David Samuels From The Atlantic Magazine on MMA Nation

by Luke Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 3:41 PM EST in News Comment 52 comments

Mmanation_medium

For those who missed it, I interviewed David Samuels of The Atlantic magazine on Saturday. Samuels is the author of "Rampage", an extremely intriguing article following Rampage before, during and after his fight with Forrest Griffin. It's a look into the world of a fascinating and complicated person made all the more interesting by his occupation and the world of MMA that makes the occupation possible.

There are a ton of interesting statements made by Samuels, most notably his view on who really runs the UFC (read: not Dana White).

Full interview here.

0 recs | Comment 52 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

great interview

by starvin on Dec 8, 2008 1:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The angle that didn’t get touched on is the imminent bankruptcy of the Fertittas’ casino operations. IMO that played a big part on Lorenzo going full-time to the UFC.
I like this quote though “Dana White doesn’t run the UFC, he’s a hype-man.”

by Kid Nate on Dec 8, 2008 2:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I realized that after the fact. Oh well.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Did any of us

really think that Dana handled all of the UFC day to day operations? To me, it has always seemed that he was there to ensure the UFC stayed in the public eye.

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DANA

it sure looks like in all those vlogs of his that he has alot to do with everything that goes down with the ufc. of course those vlogs are geneally only about 10 minutes long, and are made to dana in a positive spotlight.

by bdw on Dec 8, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He is a promoter

by trade, and it always seems like that is his main function with the UFC.

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

KID NATE

iv’e heard and read alot about stations being in financial trouble, but what doe sthat mean for the ufc? if stations went bankrupt and went completley out of business, how would that affect the ufc and the way it does business?

by bdw on Dec 8, 2008 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

From what I can tell about the finances, the effects will be negligible. There was a time the two were closely connected, it’s not the case anymore. There is a long road before bankruptcy for a casino. Banks are so desparate for cash that they’ll do quite a bit before giving up on all those loans.

by Michael Rome on Dec 8, 2008 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ROME

thats what i thought as well, but it seems to be a bit of a hot topic these days on some mma sites, which i really dont understand why if it’s not really gonna affect mma.

by bdw on Dec 8, 2008 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

the implications are still significant.
To start the UFC, the Fertittas put $40million in the UFC and that money came from Station. If the UFC needs that kind of backing again in the future, the Ferittas might not have it.

by Kid Nate on Dec 8, 2008 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The UFC paid them back. The 300m loans? That’s owner equity they took out. Dana’s Ferrari? That was part of the 300m equity pay out.

The UFC can borrow on its own now. They can borrow because they have a revenue stream. They won’t need Station any more. Actually, the UFC as an entity right now would be worth far more than Station Casino. If the bankruptcy news is true, Station Casino is a penny stock if it were traded.

by cyph on Dec 8, 2008 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. I’m saying that the reason Lorenzo jumped off the Station payroll is because they couldn’t afford to pay him his outlandish salary anymore.

by Kid Nate on Dec 8, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

understood. the need for future funds from stations for backing makes sense, although i dont think they will need it. wasn’t lorenzo just paying himself though, considering that he is a co-owner of stations?

by bdw on Dec 8, 2008 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting stuff.

by Nick Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 2:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Great Interview

I really like David Samuels’ description of Rampage as a walking contradiction and ticking timebomb. Samuels seems to be spot on with all of the big personalities in the UFC.

by jasonDC on Dec 8, 2008 2:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

To be honest, just reading his piece and listening to him, I think he had his conclusion and sought out evidence to prove it. Dana is incredibly involved in almost every business deal, fight making, fight scheduling, contracts, media, and more.

by Michael Rome on Dec 8, 2008 3:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It does,

after hearing him say “right” to Luke after every statement like he was looking for affirmation from him.

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I also do not know

where he came up with Dana White being possibly intricately involved with Rampage splitting from Juanito. I have not heard anything about this, anyone else heard this?

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea

Wondering who really runs the UFC is a broad question in many respects. However, folk are crazy if they don’t think White is heavily involved with running a large portion of it.

http://mma4real.net/

by Tha Realness on Dec 8, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

More on that point-

if Dana did not have his hand on so much that he needed some help why would Lorenzo come over?

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It certainly

was not because the company was not doing well

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybee b/c like luke thomas sugessted, that dana was starting to burn out(see fitchgate) and needed the help. the ufc is getting to big and growing to much for 1 guy to handle.

by bdw on Dec 8, 2008 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fitchgate

happened well after Lorenzo came over. Any of us suggesting that is possible for a high profile CEO of a company to burn out really does not hold much water for the company that person works for. Anyone in his position could possibly “burn out” at some point, but Dana’s business decisions re contracts & merchandising are always in the best interest of the UFC which I am sure the Fertittas are in favor of.

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

so why do you think lorenzo came over then? dana needing help is the best reason i can think of.

by bdw on Dec 8, 2008 4:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe the UFC

growing by leaps and bounds demanded it. I think that it says more about the success of White & the UFC than it does Dana burning out.

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ok then. we are in agreement. i misundrstood your point.

by bdw on Dec 8, 2008 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

because station couldn't afford to pay him anymore

that’s what i was trying to say above.

by Kid Nate on Dec 8, 2008 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“Any of us suggesting that is possible for a high profile CEO of a company to burn out really does not hold much water for the company that person works for.”

And for the record, the UFC almost outright stated Lorenzo took on a more formal role in the UFC when the move was announced. That’s not really conjecture, more stated fact. The UFC implied there’d be different spheres of influence, but the burnout question I raised was something altogether different than who is chiefly in charge of the UFC organization from more than a managerial role.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 4:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"the UFC almost outright stated Lorenzo took on a more formal role in the UFC when the move was announced"

That is reading a lot into what a companies motives are. I find it hard to believe Lorenzo left the casino because Dana was failing or was unable to perform his duties adequately. Again, I attribute this to the success of the UFC & in part Dana.

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh. I’m getting tired of this. I never said ANYTHING about Dana failing. This time or ever. In fact, I’ve always stated the most likely reason was the success of the UFC and the UFC stated as much when they ANNOUNCED Lorenzo would be primarily focused on overseas expansion.

You’re not stating anything new by stating “I attribute this to the success of the UFC & in part Dana.” Some have suggested that Lorenzo came over due to White’s failure(s), but not me.

BUT that has nothing to do with my query or the author’s point about who, principally, is in charge of the UFC.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe is crossed a few posts or something.

Sorry man.

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think I was the one speculating negatively on Dana, probably linking to Zach Arnold or Adam Swift and going off from there.

by Kid Nate on Dec 8, 2008 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think I need a long break. I’m way too on edge.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I really thought you were about to

start namecalling & then have to ban yourself for a while!

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe,

it is hard to keep all of these straight sometimes.

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Like I state below:

by Luke Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Could be. I honestly don’t know. I think I’m far too removed from the situation to really get a firm grasp on how matters operate.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

LUKE

me too. i dont know fact from fiction on this matter either.

by bdw on Dec 8, 2008 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We can all make educated guesses, but until I have prolonged personal exposure I’d be doing little more than issuing conjecture. The UFC bans us, which puts us at a distance even with leaked info. Overcoming that distance is difficult.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but it does leave me free to speculate wildly!
; )

by Kid Nate on Dec 8, 2008 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I had a discussion just the other day with someone from the UFC about their media policy. They were complaining about how the blogs are so negative, and when I brought up the ban, the person told me that no other sport credentials and gives bloggers access, so why should they?

Of course, that may or may not be true, but even if it is, other sports have mainstream writers that have been watching the sport for years and have a deep understanding of it. We have Kevin Iole and Franklin Mcneil. The only journalists with a serious understanding of the sport that get regular access are Dave Meltzer and Steve Cofield, so everyone else is left to speculate.

There’s this quote from Lorenzo in his atlantic interview where he talks about how other sports just let the media run wild, but they want to have a media department and close connections with the media. Sounds nice on his face, but it’s very clear to me he is a strong supporter of the restricted media policy. Having a “cozy relationship” with the media means applying pressure to run good stories and hold bad ones.

by Michael Rome on Dec 8, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I understand,

but just like all major corporations they all want to control the majority of their publicity at any cost. Sometimes to their own detriment.

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting.

It always amazes me when the UFC complains about the negativity of the blogs. Admittedly, they are negative on balance. But a) Dana bad mouths the online media at every turn, b) they have no relationship with blogs so they are forced to rely on the information of others and c) even with those hurdles the vast majority of bloggers have to watch far less knowledgeable journalists in the sport do mediocre interviews or read terrible articles. I’m not here to justify the anger of what are almost jilted lovers, but I’m not here to say the UFC does nothing to bring it about either.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

100% agreed,

it seems they have made a calculated decision re this though.

by dnevil001 on Dec 8, 2008 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think it’s calculated at all, I think it’s mostly spiteful. Everyone online is painted with the Sherdog brush.

by Michael Rome on Dec 8, 2008 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

LUKE

i didnt know that. why is BE banned?

by bdw on Dec 8, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No blogs have access. A limited number of websites get access, MMA Weekly does and I think Cage Potato as a result of their funding and ownership, but I may be wrong about the latter. It’s no one item in particular.

by Michael Rome on Dec 8, 2008 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And...

from what I’ve heard (and for the sake of protecting the person who told me this I won’t name names) there IS a lot of pressure on you once you get “accepted” by the UFC to never criticize them under any circumstance.

For what it’s worth there are a few respected blogs with access to the team and fair coverage for the “major sports” (Athletics Nation…a few of the basketball blogs on SBN…etc)

Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 8, 2008 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i can see why you guys(BE) might have a little bit of a predisposition towards dana. you do an amazing job of being fair and unbiased, with all things considered.

by bdw on Dec 8, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the support.

I hope everyone understands BE does not seek an adversarial relationship with the UFC. In fact, we believe if the UFC were more open to us, they’d be able to directly share and inform us with their perspective and word. But right now that’s not happening and I don’t know if they ever will.

I know how hard everyone on staff works to be the best, most informed, enthusiastic and even-handed writer/blogger they can be. We all succeed and fail to varying degrees in those efforts, but we feel we’ve earned our place to be taken seriously as a media entity of note. We don’t have the Yahoo or CBS or NY Times label on our letterhead, but we believe the quality of our content is more than on par with those large media entities. Maybe one day the UFC will agree.

But if not, we’ll keep doing what we’re doing. Onward and upward.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 8, 2008 8:43 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

I know I definitely appreciate it, thank’s for all the good stuff.

And certain posters on here seem to have inside info in the industry…so maybe it is being noticed.

by iiowyn on Dec 8, 2008 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just caught the show on iTunes always days late being down here in Aus so I miss all this discussion, but oh well.

You do a top notch job with your interviews Luke. I look forward to them very much.
I still have to skip the “Die in a fire!!!” rants you digress into. I understand it’s the style of the format, but I still think that stuff distracts from your overall high quality show.

by Benicio on Dec 9, 2008 1:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs