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


Bloody Elbow


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Yahoo MMA Blog


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


MMA Dude Bro


Sherdog Radio


Eddie Goldman


Liver Kick 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 | »

Anthony Pettis heats up ESPN, Twitter, media sites with his Showtime kick

By Zach Arnold | December 17, 2010

Print Friendly and PDF

Last night and this morning, ESPN has been running at the bottom of each hour of Sportscenter a quick item called “incredible MMA kick” which, as you might suspect, features Anthony Pettis doing his Showtime cage kick on Ben Henderson. Josh Elliott, one of the anchors, is big into MMA so it’s not surprise that he gave it a push. (Jamie Penick has more details on this.)

Anthony made a last-minute appearance on ESPN’s Firstake at the end of their show on Friday morning. “MMA fighter uses cage to deliver roundhouse kick to head of opponent.” He has named the move, “The Showtime off-the-wall kick.”

On the web sites of Sports Illustrated and The Independent (UK), Pettis is getting attention for last night’s fight. I can’t recall this amount of media attention for a fighter’s move from a WEC event. Ironic considering that Urijah Faber damn near turned Takeya Mizugaki into a zombie after he choked him out last month in Las Vegas.

Go to the major search engines like Google, Yahoo, Bing, and you’ll see lots of people are either talking about what they saw last night or people searching Youtube and other video sharing sites to find the clip of the kick heard around the world. This is not only a big deal for the career of Anthony Pettis but it’s also a big deal for UFC, who manages to catch a tremendous break here because Pettis will face the winner of the Gray Maynard/Frankie Edgar fight that will take place in a couple of weeks. No one would have thought before Thursday night’s fight that the focus of the 155-pound title unification bout would end up being on Mr. Showtime, but it undoubtedly will be when it comes time to promote the fight because Maynard and Edgar are not big box office attractions (yet).

James Brydon puts it best in his Sportsnet article that it was a career-defining moment and also one of those “where were you when…” MMA memories fans will have for years to come. Thursday’s event drew a reported 6,384 in Glendale, Arizona.

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, WEC, Zach Arnold | 68 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

68 Responses to “Anthony Pettis heats up ESPN, Twitter, media sites with his Showtime kick”

  1. A. Taveras says:

    Not bad for an anti-climax!

  2. David M says:

    I really hope Pettis KOs either Gray “Crown Prince of Lay n Pray” or Frankie “I should be fighting at 145” Edgar.

  3. 45 Huddle says:

    It would be an interesting story to see Pettis go from a basically unknown to a UFC Champion within 2 fights.

    I thought the Arizona crowd was bad. They booed far too much and didn’t seem overly interested in the fights. An obnoxious crowd.

    Just shows that if you let the fans decide, things don’t work out good. They decided where to put this WEC, and it didn’t work out too well. They decided what was the FOTN at UFC 124, and they got it wrong.

    I think one of the most interesting news stories coming up lately in MMA is how much Strikeforce is trying to stack their January 29th show…. Fedor/Big Foot, Mayhem/Kennedy, Walker, and perhaps Diaz.

    Have to wonder if somebody at Showtime is basically saying: “Okay, let’s see if we put as much of our SF stars on one card…. What is the maximum rating we can get.” That would determine what their ceiling is. And it could determine how their contract negotiations go when they come up.

    • 45 Huddle says:

      And now Gilbert Melendez is calling out Paul Daley because he has nobody left at 155.

      He should have really fought KJ Noons, but after Diaz beat him, that title fight makes no sense, despite Noons being a natural Lightweight.

      As for the WEC Lightweights…. I think they are going to do better in the UFC then people expect.

      • edub says:

        “As for the WEC Lightweights…. I think they are going to do better in the UFC then people expect.”

        I agree with certain fighters. Shalorus will be good if he keeps improving. Pettis, Henderson, Cerrone, and Roller will cause problems for some guys.

        After that I think guys start to seriously drop in skill level. Varner would’ve easily made that list before his last two fights. It seems he has declined significantly in the last year.

        • David M says:

          I think Henderson and Pettis have what it takes to succeed in the UFC. Both guys are really athletic, Henderson is a great wrestler with developing all-around skills and Pettis has striking ability the likes of which MMA has rarely seen before to go with decent wrestling and good subs.

          Cerrone is more of a question mark to me; he has good kicks and decent jiu jitsu, but he is a slow starter and his hands aren’t anything special. I think the reliance on low kicks will get him into trouble against the better wrestlers in the UFC.

        • Cerrone’s ability to stuff takedowns isn’t that good, and if you can’t stop takedowns, you don’t win at the elite level in MMA. These are big fish in a very small pond – that’s not to say that they will lose every fight and all the WEC lightweights will be looking for work by June, but I don’t think any of them will regularly be in title contention. Too much talent there.

          Its kinda like discussing the guys that won TUF 9: You can yell as loud as you’d like that no one on the show was really any good, but there’s a number of people who won’t bother to listen until they start losing to journeymen and lower tier gatekeepers.

    • robthom says:

      Pettis looks impressive.

      Hopefully he makes it past that murderers row, because another killer is never to many in this biz.

  4. Tradition Rules says:

    I was at the show, so here is my feedback:

    First, the doors opened at 3:00 with the first fight at 4:00 PM. My friend and I actually got in a few minutes before 3PM and got to see some of the guys during warm-ups. Pettis practiced that crazy kick off the cage twice. I was thinking “WTF is he doing? Is that some typ of move he is going to pull off if he is chasing Henderson?” Had NO idea it was actually a kick he would try to pull off. Even more amazing to so in person.

    Second, I estimated there to be about 6,500 people there when guessing the attendance with my friend.

    But there was no promotion done locally for this event. I think they would have drawn a larger crowd for this show had I seen any ads on TV or in the local paper.

    Crowd was actually very hot for the prelims, especially w/ the first four or five fight ending in the first round. When some did start to boo because they felt the action was too slow, many of us in our section were all making the same comments about how the casual fans were spoiled because the first few fights were quick KOs.

    Also, most locals booed Pettis because he was fighting Henderson, the hometown boy, but EVERYONE cheered form Pettis after seeing the replay of the “Jet Li action movie kick”a few times.

    I personally loved the show and thought it was a great event. It could have been better with more promotion locally.

  5. Joe says:

    This fight was evidence that all big fights should be 5 rounds. If this was fought in the UFC, it would have been a decent 3 round decision victory for Pettis because of his aggressive grappling in round 3. No ninja kick, no war of attrition. Same thing with Misaki-Santiago.

    • 45 Huddle says:

      1) Pettis won 2 of the first 3 rounds. He won 3 of the 5 rounds. The winner of the fight did not change due to the number of rounds.

      2) Pettis tried that kick because it was near the end of the fight. Whether it was a 1 round or 20 round fight, chances are that he wouldn’t have taken that risk until the last 2 minutes of the fight. So the number of rounds doesn’t really change that.

    • David M says:

      I used to think only complete idiots were opposed to all UFC main events being 5 rounds, but then one of my friends who is actually smart gave me this spiel about the sanctity of title matches. I then queried if he was of the opinion that people buy PPVs only for the main event, and he said he was. I then asked if he thought, given that title fights are five rounds and all other main events only 3, that PPVs with non-title main events should be 3/5 the price.

      Obviously the UFC would never lower the price of PPVs, but the truth is that given the UFC buy rates vary wildly by who is fighting in the main event/co-main event, it would be fair to assume that people buy PPVs primarily based on who is in the main event. So, the fair thing to do would be to lower the price for non-title main events.

      Do you think the boxing public would accept a Manny Pacquiao 8 rounder if he were in a non-title match? Of course not. People don’t buy fight sport PPVs to see the fucking undercard. Pacquiao, Floyd, Marquez, Oscar, Machida, Lesnar, GSP, BJ, Rashad, Rampage, etc have all built up the fanbase required to carry a PPV card whether in a title match or not. Obviously UFC ppvs are premised more on the idea of the fight promotion rather than any particular fighter, but despite their best efforts, the UFC has not been able to trick all mma fans into buying poo-poo platter PPVs (remember the Mark Coleman main event?). It is time for all main events in UFC shows to be 5 rounds, and for those of you who would argue that a main event with Mark Coleman shouldn’t be 5 events, I would in turn argue that if the best the UFC can offer is Mark Coleman, there should be no event at all.

      • 45 Huddle says:

        Or a an even better solution would be:

        PPV’s have to have a title fight on them. No title fight, no PPV.

        That guarantees all main events on the bigger shows are 5 rounds, without putting them in non-title fights.

        As for boxing…. There are no clear cut champions, so as long as the public “thinks” they are world championship material, it is 12 rounds.

        The UFC completely different. Everything is clear cut. We know who the champions are. So when a non-champion doesn’t fight, we know it doesn’t have to be 5 rounds.

        I’m not going to cry if the UFC starts to put on a few more 5 round title fights. I think it is pointless. But I would certain complain if they became to prevelent.

        Just look at the last WEC event. 50 minutes of fighting for 2 fights. Only got to see 4 fights. Makes the cards feel weird. They don’t have the proper pacing that other cards due where we see 5 to 7 fights.

        • David M says:

          That’s not a bad idea.

          I think however that sometimes the biggest fights occur sans belt; for instance Rashad-Rampage, Rampage-Machida, Nog-Couture, BJ Penn-Hughes 3 were all fights that had people talking, not because of belts involved (there were none), but because the fans are invested in and care about each of the participants.

          As we have seen in some of Anderson’s title defenses which drew awful buy rates, just having a title fight does not a PPV main event make. Fighting is about the fighters, not about the belts. Nobody cared about Patrick Cote or Demain Maia, nor did anyone think they had a legitimate chance to beat Anderson. By contrast, Chael v Anderson did a stronger buy rate and had people talking because Chael made himself known through shameless/effective self-promotion, he talked the talk, and convinced many people he would beat Anderson, which he almost did.

          The point is, a belt doesn’t get people excited; what gets people excited are seeing 2 fighters whose respective bodies of work are well known, going head to head, preferably with some kind of back story involved to connect to fans on an emotive level.

          The next UFC show, with Frankie vs Gray, is going to draw a horrible buy rate; Frankie has gotten respect from the hardcore fans for going 1-1 against BJ (there is no conceivable way he won their first fight), but he has zero charisma, he doesn’t have knockout power, and he seems to win most of the time in decisions in which he fights smart fights strategically, but doesn’t engage all the time, and doesn’t knock anyone out. His opponent is one of the most boring fighters in all of mma. Gray is definitely an elite fighter and will probably beat Frankie, but he is basically a more athletic, less-skilled version of Jon Fitch in that most of his fights are lessons in lay n pray and wrestling. If Couture and Machida could fight on that card, I guarantee you that would be the fight people would pay to watch, not the title match between 2 guys that nobody cares about/wants to pay to watch.

      • Michaelthebox says:

        “So, the fair thing to do would be to lower the price for non-title main events.”

        If you’re not interested in paying more than a dollar to see a new movie, would you say it would be fair for the theatres to lower the price to a dollar for that movie?

        Of course not. You just wouldn’t go to see that movie. There are plenty of people to whom the movie is worth $8, and they pay the price.

        • David M says:

          As I said, obviously the UFC would never lower the price of PPVs or admit that some PPVs are better than others; UFC 100 was not more expensive than Mark Coleman v Couture, even though it obviously should have been.

          If fans are stupid enough to buy shitty cards, more power to the UFC. My point merely was that if people buy PPVs for the main event (which is indisputable), then logically it follows that a 5 round main event should be more highly prized than a 3 rounder, and thus should be priced differently.

          Again, Manny Pacquiao, Mike Tyson, Floyd, Oscar, or any other boxer with drawing power would not be in an 8 round fight because of the lack of a title. Belts don’t matter; what matters is watching fighters/fights you care about.

          There should be no 3 round main events in the UFC; if Zuffa can’t put together any fights compelling enough to be 5 rounds, they shouldn’t hold a pay per view, or fans should be more prudent with their spending.

        • Joe says:

          these are all good points. however, my original point was more that pettis-henderson and misaki-santiago wouldn’t really have been great, FOTY-caliber fights if they were 3 rounds. and beyond that, we’ve likely seen several other decent 3 round fights that would have turned into epic 5 rounders if given the chance.

          to the person who said that pettis was saving that kick for the end of the fight, and thus would have thrown it at the end of the 3rd just the same as the 5th, i think that’s an incorrect assumption. forgetting for a second that pettis had henderson back-mounted for the last minute plus of the third, i think those kinds of moves are the types that you pull out when you’ve tried everything else. that’s the special thing about 5 round fights (or longer even), they evolve past gameplanning and into a place where the fighters are so familiar with each other that they’re almost working on a meta level– there’s so many more things they have to manage in a 5 rounder compared to a 3 rounder.

        • Michaelthebox says:

          “My point merely was that if people buy PPVs for the main event (which is indisputable)”

          How is that disputable? The very fact that there is a floor to UFC PPV buys indicates that the main event is not the only reason people get PPVs.

          “then logically it follows that a 5 round main event should be more highly prized than a 3 rounder, and thus should be priced differently.”

          This simplifies the issue almost beyond recognition: just in one obvious exception, people were excited about the Rampage/Machida, but very few people really care about Edgar/Maynard.

          I would like it if certain top contender fights were five rounds, but this is a very complex issue, both on the pricing side and on the logistics side. For you to simplify it so much in the guise of “logic” is ridiculous.

        • What UFC PPVs draw largely off of cards of competitive fights not featuring top stars? I can’t think of a single example. UFC PPVs sell off the guys at the top of the marquee, not on the guys fighting second on the show. The UFC doesn’t even care who they put on the undercard and neither do the fans, so long as they wing bombs or sloppily roll for position.

        • David M says:

          Michael: UFC 108, 109, and 110 all did between 200-300k buys because the main events were not attractive to the public; I don’t disagree that there is a % of people who buy the PPVs just for the name brand UFC, but it would be willful ignorance to ignore the fact that UFC 107 did 620k buys (BJ v Diego) and the next 3 did roughly that amount combined with main events that nobody cared about.

          I think you misunderstood my earlier post; you seem to be on one hand arguing for my point, namely that the fights people want to see don’t necessarily coincide with UFC title matches (like the Rashad-Rampage or Frankie-Maynard example), and on the other hand you seem to think I was seriously advocating cutting the price to 30 dollars for 3 round main events. I was clearly just using that as a means of pointing out the stupidity of having 3 round main events; the vast majority of UFC purchases are based on the main events, so in effect the fans are not getting their money’s worth if they are getting 3 round main events instead of 5.

  6. 45 Huddle says:

    http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=forum_framed.posts&forum=1&thread=1744205&page=1&pc=67

    Snowdums antics are finally getting him noticed. And not in a good way. Even Joe Rogan & Shane Carwin have added their 2 cents.

    Couldn’t have happened to a nicer person.

    • David M says:

      Why are people calling Snowden a cunt for daring to be critical? He doesn’t have a duty to only write happy things. I sadly missed the show so I can’t say if it was a good or bad piece, but it shows the gang mentality of mma fans that they start acting like this dude is a piece of shit for disagreeing with the company line.

      What is the point of writing a column that doesn’t contain any ideas that provoke a reaction? Sure, he could have written a piece saying that the WEC’s last show was great and we will miss the promotion, bla bla, but if he had legit criticisms (his criticisms of Todd Harris and some WEC production values sound legit IMO), then why not counter him with some facts instead of just calling him a cunt?

      • Michaelthebox says:

        Its less to do with being critical, and more to do with the fact that he (and Kid Nate) write controversial trash for the sole purpose of being controversial and gaining attention.

        • LOL, saying that a guy calling out someone on the far reaches of the lightweight division is “disappointing” when that same fighter is being promoted as a serious contender is “controversial trash”? I can’t believe people are miffed over something like “If I don’t see prelims, they don’t matter to me.” Like, really? There are people who rate fights they don’t see? LOL those guys are suckers.

        • Michaelthebox says:

          When did I say that was controversial? I have never been impressed with Cerrone. This is about the general trend of his writing and nitpicking, not about each specific little thing he wrote in that article.

          How’s that Cruz/Jorgensen prediction doing for you? Shouldn’t you still be licking your wounds?

        • Because I picked a fight wrong, I can’t be critical? LOL.

          If you want to be honest about what you see, sometimes that involves writing things that are “negative”. These fighters are not all equal. Is saying that the lighter weight classes aren’t fully formed and likely to see major turmoil in the next couple of years with the influx of UFC money really a controversial, nitpicking statement?

    • That guy from 5 Oz is the most hilarious shit ever. Dude who can’t tell the difference between good fighters and fights wondering why it is that others can – Do any of these people have any self awareness whatsoever? I wonder if he has snowflake ratings for fights.

    • Jonathan Snowden says:

      Finally getting noticed? Is this the metric? A thread on The Underground? And Joe Rogan involved too? Better make sure I’m still getting paid!

      I don’t understand the notion that MMA coverage has to be relentlessly positive. I’m going to take in a show and write about what I see. In this case, it was a mix of positive (a pretty good main event) and negative (early fights with guys who aren’t world class, abysmal announcing and sub professional pre and post fight shows on Versus).

      What value is there in analysis that isn’t honest and open about the good and the bad? It’s worthless PR.

      • smoogy says:

        Those pre/post shows are valuable for their bad theatre. Helwani, Qerim and Faber… now here are some people who know who butters their bread.

      • 45 Huddle says:

        1) There is a reason why you are responding to my post on a small website instead of actually responding on the UF itself. It’s because you know if you did, they would eat you for lunch. So instead, you do what most of the guys at BE always do. You keep yourselves insulated from others. You post here on a smaller blog. Many of the comments that go against the BE people get deleted so you can have a comment section that mostly agrees with you.

        2) Whoever said everything has to be positive. But what you do is just downright fighter bashing. There is nothing constructive about it. It’s #ssholish, disrespectful, and downright wrong. Most fans appreciate a GOOD, CRITICAL article. But that not your schtick. Your schtick is pure fighter and promoter bashing for the point of getting page views.

        3) Worthless PR? So is ESPN’s website just a bunch of worthless PR? Because they don’t publish (for major sports) anything to the extent of the type of stuff you write. A lot of it is factual information. Even their commentaries don’t come close to crossing the line.

        Like I said, there is a reason why you are responding to this topic here and not at the source.

        Your a troll. There is 4 pages worth of people talking smack on you. From commentators, to fighters, to long and short term fans. Outside of a few of your friends, there isn’t much debate about how much garbage your writing is.

        Come on…. Be a man, and respond to that thread with your own name. See if you can convince them that what you do is good…. Step outside your BE bubble…. One where you can’t delete people’s opinions who aren’t your own.

        • I’m pretty sure if they have a legitimate gripe besides meathead anger, they have a forum to air those opinions already. The thread reads to me like some barely literate imbeciles who can’t rationalize anything about the sport complaining that they got banned.

        • Jonathan Snowden says:

          Is this a serious comment? I don’t have an account at the UG and I don’t intend to get one to argue with a handful of people who appear to be mostly banned Bloody Elbow commenters. I responded here because I read this site – I have read Zach since he talked about Onita-Terry Funk – and I comment here regularly.

          I don’t know what “fighter bashing” means. Is a comparison of fighters to their peers bashing? Then I will bash all day unapologetically. It’s funny that the people who claim to like journalism actually hate it when I write an article looking into issues like sponsorships. When they say journalism they actually mean little video interviews that are flattering to the fighter and answer important questions like “Explain what we just saw in your own words” and “Who are you fighting next?” That’s not the kind of journalism I want to be a part of.

          We delete almost no comments at BE. If you call people names or go beyond the pale in regards to race or sexuality or religion. That’s it. The comments are filled with people who agree with our viewpoints as well as people who disagree. The place you are describing, one where we somehow have time to sift through and delete comments we don’t like, doesn’t sound like fun. But it’s a fictional place.

          There’s been a lot of discussion of my writing. It’s almost uniformly positive. When it’s not, I take note of it and see how I improve. There is not constructive criticism there, just name calling and a weird parody post by a fighter with a personal and business grudge. It’s not really valuable.

        • Joe says:

          I’ve seen Jonathan go back and forth with quite a few critical commenters on bloody elbow posts– I don’t think he’s insulating himself from criticism. Going on a forum like the UG and trolling for threads about you makes you look like an ass in my opinion, as Douglas Crosby so ably demonstrated.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          “I don’t have an account at the UG and I don’t intend to get one to argue with a handful of people who appear to be mostly banned Bloody Elbow commenters.”

          Joe Rogan is the best commentator in the business.

          Shane Carwin is a Top 5 Heavyweight with an Engineering degree. I have yet to meet a dumb engineer.

          Crooklyn is a respected radio host.

          These are not just some random internet idiots complaining about somebody. These are legit people within the sport basically calling your schtick garbage, and you refuse to engage them. That makes you a coward.

          I don’t think the people of this sport can be any clearer about the stuff you write. It is pure garbage. You take your knowledge of the sport and twist it in order to get attention. You actually do this sport a disservice with the stuff you write.

          Very simply…. Would you be willing to be in a room with Shane Carwin and Brock Lesnar and read that article you wrote about them after UFC 116? Heck, when you interview people, your questions are almost kissing their behind. You know you can’t get away with your antics to their face, so you act completely differently.

          The guys who are respected writers in this sport ask the tough questions to the fighters faces. They don’t go to their keyboard and trash them.

          Like I said, you are a coward. Respected people are calling your schtick garbage, you you refuse to go on that thread and tell your side of it.

          If it was me, and people were bashing me, I would certainly defend myself. But we all know why you don’t. Because deep down even you know what you do is complete and utter garbage. You are a piece of sh!t writer who gets his jollies off of trashing fighters.

          This sport would be far better off if you…. and writers like you…. Would take your antics to some other area of interest.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          I think this said it best about you….

          “Crooklyn – What a cunt. Seriously, I take issue with the “journalists” that bash everything from top to bottom in MMA. Bloody Elbow has had bleedy vag syndrome for quite some time, and it seems that they delight in trying to make MMA look as bush league as possible. I’m all for putting out info on scumbaggery, like what’s happened with the Nemesis debacle, but this type shit, opinionated bloggers tearing down events and fighters, is just garbage.”

          And my add 2cents….

          Go take your writing…. And go cover Pro Wrestling. Go cover Reality TV. Fighters bust their #ss in there…. They don’t need somebody like you just looking for page views to fee the attention he isn’t getting as an adult.

          If there are legit issues in this sport, there are ways to handle them. There are ways to discuss them. But to bash the sport in every which way, which is what you do…. Doesn’t make you a fan. Doesn’t even make you a critic. It just makes you annoying and a burden on what you write about.

          Why on earth would anybody spend so much time watching something they only want to bash?

          I don’t like Football. So guess what. I don’t watch it. I don’t go on blogs and bash the sport.

          When every level of fan and fighter is bashing what you are doing…. It means it’s time to find a new hobby.

          People like you ruin MMA online for the one’s who want to come on here and have a civilized and MATURE discussion on the sport. That’s the last comment I have on you.

        • David M says:

          45 I think you have lost your mind.

          You just called someone a coward for not having an account on a cesspool of a website and arguing with people who call him a cunt merely for not liking what he wrote. You called someone who wrote a book called “The MMA Encyclopedia” a troll and said people like that prevent mature and civilized discussion of mma.

          To recap, writing 500+ page book on mma = uncivilized, calling someone a cunt for being critical = mature, and not responding to idiots = cowardly.

          This is what is wrong with mma fans.

        • Fighters bust their #ss in there

          So what? That makes them immune from criticism because they try hard sometimes? This entire reply is hilarious.

        • Joe says:

          45 Huddle, why are you so angry? I’m serious, you have a real problem if something like this brings out the kinds of furious rants you’re bringing out.

        • David M: MMA fans on the internet are morons. If the best MMA can come up with for commentary is a mediocre standup comedian and its reliant on such respected luminaries as “Crooklyn” to get the sport to mainstream credibility, I’m afraid hope is pretty well lost.

          That reply from “Crooklyn” was some of the whiniest shit I’ve ever read in my life. “They make it sound bush league”: LOL. That’s what .3 ratings and half filled arenas indeed indicate for the WEC. I assume then that “Crooklyn” probably has significant financial skin in the game as well to demand that such an obvious truth not be aired.

  7. Jonathan Snowden says:

    I’ve never heard of Crooklyn, but that’s fine. I’m not among the demographic likely to go to a Tapout website. I always think it’s funny when someone calls their podcast a “radio show.” Because it’s not. This is the critique that I am supposed to take seriously? That I have a “bleeding vag?”

    Joe Rogan and I disagree about how to cover MMA. He thinks coverage should be obsequious and fawning. I don’t. The audience can choose whether they want extensions of UFC.com or a site with a wide range of viewpoints and coverage. The sites he advocates are the ones we are increasingly looking at in our rear view mirror.

    Shane Carwin is the only critic there I know personally. I have addressed the issue with him directly as grown men do. Addressing the others in the thread isn’t important to me. They are entitled to their opinions.

  8. Chuck says:

    Personally I like Jonathan Snowden. I think he is very entertaining. You know why I think his writing is entertaining? Because I don’t take what he says that seriously. I don’t take it to heart. I put him on the level of guys like Mark Madden, Colin Cowherd (something about guys from Pittsburgh being entertaining douches), Maddox, Tucker Max, Scott Keith, etc. Even Zach Arnold to an extent. I like guys who are funny, don’t take themselves seriously, or guys who take themselves TOO seriously (one extreme or the other), write damn near satires, bash like crazy, and HATE HATE HATE!!!!

    45 huddle, do you really think you are that much different? What about the stuff you say about feds like Bellator, Strikeforce, DREAM, Sengoku, etc.? And the fighters that fight in them? It’s not much different. Yeah, I know you only post on a message board, but still. And you know why I think you aren’t that much different? Because you actually give Strikeforce a lot more credit than people realize. How many posts have you typed about Sengoku, DREAM, and various smaller promotions going “if a fighter isn’t in UFC nor Strikeforce then they aren’t credible”? Many. Hell, one of your more recent posts you threw in Bellator along with UFC and Strikeforce! So yeah you tend to bash other feds because you think it is entertaining, and it’s obvious that you really do like Strikeforce and Bellator. Snowden is the same way.

    • 45 Huddle says:

      You are confusing somebody who has a sense of reality with somebody who is trolling.

      1) I’ve said Gilbert Melendez is Top 5.

      2) I have bashed the UFC’s bad PPV cards.

      3) I have said the UFC runs too many PPV’s and they are milking the fans when they do one per month.

      Heck, I don’t even watch TUF, as I have said it isn’t up to par with what it needs to be.

      The UFC has like 95% market share. Obviously they are doing something right. So me talking positively about them most of the time is in line with REALITY. When the rest of the organizations can’t get their act together…. Like a Strikeforce Middleweight Tournament, Fedor re-negotiating an existing contract after each fight, or just down right bad matchmaking…. Once again, it’s in line with REALITY.

      That’s very different then a guy like Snowden. Who interviews Rebney and basically kisses his behind the entire interview and even apologies for a question before he asks it. And then the company that is basically doing most things right…. He writes 4 or 5 hit pieces a week bashing them the entire time.

      That makes him a troll who takes REALITY, DISTORTS IT, and then bashes the best people in the sport just because he is clueless on how to write authentic, good pieces on the sport.

    • Zach Arnold says:

      Personally I like Jonathan Snowden. I think he is very entertaining. You know why I think his writing is entertaining? Because I don’t take what he says that seriously. I don’t take it to heart. I put him on the level of guys like Mark Madden, Colin Cowherd (something about guys from Pittsburgh being entertaining douches), Maddox, Tucker Max, Scott Keith, etc. Even Zach Arnold to an extent. I like guys who are funny, don’t take themselves seriously, or guys who take themselves TOO seriously (one extreme or the other), write damn near satires, bash like crazy, and HATE HATE HATE!!!!

      Can’t speak for Jonathan but if I’m in the same category as Colin Cowherd after two decades of writing on MMA, then I didn’t accomplish much as a writer on serious stories then.

      • 45 Huddle says:

        Yeah, but you are well respected amongst a loyal fanbase. You might not have the volume of readers, but the ones you have, really are interested in what you have to say and appreciate your contributions.

        Might not mean money, but it absolutely means something.

        Not everybody has to be a Helwani or Meltzer.

      • Chuck says:

        Oh come now Zach, of course you have! Remember I did also say guys who take themselves TOO seriously. Hey, if I thought you sucked then I wouldn’t have ever came back to your assorted websites since Puroresu Power, right? And I did say “to an extent”. I’ve been a fan of yours for six years.

        And to note, you are in the same boat TO AN EXTENT because many have accused you of “doom and gloom”. That’s fine, I like doom and gloom. You can’t always have snuggles and sunshines, especially covering stuff like PRIDE’s death, Bellator’s alleged shadiness, etc. right?

        Colin can be a douche, but he is entertaining. I still remember the episode of his radio show after the Benoit ordeal, and he was great. Obviously he was wrong on why Benoit did what he did (he went with steroids, whereas there is more proof to be had on Benoit’s extensive list of head injuries throughout his career), but other than that, he touched on a subject that angered many wrestling fans. I would love to listen to the section of that episode again.

        Okay, to be a dick, here’s another comparison to be had with guys like Cowherd, Snowden, etc.(not you Zach)……………..RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!! Am I right, or am I right???

        • 45 Huddle says:

          Rush is on his what? 4th marriage already? How many times has he been in rehab? Oxy!!

          Guys who seek the spotlight in those sorts of manners typically are a wrecking in their person lives as well.

          Which isn’t very shocking really. Sort of sad. I wouldn’t want the size paychecks a guy like Rush was getting if I had to live his life….

  9. EJ says:

    Snowden to me basically represents all the reasons why Dana feels about most blogs the way that he does. The guy is basically a troll trying to pass himself off as a legit journalist. I mean this guy actually believes that Liddell used to eye poke guys on purpose to win fights. How anyone can take anything he says seriously after that is beyond me.

    Not to mention that whenever you call him out on his facts and statements he usually falls back into not being able to reveal his sources like with the Carwin debacle on BE.

    The worst thing about him is how desperate he is to get reactions from people to his pieces, instead of actually paying attention to his writting skills which are lacking for a so called journalist.

    I can’t ever forget the piece he wrote after UFC 116 bashing both Brock and Carwin and showing himself to be nothing more than a typical Sherdog poster.

    Between him and Nate the ammount of bs on BE has even surpassed the worst of Sherdog which set an incredibly low bar as to what passes for mma coverage. Yet between these 2 the bar has been even lowered, with their poor excuse for articles which are basically shock pieces. Their ability to be incredibly thin when it comes to representing any facts to back up baseless speculation. And their overall arrogance and ability to dish out insults yet not be able to take it all they do is prove Dana right every single day.

    • 45 Huddle says:

      Don’t forget…. He tries to say he is not a journalist…. But then writes books on MMA.

      Can’t have it both ways. You can claim to just be an opinion piece writer, and then try to make money off of doing factual information.

      Which one is it? He says he is different things when it suits him best.

      But as somebody on The UG pointed out…. Most of the longer term fans are onto his antics. They just ignore him now. It’s on the newer fans that he has reading his stuff at this point. And when they get sick of his antics, they will be gone as well.

      • Jonathan Snowden says:

        I don’t have the inclination to continue this forever. The facts are pretty obvious and can be confirmed by anyone who looks at my RSS feed on this very site. The vast majority of my articles are about the UFC and their fighters. The vast majority of these UFC articles are incredibly positive. No one is covering this sport who doesn’t love it. There is no incentive.

        I write a mixture of articles. Some of them are interviews and news features. Others are opinions and editorials. They are clearly marked. Here’s another fact: our site is growing. Astronomically. By leaps and bounds. That opening is there because the established MMA journalists are deathly afraid of stepping on toes. So not only do they lack any interesting analysis and opinion, they are also afraid of covering any of the interesting news as it breaks.

        Readers aren’t dumb. There’s only so much value in “breaking news” about undercard fights. The war is fought on the battleground of opinion and analysis. And we are slaying them. Numbers don’t lie.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          FOX News is the #1 rated Cable News Station in America. Numbers don’t lie, right?

          Well, according to a University of Maryland study, the most ill-informed individuals get their news from FOX News as a primary source. Numbers don’t mean anything. FOX News is a perfect example of this. Studies back it up.

          You, much like FOX News, act like you are the only ones asking the tough questions and “fighting the establishment”. It’s just flat out wrong. Many good MMA Journalists do ask tough questions. But they know where that line is. They know how to ask the tough questions or be critical of the UFC…. But do it in a RESPECTFUL WAY. You don’t do that. You troll for attention with out of control headlines and bashing comments that show a distortion of reality.

          And for somebody who has been so critical of the UFC…. Why not the same treatment for the other organizations? When you talk to Rebney, why not ask him about his championship clause that is far more reaching then any other organization has out there. As you said…. the “established MMA journalists are deathly afraid of stepping on toes.” But you are that guy right? Yet when there is an opportunity to call Rebney on it, you don’t get anywhere near the line of questioning.

          You stepping on toes is only for getting attention. If it wasn’t, then you would be doing the same sort of overly critical articles on Bellator and then call their owner out on his bad business practices.

          “I don’t have the inclination to continue this forever.”

          That’s because you have burned enough bridges with your writing that you don’t have a future on any credible website.

        • Joe says:

          fwiw, I’m not dumb and Snowden is one of my favorite MMA writers. Like Zach, he’s one of the few who really seems to understand how the sport works.

          I read this site a lot obviously, and I usually skip your many many comments because they always seem to be aggressively contrarian. I still don’t understand why you’re so intent on picking this fight.

        • edub says:

          “If it wasn’t, then you would be doing the same sort of overly critical articles on Bellator and then call their owner out on his bad business practices.”

          This is how I see Snowden.

          I’ve stayed off this page because I don’t agree with most of the commenters from the UG about this last article. I didn’t see too much being wrong with it. My problem with Jonathon is the pattern. You can go back to almost every successful Zuffa card, and a day later there is a overly critical article from Snowden covering it. Yet there is very little about the faults from other organizations after their events. He knows that being overly critical of Zuffa will get him the most page hits.

        • Just wondering, can you provide an example of such a overtly critical article? I remember seeing him take all that heat for talking about how Lesnar nearly crumble against Carwin only to see Lesnar get demolished a couple of months later. Was that really “overly critical” and unfair?

        • edub says:

          Yes it was. Snowden wasn’t the only person calling into question Brock’s ability to take a punch. Yet he was the only one unwilling to admit that it was impressive to weather Carwin’s assault, and he acted like it was beneath him to get excited at what was a great comeback in a fight.

          Another off the top of my head is using “WEC….business failure” as an article title doesn’t make any sense.

          I am at work right now so I will post the list of articles later on of “failures” according to Snowden, and how “successful” past events from SF and Bellator have been.

      • The WEC wasn’t a business success though. That is why it is dead. No one watched it or bought tickets to see it. It is gone for the same reason the IFL and Affliction and countless others are gone. The Zuffa models for them were always failures.

        As for it being impressive that Brock weathered the storm – the fact that he was in such a storm to begin with is the problem. If you don’t have a chin, that you may have a lot of heart and are able to win fights when your opponent ends up running out of steam 3 minutes in after nearly being decapitated is nice, but it puts you at a severe disadvantage when a guy who can pop hits you and doesn’t gas out. Of course, that’s exactly what happened with Velasquez, and Lesnar got rolled as a result. You shape it as a positive if you’re desperately looking to prop up Lesnar. With retrospect being what it is, its hard to say that Lesnar getting his shit rocked and flopping to the mat was in any way “impressive”.

        • edub says:

          The WEC is NOTHING like IFL, Affliction, Elite XC, or Strikeforce. They were a House based promotion that took regional fighters and made them draws. They looked to move once before they conceded the idea that they couldn’t make money fighting away from the casino (name escapes me). The WEC and The UFC joined to become partners. Right then is when they became a success. The money they made from Versus recouped more than their losses, and the leading men of the company now have high paying jobs with Zuffa. The WEC name not being around is not a sigh that the the promotion wasn’t a business success.

          “Of course, that’s exactly what happened with Velasquez, and Lesnar got rolled as a result. You shape it as a positive if you’re desperately looking to prop up Lesnar. With retrospect being what it is, its hard to say that Lesnar getting his shit rocked and flopping to the mat was in any way “impressive”.”

          Dude, just because someone disagrees with you (actually a lot of people) doesn’t mean that they are reaching for anything. I think it is pretty damn impressive when you get rocked by Shane Carwin on the ground for 3 minutes, and not quit fighting. Also it’s pretty freaking exciting if your a fan of the sport. An opponent had never made it out of the first round with Carwin before that. I never said it was the best thing in the world. Carlos Condit got tagged at will by Miura. He also got slammed whenever he tried to clinch with him. All he really did was outlast him cardio wise because he put more pressure on Hiromitsu. I also think that was impressive.

        • The WEC is NOTHING like IFL, Affliction, Elite XC, or Strikeforce.

          They’re a lot like the IFL, Affliction, and EXC, because the promotion is dead. Dead and gone. It no longer exists. And if you were to imagine that they were all operating and were going to compare it to one of them, you’d have compared pre-Zuffa to Strikeforce, who are tied at the hip
          to their venue.

          They were a House based promotion that took regional fighters and made them draws.

          Name a fighter the WEC had that they “made a draw”. Poppies Martinez?

          They looked to move once before they conceded the idea that they couldn’t make money fighting away from the casino (name escapes me). The WEC and The UFC joined to become partners.

          This is absurd. Zuffa bought the WEC and operated it as a second brand. They did not “join forces”. Moreover, the WEC was a failure as a national promotion before and after Zuffa’s involvement.

          Dude, just because someone disagrees with you (actually a lot of people) doesn’t mean that they are reaching for anything. I think it is pretty damn impressive when you get rocked by Shane Carwin on the ground for 3 minutes, and not quit fighting. Also it’s pretty freaking exciting if your a fan of the sport. An opponent had never made it out of the first round with Carwin before that. I never said it was the best thing in the world.

          I remember the article well in question, and my memory is that he said that Lesnar didn’t look particularly good coming out of the fight because he looked like a guy who wilted when hit (which looks retrospectively dead on) but that the fight was still exciting even though as far as technique went, it thoroughly lacked. Again – dead to rights, on the money. The “negativity” is that people are being told the truth and don’t want to hear it. Is that where we are?

          As for using the example of Condit/Miura – that is PRECISELY why Condit was deeply overrated when he came into the UFC. And why he still, to a great degree, still is. The guy is mediocre at best when it comes to defending the takedowns and controlling the clinch, but he makes for entertaining fights against guys willing to trade with him, so people ignore it. Plus, he had the WEC belt, which people assumed meant something more than it did because he was on TV. In reality, can he beat Mike Pierce tomorrow? I have my doubts.

          Carlos Condit got tagged at will by Miura. He also got slammed whenever he tried to clinch with him. All he really did was outlast him cardio wise because he put more pressure on Hiromitsu. I also think that was impressive.

        • edub says:

          “This is absurd. Zuffa bought the WEC and operated it as a second brand. They did not “join forces”. Moreover, the WEC was a failure as a national promotion before and after Zuffa’s involvement.”

          I don’t know if you know how business works, but when you get investors to buy into your company making it more finacially viable and covering your own personal investments in the process, then you are a success. Again, because you said nothing to refute my first claim, just because the WEC name is now gone doesn’t meant that the promotion was a business failure. If they were still running shows out of the same casino they were in 2004-2005 would you call them a business success?

          “Name a fighter the WEC had that they “made a draw”. Poppies Martinez?”

          So your claiming Urijah was a huge draw before he started fighting in the WEC? Sure he drew eyeballs before he came to the WEC, but its when he got the promotion his star skyrocketed.

          “I remember the article well in question, and my memory is that he said that Lesnar didn’t look particularly good coming out of the fight because he looked like a guy who wilted when hit (which looks retrospectively dead on) but that the fight was still exciting even though as far as technique went, it thoroughly lacked.”

          So the beginning of the article means nothing then? A writer can title a piece anything he wants if he goes back on it inside the article itself?

          “In reality, can he beat Mike Pierce tomorrow? I have my doubts.”

          No I believe he’d lose to Pierce. But Pierce is a bad style matchup for him. Could Thiago Alves beat Carlos Condit tomorrow? I have my doubts…

          As for my first claims, I have to admit I was wrong. Most of Snowdens pieces over the past year towards Zuffa have been in a negative light, but not nearly to the extent I had thought. Mr. Snowden I apologize for ever calling you a douche, dumb, asshole, dick, but mostly for calling into question your integrity as a reporter. I labeled you something you weren’t because I disagree with you on everything, because we disagree on pretty much… everything.

        • The WEC prior to Zuffa’s involvement made no stars. With Zuffa’s involvement, they made one star. No one else moves the meter any more than the original band of guys from the first show. If the argument is that the WEC was a success because Zuffa bought it, I would argue then that its a question of perspective to whom the “success” is. Clearly the WEC as a promotion under the Zuffa banner was not a success, which is why it is gone.

          So the beginning of the article means nothing then? A writer can title a piece anything he wants if he goes back on it inside the article itself?

          So, you are saying that with every exciting fight, you are impressed? Regardless of the conditions or skills exhibited?

        • edub says:

          “The WEC prior to Zuffa’s involvement made no stars.”

          I never said they made stars, I said “Urijah’s star” skyrocketed. Urijah was a draw before he came to the WEC. The WEC made him a big time draw in the California area. That’s why he was already a familiar name amongst the internet community when THE WEC was bought by Zuffa.

          “So, you are saying that with every exciting fight, you are impressed? Regardless of the conditions or skills exhibited?”

          No, but in most fights yes. That is why I am a fan of MMA. But I don’t see how EVERY exciting fight is compared to Carwin-Lesnar.

          It was a fight between the #2-3 HW in the world vs. #4-8 (wherever you wanna rank them at the time) for what has become the most coveted title in MMA. The fight saw the champ get rocked, get beat up on the ground, and continue to manuever to deflect damage against an opponent who had never even been out of the first round. It is impressive that he defended enough to get out of trouble, and you can even say it’s more impressive coming from Lesnar now knowing he has a terrible chin. The fact that he survived, and made the comback was exciting to every single person I watched it with and probably a hell of a lot more.

          The rest was academic: Carwin was gassed, and Lesnar capitalized.

        • I’m completely confused as to what you are arguing regarding Faber and the WEC. Faber’s prominent position as a top sub lightweight contender was built not by WEC (whom he fought for once in the HDNet days) but King of the Cage and Gladiator Challenge. You can’t credit the pre Zuffa WEC for having made Faber a star any more than you can defunct promotions like TKO or Full Contact Promotions where he fought once. Hell, the fight he had for TKO was even a more meaningful contest against a bigger name opponent.

          Faber came to the WEC as a full time competitor through the WFA purchase, because they had signed him before their 5th show/2nd show after the reboot fell through and they were bought out by Zuffa.

          The fight saw the champ get rocked, get beat up on the ground, and continue to manuever to deflect damage against an opponent who had never even been out of the first round. It is impressive that he defended enough to get out of trouble, and you can even say it’s more impressive coming from Lesnar now knowing he has a terrible chin. The fact that he survived, and made the comback was exciting to every single person I watched it with and probably a hell of a lot more.

          He turtled up and got hit a lot by a guy who wasn’t smart enough to exhale while he threw shots. I can’t sit here and call it a scientific strategy with a straight face. I said it then and I’ll say it now – someone who doesn’t come after him in totally amateurish fashion finishes him, and Cain Velasquez took a measured approach and beat him to a bloody pulp. It made both guys look worse to me – Carwin has power but obviously he gets tunnel vision in the ring, can be overcome by the moment, and oh yeah, his technique is terrible. Lesnar comes out of it looking like a guy who can’t take a punch and has virtually no game from his back.

        • edub says:

          I’m saying that Urijah’s star was built to the level of best 145 pounder in the world in the multiple dominations he had of fighters in the WEC before the Zuffa purchase. I don’t think it’s that hard to understand that, and I don’t think a fight was more hyped country wide before the Faber-Escovedo FW championship fight. Except maybe the Charles Bennet fight. The Menjivar fight had a disappointing ending so he didn’t get near the hype from that fight as he did from the Escovedo fight.

          “I said it then and I’ll say it now – someone who doesn’t come after him in totally amateurish fashion finishes him…”

          So you think anyone who rocks Lesnar can finish him on the ground as long as they stay patient?

        • edub says:

          Also, wouldn’t you say Mccullough, Banuelos, Ruedigar, Franca, and Nate Diaz benefitted (hype wise) from The WEC?

        • He had the one relevant domination only. He only fought in the pre-Zuffa WEC once. He didn’t return to the promotion till WEC 25 (Zuffa owned) to fight Pearson. In the interim to that point he had faced Valencia, Enoch Wilson, and Bibiano.

          So you think anyone who rocks Lesnar can finish him on the ground as long as they stay patient?

          Short answer: Yes.

          Long answer: The problem for your average heavyweight is rocking him. He’s a big strong wrestler and most guys are gonna be moving backwards and getting taken down before they can plant and throw. But if you rock him, Lesnar does not recover fast at all. From the second Cain buzzed him, he was on shaky legs for what must have been a minute or more. It took him almost minutes to really take anything remotely comparable to an offensive move against Carwin after getting hit. Plus he panics. It doesn’t mean he sucks or can’t beat Fedor or whatever. It certainly isn’t an aspect of Lesnar that I’m impressed with.

          Also, wouldn’t you say Mccullough, Banuelos, Ruedigar, Franca, and Nate Diaz benefitted (hype wise) from The WEC?

          I don’t know that the WEC did anything particularly special. Honestly, Olaf Alonso will be more remembered as a WEC product nationally 5-6 years down the road than Mr. Cake or Banuelos IMO. Like a lot of mid level promotions at that time, they had some burgeoning names that became well known among the fanbase for their successes in the ring and eccentricities. I don’t know that they are necessarily a great historical success because they sold tickets for Doug Marshall fights for a time.

  10. robthom says:

    I’ve seen better.

    Dragon and Shogun have been more amazing picking their noses!

    I dont see what the big gosh darn deal is except for justifying the little guys, which isn’t really necessary!

    It was a weird move pulled off against an iffy opponent!

    Its happened before like Shad/Salmon.
    (Except in this case against an allegedly better opponent.)

    • EJ says:

      While I think the kick is overated myself let’s not go the opposite way with the hyperbole. Henderson is a top 10 LW imo and while I think the decision was bogus Pettis kick was still a much higher level than Rashad’s over Salmon.

      • robthom says:

        It was impressive!

        I’ve never seen that before exactly.

        Its admirable, but currently over admired.

        Check out Shannon the Cannon in 15:
        …youtube.com/watch?v=lKdU42cVQWM

        It’s not unheard of.

        If Salmon was a better fighter and Shad was worse, Salmon might have pulled of his crane kick!

        (That brings us to how good in benson.hedges?
        I’ve never been impressed! But that may be because of his style.)

        • robthom says:

          Although I also understand that its not the Flash KO that is cute about it, its the flying violence.

          I didn’t think it was as vastly cute as people are saying.

          Most Aldo fights are easily as impressive.

          I thought it looked a bit akward/wonky.

          I thought the the Marquard/Gouveia finish was easily as impressive:

          ….//i722.photobucket.com/albums/ww225/saihabot13/NateMarquardtFinishesWilsonGouveiaU.gif

Comments

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