« UFC 100 (7/11 Las Vegas) | Home | Quote of the day – skepticism about UFC »
A few questions to ask about Brock Lesnar
By Zach Arnold | July 13, 2009
I’m mostly done gathering the material to write the articles on the aftermath of UFC 100, but I wanted to bring up a few points about the position Brock Lesnar is in right now business-wise with UFC given his antics at UFC 100.
I am writing an article soon on why I think people who support Lesnar’s ascension to the top are so devoted to him, no matter how good or bad of a person he is. For discussional purposes, I’ll throw a few questions out there and see if anyone is on the same wavelength as I am.
- Ask yourself why are pro-wrestling fans and wrestling-friendly MMA fans so enamored and so emotionally dedicated to defending Brock Lesnar’s antics online. Think about the psychology of this in relation to professional wrestling compared to MMA.
- What does history tell us about Brock Lesnar and what he represents not just as a fighter but the way he handles his affairs outside of the ring or cage?
- After you answer the first two points, put your answers together and take a look historically at MMA since the 90s and think to yourself, what kind of template are Lesnar supporters trying to put him into and who are they modeling his success after in an attempt to make what he’s doing more important than it truly is? (There’s a certain fighter that Lesnar boosters, given his pro-wrestling background, are trying to emulate him against. If you can figure out who it is, then suddenly the psychology of why these boosters are so invested in Lesnar’s success becomes very clear.)
It’s funny to watch a lot of pro-wrestling writers and media types defend Lesnar very hard. Not only are they defending him hard, they are mocking all of Lesnar’s critics and the valid criticisms being raised against a man with his kind of track record business-wise. I don’t have a horse in the race — Lesnar’s a great athletic talent, but he’s always bored me personally-speaking so I can’t really get too angry or get excited about him. What I am intrigued by is playing psychologist in watching how people react to him and why they do.
I’ll explain later in written form what I mean with these specific questions and who I think Lesnar boosters, fans and media, are trying to model him after from MMA’s past (but it won’t work because Brock doesn’t have the specific personality to make it work). Focus on more than just money here. Read the comments section to find out the answer to these questions up above. I’m issuing an open challenge to any MMA writer to take on this topic and to focus a post on the theme that is revealed in the comments section about who Lesnar’s biggest supporters are trying to compare him to and why they are doing so (and whether or not it’s a legitimate line of thinking). Step up to the plate and take your best swing.
I was talking with someone in China who is well-plugged into MMA and understands the martial arts climate there in the mainland. He is someone who saw PRIDE live during the boom period and has been to UFC events before. He saw UFC 100 and said that the image created by Lesnar and Henderson is cringe-worthy and likely not helpful at all on a political level. He noted to me that UFC wants in China within the next couple of years, but that the landscape is tough and that what happened over the weekend will make it that much more difficult.
Articles covering post-UFC 100 aftermath
Just getting started. Will have several articles written over the next day or two.
- Kimbo Slice talks about being on The Ultimate Fighter (some funny exchanges between Kimbo and Cofield)
- Undercard fighters deliver big action and upsets at UFC 100
- Mark Coleman lays the Hammer down on Stephan Bonnar’s UFC career (the quotes from Coleman are worth the read)
- At UFC 100, Georges St. Pierre solidified himself as pound-for-pound king
- “Dirty” Dan Henderson adds to his KO collection with brutal win at UFC 100 (Henderson was in rare form in some of the quotes he said)
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 44 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
If I have to pick a pro wrestler-turned-MMA fighter who’s attitude Brock most clearly resembled, it would probably be Kazunari Murakami, but I wouldn’t consider him a model of success.
The obvious pick is that they want a Sapp. Someone who can give some crazy rambling promo and then be on ice cream bars. Problem: I can’t see people racing out to eat Brock Lesnar ice cream bars. I don’t think he can engender public support like that unless he has a personable side no one on earth is seeing.
You guessed one of the two people that fits the equation. So, you deserve props there.
However, there’s a better answer — focus on the psychology of what these Lesnar supporters are trying to do with him in terms of why they are pushing him, specifically the pro-wrestling friendly people.
Hint: Go back a decade in time. Think about the psychology of these boosters and what they’re trying to accomplish here with pushing Lesnar.
On a marketing level, you are correct that Sapp is the right person to compare Lesnar to. But if you’re talking about motive of Lesnar boosters and fans and the media, there’s another MMA legend who they are trying to base his legitimacy on, but you have to think about what the psychology is of these people is first to get it.
To answer your question Zach, I think that it is either Goldberg or Stone Cold Steve Austin…probably a hybrid of both. So much success in such a short amount of time, and the foul mouthed, beer-drinking antics.
Am i right?
1. Because pro wrestling fans defend wrestlers and wrestling against any form of criticism – valid or not. One has to look no further than the multitudes of deaths and the Benoit tragedy. It is the reason that 12 Rounds is the top DVD rental. Blind dedication and the need for validation that their favourite “sport” is not a childish soap opera.
2. This question is kind of loaded. First of all, not much is known about Brock Lesnar outside of the arena. Here is what is known. He comes from an extremely poor background and is very staunch in his desire to be able to provide for his family so that both his parents and his children do not have to endure the same type of hardship as when he was a child. Secondly, we know that he is very competitive and possessed of an incredible drive to not just succeed, but dominate. We saw this in his NCAA career and in WWE. When he tried football and realized that his athletic gifts could not overcome his lack of experience in football, he left. When you combine these two elements, the move to MMA and the timing make perfect sense. The financial and competitive motivators were finally in harmony.
3. I am not quite sure what you are after here. But from a sports marketing standpoint, every great era has a great heel, to use a pro wrestling term. Ali was almost universally hated by conservative white America in his hey day. He was a counter culture “negro” who converted to Islam and refused to go to war. Tyson was notorious for stating his desire to murder people in the ring, not to mention his extra curricular activities. And one need not look any further than Tito Ortiz’ antics before and after fights within MMA. Were Brock’s antics any worse than “Gay Mezger is my Bitch” t-shirts or the grave digger pantomime at the end of matches? Tito was a sore loser, a sore winner and money in the bank.
Further comments –>
The psychology is simple: people love an unstoppable force. Lesnar is emerging as that force. Equally true, people also want to see the day that force meets its immovable object. It makes things interesting, even more so when the immovable object is unexpected – see David vs. Goliath, Tyson vs. Douglas.
Also, humans worship physical power and dominance. This is the reason that the heavyweight division is really the only one that counts in boxing. When the HW division is strong, boxing overall is strong. In this era, the HW division is in shambles and boxing overall is too, despite a plethora of very good and entertaining lighter weight boxers. Granted, you will always have small guys who are draws such as Leonard in the 80s or De La Hoya and Pacquiao recently, but even Floyd Mayweather is having trouble selling a PPV on his own.
The only thing of significance from a decade ago that relates from a pro wrestling standpoint would be the Attitude Era when Steve Austin was the counter culture hero.
I am going to add Tank Abbott to the equation. For the longest time, pro wrestling fans (myself included) thought that he was undefeated inside the Octagon, and the literally killed someone with one of his vicious right hands.
I think its like listening to Ken Shamrock followers all over again to be honest.
The scent seems off here, so I’ll phrase it this way:
Why are all of Lesnar’s boosters so adamant about his success and detracting people who criticize his antics? Think about why his success and legitimacy means something to pro-wrestling fans who know that wrestling is a work.
What is it about Lesnar’s pro-wrestling background that has people defending him from attacks like killer bees? Compare and contrast MMA’s recent history and the relationship between wrestling and MMA. There’s one fighter in MMA that a lot of the psychology and logic of these Lesnar supporters is based upon. On the surface, the answer doesn’t make sense but psychologically, it gives you the answer as to what the motive and mindset is.
It’s not Shamrock or Frye or any one like that.
Think: Wrestler… who goes into MMA and becomes an ‘ace’… who in the eyes of wrestling fans brings ‘legitimacy’ to the business they love, despite the fact that wrestling is a work. You will kick yourself for not figuring this out earlier, I guarantee it. This is all about an emotional response of, “Yeah, we got one of our own as the face of MMA! And he’ll do what the other guy did to bring a boom to MMA!”
Once you get the name, then suddenly you’ll start to see how Lesnar’s supporters are irrationally trying to make his ascendancy in UFC the historical equivalent of someone else who was a pro-wrestling related precursor. The difference is that Lesnar has no shot at reaching what this person was able to do with their cross-over appeal.
Don Frye has a similarly gruff attitude, but actually employs self depricating humor. Nobody hates Frye. Shamrock was the “most dangerous man in the world”, but I don’t see what about Lesnar would be like Ken. Tank Abbott was a hero to the barroom set and a lightning rod for criticism that almost killed the sport. Besides, he became a pro wrestler afterwards. Funaki, Saku, Ogawa…none are really comparable to Brock in any way. They sure as hell don’t want a Tamura. Dan Severn was boring. Minoru Suzuki was wild eyed and crazy, but I can’t see dudes popping boners over the superimposing of Brock on him.
I guess Frye, then.
Oh, if you’re looking at it from the perspective of “wrestler who defends pro wres” then its Inoki or Saku. Basically nobody but.
Well, after Zach’s clarification, the answer that pops into mind is Sakuraba. And the Japanese MMA scene was obviously born out of and in conjunction with Pro Wrestling. It was hoped Takada would be the ‘ace’ but when it was evident that he couldn’t fight, they latched onto Sakuraba.
Brock Lesnar brings interest to the UFC from all sorts of fans. MMA Fans. Pro Wrestling Fans. Regular Fans.
For me personally, he makes the Heavyweight Division fun to watch.
End of story.
Since I am dead-bent on figuring it out, I am going to say Dan Severn?
You have the correct fighter named.
Now tell me what the psychology is here in regards to what Lesnar’s most vocal boosters (fans, media writers, etc) are trying to sell here. What is it that has these people so convinced that no matter how bad and how egregious Lesnar acts, that he’s the next Messiah of MMA? We know he sells the most PPVs in UFC now. He’s the #1 ace, St. Pierre #2, and Liddell #3 in terms of PPV draws.
However, look at what guys like Kevin Iole have been writing about with UFC 100. Their argument has been that Lesnar is going to take the sport mainstream, that he’s going to create the next MMA boom like Sakuraba did in Japan. But I want everyone to start looking at how Sakuraba’s career rose in Japan and what he had that Lesnar doesn’t have and never will possess and why the attempts by the Meltzers and the Ioles of the world to paint Lesnar as the new Sakuraba will ultimately fail.
We’re getting somewhere here now, I feel confident in this. Now let’s put some meat on the bones.
Well the motivation for Sakuraba’s entry into MMA, along with Anjoh, specifically into the UFC tourney was to legitimize the athletic status of wrestling.
So it seems that the fans who for years were content to accept the sports entertainment premise of wrestling since McMahon let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, can now have it both ways. It is entertainment, but the athletes are legitimate. It speaks to their low self esteem in general as it pertains to their “sport.”
But it the scenarios are quite different, as in Japan, they have always maintained the veneer of pro wrestling being a legitimate event and the work style is a reflection of this sentiment. They are far stiffer and still engage in many worked shoot style matches.
But Lance Storm said it best in regards to Lesnar:
“I don’t think Math Teachers are tougher than I did before, based on Rich Frankiln’s fighting ability and the same is true about pro-wrestling and Brock’s success. Brock is representing himself not pro-wrestling…”
Now tell me what the psychology is here in regards to Lesnar’s most vocal boosters, including the media, are trying to sell here.
Basically that as legit pro wrestling, MMA would somehow bring back respect to the fold. Its an ego thing more than anything, which is why Meltzer doesn’t understand why Lesnar gets booed so often.
To quote a writer I know, “Porn makes more money than Hollywood, but its still whores f*cking.” If you want to be the king of the fringe element, they’ve arrived. If they want to be compared favorably to the NFL, Major League Baseball or hell, NASCAR? Long, long ways to go.
I should note too: Wrestling was at least somewhat respectable in Japan prior to the emergence of Pancrase and Vale Tudo style events. Its not merely that Lesnar isn’t a loveable character as Sakuraba, its that culture here is entirely different. Converting the wrestling fans to MMA only ensures that MMA ends up being a popular and popularly denigrated form of entertainment.
At this point in time there is no more significant a factor in determining the future of the UFC and worldwide MMA than the bottom line (financially).
If Brock Lesnar brings in big PPV money, then really thats all that matters.
The opinions of sports writers (and a random guy in China), and anyone else for that matter, are irrelevant. IF UFC makes more and more (or less and less) money, then UFC (and/or MMA) will continue to spread and flourish (or wither and die). Period.
Brock Lesnar’s attitude/statements and Dan Henderson doing what hundreds of other fighters have already done will have ZERO significant effect on the future of the sport.
I thought the key line in Dave Meltzer’s defense of UFC 100 and Brock’s post match antics was:
“What very slowly got the mainstream media into MMA, and as Dana White likes to remind me, took me from one place in life to another, is the media couldn’t deny the ratings of the Ortiz-Shamrock match in 2006 on Spike when in 18-34 males it beat several games of that year’s World Series.”
Hmm, I don’t think Dave wants this journey to stop. It took him 25 years to finally start getting the respect from the mainstream media that his reporting deserves. And Brock’s success is key to that, because he’s the go to guy to talk about Brock’s career, because he was covering Brock before he became this shoot fighting phenom.
“I should note too: Wrestling was at least somewhat respectable in Japan prior to the emergence of Pancrase and Vale Tudo style events. Its not merely that Lesnar isn’t a loveable character as Sakuraba, its that culture here is entirely different. Converting the wrestling fans to MMA only ensures that MMA ends up being a popular and popularly denigrated form of entertainment.”
It’s part of their culture thanks to Rikidozan and Kimura.
We don’t have that connection here. MacMahon severed it and tried to replace it with Sports Entertainment.
The US will never have it’s own Saku with the detriment of Sports Entertainment still around.
Too bad there wasn’t any testing of the fighters done before the event and at random.
Is everyone convinced that the flavor of the day is 100% legit and clean? If so, is he fully mentally intact?
1) I’m not defending Brock just because I like wrestling. I’m defending him because I think people are over reacting. If Chris Leben pissing on someone’s bed and going on a drunken rampage in the TUF House didn’t kill MMA (actually it was one of the angles that made TUF such a success) then Lesnar saying he doesn’t like Bud Light and yelling at bloody Frank won’t either.
2) History has shown the more personal you make hyping a fight the bigger the buyrate, like it or not. Anderson Silva is awesome, but he draws a half-million less buys than Brock Lesnar does. Why? Because Anderson doesn’t have a personality beyond wearing pimp coats and Brock knows how to sell a fight. Even if his fight with Coleman happened, which we all know would have been just a one-sided massacre of a past-his-prime fighter, it would have sold through the roof whereas Silva’s string of entertaining fights (broken by the Cote crap admittedly) did nothing to come close to Lesnar or Penn. Tito fights were rarely barn burners (outside of the Frank Shamrock one) but his persona made him an absolute superstar and took him to a level upon his UFC return in 2006 he didn’t deserve. It’s just the way it goes in the pay per view business. It took a last minute injury to get the best pound for pound fighter today his deserved LHW title shot, since Dana was dragging his feet since Machida isn’t marketable. Right or wrong it’s a money decision.
3) Lesnar and Sakuraba have nothing in common. Sakuraba’s rise was more national-pride (no pun intended) related than fans happy he legitimized pro wrestling. Sakuraba blew up in popularity because he was the Japanese guy who avenged Japanese fighters embarrassing losses to the Gracie family by going on a streak defeating Brazilians. I don’t see how any of his stardom compares to Lesnar beyond their incidental former occupations before becoming stars. Nobody but the biggest idiots (apparently Matt Hardy and Shane Helms according to Twitter) believe Lesnar legitimizes pro wrestling; Lesnar legitimizes Lesnar. It’s not like people are worried Triple H is going to come into MMA and beat everybody, he’d get murdered in a shoot fight.
I say Tito Ortiz (who is a huge pro wrestling fan) is the MMA fighter Lesnar most resembles.
kjh, there’s so many of them in that rambling mess of poorly formed ideas he termed a response. How about that if the WWE guys had promos as strong as Mir and Bisping’s that it would be the WWE turning around business instead? He’s basically arguing that the sport is popular in spite of itself. What a strange man.
Picking apart people’s alleged psychological motivations for taking positions in a debate is often not helpful. The actual truth of a statement is unrelated to the motivation of the person making it; focusing on the latter often displaces genuine debate on the former. A guy on death row who opposes application of the death penalty in all cases may have an obvious motivation, but that doesn’t mean his position on the death penalty is wrong. And vice versa for the mother of a murder victim who takes the opposite position.
I vastly prefer GSP to Brock Lesnar; GSP’s much more skillful and infinitely more pleasant. Personally, I like that. But trash talk sells (particularly when the talker can back it up), it always has. No one here disputes that. Some people like the arrogant bully; others tune in to see his block get knocked off.
I don’t really know what “mainstream acceptance” means, and so I can’t say whether Brock’s antics will hasten or retard it. Certainly think cultural shifts, both positive (i.e., the American cultural acceptance of the Super Bowl as the year’s premier sporting event, post Namath) and negative (the long decline of prize-fighting and horse-racing) are difficult to predict or explain in a blog post. But I strongly suspect that forces far larger and more diffuse than the rantings of a freakish bully like Lesnar will determine MMA’s ultimate fate.
I will say that I think more revenue for MMA — which Lesnar will generate — is probably long term good, because in America, money talks: more awareness, more sponsors, more quality athletes making a commitment to training. Which, I think, is ultimately good for MMA fans.
Respectfully,
FF
I know I’m biased since I’ve been an Observer subscriber for 14 years and greatly respect Dave Meltzer’s opinions, grammar errors and lack of proof reading and all. But he was “legitimate” before the UFC explosion led to his Yahoo gig. Dave was a longtime (real) sports reporer for the LA Times and other California papers in addition to the wrestling news letter. His work about various WWE scandals was also in Sports Illustrated a few times. So it’s not like he was nothing before hitching a ride on the Zuffa bandwagon. He’ll be fine if the UFC slides down in popularity.
He isn’t a pro-WWE guy. If you know anything about Dave Meltzer, you’d know he actually hates the WWE (for their lousy product, shady business practices and complicity in deaths) and was not a big Brock Lesnar fan in his wrestling career. He was close to McMahon in the late-80s/early-90s, but Vince stopped talking to him after Meltzer bashed the WWE about the steroid scandal and sexual harassment charges when Vince expected him to support them. And Brock Lesnar, while he didn’t exactly hate him, was never a guy Meltzer nuthugged like Kurt Angle or Misawa or Ric Flair. He always treated Lesnar like a guy who had to be carried to an entertaining wrestling match and absolutely sucked on the microphone.
And yeah, obviously I agree with Meltzer as usual. Can’t wait for his WON write-up.
Zach: you make some good points; but we shouldn’t assume that every fan defending Lesnar is a wrestling fan or WWE-friendly. I think Lesnar should be able to play the heel and do what he wants after a fight–tasteless or not.
I actually hate pro-wrestling, because of the scripted storylines and the over-involvement of non-athletes like McMahon. However, Lesnar is a genuine athlete and fighter who happens to have a pro-wrestling past. There are plenty of “classy” guys like GSP and Anderson Silva who show good manners. There is nothing wrong with a guy like Lesnar acting like a jerk if he wants to (within reason, of course).
All the other big sports (football, basketball, baseball) have their heels and jerks, and it doesn’t hurt the success of those sports at all. Therefore, it’s not likely to hurt MMA’s status to have a few guys like Lesnar around who are not necessarily fan-friendly or PC; but who deliver the goods in the Octagon.
Never liked the expectation that all fighters must have impeccable manners and sportmanship. It’s an untenable expectation–there are jerks and uncouth people in real life, and there will be jerks and uncouth men at the top ranks of MMA. If the guy (in this case, Brock Lesnar) fights at his best; doesn’t cheat; doesn’t test positive for steroids, etc., then Lesnar should be able to say what he wants and not have to censor himself.
The presence of a certain amount of bluntness or rudeness in MMA doesn’t automatically relegate MMA to WWE status. Let’s have more confidence in the sport’s viability than that.
Why would anyone take what the pro wrestling folks think seriously? If Lesnar had never wrestled in college, he would’t be where he was in MMA, if he would be there at all.
The only benefit the WWE gave to him was acting experience and, that led to his fame. He doesn’t use any pro wrestling moves.
It isn’t limited to ex-pro wrestlers in combat sports either. Look at football: Marvin Harrison has a Super Bowl ring and far better stats than Terrell Owens, but he never got paid as much or had a fraction of the same fan interest. Why? Because Owens carries himself like a superstar and creates drama for publicity and people latch on to that.
Harrison was actually paid more person than TO in basically every year of their comparable careers as elite wideouts. Just a heads up.
remove the “person” from that. Geez, its just one of those days…
Brock being successful in the UFC no way gives legitimacy to the WWE. Anyone who thinks that needs to stop smoking crack. Sakuraba coming from pro-wrestling and being a huge star in MMA didnt suddenly legitimise Puroresu as Pro-wrestling in Japan as we all know MMA and pro-wrestling over there are more or less seen as the same thing just different styles. Sakuraba himself would say he was a ‘pro wrestler’. Brock wouldnt. Seeing WWE wrestlers comment that Brock winning suddenly means more people should respect the WWE is somewhat laughable. I mean I couldnt imagine seeing Kenta Kobashi after a Sakuraba or Tamura win suddenly saying “we deserve more respect now” but as I said wrestling in japan doesnt have such a negative stigma like in the US. Are there Similarities between the rise of Sakuraba and the MMA boom in Japan to the rise of Brock in the UFC? I would day no. For starters Does the UFC even have a HW division which could sustain real mainstream interest in Brock in the first place?
“Picking apart people’s alleged psychological motivations for taking positions in a debate is often not helpful.”
This should probably be a disclaimer at the top of every comments thread anywhere on the internet.
Brock being successful in the UFC no way gives legitimacy to the WWE.
That’s exactly what people like Meltz want, too. He’s been after Vince McMahon for 25 years for using ridiculous gimmickry and denegrating the “sport” aspect of pro wrestling, and MMA is vehicle with which Dave can sit back and relive the good ‘ol days of the Territories. And yet, its more or less a tragic lie to himself. The territories were run by carnies that pitted Karl Gotch with bears and had minorities and guys that looked like minorities run quasiracist gimmicks.
Look at what he says when he says that if the WWE had Mir or Bisping cut promos like they had, they’d be the popular ones. Its not about MMA the sport, nor has it ever been, since he doesn’t do things like fighter analysis. Its about UFC; Imagined WWE Killer & Bringer of Respect. The UFC hasn’t risen because it promotes a sport that intruiges and entertains fans, its because they want a more realistic soap opera (thus why he credits Koscheck/Leben more than Griffin/Bonner for the rise of the sport). Its risen because it embodies the things Dave wanted the WWE to do for years, and so its his way of proving them wrong. That is seriously insanity.
Sakuraba’s charm was based on deep respect for the sport, his opponents, and the fans. He was an exemplar of good sportsmanship, not bone-head antics.
More importantly, Sakuraba wowed audiences with his technical skill and grace as a grappler and mixed martial artist. Not with brute force.
I say Tito Ortiz (who is a huge pro wrestling fan) is the MMA fighter Lesnar most resembles.
Ditto, this fake argument that only pro-wrestling fans support Lesnar and his antics is stupid.
I don’t care for Brock, I was rooting for Mir the entire fight but to deny that he is going to take this sport to the next level in insane. People love HW’s and Brock is the picture of what a dominant HW champion should be, the guy is scary and people will pay out the ass to watch him go crazy.
All of this fake outrage about stuff that he did that is no different than others have done shows how out of touch many mma writers are these days.
Zach…I’m with you. I don’t really care about Brock too much either way right now, what is most entertaining is watching the meltdown on both sides of the fence about him. Either he’s the greatest thing or the worst thing in people’s eyes. He’s probably the most polarizing figure since Tito.
I hope we get to see him fight at least 3 times a year.
I think you’re over-stating it, Alan.
First off, Dave has alientated a huge amount of his customers by giving MMA equal amounts of coverage that wrestling gets. So he’d be killing his company if he wished UFC would kill off pro wrestling. I’m sure he makes much more from his newsletter than he does from Yahoo Sports. And nobody would pay if WON went 100% MMA, since none of his MMA news stories are exclusive unlike the wrestling ones.
Meltzer is pretty fair in his assessments of things. When MMA companies do something wrong he calls them on it, when WWE does something right he praises them for it. Since there will always be enough wrestling fans who don’t like MMA to keep the WWE afloat, if he was really working under your logic he’d be trying to convince readers how great TNA is, when in actuality he gives them far worse coverage than he does for the WWE. In last week’s issue he took shots at UFC 100 being over-hyped, and wrote about some pretty unflattering comparisons between White and McMahon (the best one being comparing how bad both men wish they were “one of the boys” by acting like their wrestlers/fighters.) Not exactly the words of a UFC fanboy.
He doesn’t do fighter analysis because he knows nobody would buy into him doing it. Nobody would buy into Dave Meltzer telling us why Alves won’t be able to keep the fight standing. There’s dozens of MMA writers who do that every day for free, anyway. Dave has no martial arts background and his talents lie in giving in depth analysis on where things could be headed due to past history. And since history repeats itself, he’s usually more right than wrong.
I agree that this was the line that jumped out the most in Meltzer’s post:
“What very slowly got the mainstream media into MMA, and as Dana White likes to remind me, took me from one place in life to another, is the media couldn’t deny the ratings of the Ortiz-Shamrock match in 2006 on Spike when in 18-34 males it beat several games of that year’s World Series.”
Interesting take by Alan on post 31.
Coors Light and Bud Light.. controversy sells.
There is NO bad publicity. He is either smart or stupid, but either way people are talking and building the brand.
Nuff said, don’t over analyze or obsess about him.
“There is NO bad publicity.”
I don’t think the publicity that OJ Simpson got back in the mid-90s did him any good. 😉
His guilt did him in. He could have built something out of it, he overcame a murder case, legally, but was eaten by his own fuckedupedness. Michael became the biggest thing in the world, he’s a pop star, no different than Britney Spears.
“Why would anyone take what the pro wrestling folks think seriously?”
Simple; the site you are reading and commenting on right now is run by a guy who became notable for running puroresupower.com. Dave Meltzer, for better or worse the most popular MMA journalist based his career on pro wrestling. Your bloggers that people read, guys like Mike Rome, were arguing about the merits of Ring of Honor for hours on end every day on wrestling message boards before they were commenting on MMA.
I think Zach is absolutely spot on with this. The big difference is, of course, that when Sakuraba became a star in Japan pro wrestling was actually still popular and respected. When Brock joined UFC nobody except for internerds, children and hicks care about wrestling at all.
The hypocrisy in this section is appalling. The main issue that underscores this entire uproar is the silk thin line between sport and spectacle and entertainment. Some of us need to be truthful with ourselves as regards the notion of MMA as pure and unadulterated sport.
Zuffa markets the UFC as being “as real as it gets” yet, much like the WWE, often manufactures false animosity in order to sell fights. When the final bell rings, it’s hugs and honor, etc..Oftentimes, there is a complete and utter refutation of any and all comments made prior to the fight.
Lesnar comes along and gives an immediate and instinctual post-fight reaction that was as honest and “real” as anything else, and the MMA hardcores are suddenly aghast at Lesnar’s “WWE antics.”
This may come as a shock to some, but regardless of what Dana publicly proclaims, he is getting EXACTLY what he paid for here. Anyone decrying the “soap opera” nature of WWE just got sucked into a perfectly executed angle. Lesnar and his barbaric notions tainting the sport really rile your feathers? Hope, prey, and pine that he gets his block knocked off as you line-up to pay. Lesnar is going to make Tito look like a sweet toddler playing with an easy bake oven.
It seems to me the only people talking about Brock’s success somehow giving Pro Wrestling credibility is MMA Bloggers and Sports Writers.
Pro Wrestling writers aren’t doing that. I have seen Meltzer point out with serious validity that heel antics have helped UFC draw bigger numbers in the past but never did he say Brock Lesnar legitimized pro wrestling by succeeding in UFC.
It seems the Pro Wrestling haters are the only ones doing so strangely enough by whining about the possibility of it they are actually fueling the idea that would otherwise not be a topic of discussion.
Brock was a Pro Wrestler yes. But his college wrestling background and athleticism is why he succeeds in MMA. Nobody in Pro Wrestling has hinted otherwise. Bobby Lashley, if he continues on his current path, will succeed for the same reasons.
They are neither the first successful Pro Wrestling crossovers nor will they likely be the last. Athleticism and training dedication is what helps you succeed and a handful of wrestlers from the pro game have done well over the years. Case closed.
This isn’t a situation where now everyone should get into pro wrestling to be a UFC star like when Gracie was winning UFCs and BJJ was a must-know to be a UFC star.
There is no cross correlation other than Brock’s heel antics which like it or not will sell tickets and PPVs.
It’s just good for business when a heel is on top because people pay to see them get beat. Meltzer was 100% correct in pointing out that as an example Anderson Silva is a good guy who doesn’t draw very well.
So stop getting your knickers in a twist. Brock Lesnar is not validating pro wrestling in anyone’s eyes other than yours, which is ironic since it’s what you are all bitching about.
To follow up on what Rob is saying and to reply to Zach’s insinuation that Lesnar somehow compares to Sakuraba beyond their backgrounds in pro wrestling. First of all the whole argument is apples and oranges because in Japan pro wrestling and combat sports in general are taken much more seriously.
I am/was a wrestling fan, but I don’t think for a second that Lesnar gives American pro-wres. any kind of credibility. And if any legitimate media types actually do, they are retarded, simple as that. Even during the boom around 97-01 pro-wres. was still a joke in America to anyone not making money off of it. Meanwhile before, during and even after the big boom in Japan, pro-wres. is still mostly respected as an art form if nothing else and still generates legitimate media attention that is just unheard of here in America.
Here’s another difference between Japan and America. When Saku beat Gracie it propelled him to a-whole-nother level of stardom, because at the time he beat the first real legend of Mixed Martial-Arts. Now lets say Barnett defeats Fedor. Do you honestly think he’ll become any more of a name overall than he is right now? Globally (Japan, Russia, Sherdog-heh), yes. But will he have his mug on the frontpage of major newspapers here in America? I would give a generous 1% chance of that happening at best.
Apples and Oranges, folks.