Right, giving you my honest feedback here, based on a wish to see you succeed though:
I felt the presentation was very dull and wasnt helped by you going through every single fight. After a few minutes I skipped ahead to the JDS-Ivanov fight and left rather disappointed after you only mentioned a few rather general points before you were through. Clearly there is room for a lot of different voices and flavours in the MMA Analysis space, so I can only speak to what I like. Lets take a look at the current MMA landscape:
- Imho the Gold Standard of technical Analysis are the BJJ scout breakdowns. He picks a select few fights and goes greatly into detail, down to the level of individual limb movements and patterns. He routinely gets his videos pulled for copyright infringement though and the fact that the commentary is robot-text-to-speech doesnt help.
- Firas Zahabis Q&A/Analysis sessions are very interesting but also extremely long, somewhat unfocused and at times not as illuminating as they could be, because having his own dogs in the race he's not going to spill the beans on all the technical ideas and insights he has.
- Robin Black is interesting in controlled doses but doesnt actually offer technical breakdowns sensu stricto.
- The Inside-the-Octagon Segments Dan Hardy and John Gooden do are fantastic. They are concise, highly informative and make full use of the UFC Access: Video replays and technical demonstration inside an octagon included. Its not quite on the level of sophistication that BJJ Scout puts out, but then again those are post-fight breakdowns whereas Hardy tries to point out some general aspects ahead of an upcoming fight.
- The MMANationDotCom '6th round' breakdowns are.. amusing. Every now and again I enjoy having some YouTube-bros ramble on about fighters. They also go through every fight on the card, making them rather unique that way. They dont go too deep into technicalities. But thats also one of their strengths. Some people, one might be tempted to point to Robin Black as the most egregious example, tend to exaggerate the finesse of the sport in their desire to elevate what the fighters go through and do. Some youtubers who dont give a fuck about access and being on good terms with the fighters because they've never done and never will do a fighter interview in their lifes are a welcomed antidote. For all their qualities Robin Black, Firas Zahabi or Dan Hardy arent gonna tell you, whats most obvious to everyone with eyes: that Sam Alvey and Gian Villante for example are horribly limited fighters with next to zero fight IQ and ability to adapt. If its not too over-the-top I too enjoy fighter bashing.
- There used to by some MMA Analyst on a Sports gambling website doing analysis before the UFC cards. The Pat Mayo hour or something it was called, I believe. Unfortunately that's gone now. But he had a great combination of technical analysis and no-BS fighter assessment. I dont remember the format precisely, but I think he went through most, though not all the fights on the cards.
So where does that leave you?
Well you probably wont be able to make use of fight replays anywhere near to the degree of Hardy or BJJ Scout. Simply talking into a webcam isnt the only alternative though. Even some small snippets of fight video, a still of a fight or the occassional demonstration by taking a few steps back from the camera would lighten up the format immensly. I would also suggest you dont go through all the fights on the card which can become boring and superficial. Only talking about the main event or main card fights puts you into stiff competition with a ton of other YouTube channels though, where your relative lack of access or fame might hurt you. What I suggest instead is this: Pick four fights every card that you go in-depth about (meaning at least 5 minutes per fight). Make sure at least one of those fights is a prelim fight that few others are talking About. Not only does that put you into a unique position in the media sphere, but it also shines a spotlight on underappreciated fights. And come the next big event, once those prelim fighters have moved up the ranks, people will find your videos when searching for technical analyses.
In short:
- liven up the format by sprinkling in some replay snippets or stills from a fight or the occassional technique demonstration.
- select four fights per card, at least one of them on the prelim cards, to go in-depth about
- give us technical detail about what happened and why it happened. Dont recount in general terms what we saw ourselves.
- be honest about the fighters: tell us if someone sucks. Dont overcomplicate or exaggerate fighting.
I didnt intend to come across rude. It's all
imho of course. And the wolfman seems like he can take some criticism.
