MMAPlayground.com

Forum Index > Community > MMA News Share Forum
Liddell Goes Down; UFC With Him?   [View Full Version]
zephead » Posted 1/16/07 5:32:00PM

This was the time for the UFC to breakthrough. It's most marketable star, Chuck "The Iceman" Liddell, had his Light Heavyweight belt on the line in one of the most hyped UFC events of all time.




LINK

_______________________________________
"To me the records were just a starting point," recalls John Paul Jones, "The most important thing was always the stage show. So many great nights. At our worst we were still better than most. At our best we could just wipe the floor with the lot of them. It was just a very good live band."

Aether » Posted 4/26/07 1:42:00AM

That was a pretty strange article... I don't see how you can possibly believe that chuck liddell is carrying the UFC. How often does one fighter really fight? Are we seeing massive PPV differences between cards sporting Liddell and other cards? People need to get over all of this crap, it's an exciting sport with tons of olympic medalists, world champions in respective disciplines, and just all around world-class athletes. It's steadily gaining popularity as a result of all of these factors and will continue to do so exponentially over the next couple of years. Liddell didn't carry the UFC anywhere, although I'm sure his long string of knockouts helped their cause, and it sure as hell isn't about to slow down because he lost a fight.

Maybe if these people knew that the UFC wasn't the only MMA organization on the face of the earth they wouldn't be so surprised by everything that's been going on recently.

Rampage??? what?? I don't remember him from TUF... he must be bad!!!! lolol.

Vietnamese_Guy » Posted 1/24/07 3:17:00PM

did anyone think that the UFC would make MORE money chronicling liddel's rise to top contention again?

or maybe they could use him to make way for some new blood? I.E. MAURICIO RUAS

Vietnamese_Guy » Posted 1/24/07 3:17:00PM

i just read the article, i'm confused about the title in relation to the article...

is he arguing opposite to the title or what?



[View Full Version of this Page]