get to a point of weekly fights, like boxing had. At this point in time i dont think they have the fighters to pull this off. One of the main reasons for this is there policy of cutting guys lose who lose a couple in a row. I think for the UFC to get to where they want to be they need to fill out there mid-ranks. You need fighters who ar more or less gatekeepers to the title. A fighter who might not ever win the title but puts on great fights. Guys like Karo. When someone tells me Deigo beat Karo that tells me something. I know that when you beat Karo you have done something. Even though his last fight was less than stellar i think it was a mistake to let David Luassio go. You have to work to beat a guy like that. On the other end of the spectrum the UFC keeps Joe Riggs around. I know he is incredibly gifted but he is usually on the end of a Quick Submission in his fights. You tell me that a up and commer beat him that means nothing to me. UFC needs guys that dont get KOed quick or are victims of repeated quick subs.



actually, this is something I've been thinking on, myself as of, recently.

I could go on forever on this topic but, in a nutshell, I'd agree with your points made.
hippysmacker
2/12/07 4:15:45AM
I think the UFC and MMA in general is growing at such a rapid rate that weekly fight's would work. It would work even better if only 1 or 2 at most were PPV's and the rest on free TV. It's also one of the reason's I thinkthe UFC should start a featherweight division.
crimethinc
2/12/07 4:42:41AM
We are at the point now where there is weekly MMA. Not necessarily weekly UFC, but weekly MMA to say the least. It was less then five years ago where the only MMA broadcasts were PPVs and those weren't even monthly. The UFC, the overwhelming leader in American MMA, has been around since 1993 and we are coming up on PPV number 68. And up until recently, there were no Ultimate Fight Nights and there were no Ultimate Fighter competitions. Now almost any day of the week you can catch UFC, Pride, IFL, WEC, EliteXC, etc. events live or in syndication.

I compare the rise of MMA to the rise of Professional Poker. There was a time where you couldn't pay most people to watch 10 guys sit at a table and play cards for 3 hours. But in 2005, I couldn't flip through the channels without coming across 3 different poker games on 3 different networks and they did actually have poker PPV events. I know MMA is a lot more exciting and has a lot more lasting appeal but eventually the casual fans, who currently make up the majority of PPV sales most likely, will burn out. If UFC goes weekly it will only speed up the process. The original die hard fans will stay with it and probably a large number of new found fans will as well. But, eventually something new will sweep the nation and the bandwagon will be abandoned.

I don't fault any of the workings of Dana White and Zuffa. They took a sport that used to banned in 38 states and took it mainstream. So if he thinks broadcasting new weekly MMA events is possible and manageable then he's right. He definitely knows how to market this sport better then anyone on the planet right now. So while I would enjoy weekly MMA broadcasts, primarily FREE MMA broadcasts, I fear it would have a negative effect on the mainstay of the sport. But no one can dictate the future and I guess time will tell.
hippysmacker
2/12/07 5:09:00AM

Posted by crimethinc

We are at the point now where there is weekly MMA. Not necessarily weekly UFC, but weekly MMA to say the least. It was less then five years ago where the only MMA broadcasts were PPVs and those weren't even monthly. The UFC, the overwhelming leader in American MMA, has been around since 1993 and we are coming up on PPV number 68. And up until recently, there were no Ultimate Fight Nights and there were no Ultimate Fighter competitions. Now almost any day of the week you can catch UFC, Pride, IFL, WEC, EliteXC, etc. events live or in syndication.

I compare the rise of MMA to the rise of Professional Poker. There was a time where you couldn't pay most people to watch 10 guys sit at a table and play cards for 3 hours. But in 2005, I couldn't flip through the channels without coming across 3 different poker games on 3 different networks and they did actually have poker PPV events. I know MMA is a lot more exciting and has a lot more lasting appeal but eventually the casual fans, who currently make up the majority of PPV sales most likely, will burn out. If UFC goes weekly it will only speed up the process. The original die hard fans will stay with it and probably a large number of new found fans will as well. But, eventually something new will sweep the nation and the bandwagon will be abandoned.

I don't fault any of the workings of Dana White and Zuffa. They took a sport that used to banned in 38 states and took it mainstream. So if he thinks broadcasting new weekly MMA events is possible and manageable then he's right. He definitely knows how to market this sport better then anyone on the planet right now. So while I would enjoy weekly MMA broadcasts, primarily FREE MMA broadcasts, I fear it would have a negative effect on the mainstay of the sport. But no one can dictate the future and I guess time will tell.



Good post, but since football , baseball etc. have continued to grow i do think it's possible. The only difference is the regional aspect( which the IFl is trying) and the lack of an overall sanctioning body and title's. If the top guys don't have to fight each other under unified rules it's possible MMA could go the way of boxing. At least that's my fear. Without some sort of unifacation corruption could become commonplace, as people try to protect and promote just their own fighter's. In boxing Org's have fallen under the sway of a Don King type( WBC) , who's main goal is his own money, and who has strippped people of belts who aren't in his stable.I think some sort of universal governing body is the only way the MMA will surpass boxing at it's height. It's ahead of boxing now, but in it's heyday the second Tyson/Holyfeild did about 2 million PPV buys. That doesn't count how many people watched it on close -circuit or in groups.
strikefirstgear
2/12/07 11:44:17AM

Posted by hippysmacker


Posted by crimethinc

We are at the point now where there is weekly MMA. Not necessarily weekly UFC, but weekly MMA to say the least. It was less then five years ago where the only MMA broadcasts were PPVs and those weren't even monthly. The UFC, the overwhelming leader in American MMA, has been around since 1993 and we are coming up on PPV number 68. And up until recently, there were no Ultimate Fight Nights and there were no Ultimate Fighter competitions. Now almost any day of the week you can catch UFC, Pride, IFL, WEC, EliteXC, etc. events live or in syndication.

I compare the rise of MMA to the rise of Professional Poker. There was a time where you couldn't pay most people to watch 10 guys sit at a table and play cards for 3 hours. But in 2005, I couldn't flip through the channels without coming across 3 different poker games on 3 different networks and they did actually have poker PPV events. I know MMA is a lot more exciting and has a lot more lasting appeal but eventually the casual fans, who currently make up the majority of PPV sales most likely, will burn out. If UFC goes weekly it will only speed up the process. The original die hard fans will stay with it and probably a large number of new found fans will as well. But, eventually something new will sweep the nation and the bandwagon will be abandoned.

I don't fault any of the workings of Dana White and Zuffa. They took a sport that used to banned in 38 states and took it mainstream. So if he thinks broadcasting new weekly MMA events is possible and manageable then he's right. He definitely knows how to market this sport better then anyone on the planet right now. So while I would enjoy weekly MMA broadcasts, primarily FREE MMA broadcasts, I fear it would have a negative effect on the mainstay of the sport. But no one can dictate the future and I guess time will tell.



Good post, but since football , baseball etc. have continued to grow i do think it's possible. The only difference is the regional aspect( which the IFl is trying) and the lack of an overall sanctioning body and title's. If the top guys don't have to fight each other under unified rules it's possible MMA could go the way of boxing. At least that's my fear. Without some sort of unifacation corruption could become commonplace, as people try to protect and promote just their own fighter's. In boxing Org's have fallen under the sway of a Don King type( WBC) , who's main goal is his own money, and who has strippped people of belts who aren't in his stable.I think some sort of universal governing body is the only way the MMA will surpass boxing at it's height. It's ahead of boxing now, but in it's heyday the second Tyson/Holyfeild did about 2 million PPV buys. That doesn't count how many people watched it on close -circuit or in groups.



If anyone is in the position to do this it is Dana and the UFC. The other organizations like NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR, MLB and the PGA (some of the most watched sports organizations) are privately owned companies that set the standard so consistently that they became the standard. Now there really isn't any competition for them (and that is a good thing) which makes them feel like institutions. Fans seem to like a standardized and regulated governing body in charge of a sport. I think in order for MMA to surpass boxing and maintain the same level of legitimacy that the other sports have, an organization like the UFC has to become the main game. With one set of titles, rules and weight classes we have a chance to see everyone we want to see fight.

I certainly don't want to see MMA end up like boxing or poker.
dstlvb
2/12/07 3:42:50PM
I think some mistook what i said. I do not fault dana for what he has done. He has done a great job. My point was only that The UFC seems to have the top contenders and the up and commers and little else. It is getting better though. I use Pride as an example that during there American broadcast they made a point of saying that a fighters overall record is not the only factor in whether they stay with the company. How well the fighter did in a losing effort will alos be considered. The UFC on the other hand seems like they lean more towrds a guys record. Before seeing David Laissos last fight i thought the UFC made a mistake in letting him go. Seeing his last bad performance maybe they knew something i dont( most likely).

The UFC doesnt have many guys that can be used as benchmarks for there fighters. You have to have those second teir fighters to be succesful. I like Heath Herring coming to the UFC. Even if he never wins the title he is a good measure for fighters( hoping his last fight was a one time aboration). Since Dana has stated more than once that he would like weekly fights i belive the one thing standing in there way may be this attitude.

crimethinc
2/13/07 4:16:23AM
I think the biggest staying factor is there performance within the octagon. If a 10-0 fighter signs a three fight deal with the UFC and loses two of those three fights, it probably won't take a lot of debate to send his paycheck to the next up and comer. Even if his record is a still impressive 11-2 his performance in the UFC is what the UFC remembers. Right now with the huge popularity of the sport drawing a lot of casual fans we have to remember that the majority of UFC fans right now aren't Pride fans, they aren't IFL fans, they aren't even really MMA fans, they are UFC fans and these people won't order the PPVs or buy tickets to see fighters that they've only seen do poorly.

Most of the UFC viewers would watch a three round war that ends in a split decision and think it was lame. I believe that's why it's so hard to gain momentum for the lighter weight classes. People want bombs to end the fight before the 2nd round. So If a fighter shows huge heart and stands toe to toe with the best strikers or rolls three rounds with the best ground guys but doesn't finish the fight do you think the general public is going to be mentioning his name at the watercooler? Look at all the flack Rashad Evans was getting early on about not finishing his fights before decision. Now people can't stop talking about him and his amazing KO.

So in summation, it pretty much goes like this. Dana slides you a multi-fight contract and that's your shot. How ever many fights you're offered, that's your proving ground. It's quite literally a "go big or go home" deal.
Related Topics