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 | »

Sunday media review

By Zach Arnold | January 21, 2007

Print Friendly and PDF

By Zach Arnold

Before we get into today’s headlines, I wanted to address the rumors regarding WWE’s interest in MMA. According to a well-placed source (that wishes to remain anonymous), WWE is still interested in adding a fourth brand (they have RAW, Smackdown, and ECW) that is MMA-themed. Despite the IFL scoring a new TV deal with MyNetworkTV, WWE is still very interested in having their own MMA operation in 2007.

What makes the story intriguing is some of the WWE wrestlers that were talked about for being associated with this project. For example, one wrestler (Sylvester Terkay aka The Predator) was considered as a top ‘ace’ for the new MMA group. He has been let go from the company (as of last Thursday).

If the idea of pro-wrestlers working MMA fights is uncomfortable to you, it should be. Antonio Inoki tried this nearly a decade ago and it caused big damage for New Japan Pro-Wrestling. Inoki has been ripped to shreds for sacrificing pro-wrestlers in a shoot environment. Terkay, unlike someone like Manabu Nakanishi, has a legitimate fighting background (see: K-1 fight versus Remy Bonjasky). Nonetheless, the notion of a wrestling company creating an MMA subsidiary (to be advertised on all the various WWE TV shows) is eye-opening news.

There will be a lot more details surfacing soon about a potential MMA project for WWE. One thought that should be taken into consideration: Kenny Florian on the Fight Opinion Radio Christmas 2006 Special show stated that Massachusetts has essentially become the wild west as far as promoters running their own events with their own rules (the boxing commission is now hands-off on MMA regulation in the state). Massachusetts would likely be a prime MMA debut show area candidate for WWE (right in their backyard.)

Onto Sunday’s news & headlines.

  1. UFC Junkie: Interview with fighter Chris Price
  2. Gracie Fighter: Nick Diaz signs two-fight deal with PRIDE (rumor of Diaz vs. Gomi for PRIDE’s 2/24 Las Vegas event)
  3. NBC Sports: HBO and UFC – a great tag team
  4. The Honolulu Advertiser: Jeremy Horn beats Hawaii’s Niko Vitale in ‘superfight’ at IFL show
  5. Media Newswire: Crusher Bam Bam Bigelow dies at age 45 (I remember his fight at U-Japan in 1996)
  6. Fight Report: Nicolai Valuev three wins away from tying Rocky Marciano’s record
  7. UFC HP: Dean Lister – The Art of the Fight
  8. Sherdog: WEC 1/20 Las Vegas event results
  9. AP (via The Houston Chronicle): Ricky Hatton wins title back unanimously
  10. The Lincoln Journal-Star: Q & A with Matt Lindland

Topics: All Topics, Media, MMA, WWE, Zach Arnold | 24 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

24 Responses to “Sunday media review”

  1. Stu says:

    Good for Diaz, Nick clearly stated he wanted to fight for PRIDE (under PRIDE rules and PRIDE scoring though, he said it favored the more technical fighters).

  2. Tomer Chen says:

    Unless the WWE plans to run MMA events in states without a semi-decent athletic commission, I doubt McMahon will get an MMA promoter’s license to run events due to him also running Pro Wrestling, therefore skewing the image (and there may be the potential black eye that he’s working ‘shoot’ MMA fights that would lead to the license refusal).

  3. The MMA Critic says:

    Diaz fighting in the Pride Lightweight Division is the exact reason why I hate grouping the Pride & UFC Lightweights into an all encompassing Top 10. Pride’s Lightweights are 161 lbs, which is almost a catch weight between the NSAC’s Welterweight & Lightweight Divisions. I think Diaz against Gomi is an interesting fight. If Diaz wins, it will actually move Sean Sherk up near the top of the rankings, since he beat Diaz.

    McMahon in MMA has failure written all over it.

  4. JOSH says:

    Now u cant use that logic of Fighter A beat Fighter B, Fighter B beat Fighter C therefore Fighter A can beat Figther C. Especially in this scenario because the fights would be under different rules. As Diaz stated the PRIDE rules will favor more technical fighters. The Sherk/Diaz fight was just an overblown Sherk laying on top of the smaller Diaz and winning via the UFC’s 10 point rule system. If Sherk faced Diaz in PRIDE rules the outcome could have been different.

  5. Jordan Breen says:

    “Pride’s Lightweights are 161 lbs”

    Not to nitpick too severely, but 160.

    Also, Ricky “the Holdman” Hatton can bugger off. Complete lawlz at people thinking this was the guy who was going to beat Floyd.

  6. The MMA Critic says:

    73 KG X 2.20462 = 160.93726 lbs. That’s much closer to 161 lbs. People always say 160 lbs, but it just isn’t true. It is almost 6 pounds higher than the UFC Lightweight Limit. That is too much of a difference for comparison.

    Josh,

    Did you see the Diaz/Sherk fight? I don’t think Sherk got one takedown the entire fight. So there was no “laying on top of”. It was mostly dirty boxing, with Sherk winning the exchanges. The same result decision would have happened under Pride rules.

    The whole “Pride rules favor more technical fighters” is BS. Nick Diaz would have lost his fights to Sherk, Sanchez, Riggs, & Parisyan under Pride rules as well.

  7. badape says:

    How did Zuffa manage to get “Razor” Rob McCullough, Kit Cope sanctioned?

    Butterbean, Hunt wasn’t sanctioned, yet Butterbean has more MMA experience than Cope.

    Could it be that Zuffa has right-of-way in the NSAC.

  8. The MMA Critic says:

    I thought Hunt had Visa issues, and that was why the fight was called off. Not because of the mismatch.

    But yes, if the money is flowing, the athletic commission is less likely to cut off the hand that feeds them.

  9. Stu says:

    “Could it be that Zuffa has right-of-way in the NSAC.”

    Absolutely, I bet all Marc Ratner has to do is pick up the phone and it’s a done deal.

  10. JOSH says:

    No orignally the Hunt/Butterbean match was going to be turned into a boxing exhibition due to the disparity in MMA skills (then Hunt got visa issues so the whole point was moot). The CASC just did the same thing to White/Davis in the IFL. Makes me wonder if they will allow the rumored Fedor/Gardner match to even happen.

  11. Kevin says:

    Butterbean and Hunt are super-heavies.
    Cope and McCollough are lightweights.

    At super heavy, when there’s such a discrepancy in experience there is a much greater chance of permanent damage than when the experience is lopsided at 155lb. No tin hat required guys.

  12. Lynchman says:

    The MMA Critic Says:

    January 21st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
    I thought Hunt had Visa issues, and that was why the fight was called off. Not because of the mismatch.

    But yes, if the money is flowing, the athletic commission is less likely to cut off the hand that feeds them.

    ———————————————–

    Hunt was unable to secure a work visa in time due to some legal issues he had last time in the U.S. It had nothing to do with experience discrepancy.
    That is something that the CSAC is doing, not NSAC.

  13. Mike says:

    It sure looks like NBC Sports is getting their content directly from UFC, instead of producing their own. If that’s the case they should state this.

  14. The MMA Critic says:

    Butterbean & Hunt had roughly the same number of MMA fights, and both had extensive striking backgrounds before their MMA careers. I can’t see them canceling the fight for competition reasons.

    And, the CSAC has NEVER done that to the UFC. Once again, they know where the money flows. I don’t exactly agree with unfair practices like this, but I know why it takes place.

  15. JOSH says:

    Check back in some old archives but they were going to change the Hunt/Butterbean fight to a exhibition match due to the disparity. They CANCELLED the figth due to Hunt’s visa issue (dont get the two confused). And yes that does suck that they dont do it to UFC (but I cant recall too many fights where that would be a serious issue…but then again PRIDE IMo has had to jump through alot of hoops to get anything going in the states).
    I do apologize critic that I got the Diaz/Sherk fight confused with the Diaz/Riggs fight. IMO though Diaz won the Sherk fight (sherk tried to take him down like a dozen times anc couldnt do it). The only way I can see Sherk getting even a decision win was he landed more damaging blows (which is probably why Diaz is upset about the UFC boxingesque style of scoring).

  16. The MMA Critic says:

    Sherk did more damage then Diaz. Which would have have won him the decision in Pride too. Just more proof that Diaz talks out of his butt when when says he prefers Pride.

  17. JOSH says:

    Eh I dont think so because the damage wasnt overwhelmingly more than Diaz’s. Sherk ate a knee in the first when he tried to take Diaz down which I think did more damage then any of Sherk’s punches on Diaz. The one or two times Sherk took down Diaz, Diaz flipped him right back on his back. There was never a moment where Sherk was dominating Diaz (on the flipside Diaz never dominated Sherk either) BUT Shek couldnt take Diaz down, when he did Diaz gained control back. IMO I think PRIDE would have given Diaz the split decision.

  18. Jordan Breen says:

    “IMO I think PRIDE would have given Diaz the split decision. ”

    Do you have no faith that PRIDE judges can agree with each other?

  19. JOSH says:

    lol cute comment Breen.

  20. Zack says:

    My #1 MMA pet peeve = people not understanding what a “split decision” is

  21. The MMA Critic says:

    Josh,

    No offense man, but I think you need to watch the fight again. Some of the things you talk about didn’t happen during the fight.

    Zack is correct. People think that if a fight was close, that it automatically warrants a split decision. I have seen very close fights where there is no reason for a split decision because each round was definitely won by one fighter.

  22. JOSH says:

    Dude I just saw the fight right before I posted that. WHat did I say that didnt happen? And there is no way every round was won by either Sherk or Diaz.

  23. Jordan Breen says:

    “And there is no way every round was won by either Sherk or Diaz. ”

    That’s not what a split decision is, hence the quibbling.

  24. JOSH says:

    I realize what a split decision is Jordan, I was arguing the point that MMA critic was making at the end of his statement. And also that really isnt the point of the quibbling, its the simple time tested debate over who really won in a MMA fight.

Comments

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