Quote of the Day: Big John McCarthy
by Nick Thomas on Jun 19, 2008 4:18 PM EDT
in News
62 comments
“I mean, look at that fight. You got your middleweight champion (Anderson Silva), you’re moving up to light-heavyweight to fight James Irvin. What good does that do for him? I mean, (UFC president) Dana (White) feels … obviously he feels there is some competition there with Affliction. He wants to try to do something to damage Affliction. That’s why he is doing this. I look at it and it’s bad for the sport, it’s bad for the fans. There needs to be more than the one promotion.
“The UFC is the big one on the block. I would never say anything differently until anything really comes about. But to sit there and try to shove a show in on the same date to say come watch. It’s the same thing they did with the Chuck Liddell special (on Spike TV) the same night as the (EliteXC) fights on CBS. It’s like, come on. The sport is big enough to where there can be more than one. There needs to be more than one. The UFC has what 200 fighters signed or 250 fighters? You know what, there are a whole lot more fighters thana that in this world and they need jobs. So there needs to be the other promotions.
“Thank God, Affliction is doing what they are doing and putting together … honestly, I’m not saying it to say it, it is the best card with heavyweights that has ever been put together by any organization in, at least North America, and probably in the world ever. You’ve got three ex-UFC champions (Tim Sylvia, Josh Barnett and Andre Arlovski). You’ve got the ex-PRIDE champion in Fedor (Emelianenko) and you have other guys. You have Matt Lindland, Vitor Belfort, Mike Whitehead against Renato ‘Babalu’ (Sobral). You’ve got some great fights there. It’s going to be a hell of a card. Go and watch the one live and TiVo the UFC show. That’s what I’m going to do. I will TiVo the UFC show.”
0 recs |
62 comments
Email
Print
Comments
If the UFC takes a 100K buys away from Affliction, then they did their job.
by nitro on Jun 19, 2008 3:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Affliction was never going to get close to 100,000 PPV buys alone without the UFC having a show the same day.
by Hardcharger on Jun 19, 2008 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s Dana’s job to care about the UFC not mma. Affliction isn’t looking to be a b-level org. They are looking to compete with the UFC. This is a smart move by Dana. Stomp the competition before it becomes a threat
by SplitBreast on Jun 19, 2008 3:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If you enter the market with as many misconceptions about the sport as Affliction has and then get stomped by your competition by being better than you, I’m not sure I have tears to shed.
by Luke Thomas on Jun 19, 2008 3:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why does BJM come off as a hater of Dana White?
by Tha Realness on Jun 19, 2008 3:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s pretty much common knowledge at this point.
by pr0cs on Jun 19, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hardcharger is right. This idea that Dana’s job is to look out for MMA is utterly ridiculous.
by Michael Rome on Jun 19, 2008 3:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't get it
In every “for the good of the sport” post I’ve seen on internet forums and in various editorials and interviews people constantly say that they want competition to avoid having a Zuffa monopoly over talent. Well here it is. And now we have two pretty good cards on July 19th when we were only having one.
Is the UFC not allowed to respond to competition?
by Tonley on Jun 19, 2008 3:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
How about we get a pool going for how many ppvs Affliction sells?
Winner is the closest guess and their prize is they don’t get an Affliction shirt.
I’ll say 77,462. (I was going to say 77,461 but I forgot to count myself, lol)
"They said you was hung!!"
"And they was RIGHT!"
by BJJDenver on Jun 19, 2008 4:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone know when this FIght night is going to be on? Normally its from 8-10 which means you could watch both live. The 3 hour fight night was from 7-10. I haven’t been able to find any info about when its going to start.
by TannerMatthews on Jun 19, 2008 4:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
not sure, but as it is on a Saturday, I would guess 7-10.
"They said you was hung!!"
"And they was RIGHT!"
by BJJDenver on Jun 19, 2008 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is on the UFC website as starting at 9 eastern, so I would guess 3 hours.
"They said you was hung!!"
"And they was RIGHT!"
by BJJDenver on Jun 19, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When was the last time that a fight night started at 9. 9-11 would be bad enough but 9-12 would be worse. For Affliction anyway.
by TannerMatthews on Jun 19, 2008 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bet the time of the event will correspond almost directly with Affliction’s.
by Luke Thomas on Jun 19, 2008 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It will most def overlap with the whole Affliction show, but they might do an extra hour before so they can be the first on the air.
by szucconi on Jun 19, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t understand BJM’s comments.
When Affliction was putting on a card, competition was good for MMA.
Last weekend we had Adrenaline, EliteXC, and DREAM, and that was great because it was more MMA for fans.
Now, the UFC is giving us a free show on July 19 with the #1 fighter in the world fighting (as well as other exciting contenders), and now more MMA is a bad thing?
by Hardcharger on Jun 19, 2008 4:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is not just a case of “more” MMA. It is a case of Dana directly trying to take out another organization. So in the short term there is more MMA, but in the long term the UFC plans to be the only one left standing. BTW, Fedors purse will be more than the entire UFC payroll on that night.
by nitro on Jun 19, 2008 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So Dana is obligated to schedule free UFC shows on weekends when an upstart promotion isn’t having their own show?
Why? It’s not his duty to help Affliction, especially when they had a nice sponsorship deal with UFC fighters which caused their products to blow up, and then Affliction decided to become a competitor.
This show is an alternative to Affliction for some (since it’s free) and more MMA to others, who will pay for Affliction and watch the UFC.
by Hardcharger on Jun 19, 2008 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally, I only feel the need to pay for UFC shows. I see no point in contributing to promotions that will be gone within a year. I’ll still watch Affliction, but I’m sure as hell not paying for it.
by Richard Wade on Jun 19, 2008 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good job, keep feeding the monopoly!
by zeroword on Jun 19, 2008 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
zeroword, go look up the word “monopoly” in the dictionary.
Right now we have UFC, Elite XC, Affliction, and whatever Mark Cuban ends up deciding to do. A few years back we had only UFC here in the States. Having potentially four gigantic money players in the business is the polar opposite of a monopoly. UFC has the brand-name advantage, and some well-heeled businessman are deciding to make a run at them. That’s actually the free market at close to its finest.
by andherewego on Jun 19, 2008 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think its more likely an oligopoly..
by Johann on Jun 20, 2008 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not trying to disrespect BJM here, because he has earned his spot as one of the legends of this business, but we do need to keep in mind that he is currently an executive for a struggling network that is looking to air all sorts of fight promotions. His opinion of course still carries a lot of weight but he’s also after his own financial interests.
by andherewego on Jun 19, 2008 4:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
John has spiraled into a typical Sherdog Dana hater. It’s hilarious to me that Anderson Silva demanded to fight more often, UFC grants his wish, and somehow this is hurting Anderson and Dana is to blame. This is obviously a setup to give Anderson a big win standing while moving up a division, followed by another succesful title defense, setting up money matches at 205 next year.
by Michael Rome on Jun 19, 2008 5:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well
That’s a little strong to say BJM has “spiraled into a typical Sherdog Dana hater”. It’s clear he’s got concerns and he’s on the wrong side of the issue, but I wouldn’t paint him with that brush.
by Luke Thomas on Jun 19, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s clear he’s got concerns
not so clear he’s on the wrong side of the issue,
i hope that most of the folks that are voicing their support for ufc on this thread are viewing it through their Internet Explorer browser…...it would be a bit hypocritical if they were seeing it on firefox
by robnashville on Jun 19, 2008 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because we are arguing in favor of the UFC competing doesn’t mean we are cheer leading the brand leader or not rooting for Affliction’s competition. It’s only BECAUSE of Affliction that we are getting an impromptu UFC event. But we aren’t going to cry for competition when they lose either.
by Luke Thomas on Jun 19, 2008 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My “criticism” extension doesn’t make me a blind UFC fanboy.
Ok…that sucked…but my point still remains that we got what we wanted.
Competition.
And the UFC acknowledged and responded.
by Tonley on Jun 19, 2008 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How the fuck is that hypocritical?
by Richard Wade on Jun 19, 2008 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no need to curse richard….that lowers the debate around here….
if you don’t know why that would be hypocritical then you are unaware how a near monopoly like microsoft used their position in the industry and anti-competive practices (like i don’t know giving away their product for free) to blow out someone like Netscape….. microsoft then put out such a shoody product over the years that firefox popped up almost out of necessity… if you are using firefox it is because you acknowledged a company with a monopoly of the industry had a substandard product…....if you then happily trumpet and encourage a monopoly for UFC in the same breath …..well it comes off as hypocritical
you and the other folks on here seem to have some confusion between competition and anti-competitive practices. there is a fine line between the two, but it seems like the nuance is lost here.
by robnashville on Jun 19, 2008 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you watch the CFL instead of the NFL? Use a Mac instead of PC? Do you like the Grapefruit league instead of MLB? Do you live in Canada instead of the USA?(sorry, that was a low blow, but it made me laugh) The UFC wants to be the NFL and wants to make sure EliteXC is the CFL. Affliction will be crushed for spite, but your argument is not about spite. I see nothing wrong with either. Do you see anything wrong with a gas station owner looking across the street at the other station and seeing that they lowered prices, then going and lowering there own?
by szucconi on Jun 19, 2008 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My profanity does about as much to lower the debate as your inability to use the Shift key or limit yourself to only one period per sentence.
If you think the two situations are the same then you need to stop and think before you make comments. I use Firefox because it’s a better product at no additional cost. Were Affliction a better product at no additional cost, I’d watch that instead of the UFC event on the 19th. Also, I don’t think you understand the concept of a monopoly. Again, perhaps you should take some time to think before you make comments.
The term anti-competitive practices is stupid. It’s only anti-competitive to counter program if you’re the bigger promotion. It’s not so much nuance as it is a stupid idea.
by Richard Wade on Jun 19, 2008 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You support open source in defiance of the Microsoft monopoly but support UFC’s MMA monopoly. Hence you pick and choose which monopolies are ok.
by zeroword on Jun 19, 2008 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this man gets the history behind my reference…. zeroword, a gentleman and a scholar….
by robnashville on Jun 19, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone gets the “history behind [your] reference.” It wasn’t complicated, it was dumb.
by Richard Wade on Jun 19, 2008 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that’s why you needed it explained to you…..hence you asking “How the fuck is that hypocritical?”
by robnashville on Jun 19, 2008 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I needed explained was how you thought the two were the same when they’re clearly not. Learn how to read. Learn how to form a coherent, logical argument. And learn how to fucking type.
by Richard Wade on Jun 19, 2008 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Microsoft doesn’t have a monopoly unless you choose to twist the word until it no longer has any meaning. And I don’t “support open source in defiance of Microsoft,” I use Firefox because it is a superior product available to me at no additional cost.
by Richard Wade on Jun 19, 2008 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In United States v. Microsoft, there was a finding of fact that Microsoft was indeed a Monopoly…..this finding of fact wasn’t reversed on appeal…..only the scope of remedy was reversed ie not breaking them up… with the change of prez administrations around that time, the let the case flounder….
but go ahead and argue that court cases are stupid, and case law is dumb…
by robnashville on Jun 19, 2008 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The use of the term “monopoly” to describe something that isn’t a monopoly is, in fact, dumb. I’m aware of the ruling and that in a legal sense it is a monopoly, but under any honest use of the term it is not.
by Richard Wade on Jun 19, 2008 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, the UFC in no way approaches the level of dominance that Microsoft does, so even if we accept that definition of monopoly, it does not apply in this case. And stretching an already stretched term in order to make a hopelessly stupid analogy is moronic.
by Richard Wade on Jun 19, 2008 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was
Going to say something about the vulgarity, but the debate itself is interesting enough for me to let it continue.
by Luke Thomas on Jun 20, 2008 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll try to tone it down in the future.
by Richard Wade on Jun 20, 2008 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your appeal to authority has convinced me. ;-)
by Richard Wade on Jun 20, 2008 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep!!!
Big John hit it right on the head. Dana is scared shitless, because Affliction actually has some good fighters on that card, people that Dana unwisely let slip through his fingers. Affliction is going to be the UFC’s main competitor. Lord help Dana if they get a network TV deal.
by Cmad77 on Jun 19, 2008 5:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
LOL at everything in your post.
Affliction is more likely to fold after 1 show than anything else you insinuated could happen.
by Hardcharger on Jun 19, 2008 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BJM sounds like he’s been sniffing glue. I don’t know what the hell you’re basing your comment on.
by Richard Wade on Jun 19, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BJM has a point, but at the end of the day, it’s a business, and Dana and the UFC are looking to make sure they stay top dog. That’s not to say they don’t want other organizations to exist, on the contrary, I think they want these promotions to exist, as a sort of breeding ground for fighters, but they want to make sure they stay a distant – way distant – second place. What Affliction is doing is not like one of these other organizations where they start out small. They’re trying to compete right away, compiling a show full of former UFC champs and all round great fighters.
by pud333 on Jun 19, 2008 5:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He’s doing it partially for personal reasons, and also to try to sap something like 10,000 buys off the top of their card and deepen their losses even further. Maybe he just wants to deal with one competitor instead of two. This makes perfect logical sense.
by Michael Rome on Jun 19, 2008 6:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
One thing worth noting: Big John has a t-shirt deal with Affliction, he has business interests in seeing Afflciton do well.
by Lynchman on Jun 19, 2008 7:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is Xtreme Couture and Affliction the same thing?
all you gotta do is...
by imapimp08 on Jun 20, 2008 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t view the UFC’s competing card as an “anti-competitive practice.” If Dana was trying to block Affliction from getting a venue or trying to keep them off TV, that might be ant-competitive. This is just a free market at its best. The UFC doesn’t have a monopoly and never will. Anybody with a few million dollars to burn can put on an MMA event. Affliction proves that. If this one attack by Zuffa torpedoes the whole Affliction fight promotion effort, then they aren’t a viable competitor, anyway.
What industry has competitors that avoid direct competition in order to keep the industry strong? That’s what I think Big John and others seem to be advocating for MMA. It just make no sense at all to me. I always thought uninhibited competition, by and large, made an industry stronger.
by Cannon Jacques on Jun 19, 2008 8:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
“I wouldn’t view the UFC’s competing card as an "anti-competitive practice."
it’s kinda equivalent to “dumping”.... which is an anti-competive practice
“If Dana was trying to block Affliction….. trying to keep them off TV, that might be ant-competitive.”
which is why we have the WEC on Versus and not the IFL…. the bought the WEC for the express reason of putting it on versus to block the IFL from getting that slot…
by robnashville on Jun 19, 2008 8:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This isn’t really equivalent to dumping. I doubt the UFC plans on losing money with this event in order to undercut Affliction. Many would argue that dumping is often times healthy, anyway. I don’t want to get into the semantics of what’s “anti-competitive” and what’s not. I feel pretty confident that Zuffa’s competing card is legal.
If in fact the purchase of the WEC was to block the IFL from getting on Versus, that doesn’t block the IFL from the marketplace (i.e. TV). They have access, and have been on TV. Lack of interest is what’s killing the IFL, not lack of access.
by Cannon Jacques on Jun 19, 2008 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough…you make good points..but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well….
by robnashville on Jun 19, 2008 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
by Cannon Jacques on Jun 19, 2008 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen brother! Big John took the words from my mouth, i knew the UFC would do something to fuck over the Affliction card but i mean hey thats what they do, theyre an agressive company and theyre gunna do whatever it takes to keep growing and being number 1(as far as money and power goes.) Its so obvious that this july 19th card was rushed together and pulled out of UFC’s ass with intention’s to do some damage to Afflictions debut, and its messed up but thats the UFC, but now we get two cards in one night so fuck it! good luck Affliction
by thorgrim86 on Jun 20, 2008 1:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
