« UFC 89 (10/18) event results | Home | Media: Hey, Michael Bisping is a really good fighter »
Media reaction to UFC 89
By Zach Arnold | October 19, 2008
Interesting to note that a lot of the British newspapers that covered the heat-up for Bisping vs. Leben didn’t cover the UFC 89 event at all in their Sunday newspapers.
- The Canadian Press: England’s Michael Bisping wins decision over Chris Leben at UFC 89
- The Sun (UK): Michael Bisping – I’ve not earnt title shot
- Setanta Sports (UK): Bisping one step closer to title shot
- The Associated Press: Bisping moves one step closer to facing Anderson Silva
- The Lancashire Telegraph (UK): Bisping thwarts Crippler in UFC clash
- Eurosport: UFC 89 draws crowd of 9,515 to Birmingham, England
- The Boston Herald: Busy Dana White holds court (talks about Fedor, EXC, etc.)
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, UK, Zach Arnold | 35 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
MMA is still breaking through over there, its alot easier to cover the athletes than cover the results of their handiwork. That or the matchups weren’t compelling to them either.
Also congrats BHOP for your destruction of Kelly Pavlik. It was like watching Randy dissect Big Timmey all over again except even more difinitive.
Oh wow, I completely forgot that boxing fight was last night. Not a good sign for boxing. Pavlik was supposed to be one of their big stars for the next few years.
Bisping fighting last night was reminiscent of an endless number of mediocre Frank Warren cards where the naturalized prospect fights some hyped up overmatched opponent and proceeds to easily score a victory over him. The UFC spent time on the broadcast talking about how he was the 12th biggest athlete in the country and how the sport only had existed there for two years and I got a great chuckle out of that.
I’m not worried.
Boxing will survive Pavlik’s loss with not so much as a hiccup.
Not that having B-Hop school him so resoundingly wasn’t difficult for this Pavlik fan to watch ( & I’m sure that Bob Arum & HBO have MASSIVE hangovers today from having made the match in the first place ), but I’ll get over it quickly. Just like I have in hundreds of other similar circumstances over the past three decades of being a rabid fight fan.
Honestly, I had a bad feeling about this match up from the moment that it was signed. It was not only a bad contrast in styles for Pavlik, but other than $$$ there was little motivation in making it. There was little to no upside for Pavlik in the fight.
But, he’ll be back.
He’s still the middleweight champ & if he’s even half the fighter I think he is, he’ll come back from this a stronger, better fighter because of it.
My issue with Pavlik/Hopkins is the whole “That fight shouldn’t have happened” meme. I’m sorry, Hopkins was a dominant middleweight champion and Pavlik is a monster middleweight. This is not some crazy size disadvantage. Additionally, Pavlik was 17 years younger. That should have made a difference. It didn’t. And most importantly, aren’t fights between top fighters what people want? Pavlik losing to a living legend who’s been competitive with everyone he’s been in even in his losses is not gonna kill his career any more than fighters in the 50s and 60s who regularly fought top level fighters or MMA fighters who sustain losses see their careers suddenly self destruct.
Pavlik likely will stick to 160 at this point and will either fight Rubio (who became a mandatory on the undercard of the PPV) or Abraham next..
Just watched the Pavlik fight. Damn I cant believe how much he struggled. He looked so slow and was beaten to the punch every time. Hopkins doesnt have rapid hands but Pavlik could not avoid getting hit. No head movement and even when he was close he hopkins was busier. Its better for us the fans that these fights happen and even though Pavlik was moving up I stil thought he would be to busy v for an ageing hopkins but he from round 1 he looked all over the place and it only got worse. I dont think it was simply a style issue as Hopkins can make any fighter look bad. Calzaghe stuggled at times but his superior handspeed won him that fight and just purely throwing more punches. Pavlik couldnt get any punches off let alone any power shots. He had no jab at all.
D.Cap: It doesn’t matter that Hopkins used to be a middleweight. That was three years ago. It is clear that Hopkins is more suited fighting at 169/170 than Pavlik is. It would have been best for Pavlik’s career to stick to 160 and not go up in weight class prematurely. Because he did, he no longer has an undefeated record.
Sorry, but in boxing, a loss hurt far more than in MMA. You can’t use the got caught excuse, because they give you time to recover. You can’t use the weakness against the ground game because there are none. If you’re out boxed, then you’re out boxed. No excuses.
D.Cap: It doesn’t matter that Hopkins used to be a middleweight.
He was a middleweight titlist for an entire decade, and Pavlik’s last major fight wasn’t at 160 either. This idea that he’s naturally the bigger man or whatever is crazy. Pavlik is taller, after all. The problem for Pavlik is that Hopkins happens to be so superior a boxer, Pavlik couldn’t make up for it with his raw athleticism. Calzaghe and Taylor both were able to beat Hopkins because, frankly, they’re better athletes than Pavlik.
Sorry, but in boxing, a loss hurt far more than in MMA.
Oh, please. The number of hall of fame fighters that are undefeated fits on a hand. De La Hoya has lost most of his major fights in the last 5 years and yet he’ll probably outdraw every MMA event in history yet again in two months time.
Which doesn’t even negate my point.
I wouldnt say a loss in boxing is that bad. It all depends on what u have done before the loss. Damn I remember Barerra losing twice to Junior Jones. Didnt stop the little mexican becoming a legend. Everyone loses.
It’s incredible foolish to argue that a loss in boxing doesn’t hurt far more than a loss in MMA, but if you insist just remember that one of the most beloved and respected MMA fighters of all time has a lifetime record of 16-8, and the cards he headlines bring in more PPV buys than 90% of boxing champions could ever hope to get.
Which doesn’t even negate my point.
Arturo Gatti was able to fill up Boardwalk Hall after losing to a club fighter. This “losses hurt more” nonsense is just that. When top fighters fight one another, guys lose. And yet, historically, that’s never actually mattered in boxing when you’re talking about top names versus one another. Pavlik’s still the middleweight champion, and Hopkins is a helluva name.
Even more hilarious is your claim that fighters never can claim they “got caught”. Sure worked for Lennox Lewis twice. That’s just recently.
So you’re basically taking a position that a loss in MMA is equivalent to a loss in boxing? Boxing fans would have no problem watching a guy who’s 16-8 headlining one of the biggest PPV in the sport?
Think about this carefully. It’s okay to admit you’re wrong.
So you’re basically taking a position that a loss in MMA is equivalent to a loss in boxing? Boxing fans would have no problem watching a guy who’s 16-8 headlining one of the biggest PPV in the sport?
There’s no rational comparison using Couture. You don’t have guys fighting for world titles in their 4th pro fights except in Thailand, in which case, world champions fight against 1-5 fighters on a regular basis. If there was a boxer who was a five time world champion and 16-8 overall, I’d say that might be true. Alternately, you look at the UFC’s younger fighters in the current enviroment, and I’d say that the losses that Hammill, Bisping, Huerta, Hughes, and even GSP have incurred recently have done “damage” similar to that of similar losses sustained by boxers at the comparable levels.
If there was a boxer who was a five time world champion and 16-8 overall, I’d say that might be true.
That’s the ENTIRE point. There isn’t. There never will be. A guy with that record would never be a champ in boxing. That’s the ENTIRE point. Hell, a guy with a 12-4 would never be a champ in boxing. A guy with a 10-2 record would be a nobody in boxing.
I don’t know why I’m still arguing with you. I might as well pound my head at a wall.
That’s the ENTIRE point. There isn’t.
There wasn’t. With MMA starting to come into its own as a sport, there are undefeated, very well protected prospects just like boxing. There’a a bunch I can name that are fairly high profile: Kimbo Slice, Tony Bonello, Roger Huerta, Michael Bisping, Diego Sanchez, etc. When they’ve lost, a lot of their marketability and respect went along with the 0s.
Aside from Brock Lesnar, its incredibly unlikely that you’ll see guys with single digit wins continuing to garner title shots in the future. They aren’t getting them now, after all. That Randy Couture has a mediocre record is a product of the time period he’s from, not because MMA is totally different from boxing. A 16-8 fighter who started in 2002 probably isn’t gonna see a title shot any time soon.
I wouldn’t mention Bonello considering his record was mostly made of fixed fights.
I wouldn’t mention Bonello considering his record was mostly made of fixed fights.
And gross mismatches, like the Sherdog-unlisted bout with John Wayne Parr. Of course, its not as if that isn’t true about more than a couple boxing prospects.
“A 16-8 fighter who started in 2002 probably isn’t gonna see a title shot any time soon.”
What about a guy that’s 4-4 in the UFC?
What about a guy that’s 4-4 in the UFC?
He’s an afterthought with a winning percentage in his career that’s still better than Couture’s? Which is it? That the UFC record is all that matters or the entirety of the MMA record? At least cyph is often consistent with his arguments.
When we go back to boxing being a rather new major sport like MMA is today,(Jack Dempsey’s day), we have a better comparison with losses destroying somebodies career.
Jack Dempsey’s first title defense was against Jimmy Darcy who’s career record is 40-33-33. When MMA has completely entrenched itself as a sport with as steeped an amateur background as today’s boxing has losses will mean more. It still won’t mean 1 or 2 or 3 hell 10 losses won’t be the end of a guys career. Carlos Baldomir fought Floyd Mayweather for the title with 9 losses on his record.
Wlad Klitschko has 3 bad losses on his record and he’s the consensus #1. Manny Pacquiao has 3 losses and 2 draws and he’s the #1 PfP fighter in the world by most rankings.
Losing to a legened like BHop won’t hurt Pavlik at all – it will make him better by exposing weaknesses he has to work on. All this fight did is cement that Bernard is an ALL TIME great fighter to be mentioned with fighters such as Sugar Ray Leonard – Marvin Hagler and Roberto Duran.
As to the reason Hopkins beat Kelly… Hopkins is way to crafty a vet to let a guy with a major footwork flaw, (which Bernard said in an interview after the fight he found after pouring through tapes of Kelly), take advantage of him with his best asset.
Hopkins said that in watching tape he noticed Pavlik’s footwork wouldn’t allow him to throw the big right properly if Bernard didn’t make the mistake of moving to his left into it. If Bernard used fundamental movement and kept moving to his right Pavlik’s bad foot positioning would prevent him from throwing the right across his chest to where Hopkins was gonna be. He used this constantly and exploited Kelly all night with it.
Master at work.
Now Kelly can work on fixing this and can come back better.
“He’s an afterthought with a winning percentage in his career that’s still better than Couture’s?”
His winning percentage is barely better than Couture’s. 16-8 for all intents and purposes is in the same category as a 13-4 record. It’s a journeyman record.
“Which is it? That the UFC record is all that matters or the entirety of the MMA record? At least cyph is often consistent with his arguments.”
It’s not inconsistent. He’d have to have a mediocre UFC record and a great MMA record for it to be inconsistent. Cote has a mediocre record no matter how you look at it.
I specifically mentioned his UFC record to make a point, since we have a UFC fighter with an even UFC record earning a UFC title shot. If that isn’t a sterling example that a loss means less in MMA than boxing I don’t know what is. Other than Couture of coursee. And Lesnar. And Mir.
His winning percentage is barely better than Couture’s. 16-8 for all intents and purposes is in the same category as a 13-4 record. It’s a journeyman record.
Its a good tick better percentage wise going from winning 2/3 of your fights to 3/4 of your fights. Its not outrageous to compare it to numerous guys in boxing like Ricardo Mayorga, Carlos Baldomir, Arturo Gatti, etc.
I specifically mentioned his UFC record to make a point, since we have a UFC fighter with an even UFC record earning a UFC title shot. If that isn’t a sterling example that a loss means less in MMA than boxing I don’t know what is. Other than Couture of coursee. And Lesnar. And Mir.
You talk loudly of the losses of Couture, but most Americans haven’t seen a good number of them. Hell, I’d say the overwhelming majority of them were never seen by the American public.
It also doesn’t disprove my point that you’re unlikely to see many fighters in the current era fighting for world titles with single digit win numbers, Lesnar excluded. After all, its not as if Lesnar really earned that title shot in the ring.
What we need is an open comment thread on the same page as all the RSS links for Boxing so that all the boxing people can post boxing talk in a thread about boxing instead of posting about boxing in comments for a post that doesn’t even mention it.
Plenty of people saw Couture’s losses to Liddell. They’re amongst the best promoted and viewed fights in UFC history, even if they are down a notch from the ego-fests with Ortiz.
What we need is an open comment thread on the same page as all the RSS links for Boxing so that all the boxing people can post boxing talk in a thread about boxing instead of posting about boxing in comments for a post that doesn’t even mention it.
I wouldn’t complain about that.
Plenty of people saw Couture’s losses to Liddell. They’re amongst the best promoted and viewed fights in UFC history, even if they are down a notch from the ego-fests with Ortiz.
Couture’s two losses to Liddell aren’t anywhere near the most viewed fights in history. Half of the 6 losses were never shown in America. The other 6 were on PPVs viewed by less than 100,000 households.
Lets play he extrapolation game!
If UFC champs had boxing records:
Randy Couture: 16-8 becomes 40-20.
Forrest Griffin: 16-4 becomes 40-10.
BJ Penn: 13-4-1 becomes 40-12-3.
GSP: 17-2 becomes 40-5.
Silva: 22-4 becomes 40-7.
The only boxing-like record is GSP and that’s really bottom of the barrel if you can find one in the 68 separate boxing champions. D Cap could probably explain why these records are totally okay in boxing, though, I suspect.
GSP also happens to be one of the more modern examples of an MMA fighter, as in general are his opponents. Jon Fitch, for instance, was 19-2. Koscheck was 9-1. Matt Hughes was 40-4 in their second fight. Serra was 8-4 officially coming into the first fight, but got the title shot in a way you’re not likely to see again.
I know you have no answer for talk about Diego or Huerta and how they represent the present and future of the sport, so I’ll let your silence speak for you.
Diego and Huerta:
Diego: 19-2 becomes 40-4. Will never be champ.
Huerta: 20-2-1 becomes 40-4-2. Will never be champ.
I was comparing champs with champs. You pull out two guys who will never be champ and you’re basically using that to back you up? Huerta was beaten soundly by a gatekeeper. Diego also is a gatekeeper. Why don’t you compare apples to apples? Furthermore, now that the two are facing stiffer competition, their records will never stay this pristine. Their losses are during their last few fights, if you remember. I expect by the time they get to 40 wins, their losses would be at least 15 now that they’re facing real competition. Because MMA is not boxing. Fighters can lose on any given day.
You just used the example that “older generation” have different records. You And yet you just used Matt Hughes as an example. Isn’t he an older generation? Stay consistent now! Either you can use Couture or Hughes to back up your case, not both! In MMA, a 10-15% loss record is normal for champs. In boxing, a 5% loss record would be on the high side.
Two different sport. Multiple disciplines are involved in MMA whereas only one is in boxing. There are so large a fundamental differences between the two that it shouldn’t even be compared. But you will still try to compare boxing with MMA as if they are the same. D Cap, you win the Internet.
I was comparing champs with champs. You pull out two guys who will never be champ and you’re basically using that to back you up?
What guys who will be champs in the future will have asimilar records to those of, say, Couture when he first won a title? I’m not seeing very many, cyph. The best hope you have is Lesnar, and I’m guessing he’s not a prototype for the future.
You just used the example that “older generation” have different records. You And yet you just used Matt Hughes as an example. Isn’t he an older generation?
He’s an “older generation fighter” who was brought up in a very modern way. He fought often against mid to low level competition.
You know, come to think of it, its funny you didn’t mention the top US (and Zuffa promoted) 135lb and 145lb fighters in the world. Miguel Torres is 34-1. Funny, that.
This can be merged with my last one too and is essentially my final word on the matter. You look at boxers during the heyday of the sport and you’ll see a lot of records closer to MMA of the present day than boxing today (Boxrec up Flash Elorde if you don’t believe it). Continuously stating that records are of less importance in MMA while the UFC continues to build up the Rashad Evans types of the world is to an extent true, but has more to do with the aggressive matchmaking than it does the nature of the sport. If there were fighters in boxing who the public demanded world title fights for 4-5 fights in, you’d see more Couture and Penn type records in the west (you do see them in the East). As the sport grows and the talent base expands, you’ll see more guys get protected like Huerta was. Heck, look at the top 10 of the modern welterweight division and try finding someone with a .666 winning percentage.
Huerta was protected, but I’m agreeing with the poster who said he’s never going to be champ. He seems to have taken the pretty extraordinary level of sheltering and promotion that UFC gave him and assumed it was because he was great rather than recognizing what was going on, and now he’s going to pay the price of hubris.
If he gets to hold an American title, it’ll be in WEC, not UFC.