« Greg Jackson talks about GSP’s strategy against BJ Penn | Home | Betting on UFC 100 »
ESPN SportsNation on UFC 100
By Zach Arnold | July 7, 2009
Question posed today on ESPN TV: What % of SN Will watch UFC 100 – 25% or 52%?
Answer: 25%
Yahoo changes MMA section to ‘UFC’
Take a look at their sports section — the headline is now UFC instead of MMA. Well, I did see the Yahoo Sports logo on all UFC video PR, after all…
Why will Brock Lesnar win?
Greg Nelson, Brock Lesnar’s trainer, says Brock won’t make the same mistake as he did in the first fight against Frank Mir:
“Well I think this time around with Mir he’s an entirely different fighter,” said Nelson. “He’s now filled in a lot of those holes that he had when he first went in. Before he was a wrestler who had an incredible athleticism and he used it but he had some holes and he’s a little bit too wild in there that first time. Now he’s been in there a few more times, he’s very composed, he has an ability to find how to land those big big giant mullets that he has on his hands, you know, that’s going to be the thing right there. Once he lands one of those shots, you know, one big shot can change the fight and he has the ability to do that at all times.”
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 41 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
I don’t even really care about this fight. Kind of pulling for Mir, just so I don’t have to listen to them sell the swing fight as the biggest fight of all time.
The rest of the card is pretty awesome though. GSP vs Alves is legit and should be the main event. 2 of the top 3 fighters in the world in the one weight class that has pretty much undisputed rankings (outside of the Shields anomaly.)
I’m rooting for Brock, Mir was much more humble before & slightly after he fought Nogueira. Now he has this air of scumbag-ness every time he does an interview.
Why will Brock Lesnar win?
Greg Nelson, Brock Lesnar’s trainer, says Brock won’t make the same mistake as he did in the first fight against Frank Mir.
Just one problem with that Brock doesn’t have to make the same mistake to get tapped out and beaten again.
I think Brock wins this quickly. I was at the first fight and hadn’t seen it again since (prior to just watching it 3 times right now). Mazzagatti stepping in for the blow to the back of the head has to be the worst ref interference ever. Mir turned from the punch as it was being thrown.
Anywhoo. My opinion in the first fight is my same now. I don’t think Mir can get leverage on Brock’s neck (or lack thereof) for a guillotine. I don’t think he’ll be able to get a triangle on and if he does won’t also be able to trap one of Brock’s legs. Mir would have to get one of Brock’s arms pointing backwards (i.e. far enough so Brock can’t join his hands) to pull off an armbar. I don’t think Mir can get a Kimura or Americana on Brock.
Leg locks and the Darce are about all you can get on Brock in my opinion. So I agree with Greg Nelson.
I see Mir’s best strategy as moving laterally and outstriking Brock. Brock got real distracted early in round 2 when Couture clipped him. He may break mentally under a repeated attack. Then again that may have been the first time he got hurt and he realized it didn’t phase him and now he’s going to be unstoppable. I’m really looking forward to this fight.
WOW! That is pretty interesting that Yahoo has changed the title of MMA to UFC under their tabs for sports.
Sad sad sad! UFC monopoly/domination is in full force. All the more reason people will bootleg, but ultimately business works that way!
Look at all the major sites that offered no coverage at all about EA Sports, the sponsorship story, or the fact that the UFC censored the top 100 fights by limiting what fights could be selected and/or deleting fighters altogether.
Truly amazing. “Journalists”–some are not even really pretending at this point.
I don’t see Yahoo or ESPN having links for baseball, football, hockey, or basketball. They link MLB, NFL, NHL, & NBA.
I don’t see why having a UFC link instead of a MMA link is a big deal.
Starting to see some of the full court press for UFC 100.
Just saw an ad for a UFC 100 Viewing Party at Radio City Music Hall on the elevator TV at work (Captivate Network). I was more than a little surprised, I have to admit.
Fromm mmapayout’s twitter
”
Are you being served? Sherdog, MMA Junkie, MMA Weekly look to have passed on covering sponsor tax and EA MMA Ban…. Thank god for JG
”
Add yahoo sports to another media outlet that wont touch the sponsor tax or EA ban with a 10 foot pole
How about look at it from the perspective of the journalists….
Josh Gross said: “For the UFC, according to sources familiar with the company’s thinking”
How is that a source? I have yet to see a legit source on this one. I’m not doubting the truth of it. I believe it is true. However, a good journalist will get a credible source before writing an article on it.
Unnamed sources have been a crucial part of journalism for years. Look at the recent winners of Pulitzer Prizes and notice how many of them wrote news stories that depended on sources that wished to remain anonymous.
The problem isn’t the unnamed source. It’s the “familiar with the company’s thinking.” That is hardly a credible way to start an article that bashes a company.
Seriously, he could have quoted anybody on The Underground with how wide open that comment leaves the article for bashing.
I thought the problem was with the unnamed source, because you ripped unnamed sources as not being legitimate all throughout the Dana White / Loretta Hunt scandal.
Josh Gross and Loretta Hunt have made it a habit to release anonymously sourced anti-UFC stories the week before big PPVs for awhile now. Anyone else find that curious?
So the UFC blackmails current UFC fighters, former UFC fighters, and fighters who have never even fought in the UFC, and reporting that makes it an “anti-UFC story”? Josh Gross is not the only writer to have reported that, either.
The Loretta Hunt had other issues that involved the unnamed source. Especially when it came out who the sources were, and 1 of them really wasn’t against it (Cox) and one of them had no credibility (Pavia).
The way he worded his column, it’s proof that he really doesn’t have a reliable source to go on. Like I said before, I don’t doubt the story, but for Gross to be publishing it, he needs a more credible source. In his own words, it doesn’t sound like he has that. And they don’t have to be named.
Mr. Roadblock is correct. Both have an ax to grind with the UFC. Hunt has written a ton of articles on Carano/Cyborg fight recently. Even going as far to say that the women’s fight is more important (I forget her exact wording) then UFC 100. And Gross has bashed the UFC’s business model since he was at Sherdog. He believes it should be about the fighters not the organization. The only problem is that if he ran things, MMA would be in the crapper. It is proven that the entity (The UFC) is needed in order to get fighters the most money. He has many other issues too, but that is one glarring opinion of his that is just flat out wrong.
He is also in love with Quinton Jackson and Fedor Emelianenko and completely drools over them in any articles about them
And let me say something that I know Ivan will bash, but then I will back it up with an example.
These negative articles should not be written during the week of the UFC. Even if the story is found out about, they should hold onto them until afterwards.
And here is my justification…. During the World Series, Major League Baseball has a policy to not announce any baseball deals while it is going on. The reason is simple. They don’t want the side garbage to interfere with what is most important…. And that is the sport itself.
When Alex Rodriguez was thinking about leaving the Yankees, Scott Boras (I believe it was him) issues a press release while the World Series was going on. A-Rod later apologized for showing up the World Series, as he knew it was wrong to do.
The same should be happening for big UFC events. The discussion should be about the greatness of the sport. Not this petty behind the scenes stuff. Yes, it has a place to be discussed, but these “journalists” like Hunt and Gross are just trying to stir up attention and get their names in the press (and to bash the UFC) when the sport should be getting praised. If anything, what they are doing hurts the sport. Casual fans don’t want to hear about this stuff. They want to enjoy the fights.
“when it came out who the sources were”
lol. You mean the two people who were quoted in the article? Those aren’t the unnamed sources, you know.
And no, the way that Josh Gross’ article was worded is not “proof” that he doesn’t have a reliable source. Robert Joyner of MMA Payout has reported the same information and with more detail in some aspects of the story.
What is really astonishing here is that the “blame the media” tactic to defend the UFC from criticism now apparently extends even when that criticism is of crimes.
Compared to other issues such as keeping a ridiculous percentage of revenue for themselves, blackmail is very different. As Dana White said in his video blog about the StandGate scandal, “THAT’s F’ING ILLEGAL!”
The Dictionary.com/Random House definition of blackmail in its verb form (ie, to blackmail someone) is:
-to extort money from (a person) by the use of threats.
-to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.: The strikers claimed they were blackmailed into signing the new contract.
Instead of widespread outrage over the UFC blackmailing fighters, many of whom have never even fought in the UFC, we’ve got people playing the usual “blame the media” games, and we’ve got people finding it curious that the blackmail story came out shortly before a major PPV (it’s not curious at all, given that the blackmail occurred shortly before a major PPV).
What we’re seeing now is just how far the “defend the UFC, blame the media” tactics will go. If anyone ever wondered, “Would those people still be defending the UFC even if a crime was committed?” We now have our answer.
Wow, you’ve really out-done yourself. News stories that report on the UFC’s recent blackmailing of fighters now qualifies as “petty behind the scenes stuff” to you.
Yeah, I now check the comments mainly due to a morbid fascination with all the ludicrous comments 45 makes whenever he feels his most cherished MMA promotion is “under attack” from “anti-UFC” forces. The clueless rationalizing and double standards, the ad-hoc explanations of business maneuvers he knows little to nothing about, the constant recriminations directed at any journalist who dares to offer a critical view of Zuffa or the UFC… I find it all very engrossing.
Here is a great example of his work:
“Both have an ax to grind with the UFC. Hunt has written a ton of articles on Carano/Cyborg fight recently. Even going as far to say that the women’s fight is more important (I forget her exact wording) then UFC 100.”
So your example of Hunt having an ax to grind is that she is offering continuing coverage of one of the most important fights of the year… BUT IT ISN’T UFC ZOMG! You didn’t just forget her exact wording, you misrepresented what she wrote entirely. She predicted that fight would garner more main stream press attention than UFC 100. So you’ve offered zero evidence to back up your claim she has “an axe to grind”; all you have demonstrated is that you are eager to project your own biases on the people you feel oppose them.
P.S. Love the explanation for why nobody should write anything negative about the UFC before “big events”. You do realize they have a PPV every month now, sometimes bi-weekly?
P.P.S. If you want to read “discussion about the greatness of the sport”, you should check out UFC’s online broadcast partner, yahoo.com/sports/ufc. They offer new press releases about how great the UFC and/or Dana White is several times a week, sometimes even daily. Contact Kevin Iole, he does publicity for the UFC and would probably be happy to pump out some fluff for you.
Ivan,
Checking out the trusty Dictionary.com, what the UFC is doing really doesn’t constitute blackmail. From multiple sources, it has more to do with extortion.
Telling somebody not to do something wouldn’t fall under that catagory.
If I had dirty pics of somebody’s wife, and I told them to give me $20,000 or I would release them to the public, that is blackmail.
Telling somebody you won’t hire them if they do something you don’t like…. That isn’t blackmail. It’s a harsh way to do business.
And this isn’t about defending the UFC and bash the media. The MMA media has proven to be useless. In every other sport, reporters have been able to get inside sources to get a steady flow of information. The MMA “Media” has very little of that.
Sorry I don’t respond to people who do PS or PSS….
But seriously, I meant to say major events. Like GSP/Penn 2 ot UFC 100. Basically 2 or 3 events tops a year. That should be about promoting the sport, not bringing it down.
Okay, so your position is not that you’re defending the UFC even though they have recently engaged in blackmail? Your position is that you’re defending the UFC even though they have recently engaged in extortion? Do I have that right?
It isn’t the media’s job to co-promote with the UFC. There should be no pressure to push “positive” stories to help sell pay per views for the promotion. Of course, if you read yahoo’s UFC section, you might be led to believe otherwise.
smoogy,
That is not co-promoting. The baseball media is extremely tough on their sport. However, they are smart enough to know that there comes a time to let the sport itself shine. Not the news. Not the discussions about steriods. They have the rest of the year for that. It is healthy and good for the sport to give it a spotlight in the press during the “main event” time. And that is what is done in baseball. And this has never stopped reporters from outing A-Rod with steriod use. Or the Mitchell report. Or all the other guys who have been busted. But that can be discussed in the off season. Or during the regular season. Not during the World Series. Not during baseball’s big moment.
While the UFC doesn’t have a set time of year for it’s big fights, we typically know when they are. This year has been GSP/Penn 2 and UFC 100. This same thing should be done as well. The media is just hurting the sport they claim to love by doing this. I am all for great reporting, but there needs to be a time to let MMA shine. Gross doesn’t get this. Hunt doesn’t get this.
Ivan,
The UFC has not been involved in extortion. They have not blackmailed. They have used EXTREME strong arm tactics, but they have used neither of the things you are claiming they have.
My point is that the UFC has a right to do this. They are doing nothing illegal. And the fighters have the right to sign with EA if they want. They just can’t fight in the UFC. The UFC is not extorting money from them. They are not blackmailing them. They are just letting the fighters know that depending on their actions, they can choose (or not choose) to do business with them. And legally, they have every right to do so.
As for my opinion on the matter. From the UFC’s perspective it is smart business. For the fighters is stinks. But the fighters will never get there way on this one. Just the way it’s going to be. The UFC is protecting their investment. The fighters need to realize this and play within that game.
While I think the UFC is doing pretty much the definition of “assholery”, it is neither blackmail nor extortion. It is playing hardball and is not illegal. Blackmail and extortion are.
The Carano/Cyborg fight is about as important as what I had for lunch today.
did yahoo change it back to mma or am I missing something?
“The media is just hurting the sport they claim to love by doing this. I am all for great reporting, but there needs to be a time to let MMA shine. Gross doesn’t get this. Hunt doesn’t get this.”
How is Loretta Hunt reporting on Cyborg vs. Carano hurting the sport? How is Josh Gross reporting on the sponsor tax and EA MMA strife hurting the sport? Personally, I’d rather be informed than blissfully ignorant of what is going on behind the scenes. Unless you have something substantial to back up your claims you’ve yet to reveal, your argument that Gross and Hunt are anti-UFC and plotting to do damage to their brand before big PPVs is pretty lame.
45 Huddle wrote: “If I had dirty pics of somebody’s wife, and I told them to give me $20,000 or I would release them to the public, that is blackmail.”
That is your narrow definition of blackmail. That is not the definition of blackmail that is in any dictionary. In fact, the specific example cited in the Random House Dictionary is being blackmailed into signing a contract.
You know, like the UFC’s fighters were publicly blackmailed into signing away the exclusive lifetime rights to their own likenesses last fall.
And now that a video game company is paying fighters actual money for the one-game, non-exclusive rights to their likenesses, many of those same fighters, as well as many fighters who have never even fought in the UFC, have been blackmailed into NOT signing a contract.
Also, your views on the role of the media are almost as amusing as your views on the n-word and homophobic slurs. You’re only hurting your own credibility when you say ridiculous things like, “They should have waited until after UFC 100” to report on the UFC threatening fighters.
Hey, you know what would be even better than that for the UFC? Maybe those pesky journalists should just not report on the UFC’s threats at all. That would be even better. The media should know their place just like the fighters should, right?
Ivan,
I know what blackmail means. However, in order to double check before, I checked out dictionary.com. I checked out Wikipedia. The definition that came up every time included the word extortion. The one definition you keep going back to doesn’t prove your point because:
1. Every other source that I looked through (ie, other dictionary’s and wiki), doesn’t repeat that. Not American Heritage. Not Webster’s.
2. They say in your source “blackmailed into signing” a contract. The UFC is not forcing them to do this. They aren’t forcing them to do anything. They are saying they can’t work for their company have they have a specific contract as baggage. It’s absolutely ruthless, but it is not blackmail.
Additionally, as for the role of media…. Let me say that holding back information would be a huge no no for a political reporter. But this is a SPORT. Sports are about an athletic contest that ENTERTAINS THE FANS!! Other sports do this. The journalists understand that breaking a news story during the highest level of that sport doesn’t do anybody any good. Look at Mayweather vs. ODLH. All anybody talked about was boxing vs. MMA, it that talk didn’t do any good for boxing.
You can disagree with me all you want, but at least one other MAJOR sport in America has done this. And their writers have no problems adhering to it. It might not be a written policy, but it’s a way for the sport to allow to shine.
Also, I am not saying they shouldn’t report it. They absolutely should report it if they have a credible source. However, this is not the time. This is a sport. And the sport itself needs to be allowed to shine. Even the crazy baseball journalists understand this concept. It’s not like I’m making this up.
smoogy,
If you don’t think Loretta Hunt has an ax to grind against Dana White at this point, then I don’t know what to tell you. Even after she wrote her comment about the women’s fight being more important then UFC 100, basically every single person on multiple forums laughed at it and said she wasn’t even hiding her bias anymore. If her selection of articles and how she has aimed horribly written hit pieces at the UFC is not proof for you enough, I don’t know what is.
As for Gross. He isn’t a fan of their business model. He has flat out said this. So yes, that would make him anti-UFC because he wants the fighters to have all the power.
“Even after she wrote her comment about the women’s fight being more important then UFC 100”
Like I said, you are misrepresenting what she wrote entirely. The actual text:
“I guarantee you she will single-handedly garner more press and media attention than UFC 100.”
She then goes on to predict immediate dividends for Strikeforce, including a CBS debut in 2010. I don’t think it is “anti-UFC” to forecast success for Strikeforce while using an upcoming hyped UFC card as a measuring stick. That is the kind of jingoistic BS that unfortunately seems to be popular with a lot of UFC-centric fight fans.
I can only imagine the glory that 45 must feel as Dana White’s seminal eruption hits the back of his throat and the bliss that must envelop him once he forces it down the hatch.
45 Huddle— The verb form of blackmail that I’ve been using (ie, for one party to blackmail another) is to coerce someone into doing something (paying you, signing a contract, etc.) through the use of threats. That basic principle is in numerous dictionaries, including Random House and Webster’s Dictionaries.
Quibble with the definition all you want, and the fact will still remain that Zuffa threatened fighters into signing away the exclusive lifetime rights to their own likenesses in video games for free. And now that another company (EA Sports) is actually paying fighters for the one-game, non-exclusive rights to their own likenesses in a video game, the UFC has been threatening fighters into turning down EA’s offers. They have gone beyond “just” threatening the fighters in their own organization, and have now threatened fighters who have never even fought in the UFC.
I don’t expect you to grasp how fundamentally wrong that is, nor is there much point in debating it with you. As you’ve demonstrated once again in this thread, you have the “us vs. them” mentality, with the “us” in that equation being “you and Zuffa.” Josh Gross “not being a fan of Zuffa’s business model” means that he is “anti-UFC,” for example.
Smoogy and Ivan are correct. 45 is biased against gutsy reporting, and Gross and Hunt have guts. To use 45’s term, the UFC’s tactics are “absolutely ruthless.” If the UFC doesn’t want journalists reporting on their “ruthless” tactics during fight week, the UFC should change those tactics. The burden is on Dana and company to be fair, not on journalists to hide Zuffa’s unfairness because it’s a big week. Jesus Christ.
Another MMA writer confirms the UFC’s threats against fighters who may be interested in signing to appear in EA’s MMA video game.
Dave Meltzer writes in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter: “UFC wants the word out that anyone in the EA game will never work for UFC… There is the attitude right now that even the people who have already signed for the [EA] game, even before they made this doctrine clear this past week, won’t be brought in [to the UFC], which isn’t exactly fair as you can hardly punish someone for making a decision to sign up for a video game when they had no opportunity to get into your video game in the first place… The WEC guys can’t be in the UFC game but also didn’t have the opportunity to negotiate deals for the EA game.”
I know sports journalism isn’t serious by any means compared to news journalism. But to say it should go on hold just because there’s a big event is ridiculous. No other field of free-press journalism would hold on to a big story because it could take attention away from something else, so why should sports journalism do that?
And at the very least, you have to admit that the amount of people who order UFC shows compared to the amount of people who read Gross & Hunt is less than 20% being generous. I don’t think getting hysterical over two meanie journalists trying to ruin Zuffa’s big day is needed. This is the kind of thing that people with “in the bunker psychosis” would get bent out of shape about, but those stepping back and taking a breath don’t.
Until the fighters unite and form a union, they will be at the mercy of unscrupulous promoters who will harm and exploit them.
And just like with professional wrestlers, there will never ever be a union. Ever. Pigs will fly, the Houston Texans will win the Super Bowl, Ralph Nader will be elected President, Mark Kerr would beat Fedor, Vanilla Ice would get a new #1 hit.
If the UFC won’t let you be in a meaningless video game, just imagine how they’d react if they found out a fighter was trying to talk other fighters into forming a union. Nobody would risk that wrath.
Mark— You’re right that fighters are fearful of forming a union, and that’s just the way the UFC wants it, despite all of their public posturing. However, MMA is different than pro wrestling in the sense that MMA is an actual sport, so members of Congress wouldn’t feel that it’s “beneath them” to hold public hearings about MMA or bring anti-trust action against an MMA promotion. Also, the UFC does not have the anti-trust exemptions that the NFL, NBA, and MLB have.