« FILA Grappling second world committee meeting notes | Home | UFC 96 media heat-up: Take two »
Media heat-up for UFC 96 this Saturday in Columbus
By Zach Arnold | March 5, 2009
I tried to find what I could. Let’s hope media coverage picks up steam.
- AOL Fanhouse: Matt Hamill on fighting Mark Munoz – ‘it’s going to be a war’
- ABS-CBN News Online (Philippines): Fil-Am Mark Munoz ready to show his amateur wrestling skills at UFC 96
- USA Today: No matter who wins UFC 96, only Quinton Jackson has crack at Light Heavyweight title
- 2TheAdvocate (Baton Rouge): Which Keith Jardine will show up on Saturday night?
- Sherdog: Keith Jardine’s trainer, Greg Jackson, talks about his fighter’s expectations
- Setanta Sports (UK): If Rampage can bullrush Jardine, the fight will be over quickly
- The Sunbury Daily (PA): Tim Boetsch talks about his upcoming fight against Jason Britz, that guy ‘who hasn’t lost in 8 years’
BetUS odds for UFC 96
- Quinton Jackson (-350) vs. Keith Jardine (+250)
- Gabriel Gonzaga (-170) vs. Shane Carwin (+140)
- Matt Hamill (-170) vs. Mark Munoz (+140)
- Pete Sell (-140) vs. Matt Brown (+110)
- Gray Maynard (-170) vs. Jim Miller (+140)
- Kendall Grove (-200) vs. Jason Day (+160)
- Brandon Vera (-600) vs. Michael Patt (+450)
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 20 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
I’m still not excited for this card.
According to Sherdog, Sanchez vs. Guida at TUF 9. That should be an exciting fight.
I agree, I’m not hyped for this card either and haven’t seen too much news coverage as well. Sanchez vs. Guida should be interesting, I agree there.
Yawn.
I honestly dont see this as that much worse than alot of other UFC events.
Plus, havent we learned that what it says on paper does not necessarily correlate to how entertaining the card will be.
Unlike some of you, I am happy to watch no names fight eachother if its a good fight. Having names on a card means nothing if the fights suck.
Zach, why dont you get an affiliate account at a bookies to earn yourself some pennies. Bet US is a reputable one for sure – I have an affiliate account with them.
Sam, if you don’t mind me asking, can you define a “good fight”? I mean, I hear that argument a lot about UFC PPVs and it seems that “good fight” is synonymous with KO and submission wins without too much regard as to matchmaking or how the fight plays out.
Alan,
I am not Sam, but I think good fights are just those that are competitive and where they fighters show their skills. I don’t care so much about finishes as long as they are trying to finish. I usually hate cards with a lot of fast KOs.
Guida v Sanchez should be good becasue there is no way Diego lets Guida hug and hold for three rounds. Clay is very excited, but not very exciting.
I’m still ordering the PPV. And I almost always enjoy UFC PPV’s. But this card is really a main event away from being good. Imagine this was the main card instead:
1. Anderson Silva vs. Thales Leitas
2. Quinton Jackson vs. Keith Jardine
3. Gabriel Gonzaga vs. Shane Carwin
4. Matt Hamill vs. Mark Munoz
5. Grey Maynard vs. Jim Miller
Now that looks a PPV. Or even put in Liddell/Rua instead of Silva/Leitas.
It just feels like Sell/Brown shouldn’t even be on the main card…. And every fight is being pushed as one level above what it really is. Gonzaga/Carwin isn’t a semi-main event fight. And Jardine/Jackson is more of a co-main event then being the sole attraction to a card.
I think UFC 97 isn’t very impressive either. But UFC 99 is very solid on paper and UFC 98 & 100 are going to be very stacked. So I guess we have to take the good with the bad.
Wow. Wagnney Fabiano vs. Fredson Paixao is a prelim fight on the next WEC event.
Alan Conceicao Says:
Sam, if you don’t mind me asking, can you define a “good fight”? I mean, I hear that argument a lot about UFC PPVs and it seems that “good fight” is synonymous with KO and submission wins without too much regard as to matchmaking or how the fight plays out.
I dont mind you asking. I have been a fight fan for the past 25 years, and a hardcore MMA fan for about the last 7 years, and I am not one of those people.
However, a good fight for me is simply an entertaining one. Even one-sided fights can be entertaining. If you dont agree, then I’m not sure why you would even watch any fights.
Are you insinuating that you only like fights that are “good matchmaking.”?
I’m calling your bluff here.
The VAST majority of fights are either A) One-sided or B) Evenly matched but boring non-engagements. Only a small percentage of fights are evenly-matched, high level, exciting fights.
If you only like fights that are BOTH evenly matched AND very exciting, then you must be wasting ALOT of your time.
I like you are trying to call me out like my opinion of what entertains me will somehow make me a lesser quality fan. Honestly, thats laughable, and if thats what youre doing, then so are you.
A card full of great names and great matchups on paper that turns out to be a boring card is not what I want to see. If this is what interests you, then I wouldnt really call you an MMA fan, or a fight fan, but rather a fan of “good matchmaking” and “big names fighters.” Pretty boring.
Thats not me, and I’m proud to say that.
Fabiano on the undercard is directly linked to his absolutely boring debut in the WEC. Little doubt in my mind about that. Sad too, because that wasn’t really his fault. Was it Tamura he faced? That guy was holding on for dear life. He was really at fault.
Dana White has said that if Kendall Grove loses, he will be the first TUF Winner to be booted out of the UFC. That should make for all kinds of interesting news stories.
As for what makes a good fight… There needs to be a little drama to it. There was an EliteXC on CBS that had tons of really quick finishes, and it left a sour taste in my mouth. I like to see the fighters break a sweat, one fighter show superiority over another, and then end it with a nice KO, TKO, or submission.
Fights like Lindland/Belfort leave me wanting more, and kind of disappointed in how the fight turned out.
However, a good fight for me is simply an entertaining one. Even one-sided fights can be entertaining. If you dont agree, then I’m not sure why you would even watch any fights.
I watch crap fights on an almost daily basis. I won’t lie, and I consider them such. I’m asking this because, frankly, most of the people who say that I sense would rather see a first round KO than a 5 round decision were both offered to them sight unseen.
One thing I don’t get is the current meme that Jardine has nothing to gain from this fight. I understand that he won’t fight Evans for the belt but with the turnover of UFC campions being what it is its not hard to imagine Evans title reign being (mercifully?) short. A win over Rampage gives Jardine another (former) champ’s scalp and would put him close to first in line to a non Evans title shot. Even if he loses and Rampage becomes champ he could have a potential rematch for the strap after a quality win or two. In fact if Jardine wins he will have a really strong argument to the number one contender status as he would have victories over the last three champs so where is the down side again?
You’re right. I mean, if he wins, I’d pick Machida over Rashad, and then Jardine is probably only one fight away (maybe against forrest) for a title shot. He has a lot to gain.
Alan, as I said, you must be wasting ALOT of your time.
You say that most people would blindly choose a 1st round KO rather than a 5 round decision.
And I assume that the flipside is true with you?
You would blindly choose a 5-round decision over a 1st round KO? How exactly does this make you better than them?
Or what would you choose? Are you assuming that a 5 round decision will be a better fight than the 1st round KO? Thats just as random an assumption as choosing the 1st round KO. No?
Sounds to me like youre just being an MMA elitist who looks down on those who enjoy watching quick KOs and submissions.
Depends what you consider “wasting your time”. Watching MMA is a hobby, and when you watch it at the base level, you’re gonna see a lot of lousy. Ever sit through some King of the Cage or Gladiator Challenge events recently? I have. Lemme tell ‘ya; its not all pretty. In fact, its almost never pretty.
Now, can a first round KO be spectacular? Sure. Its just that I so often hear “good fight” become synonymous with stoppages, and furthermore, with stoppages that are frankly not the best fights that can be made to start with. I’m sure Brandon Vera/some guy might be exciting in the sense that Brandon Vera will probably put him on a stretcher, but is that really “good action”?
Honestly, I’m not sure I completely agree that this is a bad card. There are some possibly very close matchups in this event.
While that doesn’t spell great and exciting outcomes, it does provide some possible good fights.
[…] Media heat-up for UFC 96 this Saturday in Columbus | […]
“Plus, havent we learned that what it says on paper does not necessarily correlate to how entertaining the card will be.”
All you have to judge a card by when you’re deciding whether to buy it or not is how it looks on paper. What you’re saying is you’ll buy any card the UFC puts on just because its the UFC. That’s fine and your prerogative, but it really isn’t going to force their hand to bring us more stacked cards or dream fights.
“Wow. Wagnney Fabiano vs. Fredson Paixao is a prelim fight on the next WEC event.”
That’s what happens when your debut is a snorefest. Same thing happened to Nate Marquardt after the Salaverry fight, even though Marquardt had just signed a fat contract with Zuffa (by 2005 standards).
It is Zuffa’s not too subtle way of sending fighter’s a message about the importance of making their fights exciting.