Deadspin: Whatever Happened To The UFC?

I think that article was heavily biased against the UFC, as are all the deadspin's spin on the UFC.

I don't get the "watered down" argument, fights are fights, so is it not a good fight just because you are unfamiliar with their names? As long as the guys are evenly matched skill/experience -wise then it can make for an entertaining fight. If they are mis-matched then isn't that what the "just-bleed" fans like--one guy beating another guy senseless?
 
If they expanded LW-HW, I could see how they'd say it's but they really only added divisions they didn't have and at the time, people liked the idea since Aldo, Faber, Torres and those guys from WEC were top talent. The only division that people are disappointed with may be Flyweight.

I don't get the argument of diminishing talent. Fighters didn't suddenly disappear from the UFC when they added more weight classes. Look at how stack MW is now in talent. Look at how much depth is at WW. Look at how many younger prospects are filling LHW to replace the aging legends hanging around.

This article is just like many threads on here, over blown and needless bitching.
 
Article's probably wrong.

The saturation argument has merit. You can't grow your sport if the only people who watch it are those people willing to pay for PPV's. You have to increase it's exposure which will gradually increase it's acceptance.

You need only look to soccer's gradual increase in popularity in the U.S. to see how this strategy works over the long run. We hosted a World Cup, then the women's teams did well, then we rolled out the MLS brought in some over the hill "names". Add in more soccer coverage on ESPN and suddenly soccer is a legitimate sport in the U.S. Sure, it's not football or even baseball but it's far bigger and more mainstream than 10 years ago.

And that's purely because of exposure.
 
I think they're selling the Swanson-Stephens main even a bit short: we're talking about a guy who looks reinvented at 145 and a longtime fixture looking to get another shot at gold. It's a very compelling fight, in my mind.

That's about the only interesting thing this weekend, though. So the rest is pretty spot on. I maybe have a passing interest in Hioki-Oliveira.
 
Bigj383 said:
It has to be more shows with fighters being more active. They are doing the right things with Lawler and Ben Henderson with quick turnaround times. Non Champions should be fighting 4 times a year easy. Prospects should shoot for 6 fights a year.
Click to expand...

LMAO

4-6 per year wasn't normal way back when
4-6 per year wasn't normal 3 years ago
4-6 per year isn't normal now
and 4-6 per year will never be normal

You're cherry-picking out 2 rare recent anomalies and trying to pretend it's a big trend and the plan for all good fighters.

Fighting high level competition takes a lot out of a fighter.
Averaging 3/yr out of someone is very uncommon
In many cases, with injuries and fighters unwilling to fight with small-medium injuries, because of the sudden, immediate negative repercussions to their career, they can't even get everyone doing 2/yr.



And, btw, since math and reality aren't your strong suits -
If the UFC has 300 nonchampion fighters, and we say roughly 150 non-champs and 150 'prospects'
150*4 + 150*6 = 1500 fight participants
2 competitors per fight = 750 matches
roughly 11 matches per card = 68 cards per year to accommodate your plan (not even counting the championship fights)



(and since everything you say in this thread is "more fighters, more events, expand, expand", 400 fighters would jump us up to almost 90 cards)
 
ThunderL1ps said:
The Zuffa Zombie defense team is out in full force. It seems their budget hasn't been affected. They must work very cheaply.

Good article that points out the lies the UFC tries to get people to buy into.
Click to expand...

I really enjoy Deadspin. And sometimes I like their UFC articles. But no matter how on-point Deadspin is on the UFC, dozens of the "Team" will flock over to the comments section to go full fanboy. The emotional connection about a privately-held company borders on Apple-hysteria.

Hell, Deadspin pointed out that Vice's MMA site was partially funded by the UFC and why this may be problematic and the Fanboys couldn't get their collective/borg mind around the potential conflict of interest.
 
mikekoz68 said:
I think that article was heavily biased against the UFC, as are all the deadspin's spin on the UFC.

I don't get the "watered down" argument, fights are fights, so is it not a good fight just because you are unfamiliar with their names? As long as the guys are evenly matched skill/experience -wise then it can make for an entertaining fight. If they are mis-matched then isn't that what the "just-bleed" fans like--one guy beating another guy senseless?
Click to expand...

what don't you understand? maybe "watered down" is not the exact term term, but oversaturation is very real and very much an issue.
 
mikekoz68 said:
I think that article was heavily biased against the UFC, as are all the deadspin's spin on the UFC.

I don't get the "watered down" argument, fights are fights, so is it not a good fight just because you are unfamiliar with their names? As long as the guys are evenly matched skill/experience -wise then it can make for an entertaining fight. If they are mis-matched then isn't that what the "just-bleed" fans like--one guy beating another guy senseless?
Click to expand...


So you watch a lot of KotC and XFC and LFC and others like them, right?
And you get just as excited for those shows as you do UFC ones?
And you'd pay hundreds of dollars to sit in nosebleed seats and watch local boys fight, same as for a UFC show?
After all, "fights are fights"?


If so, you'd be quite a rarity.
Most fans care about:
Quality of the fighters
Title matches
Being able to keep track of the fighters, being familiar with them, and knowing backstories

All of which decline when roster bloat occurs
 
i'll be honest and i say i had no idea there was a fightpass card this weekend.

and i also completely forgot about the stephens-swanson card until 2 days ago.
 
"Imagine if the NBA added 30 expansion teams over the next two years, and then sent out a favored reporter to lecture the public about how true fans should appreciate the diminished quality of play. This sounds impossibly stupid, and yet it's more or less what's happening in one increasingly dim corner of the sports world."


Nailed it.
 
HereticBD said:
"Imagine if the NBA added 30 expansion teams over the next two years, and then sent out a favored reporter to lecture the public about how true fans should appreciate the diminished quality of play. This sounds impossibly stupid, and yet it's more or less what's happening in one increasingly dim corner of the sports world."


Nailed it.
Click to expand...

Only partially.

The NBA has certainly spent a lot of time and money promoting basketball around the world and created the D-League for lesser talent to get some experience and some exposure.

The increased international exposure to basketball has helped grow the NBA's specific brand.

So, when the UFC rolls out a bunch of cards around the globe, they're building exposure for the sport of MMA and some of that exposure will translate into new hardcore fans but it's really about the casual fan. As the Iole article points out, the strength of the PPV's was never determined by the number of hardcore fans but by the number of random casual fans tuning in. If you can get even a small percentage of people who are exposed to the sport through these lesser cards to buy just 1 or 2 ppv's per year, the UFC will be raking in the cash and growing their brand at the same time.

The Deadspin article may be on point for the hardcore fans but it's wrong from the perspective of growing the marketplace.
 
Ijedi said:
The UFC is shite nowadays... Can't believe people still pay for some of the garbage they put out.
Click to expand...

And yet people are still coming to highly specialised sub forums of a niche website to talk about it.
 
Sosua said:
And yet people are still coming to highly specialised sub forums of a niche website to talk about it.
Click to expand...

U wot?

Sherdog is the biggest mma site and forum around. There's nothing niche or specialised in or about Sherdog.
 
VulcanNervPinch said:
LMAO

4-6 per year wasn't normal way back when
4-6 per year wasn't normal 3 years ago
4-6 per year isn't normal now
and 4-6 per year will never be normal

You're cherry-picking out 2 rare recent anomalies and trying to pretend it's a big trend and the plan for all good fighters.

Fighting high level competition takes a lot out of a fighter.
Averaging 3/yr out of someone is very uncommon
In many cases, with injuries and fighters unwilling to fight with small-medium injuries, because of the sudden, immediate negative repercussions to their career, they can't even get everyone doing 2/yr.



And, btw, since math and reality aren't your strong suits -
If the UFC has 300 nonchampion fighters, and we say roughly 150 non-champs and 150 'prospects'
150*4 + 150*6 = 1500 fight participants
2 competitors per fight = 750 matches
roughly 11 matches per card = 68 cards per year to accommodate your plan (not even counting the championship fights)



(and since everything you say in this thread is "more fighters, more events, expand, expand", 400 fighters would jump us up to almost 90 cards)
Click to expand...
I never said 4-6 was normal I said that should be the goal. Champions should shoot for 2-3 fights a year, contenders 3-4, and prospects 4-6. Injuries and other factors prevent that but it should still be the goal.

Two fighters debut against eachother . The winner if healthy should fight again in 2-3 months. The loser can wait 4 months. There is no point to heavy rotate someone who is losing. It's not enough to see guys you have to see them win. The more exciting their win the faster you want to get them back in there. Of course you never want to exceed a rate that fighter is comfortable with. It's about balance and getting name on the marquee.

It takes time to build stars and a lot of events are required to do it.
 
panamaican said:
Only partially.

The NBA has certainly spent a lot of time and money promoting basketball around the world and created the D-League for lesser talent to get some experience and some exposure.

The increased international exposure to basketball has helped grow the NBA's specific brand.

So, when the UFC rolls out a bunch of cards around the globe, they're building exposure for the sport of MMA and some of that exposure will translate into new hardcore fans but it's really about the casual fan. As the Iole article points out, the strength of the PPV's was never determined by the number of hardcore fans but by the number of random casual fans tuning in. If you can get even a small percentage of people who are exposed to the sport through these lesser cards to buy just 1 or 2 ppv's per year, the UFC will be raking in the cash and growing their brand at the same time.

The Deadspin article may be on point for the hardcore fans but it's wrong from the perspective of growing the marketplace.
Click to expand...



1 difference is that the NBA doesn't try to promote the D-League or it's players as being "elite." The NBA more or less recoginzes the D-League as it's minor league, and occasionally players get called up to the big show when there's an injury or open roster spot, but most don't stay any longer than 1-2 weeks.

I think the writer was trying to say more or less that the UFC is tyring to promote minor league talent at times, yet charge the same admission price/viewing price for a less appealing event.

To sum it up, you don't want to pay NFL prices for XFL talent if you're a fan.
 
Papa Shaun said:
1 difference is that the NBA doesn't try to promote the D-League or it's players as being "elite." The NBA more or less recoginzes the D-League as it's minor league, and occasionally players get called up to the big show when there's an injury or open roster spot, but most don't stay any longer than 1-2 weeks.

I think the writer was trying to say more or less that the UFC is tyring to promote minor league talent at times, yet charge the same admission price/viewing price for a less appealing event.

To sum it up, you don't want to pay NFL prices for XFL talent if you're a fan.
Click to expand...

That's a Bingo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,121
Messages
58,342,120
Members
176,008
Latest member
tatamere

Share this page

Back
Top