The IMPACT of Griffin-Bonnar. Is it really all that?

[Kingz]

I'm just asking. I'm not definitively coming in here and saying it's completely overrated but i don't feel the UFC wouldnt be where it is today if those two stunk it up, and i don't feel the fact that they tore the house down "saved" the UFC either. It may have given Zuffa their first moment in the sun, which is important, but i don't think it carried as much meaning as they say.


We know these guys put on a show and the rating peaked at over 3 million. Which is very impressive. They got some recognition the next day. As legend has it, Spike immediately wanted to sign UFC long term after that and the rest is history. However, i remember the ratings for TUF being already very strong for season 1 so i doubt had Griffin-Bonnar had just a stinker that it would have prevented the UFC from getting that deal. Keep in mind that the ratings for the event and that series even before it peaked at over 3 million were already very strong.

Why it always bugs me when people say "The UFC would not be where it is today without those two" is that their buyrates were still garbage and they werent our of the cave yet for the next year until...

..Tito Ortiz and Ken Shamrock had their huge "rivalry". Their second fight garnered huge mainstream attention, even as the co-main event it carried UFC 61 to a huge buyrate at the time. Then their third fight got just about the same amount of media attention and did over 5 million on cable which smashes TUF 1 finale even as Griffin-Bonnar were effectively "saving" the UFC. The UFC really took off from there.

TLDR: TS thinks while Griffin-Bonnar was a big moment for Zuffa that it's not the fight or moment that saved UFC, and it's definitely not at all responsible for where the UFC is today. The Ultimate Fighter series as whole(which was doing very well with or without the fight) and Tito/Shamrock II and III are much bigger than the Griffin-Bonnar fight.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I removed a line about the UFC HOF/Bonnar/Griffin and my stance on it because its not really what i made the post about...and i didnt want to spark another discussion about the legitimacy of UFC's HOF or if Bonnar belongs in any HOF.

 

[Free_MMAson]

It's a TUF call

 

[SpiderCrawl]

You weren't there man, you wouldn't know.

 

[Kingz]

You weren't there man, you wouldn't know.

Yes i was. I was there before as well. I recognize it was a very big moment, but you do understand that it's talked about as THE moment? Well, i'm not so sure...

 

[johnsq316]

Also, while a big moment. Not big enough for Griffin and Bonnar to be honored in any respectable HOF just for that.

Here's the flaw in your logic: on exactly what level would you say the UFC Hall of Fame is "a respectable Hall of Fame?"

Be prepared to compare and contrast it to any other hall of fame for any sport anywhere.

 

[DownwardStrike]

Being totally honest, this is what consolidated my love of the sport having been a long time K1 and boxing aficionado. UFC was shown on Bravo (rip) (free sat. tv in the uk), and TUF genuinely sealed the deal for me. I look back upon that time with much affection.
I was already a candidate for conversion, so I can see your point to an extent- many of my friends who watched the series are still exclusively boxing fans.
In MMA circles though, a seminal moment, even if the impact was exaggerated.

 

[trane]

You weren't there man, you wouldn't know.

Were you?

 

[Kingz]

Here's the flaw in your logic: on exactly what level would you say the UFC Hall of Fame is "a respectable Hall of Fame?"

Be prepared to compare and contrast it to any other hall of fame for any sport anywhere.

Not really where i wanted the discussion headed. That was just kind of a throw in and not meant to be the bottom line. This is more about if Griffin-Bonnar is really a fight that "put the UFC where it is today" or "saved the UFC". If that line is being used against the whole body of my post and it what sticks out most, i might remove the line since i had no intention for this to become another "should Bonnar be in the HOF simply because of that fight" discussion. I didnt feel adding it would matter to the rest of the post. I only added it in the TLDR portion.

I'm also not sure i understand your question. Do i feel the UFC has a respectable HOF? Not really.

By making this thread, I moreso wanted to talk about things that really DID put the UFC where it is today and compare it to this fight. I want to talk about the impact of say Ortiz/Shamrock feud which i feel brought the UFC on the path that led to where it is right now. Also, The Ultimate Fighter series as a whole with or without Griffin-Bonnar.

 

[Shakeswilzabub]

While the fight was very entertaining, i think simply having season 1 TUF on cable televison was probably more important to the UFC's growth and success.

Imagine if pro wrestling only consisted of PPVS?
that shit would suck.
It helps to have a weekly show. Fools be needing dem storylines. Self included.

 

[dropshot001]

It cemented a sport that was growing in popularity as a viable option for those wanting to view a niche, non-mainstream sport

 

[kmasonbx]

I compare the Griffin/Bonnar fight to the impact Chris Moneymaker winning the WSOP Main Event had on the popularity of poker. Poker was already getting bigger and bigger every year, in fact the year Moneymaker won the Main Event the field was roughly 3 times bigger than it was the year before, but the combination of him being a regular person, ESPN broadcasting showing hole cards for the first time, and Moneymaker pulling off some pretty sick plays excellerated the growth.

The UFC was already in a growth stage, and was going to get bigger anyway, that fight simply excellerated that growth.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Not really where i wanted the discussion headed. That was just kind of a throw in and not meant to be the bottom line. This is more about if Griffin-Bonnar is really a fight that "put the UFC where it is today" or "saved the UFC". If that line is being used against the whole body of my post and it what sticks out most, i might remove the line since i had no intention for this to become another "should Bonnar be in the HOF simply because of that fight" discussion. I didnt feel adding it would matter to the rest of the post. I only added it in the TLDR portion.

I'm also not sure i understand your question. Do i feel the UFC has a respectable HOF? Not really.

By making this thread, I moreso wanted to talk about things that really DID put the UFC where it is today and compare it to this fight. I want to talk about the impact of say Ortiz/Shamrock feud which i feel brought the UFC on the path that led to where it is right now. Also, The Ultimate Fighter series as a whole with or without Griffin-Bonnar.

UFC40 was the biggest thing since "legitimizing" the sport. it sold ok. pretty good. less than decent compared to buy rates today. y9ou cannot compare Tito/Ken to TUF1.

no, TUF 1 changed UFC forever. did that one bout do it by itself? no. it was TUF1 that did it; it was just over the top icing on the cake that that fight was the first intro to a "real" mma bout (versus the TUF bouts) on cable TV.

if the finale had been boring (say, Salaverry v Marquardt which was soon after) would it have turned away all the TUF 1 fans? probably not.

but it wasn't boring.

so in that sense it wasn't the Bonnar Griffin bout. it was TUF 1. but TUF 1 ended in the best possible way, and will always be remember for that one bout.

hope that makes sense. all IMHO of course.

 

[Funkasaurus]

I don't think Bonnar-Griffin get the credit

It's usually "TUF saved UFC"

Bonnar-Griffin was just a great fight and they're very popular (Griffin anyway) and UFC want to pay tribute to them in some way and hype their importance

 

[Leg Teep]

I could see what ya mean, I always just think of it as the "push." Season 1 ratings were fairly high, that fight just sent the finale ratings sky rocketing and paved the way for further Spike TV domination. Then of course the Ortiz-Shamrock fights coupled with the monster rise of Chuck really sent them over the edge.


Was it as big as everyone says......perhaps, I see it as the first big push in the right direction. Several other things had to go right (which obviously they did), but that was the first right step.

Personally it's my favorite fight of all time, I can't get enough of it.

 

[submerged88]

I never heard of the UFC until my friends called me in the middle of Griffin vs Bonnar 1 and told me about an epic war going down on TV and I tuned in and was hooked. I stopped watching UFC for awhile but Kimbo and Brock brought me back.

 

[VB MMA]

I get what you are saying and agree. I think it may had intrigued some of the newer fans, but personally, I remember thinking it was a very sloppy ugly brawl. The opposite of what MMA is all about (my opinion). In the words of GSP...."I was not impressed".

I also agree that Tito and Shamrock were more responsible, along with Randy, Chuck, and Matt Hughes for getting the UFC into the mainstream culture and sky-rocketing its popularity.

 

[wasp]

UFC 40 "Tito vs Ken" was more of a landmark single bout.

TUF 1 was the break out.

Brock drew the WWE crowd.

GSP is continuing to lure in the bitches.

 

[Kingz]

UFC40 was the biggest thing since "legitimizing" the sport. it sold ok. pretty good. less than decent compared to buy rates today. y9ou cannot compare Tito/Ken to TUF1.

no, TUF 1 changed UFC forever. did that one bout do it by itself? no. it was TUF1 that did it; it was just over the top icing on the cake that that fight was the first intro to a "real" mma bout (versus the TUF bouts) on cable TV.

if the finale had been boring (say, Salaverry v Marquardt which was soon after) would it have turned away all the TUF 1 fans? probably not. so in that sense it wasn't the Bonnar Griffin bout. it was TUF 1. but TUF 1 ended in the best possible way, and will always be remember for that one bout.

hope that makes sense. all IMHO of course.

You'll get no argument from me over the impact of TUF 1 and the whole series over those first few years(it's run it's course now). It's arguably the biggest thing. Hell, The Ultimate Fighter gave Ortiz-Shamrock the platform to really get their feud in the headlines. TUF gave UFC life and the platform to promote fights and make MMA accessible to new viewers. I just think Griffin-Bonnar was really just a peak moment and a great fight but i don't feel was the turn of the key that got everything running. It was a great high, but they came down and they came down for a little while. The success for awhile was still pretty exclusive to TUF on Spike until IMO Tito-Shamrock made UFC PPV's a must see event. UFC being a PPV model oganization, it seems after UFC 61, all their PPV were doing well and the ones that did the worst would be still be ones that were considered great just a year before. Also, not a whole lot of UFC fights even since have surpassed Ortiz-Shamrock as far as mainstream attention goes as well.

 

[surf fu]

Shit didn't impact me in any way when it comes to being a fan.

In the grand scheme of things? Who knows but I think it's probably overrated

 

[BKMMAFAN]

While the fight was very entertaining, i think simply having season 1 TUF on cable televison was probably more important to the UFC's growth and success.

Imagine if pro wrestling only consisted of PPVS?
that shit would suck.
It helps to have a weekly show. Fools be needing dem storylines. Self included.

Pro Wrestling is ALL about storyline. MMA is more about the fights.