Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Bleacher Report


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Liver Kick


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


Sherdog Radio


Video Corner


Fight Hub


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

Dave Meltzer on critics of Mir/Lesnar III: Don’t ‘screw up the best thing for growth’

By Zach Arnold | November 17, 2010

Print Friendly and PDF

I would encourage you to read this in full. Let’s set the stage on this and bring some context into the discussion.

Originally, news broke that Josh Gross was leaving Sports Illustrated to go to ESPN. This brought up Josh’s last column for SI where he talks about how UFC should air their foreign events live on TV in the States because virtually everywhere else gets live feeds. That’s debate #1.

Debate #2 is when Dave sounds off about people who don’t want to see Frank Mir vs. Brock Lesnar III. Dave admits that he has no desire to see that fight but that people (like MMA writers) who criticize the fight being booked are hurting ‘the growth of the business’ because they ‘don’t get business.’

Debate #3 ends up more or less being a discussion about what the role of an MMA writer should be — cheerleader or objective analyst? pro-business or pro-fighter? Realpolitik (UFC mainly) or utopian (cover UFC and major independents equally)?

There’s so much ground to cover in the comments that Dave Meltzer made about Josh Gross that I want you to read his commentary and then cherry pick at any of the points raised and debate on them.

Quick personal thoughts — no MMA writer should concern themselves with pushing ideas simply because ‘it will grow business.’ If you want to be a hack, get into PR — it pays more, too. No shame in it, but you can’t do both (despite the fact that a few writers do it now, ineffectively). As far as the live vs. delayed argument, there’s a simple compromise: have Spike air the broadcast live and then air the delayed broadcast for the originally scheduled slot. Not hard. As far as Lesnar/Mir III, the only real purpose I see in that fight is more or less a ‘loser leaves town’ match. If Lesnar lost to Mir again, it could be the type of loss that discourages him from future fighting. If Mir loses, his stock declines further.

Since there seems to be some discussion about UFC 122 (more because of the way the event was aired and produced), here’s an article talking about some of the results coming up if UFC really pushes the pedal to the metal with the amount of shows they run internationally in the next couple of years.

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 58 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

58 Responses to “Dave Meltzer on critics of Mir/Lesnar III: Don’t ‘screw up the best thing for growth’”

  1. Someone sent me a copied discussion on the F4W forums that made me absolutely roll in laughter. Dave Meltzer got into it with posters on his board claiming that the WNBA was successful and indicated evidence that a women’s WWE could be a success. He showed attendance figures and noted that they were televised by ESPN and ABC. It was at that point when that which I’ve believed for years was proven without a shadow of a doubt: Dave Meltzer does not understand real sport. He really can only look through the prism as if it were pro wrestling.

    You see it again here: He compares guys like Gross or “hardcore fans” that want the best fights to people who want two pro wrestlers to headline, in the process downing Frankie Edgar (who, last I checked, is headlining a UFC PPV against the legitimate #1 contender). Its a little weird too, because I haven’t even read Gross coming out against Mir/Lesnar III?

    His comparisons to baseball and football are terrible. Saying that the narrative of the Giants/Rangers series is that it was “bad for baseball” is one of the worst reads on a sporting event that I’ve ever heard. Meanwhile, clearly Meltzer hasn’t heard of the BCS, the widely despised college football championship that by existing basically guarantees to shut out top undefeated teams from playing for national titles year after year after year. There is a book called “Death To The BCS”.

    It also seems that Meltzer wants MMA to copy the way he reads boxing of yore – a bunch of overhyped draws being protected from legitimate threats. Doesn’t he realize it was that sort of activity that killed boxing’s legitimacy with fans?

    • Zach Arnold says:

      His comparisons to baseball and football are terrible. Saying that the narrative of the Giants/Rangers series is that it was “bad for baseball” is one of the worst reads on a sporting event that I’ve ever heard.

      Sadly, he wasn’t alone in saying the Giants/Rangers was bad for baseball. A ton of East Coast media outlets pushed the same theme at the beginning and throughout the series, including the NY Post and NY Times. The main theme in the general sports media for the WS this year was everything but the game itself.

      And Mike Greenberg of ESPN Radio was the major cheerleader for earlier start times to WS games so MLB could “do it for the kids” and now the talk is that the early start times hurt ratings.

      Meanwhile, clearly Meltzer hasn’t heard of the BCS, the widely despised college football championship that by existing basically guarantees to shut out top undefeated teams from playing for national titles year after year after year. There is a book called “Death To The BCS”.

      Double irony — Dan Wetzel, his Yahoo Sports colleague, wrote the book. And Wetzel is about as pro-UFC as you can get.

      • I’ve heard the whole “*insert NY team isn’t playing so the title game isnt as important” thing a hundred times. Still – you don’t see MLB analysts asking that the NYY get an automatic bye to the World Series every year because its “good for baseball”. Its bad for baseball in so much as the ratings won’t be as high, but you’d never see them argue that destroying the credibility of the league by purposely favoring major market teams would be some sort of good strategy.

        The start times thing reminds me of NASCAR trying to attribute poor TV viewership in 2009 to having a shotgun spread of TV times for each race of the season. They then corrected that by going to standardized times for races and this year the ratings fell anywhere between 15-20% on a race by race basis. I think its an excuse, personally. As for what Greenberg said, look – baseball is starting to lose in the 18-34 demo. I would guess that might have something to do with history apparently deciding that the baseball of their youth no longer counts due to rampant steroid use and the concurrent change of the game from being an offense heavy one to one where pitchers now dominate the league (again).

        • frankp316 says:

          NASCAR is a bad example. The perceived ratings drop in the last part of the season has been mostly because last year’s races were on ABC and this year most of the races are on ESPN. So obviously the standard is different. The ratings are down a bit but not as much as some would like to believe.

        • NASCAR’s ratings have been on a consistent slide for several years:

          http://www.jayski.com/pages/tvratings2010.htm

          Attendance is equally deteriorating. Its not some big secret either. CNBC even ran a program earlier this year about how NASCAR’s revenues are dropping. Its not often you hear commentators on a sport talk about there being a doomsday in the future, but people are talking that way about what will happen to NASCAR in 2013 when TV contracts go back up for bidding if ratings don’t start to increase.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          It’s not just New York. It’s New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, LA, and many of the other major markets. Watching small market teams that nobody cares about kills the majority of the interest level in the championship games.

          This is a major theme across all major sports that is pretty much universal. So for Meltzer to make that same sort of point for MMA matches the typical sports writers view.

          I do think he is insane for thinking the WNBA is successful. They hand out tickets for those games.

        • Meltzer goes a step further though – no sports writer would say that the NFL should contract to only major markets or only allow major markets to play in the Super Bowl. And yet, Meltzer all but argues the opposite for MMA, and that anyone who argues the contrary perspective is someone who “doesn’t understand the business” and shouldn’t be commenting on the sport.

  2. 45 Huddle says:

    1) Writers shouldn’t be pushing things because they are “good for business”. But writers like Gross should also not be pushing their own personal agendas about how they feel the sport should operate (like co-promotion). There is absolutely a fine line with writers. If they bash the sport they cover too much, they won’t have a sport to cover. A lot of what Gross thinks is bad for business. His ideas of how things should be operating would make things WORSE, not better. And he has held onto these ideals for years, despite proof after proof after proof showing him that he is wrong. Which makes him a bad reporter on so many levels.

    2) Meltzer is correct that putting on a live show during the day makes no sense. UFC 122 was a mediocre card (at best) on paper and it did 2.2 Million viewers on Saturday evening. Obviously fans are willing to watch it at night.

    3) Zach Arnold is wrong about putting on 2 showings of the shows on SpikeTV. Advertsing doesn’t work like that and it would hurt both SpikeTV and the UFC financially.

    4) Meltzer said: “And the idea that the Internet is what grew the UFC is ridiculous. They lost $44 million waiting for the Internet to grow the UFC and exploded with all those fans from that industry they hold their nose at that watched another hour on Spike in 2005.” He is 100% correct. Zuffa actually listened to the internet when they first started and it completely backfired. What people think on The UG has nothing to do with the reality of the bigger fanbase. Sometimes they are the same, but usually not.

    5) Meltzer said: “And if he doesn’t know business, he shouldn’t be writing at that level or be taken as an authority.” I think this is a valid point. If Gross can’t show that he is capable of understanding how the business operated for the reasons it does, then it sort of DQ’s him from any sort of relevent discussion. Doesn’t mean he has to agree with everything, but to be so out of his mind the way he is, definitely hurts his credibility.

    6) Zach Arnold is incorrect in his article that he linked to. UFC 122 is a perfect example of why the merger was required. I think we are much less likely to see cards like UFC 122 from now on now that we have 7 title belts and maybe 8 sooner then later. Once they build up 145 and 135 more, we will have a few marque names in those divisions that will help the European shows add star power. Sure there will be growing pains. There always are. But if they don’t make a push internationally, somebody else will. So they are basically forced to do this or suffer long term. Also you point about other companies expanding…. There is a term in retail called “Same Store Sales”. When looking at the stength of a company like Wal-mart, you shouldn’t look at their revenue growth. Because that creates a false impression of how efficient they are working. You must look at how stores have done year after year to see if the company is working properly. The same metric should be used for the UFC to a degree. PPV sales, Free Card ratings, TUF ratings. Those are what need to be compared to see if there are any sort of growing pains. So far, I would say there isn’t.

    • 45 Huddle says:

      One added comment….

      Meltzer’s point about how baseball writers don’t complain about how Japanese teams aren’t invited to the World Series is a PERFECT example of how guys like Gross and the crazy internet fans are out of touch with reality.

      American’s care about American sports. We want one league to rule them all. If you don’t compete in that league, you don’t matter.

      Baseball to American fans is only MLB. Racing to American fans is only NASCAR. Basketball to American fans is only NBA. Each sport has athletes who competing internationally, but they aren’t recognized by anybody who matters because they don’t care and they understand that the league that is done in America is a good enough representation of who is “the best” that for anybody prove themselves, they need to be in that sports league.

      A Japanese Baseball player, no matter how good they are, has to come to the MLB for fans to care.

      But somehow in MMA, these writers care so much about placing Strikeforce or DREAM fighters in rankings with UFC fighters. They call for co-promotion instead of those fighters going to the UFC to prove themselves. They rank them as equals despite most other sports not operating that way. They do so because they think they are superior in their view points because they know of a few fighters who compete outside of the “majors”.

      • Jonathan says:

        1. 45 Huddle is wrong because he lets his hatred of Josh Gross pervade his other sentiments in the above mentioned post.

        2. 45 Huddle, please do not confuse YOUR views with those of America’s, as I highly doubt that they are one in the same.

        3. 45 Huddle….you’ve made your views clear here, but they are the same views that you’ve always that….except in regards to Dave Meltzer. I did not know that you were such a fan of his.

      • Isaiah says:

        There is a massive problem with these attempts to compare MMA promoters to sports leagues. The best baseball teams in the world are ALL in the same league. There’s no Japanese team that’s as good as the worst MLB team. MMA has a completely different structure with different results. Half of the top 10 HWs aren’t promoted by the UFC. A fair number of the best LWs aren’t.

        The way it’s set up in MMA is like if in the 1980s, Don King just decided to never work with other promoters and declare DKP a “major league” with its own titles. He’d be laughed out of business.

        • edub says:

          Just gotta throw this in there:

          Japan has won the only two world baseball classics. I think their championship team would give the MLB championship team a run for their money specifically because they play “small ball” so well.

        • Isaiah says:

          Strongly disagree there. To be honest, I think an All-Star team made up from the best Japanese players would come in third in the NL West.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          You can disagree all you want, but the Japanese leagues are producing some awesome players that never make it over to the states. That is why they won the WBC. They play a style of baseball that our big sluggers have a really hard time competing against.

          But when Japan wins the WBC, you don’t see one baseball reporter in America demanding that the Japanese leagues be viewed in the same standings as MLB. Because they don’t care.

          You bring the Japanese All-Star team over to the states, and they would give the Giants all sorts of trouble.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          And your missing the point.

          The fact is that the Japanese team won the WBC, and really nobody is demanding that more of their players come over. It’s more of a “when it happens it happens” attitude.

          Which is completely different then MMA where if somebody does something outside of the UFC, people act like it is a much bigger deal then it is and demand that it be looked at at the same levels.

        • MLB teams hire Japanese ball players with mixed success on a regular basis, generally cherry picking the best players in the league because they can afford to. No one argues that it was unwise for the Yankees to sign Matsui years ago because the Yankees lacked a strong Japanese fanbase.

        • Isaiah says:

          I see 45 Huddle knows even less about baseball than he does about MMA. The Japanese leagues just simply don’t produce many MLB-caliber players. The reason they win the WBC is because they take it more seriously. It’s really that simple. It’s basically spring training to MLB players and life or death for them. Plus, of course, in baseball you can’t really reach a conclusion from such a small sample size.

          Further, baseball writers don’t “demand” that the few Japanese players who are MLB caliber (like, say, Darvish) come over because they know how the business works. If Darvish wants to come over (and he’s said he doesn’t), it would be the biggest story in the baseball world until it played out. Just like with Matsuzaka.

          And the biggest mistake you’re making is confusing players for teams. There are a handful of Japanese players who can compete in the majors, but there are NO Japanese teams that are remotely MLB caliber. If there were (and it would require big talent raids and an elimination of the gaijin limitation rule), things would be very different.

        • Isaiah says:

          So as for this: “Which is completely different then MMA where if somebody does something outside of the UFC, people act like it is a much bigger deal then it is and demand that it be looked at at the same levels.”

          You’re just flat wrong. For one thing, there’s a strong bias against MMA that isn’t promoted by the UFC in the MMA media, and for another, in two divisions, it’s arguable that the best guys aren’t in the UFC, and certainly it’s clear that some elite fighters are not promoted by the UFC.

        • I can see where someone might try to parlay a discussion of Gross “not understanding the business” in the same way that a writer who demands Darvish come play in the MLB or that teams chase after him could occur. You could say the same sorts of things about the NBA and Ricky Rubio. But its a huge difference in scale. Maybe Rubio could be an MVP player, but FC Barcelona with him couldn’t beat the Timberwolves (who drafted him) or the Raptors in a 5 game series.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          Oh, I understand baseball. Just because you have a distorted understanding of reality, doesn’t make you any sort of expert.

          MLB gets all players from the Caribbean because there is no league there and all of the money is in America. For the Japanese players, there is no absolutely need to travel half way across the world to play baseball. The Japanese leagues pay enough that only the superstars like Matsui or Ichiro will benefit from traveling over.

          With the WBC, look at our team. It’s a bunch of heavy sluggers. Japan plays a more complete baseball game. They steal, bunt, move runners over. In America, the game is more of a power game with less emphasis on the real basics. This is why Americans struggle against the Japanese.

          “You’re just flat wrong. For one thing, there’s a strong bias against MMA that isn’t promoted by the UFC in the MMA media, and for another, in two divisions, it’s arguable that the best guys aren’t in the UFC, and certainly it’s clear that some elite fighters are not promoted by the UFC.”

          There is a bias against the UFC in the MMA Media. Without question. Everybody is looking to bash White down multiple notches.

          And the best guys in all divisions are in the UFC. Shows your bias right there. I assume you are talking about HW & LW.

          The recent fan talk about the SF HW Division being stronger then the UFC’s is comical at best. People put in names like Barnett in the mix of the reason why. Josh Barnett’s last big win was in 2006 against Antonio Nogueira. And he even lost in their rematch since then. Alistair Overeem’s 2 best wins at Heavyweight in the last 3 plus years are to Buentello and Rogers. Hardly impressive. So the HW division isn’t very good. It has no depth and even the guys people continue to name as to the strength of the division are weak at best.

          As for Lightweight. They have Gilbert Melendez. Who is a legit Top 5 Lightweight. Because that, they don’t have much. They have the leftovers from the DREAM failures. This is why Melendez is already out of challengers.

          So this idea that 2 divisions have the best guys outside of the UFC really shows your bias.

        • Isaiah says:

          “Oh, I understand baseball. Just because you have a distorted understanding of reality, doesn’t make you any sort of expert.”

          Yawn. Your following comments indicate that you really have no idea what you’re talking about. The reason “small ball” isn’t used in America is that there has been an explosion of knowledge over the past 30 years, and it has been discredited as a result (see the work of Tom Tango, for just one example). See, saying that you don’t know baseball isn’t a random insult. It’s a fact that can be established clearly by comments such as the ones you made about small ball or the ones that indicate that you’re drawing a broad conclusion from a very small sample size.

          Further, I was mainly talking about the best individual fighters. One can certainly make an argument that Fedor and Melendez/Alvarez are better than Cain and Edgar/Maynard. I’m not even offering a position there as much as suggesting that there’s no comparable situation in baseball. ALL the best teams in the world are in the majors, and NO teams of comparable talent play anywhere else. In MMA, that is simply not the case. There are many fighters who are among the best in the world in their respective divisions who aren’t promoted by the UFC.

        • edub says:

          “Small ball” has been creeping back into most managers strategies ever since the steroid era ended.

          The fact that every all star from the past 5 years continually tries to play in the WBC makes a comparison to spring training pretty off. All you have to do is look at the lineups for teams competing to see that they wanna win pretty damn bad. Isaiah I think you were thinking more of the Olympics where the US doesnt even send MLB players.

        • Isaiah says:

          ““Small ball” has been creeping back into most managers strategies ever since the steroid era ended.

          The fact that every all star from the past 5 years continually tries to play in the WBC makes a comparison to spring training pretty off. All you have to do is look at the lineups for teams competing to see that they wanna win pretty damn bad. Isaiah I think you were thinking more of the Olympics where the US doesnt even send MLB players.”

          Do you have any evidence for your claim about the growth of “small ball”? I suspect you’re just making it up, but I haven’t looked at league-wide trends in those areas in the past couple of years. Generally, when offense is down, ineffective strategies like bunting and stealing become more common, but I’d be shocked if the current levels were comparable to what they were before the sabermetric explosion.

          And I don’t know if you realize this, but the WBC takes place during spring training. Do the players are playing either way. A lot of players, especially Americans, do not want to participate, preferring to warm up for the season during traditional spring training, but the league leans on them. Pitchers are protected by rules that drastically limit their usage in WBC games.

          Finally, it would be absurd to conclude on the basis of a handful of exhibition games during the spring that the mountains of evidence discrediting old-time offensive strategies and the evidence suggesting that the Japanese leagues are between AA and AAA in terms of quality should be thrown out.

        • Isaiah says:

          Just a quick check. The first year of Bill James annual abstracts was 1977. The AL had 917 SHs that year in 2,262 games. Last year, there were 538 SHs in 2,268 games. That’s a per-game decline of 41%!

        • edub says:

          “And I don’t know if you realize this, but the WBC takes place during spring training. Do the players are playing either way. A lot of players, especially Americans, do not want to participate, preferring to warm up for the season during traditional spring training, but the league leans on them. Pitchers are protected by rules that drastically limit their usage in WBC games.”

          Of course I realize this. I wouldn’t be saying anything about the WBC if I had no idea what it was. You keep saying that the US doesn’t want to take part in the WBC (or big stars anyway) but all you have to do is look at the roster for 2009’s team: Derek Jeter, Jimmy Rollins, Evan Longoria, David Wright, Kevin youkilis, Ryan Braun, Jake Peavy, Roy Oswalt, Adam Dunn, Shane victorino. Those are all guys who have played multiple seasons at an all star level who took part in the WBC or were unable to take part because of an injury. I suspect your making up the fact that MLBers don’t wanna participate. I’m not even counting all the MLBers playing for countries like Venezuela or the Dominican Republic…

          Im basing my opinion that small ball is taking place more frequently in baseball now because i watch a lot of baseball, and the game is a lot different than it was back in say 2003. I didn’t bother to look up any statistics. The one you looked up is pretty good evidence, but I didn’t say anything about baseball back in 1977. You just looked up stats back to that year because it helped your argument more even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. I suspect if you look up that same stat and use the year 2003 and relate it to 2010 you would see an increase. Not the decrease you showed from the 33 year time difference.

        • Isaiah says:

          “Of course I realize this. I wouldn’t be saying anything about the WBC if I had no idea what it was. You keep saying that the US doesn’t want to take part in the WBC (or big stars anyway) but all you have to do is look at the roster for 2009’s team”

          I said it once, and it’s irrelevant to the point anyway. Those guys are either going to be playing Spring Training games or they’re going to be playing in the WBC. I don’t get why you think their participation means that the U.S. is trying extra hard to win. Maybe you can explain that argument.

          “Im basing my opinion that small ball is taking place more frequently in baseball now because i watch a lot of baseball, and the game is a lot different than it was back in say 2003. I didn’t bother to look up any statistics.”

          Eh. There are more than 4,000 games played a year. It’s pretty silly to presume that you can discern MLB-wide trends from watching games.

          “The one you looked up is pretty good evidence, but I didn’t say anything about baseball back in 1977. You just looked up stats back to that year because it helped your argument more even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.”

          I looked it up because that was the beginning of the information explosion.

          “I suspect if you look up that same stat and use the year 2003 and relate it to 2010 you would see an increase.”

          You would suspect wrong. There were 1.03% MORE sacrifice hits in the American League in 2003 than there were in 2010. There goes that argument. Will you have the integrity to admit your mistake? I’m betting not.

        • edub says:

          Put the link for said statistic down, and I admit my mistake good sir. But why do you keep using just the AL? Use the whole MLB.

        • edub says:

          Also “I don’t get why you think their participation means that the U.S. is trying extra hard to win. Maybe you can explain that argument.”

          What? If they just wanted to practice in spring training that’s what they would do. They’re in the WBC because they are trying to win it. Why do I have to prove they are trying “extra hard” to win. You said people in the majors treat it like spring training. If they did they would play there. They don’t. Almost every healthy top tier MLB player participates in the WBC. The WBC was set up to be the world cup of baseball specifically because it is outside of the normal MLB season. You don’t have to look up any statistics to realize countries wanna win it.

        • edub says:

          Another thing:

          Small ball consists of more than sacrifices. Where are the numbers for stolen bases, attempts, sac bunts, hit and runs…

        • edub says:

          Another thing that doesn’t even relate to this conversation:

          “The way it’s set up in MMA is like if in the 1980s, Don King just decided to never work with other promoters and declare DKP a “major league” with its own titles. He’d be laughed out of business.”

          Fukin retarted.

        • Isaiah says:

          The data are available at baseballreference.com. The reason I use the AL only (and this really should be obvious, but I can tell that you don’t follow baseball that closely) is the DH rule. In the AL, sac bunts are a choice that the manager is making. In the NL, most sac bunts are situations where you have an automatic out at the plate (the pitcher), a runner on, and one or zero outs.

          Further, you haven’t explained your argument coherently. Let’s say you’re Derek Jeter. You either play regular spring training or you take your spring training as part of the WBC. The commissioner’s office is leaning on you to participate in the WBC. You do it. How does that indicate that it’s important for you to win the meaningless exhibition series? You realize that MLB players are primarily focused on getting into shape and not getting injured during those games, right?

          Finally, I was really impressed with how you responded to a scenario illustrating the difference between the MMA media and a legitimate media with a misspelled profanity. Stay classy, edub. Frankly, I think this discussion has been a good thing, as you and 45 are more clearly exposed when you talk about sports with better record keeping. I’m reminded of a line from Mencken in an Atlantic Monthly article about newspapers:

          “I assume here, as an axiom too obvious to be argued, that the chief appeal of a newspaper, in all such holy causes, is not at all to the educated and reflective minority of citizens, but frankly to the ignorant and unreflective majority. The truth is that it would usually get a newspaper nowhere to address its exhortations to the former … He knows that they are constantly falling into false reasoning about the things within his personal knowledge,—that is, within the narrow circle of his special education,—and so he assumes that they make the same, or even worse errors about other things, whether intellectual or moral. This assumption, it may be said at once, is quite justified by the facts.”

        • edub says:

          It’s mispelled just so it won’t get crossed out genius.

          To your other arguments. Thank you for puting the link down, wait you still haven’t done that…

          You don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore. What about comparing Don King promotions to the UFC has anything to do with the media? I was calling you Fukin retarted because the comparison is exactly that. Just another feeble attempt by a petty internet troll who bashes the UFC at every attempt possible. Sure you bring some random facts in that make your arguments seem more valid, but really nothing you say should be taken at face value. You are a hater, and that’s all you usually come across as.

          Stop pretending you’re a major league player. You keep bringing up things that every kid has known about baseball since they were 12. Yes the National league doesn’t have a DH. Yes players are concerned with getting in game playing shape during spring training. No one is disputing either of those. Stop citing childish facts to support a terrible argument.

          Here’s things I don’t need to look up: Over 50 players from the major leagues participated in the WBC. Acting like the only reason they’re there is because they are forced to be is nothing more than your opinion. And as I see now: you’re opinion is dog shit.

          It’s funny you posted that last quote, because it just makes you look like a conceded piece of garbage who acts like he is a lot smarter than he really is. You keep thinking you are in a special intelligent “reflective minority”. I’m sure it’ll work out great.

        • Isaiah says:

          “It’s mispelled just so it won’t get crossed out genius.”

          Is that why you misspelled “conceited”?

          “You don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore. What about comparing Don King promotions to the UFC has anything to do with the media?”

          Nothing. An MMA promoter is a lot more similar to a boxing promoter than he is to a commissioner of a league of independent businesses. That part is obvious. The MMA media missing the similarity is what I was commenting on.

          “I was calling you Fukin retarted because the comparison is exactly that. Just another feeble attempt by a petty internet troll who bashes the UFC at every attempt possible. Sure you bring some random facts in that make your arguments seem more valid, but really nothing you say should be taken at face value. You are a hater, and that’s all you usually come across as.”

          That’s really what it comes down to for you guys. Any argument you don’t like means that the arguer must “hate” the UFC.

          “Stop pretending you’re a major league player. You keep bringing up things that every kid has known about baseball since they were 12. Yes the National league doesn’t have a DH. Yes players are concerned with getting in game playing shape during spring training. No one is disputing either of those.”

          Um, you asked why I was only looking at the AL and I explained it. I agree it was simple. Oh, and I gave you the source for the data. You just have to click on the word “leagues” and then on the blue letter corresponding to the year and league in which you want to see the data. Am I pretending I’m a hacker by explaining that to you?

          “It’s funny you posted that last quote, because it just makes you look like a conceded piece of garbage who acts like he is a lot smarter than he really is. You keep thinking you are in a special intelligent “reflective minority”. I’m sure it’ll work out great.”

          OK. I was referring to anyone reading our exchange. If they know about baseball, they know instantly that you and 45 don’t know what you’re talking about and so they’ll probably, “assume that (you) make the same, or even worse errors about other things.”

    • Zach Arnold says:

      3) Zach Arnold is wrong about putting on 2 showings of the shows on SpikeTV. Advertsing doesn’t work like that and it would hurt both SpikeTV and the UFC financially.

      Not significantly, no. Sell the same sponsorship for both time frames.

      6) Zach Arnold is incorrect in his article that he linked to. UFC 122 is a perfect example of why the merger was required. I think we are much less likely to see cards like UFC 122 from now on now that we have 7 title belts and maybe 8 sooner then later.

      The biggest challenge for UFC is finding or developing new superstars. The Ultimate Fighter helped initially but has now transitioned into putting over the coaches for a big fight at the end. When PRIDE folded UFC was able to pick up talent. Now they have the merger. With more shows they need more talent. What happens if there isn’t an opportunity like a PRIDE folding to get new talent right away?

  3. Jason Harris says:

    I disagree with the basic premise that Mir-Lesnar III is bad for business. Whoever loses is going to take a big marketability hit, so what’s the benefit? That seems like one of those matches where UFC REALLY wants one guy to win, and they don’t tend to make those types of matches. I also really don’t think the fan interest is there right now. Mir is coming off a loss and a terrible win, Brock is coming off a loss….people just aren’t hyped for this match. I talk to casuals and they assume Brock will just smash Mir again, and they’re probably right.

    The live feeds are a complete non-issue. I watch every damned event, hell, I’ve even watched DREAM live in the middle of the night, but what’s the problem with a 6 hour tape delay? I’d much rather watch it on a Saturday night, with all of my friends and a beer, than sitting at home at 11AM. I think 99% of people feel the same way. It’s just not a real issue.

    I don’t believe anyone needs to be a cheerleader for UFC in the press, but conversely, we don’t need all these idiots who LOVE anything that’s not UFC and post 10 articles a week talking trash on Dana White for the gossip hits. The fact is, 95% of the sport is UFC. The other stuff is fringe. Yes, I enjoy watching the other stuff, but pretending it’s anything other than secondary to the big leagues is kidding yourself. It’s incredibly frustrating to watch these writers with an agenda successfully converting their own little groups of “Yeah! Screw Dana White and the UFC!” minions.

    I’ve never seen another sport where there are so many people devoted to just writing hit pieces on the major players in the sport. It’s ridiculous.

  4. edub says:

    Good points made by all. I don’t even know where to start:

    “American’s care about American sports. We want one league to rule them all. If you don’t compete in that league, you don’t matter.”

    -Completely agree. That’s why I am for one promotion to be the majors, and for all others to turn into feeder leagues (which is sort of the case now). There are many arguments (some good, some bad) that it would hurt the sport. I don’t agree.

    “Zach Arnold is wrong about putting on 2 showings of the shows on SpikeTV. Advertsing doesn’t work like that and it would hurt both SpikeTV and the UFC financially.”

    -Would it be worse if the combined showings did more than 2.2 million? I would assume a showing at 3:00PM eastern time would destroy “ultimate car crashes”, or “a million ways to die”. But I guess I could be wrong.

    “Sadly, he wasn’t alone in saying the Giants/Rangers was bad for baseball. A ton of East Coast media outlets pushed the same theme at the beginning and throughout the series, including the NY Post and NY Times.”

    -This is true, but it’s not like these sentiments are going to change anything. Baseball is not going to give up it’s playoff system. Besides they’re were made by Writers who are life long fans of the Yankees, Brooklyn Dodgers/NY Mets, Red sox, Whitesox etc. Their teams just lost in the playoffs. Of course they’re gona be butthurt.

    “It also seems that Meltzer wants MMA to copy the way he reads boxing of yore – a bunch of overhyped draws being protected from legitimate threats. Doesn’t he realize it was that sort of activity that killed boxing’s legitimacy with fans?”

    -I don’t think he sees that far ahead. It’s all about the end result right now to him because of his pro wrestling background. There is no plan b for him because in prowrestling there didn’t need to be.

    -I don’t know enought about nascar to even have an opinion, except that Brad Daugherty is the man.

    -I think and hope there can be separate discussions when considering the business side and the sporting side of the sport. Josh should know that he knows the sporting side a lot better than Meltzer, and visa versa. When they move to the other end of the spectrum is where you start to see the fault of having a prowrasslin background with Meltzer, and the lack of business acumen with Gross.

  5. Jonathan says:

    Honest question here.

    Is Dave Meltzer a part of the kayfabe?

    In real sports, where the outcome is determined by the score at the end of the game, all the writers need to do is report what they saw. In pro wrestling, the writers have to carry on the story of the promoters and the writers, i.e. “Sting’s ribs were broke by Big Van Vade”…..does this mindset that they have about being a “part” of the game carry over to when they cover legit sports?

    • edub says:

      Good points.

      I don’t even know if he rationalizes it all. I think he just reports a certain way because he has a niche fanbase that follows along with what he has to say, and he makes a good living off of it. So even though he has very intelligent critics he doesn’t feel the need to listen to what I consider “reason” most of the time.

    • 45 Huddle says:

      It has to do more with the Pro Wrestling culture being a bunch of haters. Many have brought that culture over online.

      Go talk to a regular UFC fan who isn’t online, and there is very little hate. They just enjoy the fights. It’s the online fans, who many come from the Pro Wrestling fanbase, that wreck havoc on the sport.

      • Isaiah says:

        Indeed. It’s just a continuation of the idiotic WCW/WWF Monday Night wars. The people who used to say that one or the other of the major wrestling promotions sucked have grown up (but not matured) and are hugely loyal to MMA brands.

    • Meltzer never really protected kayfabe in his newsletter ever, so its hard to argue that he’s looking at it from that perspective. However, I think he sees the fights as part of a creative process similar to matches in wrestling, but has a tough time reconciling the “MMA is real” part in that.

  6. robthom says:

    I dont have a oversized problem with it.
    (Or maybe I’m just resigned to it?!)

    The Brock is FUN!

    Whether or not he was ever the best (or anywhere near), he was a kick.

    Sometimes being realistic can be so droll.

    I do not approve of disproportionately disregarding reality for the sake of fun.
    But I do like to have fun just like everybody else.

    I figure kind of like boxing, I wont watch Mir/Brock 3, but a lot a people will and I’ll read the results.

    (Fussy/frugal people like me aren’t the ones who pay the UFC’s rent.)

  7. Robin says:

    I may me biased here. I first heard of Dave Meltzer while taking Bill Walsh’s Sports Business class at Stanford many years ago when Meltzer was brought in as a guest teacher. Walsh said that he became familiar with Meltzer with his XFL coverage and said that he was amazed by it and it was the best he saw anywhere. The other professor, George Foster, said he wasn’t a wrestling fan but said his favorite sportswriter was Meltzer and nobody understood sports business like him.

    He taught the class and there was no talking about wrestling, just promotional ideas on starting a new sports league and he was a good addition. He was very enthusiastic and very insightful on ideas that would and wouldn’t work and why. Professor Foster said he loved reading him because of his instincts on business.

    Later, I became an MMA fan and started subscribing to the web site.

    But watching people here misinterpret what he says, or downgrade this idea he doesn’t understand sports business, we got presidents of teams and commissioners of leagues in class and none were as sharp as Meltzer was, at least in 2002.

    Alan, first, your powers of comprehension are really bad. I read the WNBA stuff. Meltzer never said the WNBA was proof a women’s WWE could be a success. He said the opposite. The question was said by someone that nobody wants to see women athletes, period, they only want to see women who are gorgeous in sports. Nobody cares about anything but looks in women athletes, citing that WWE was the only organization which knew how to promote women athletes.

    Meltzer noted that the WWE hires women who look like they can be in Playboy, but there are women in sports who are much bigger stars than any of the WWE women. He said attractiveness is a big advantage for a woman athlete.

    He pointed out the average attendance of a WNBA game was larger than the average attendance at a WWE event. The point was that if WWE toured with only its Playboy looking women, who are a very insigificant part of its overall presentation, it could not pack arenas. He said it could not draw like the WNBA, which is presenting women who are talented at their sport, some of which get opportunities by being attractive, as opposed to hiring models to play basketball.

    People were arguing that point and looking stupid in the process, because a touring Playboy-clad WWE would not draw at all on its own. He never said the WNBA was a success, only that if you booked major arenas with only WWE women, that would fail.

    He never said Giants vs. Rangers was bad for baseball. He only said baseball executives and network executives were unhappy, because they care about ratings, and it did bad ratings. If you follow sports business, that theme has been everywhere about it being tied for the worst drawing World Series in history.

    His piece on Lesnar’s next opponent in today’s Observer covered every base on that subject. It’s the kind of piece I’ve seen no other MMA reporter do at that level.

    So seeing people criticize him by misinterpreting everything he said or saying he doesn’t get sports business should be funny, but bothered me because of my experience.

    I do like Josh Gross’ writing as well. But he’s wrong on the co-promotional idea. He makes suggestions that make no sense about what UFC should do that would only strengthen potential competitors. He’s also wrong on airing European shows live. Why would you want to have fewer viewers just so you can see it live. UFC has to market to the 95%, not the 5%. I think he doesn’t see past the 5%.

    • Alan, first, your powers of comprehension are really bad. I read the WNBA stuff. Meltzer never said the WNBA was proof a women’s WWE could be a success. He said the opposite. The question was said by someone that nobody wants to see women athletes, period, they only want to see women who are gorgeous in sports. Nobody cares about anything but looks in women athletes, citing that WWE was the only organization which knew how to promote women athletes.
      Meltzer noted that the WWE hires women who look like they can be in Playboy, but there are women in sports who are much bigger stars than any of the WWE women. He said attractiveness is a big advantage for a woman athlete.
      He pointed out the average attendance of a WNBA game was larger than the average attendance at a WWE event. The point was that if WWE toured with only its Playboy looking women, who are a very insigificant part of its overall presentation, it could not pack arenas. He said it could not draw like the WNBA, which is presenting women who are talented at their sport, some of which get opportunities by being attractive, as opposed to hiring models to play basketball.

      All the while I see Dave’s posts about how Manami Toyoda was a big draw. His retort was to effectively state that people will watch women’s sport with unattractive women and gave the WNBA as an example of such a league. The reality is that no one watches the WNBA. Its ticket sales are forced on NBA season ticket holders and corporations and its network deals are tied to the NBA.

      He obviously doesn’t understand the WNBA’s business model or why it exists when he’s asking if a WWE Diva group would be selling 11,069 seats. Like, that is not the right comparison here.

  8. Jonathan says:

    I come to this website for the comments. I think others will agree.

  9. Robin says:

    So tell me, WNBA vs. WWE Divas division on tour, which is more successful?

    • The WNBA loses less money because the NBA will force corporate sponsors to buy tickets and sponsorship time for them and will force the entirety of NBA ownership to continue carrying the sport at a financial loss. Neither succeeds on their own merits. Nor would a WWE Divas tour that features “great female workers” because no one cares about women’s sports outside a limited number of enterprises: Tennis being one, figure skating being the other.

  10. Robin says:

    Let’s make it easy since this was the point.

    If I get an arena and get to put on a women’s tennis tournament featuring the best and most talented women’s tennis players, and you get an arena in the same city and can book only the most gorgeous of WWE Divas, who will sell the most tickets. Or for that matter, if I’m in the city with a major WNBA franchise, same goes.

    The argument was that nobody pays to see women athletes who are good at sports, only gorgeous women. His point is that it isn’t that simple.

    If you are so obsessed by Meltzer that you are willing to argue this point, I’m sorry for you.

    He doesn’t understand the WNBA? Who says that, the guy with so little reading comprehension that he was 180 degrees wrong in the whole subject he was criticizing?

    • edub says:

      Talk about the pot calling the kettle black: Why are you so obsessed with Meltzer?

    • The argument was that nobody pays to see women athletes who are good at sports, only gorgeous women. His point is that it isn’t that simple.

      He then goes on a joshi lovefest and follows it up by touting the comparative success of the WNBA versus that of the WWE as a whole. Obviously he doesn’t understand how the WNBA works or is financed.

      I can only imagine Dave trying to understand the workings of automobile racing. How does Williams F1 and their decision to sign a pay driver while releasing Nico Hulkenberg figure into the structure of either the Monday Night Wars or territories? LOL

      • Chuck says:

        No, no, no! Meltzer would compare what you said (sorry, don’t follow Formula-1) to the New Japan/UWFi feud of the mid nineties and how it turned around business. And then go on about how Riki Choshyu knew how to correctly book inter-promotional feuds, bash WCW in the process, etc.

        No, wait! That was the Death of WCW book! My bad. Eh, same shit, different smark…

  11. edub says:

    Agreed with Klown and Jonathon:

    In the last week we have had seperate discussions on the Flotilla conflict in Israel, Hot ring card girls, The WNBA’s business model, Steroids, and the effectiveness of japanese baseball on a global level.

    I find that really cool, eventhough some would disagree.

  12. Robin says:

    Yeah, figured you couldn’t answer the question, or admit you misrepresented everything he said.

    And he never said the WNBA was more successful than WWE as a whole. Make more stuff up to hide that that you misrepresented everything and can’t admit it.

    • Dave’s exact quotes:

      “The WNBA is now outdrawing the WWE men on average in the U.S., so talking about the WNBA being a positive to your argument is pretty bad when their women outdraw John Cena & Randy Orton.”

      “Wow, did you miss the point big time here.

      The WNBA has 17 games in the same city over four months and averages 7,000 to 8,000 per game.

      WWE can only come to the same city 2-4 times per year because the days of coming to the same market monthly are over because their marketing shows if they come to a market more than that, they can’t draw. Remember when WWE tried to run the Manhattan Center for Raw in the 90s. WNBA runs basically an average of one home game per week. WWE ran the Manhattan Center, which was set up for 1,100 fans, every three weeks. The had to start papering the second taping after selling out the first. They were down to about 800 WITH PAPER at the third taping, and eventually had to move out because they were down to 300 paid. The WWE product only survives on the road because they run so rare in each market.

      The WNBA has 204 games within 4 months in the U.S. The WWE has about 70 dates in the U.S. and Canada in the same four month period, but they have the advantage of touring all over North America while WNBA plays the same cities and has to draw the same people over and over, which is far more difficult.

      If the WWE toured with just their women and didn’t have the men, could they sell 8,000 tickets to arenas at $15 17 times per year in any market. They couldn’t even do it with their men.

      No, the WNBA can’t do better TV ratings but I specifically said drawing attendance. But my point was you acted like nobody pays to see women athletes, only sexy women, when the WWE’s sexy women are bathroom breaks at the live show and channel changers as often as not on television. So even in the WWE vacuum you can’t prove the point other than to bring up Sunny, who may have sold merchandise but never drew one house on her own in her life, and Sable, who was a huge TV ratings draw because she was pushed like a superstar, and blow off Chyna, who was also pushed like hell to a ridiculous level and did draw, but never close to the level of her push. And Sable’s hot period was 1998, 12 years ago, when you had Steve Austin as the big star.”

      Yeah, this is a dude people pay money for to hear his sports business analysis. You’d think he’d have learned something with his SBJ subscription.

  13. Robin says:

    Wow, just wow.

    One great point after another in that post.

    You buried yourself and haven’t even realized it.

    Unless you want to argue that the Playboy women in WWE with no support from the men can run a major arena like Madison Square Garden once a week for four months and keep the doors open.

    • That’s not the argument at all I’m producing. Dave Meltzer is arguing that men pay to see the WNBA and that it is an example of how people will pay to see elite female athletes. They do not. The WNBA does not fit any traditional mold of sports promotion, nor are their figures comparable to the WWE or even arena football in any way, shape, or form, because of the manner in which they sell tickets, acquire TV time, etc. He even goes on to sort of suggest that he has heard something about it, but then claims that the WWE “does the same thing”, which is basically a total lie.

      • Furthermore, look at stuff like this:


        The WNBA has 17 games in the same city over four months and averages 7,000 to 8,000 per game…..

        The WNBA has 204 games within 4 months in the U.S. The WWE has about 70 dates in the U.S. and Canada in the same four month period, but they have the advantage of touring all over North America while WNBA plays the same cities and has to draw the same people over and over, which is far more difficult.

        He is arguing that the WNBA is successful in drawing large crowds on a regular basis and does so in a more difficult manner because they are a team sport who play regularly. Is there another way to parse these words? And yet anyone who knows jack shit about the WNBA knows that the ticket costs are effectively considered just part of the NBA ticket package by companies buying the tickets. Same with the advertisers. They have no interest in the WNBA. They only have interest in the NBA.

        Let me put this to you another way, smart guy: Bud Light is a sponsor for the WEC and UFC, right? You think Bud Light paid all that money to Zuffa because they wanted to be a WEC sponsor and appear on programming that didn’t even reach as many folks as ESPN Friday Night Fights? No, no they didn’t. They’re there because they wanted in on the UFC, and in order to make the deal, Zuffa wanted them to plaster their company on the WEC cage as well. To them, it an irrelevant part of the business deal to get with the company they actually care about, which is why they’ve never really bothered to activate their sponsorship with the WEC. Dig it? Probably not.

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image