Comments on: Sunday stroll: Aftermath from UFC 72

By: Body_Shots

Body_Shots — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:35:04 +0000

[I just re-watched Guida vs. Griffin. Originally, I had Guida winning round 2. After watching it again, I had Griffin winning it. First, Griffin controlled about the first 3 minutes of the round. Secondly, Guida had 2 big submission attempts. The first was a leg bar, but he took so many punishing shots, that Griffin almost scored better in the exchange. It wasn’t until 90 seconds left in the round that Guida got back control.

I really thought it was the 3rd round that was debatable, but after watching it again, I scored the fight for Tyson Griffin.]

LOL me too, re-watching the fight the 2nd round is a lot closer than I thought it was the first time, but the two sub attempts gave Guida the round. In the 3rd, Tyson controlled the stand up and Clay didn’t start taking over until the 2 minute mark, he didn’t land anything solid until the last ten seconds while Tyson was offensive from his back throughout.

I’d give the fight to Griffin as well, but it’s very close.

By: Stevie J

Stevie J — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:00:49 +0000

Even if this show was a dud to the mainstream, I still watched it and recapped it and enjoyed it a lot.

http://www.angrymarks.com/news/View.php?ArticleID=1422

Clay Guida got straight up robbed.

By: 45 Huddle

45 Huddle — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 04:48:39 +0000

I just re-watched Guida vs. Griffin. Originally, I had Guida winning round 2. After watching it again, I had Griffin winning it. First, Griffin controlled about the first 3 minutes of the round. Secondly, Guida had 2 big submission attempts. The first was a leg bar, but he took so many punishing shots, that Griffin almost scored better in the exchange. It wasn’t until 90 seconds left in the round that Guida got back control.

I really thought it was the 3rd round that was debatable, but after watching it again, I scored the fight for Tyson Griffin.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 03:03:43 +0000

I think that this event fulfilled almost everyone of the UFC’s own expectations…and I think that there is something to be said for that. This was not the K-1 show where expectations were huge and very little, if anything was delivered. Also, it was not like the first Strikeforce show where very little was originally expected and in the end there were new records set. All in all, this was a medium card and it gave medium results. I guess you could call this card “solid” and “something to build on” and you wouldn’t be far from the truth.

In the end, I think that it is cards like this one that will in the end help the UFC solidify itself as a mainstream sport.

By: The Citizen

The Citizen — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:51:38 +0000

If I’m the ufc and I’ve got Liddell-Jackson coming up, I call ESPN and ask for the meal deal, and get it. But I dont ask for the cover-every-event-i’m-doing deal because that just costs too much. I figure if we cover the big event, then everyone will be hooked because something Zack mentioned on FO radio — Dana buys into his own ka-ka. Thats why he continued to push a champ that lost, ignored the champ that won, and then took a dookie called UFC 72. I was thinking the other day, were ring events like Pride more exciting because you could see the audience? Either way, if you uninvite the biggest corporations to be a part of your revenue, how can you be truly successful as mainstream? It doesn’t matter anyway — Dana’s chilling in a phat house and rollin in dough. We are just getting more of the same UFC treatment — mediocre shows and once in awhile a really great show like 71. Knees to a downed opponent, the ring, Fedor.

By: MoreThanUFC

MoreThanUFC — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:52:30 +0000

Zach, I got ya on the casual blogs. But that was to be expected, of course. It got ZERO mainstream coverage. I’d bet 90% of the paying customers have never read an MMA blog before, except the home site. I talk MMA at the gym and am amazed how many “fans” in the digital age havent been to Sherdog? 3-4 years before we’re off the hook of a major drug/death/gambling/mafia/yakuza/ scandal derailing this train.

By: Ivan Trembow

Ivan Trembow — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:35:38 +0000

Also, was the UFC-provided video analysis footage (featuring Mike Goldberg and Joe Rogan) airing on any of the ESPN and/or or ESPN News loops at any time? I was looking to see if there would be any coverage of UFC Fight Night 10 or UFC 72 on either ESPN or ESPN News, and as of this morning I hadn’t seen any before, during, or after either event. In the meantime, they’ve had highlights of (and ticker results of) a few boxing matches in the past few weeks that were probably smaller events than the UFC events. It makes no sense.

By: Ivan Trembow

Ivan Trembow — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:32:04 +0000

This is what is naturally going to happen when there are five different UFC events booked in a seven-week period (plus TUF on Spike TV every Thursday).

By: Body_Shots

Body_Shots — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:11:54 +0000

[If there’s anything to prove by this, it’s that the bars possibly pick up cards when the Sports Media will cover them.]

I don’t know, there wasn’t a lack of media covering the event. Had it been on Spike like they planned, more causal American fans would of been talking about it.

Moreover, it appears that the event sort of got lost in the shuffle, between the UFN, TUF 5 finale & UFC 73. I don’t think they expected to do well on PPV with this card anyway.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:06:43 +0000

I will say this. If couple fights are boring, then it’s boring. Not every fighter’s style is exciting. I would tell a fighter to do whatever it takes to win, even if it’s in a boring lay n’ pray OR Stand N’ Pray decision