Bloody Elbow: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Laviolette out, 'Canes turn to Maurice Bar-right-arrows

Caution: Overuse of Professional Wrestling Tactics Can Lead to Damage

Tiny by Cannon Jacques on

Fronted by Luke Thomas.

Brock-new_682x400_551191a_medium

Matthew Polly has written a thought provoking piece on the use of heels and other sensational tactics in MMA.  From Fightlinker:

All of the current mainstream acceptance along with its corollary money and fame can go away very quickly. It’s been ten years since Pro-Wrestling was huge enough that The Rock could cross over. It’s been about three since Texas Hold ‘Em was hot. The public is fickle, and MMA is not the first combat sport to try and break boxing’s stranglehold on the public’s imagination. (Remember the PKA? Not so much.)

The difference between celebrating the joys of victory and mocking the agony of your opponent’s defeat may seem like a fine line. But it certainly wasn’t to Tank Abbott’s crew in UFC 45 when Cabbage taunted their patron, creating the UFC’s first bench-clearing brawl and appalling even Joe Rogen. How many more times can someone like Scott Jansen’s brother head butt Phil Baroni after a fight without the casual CBS-type viewer assuming that MMA fighters are not the highly trained athletes that they are but actually "animals" (an accusation I’ve heard many times since I’ve started covering this sport)?

This is a critical time for MMA.  The sport is quite new, and doesn't have decades of history to define it.  MMA can define itself as a serious sport, or it can take on the role of spectacle.  Many "hardcore fans" exhibit an extreme dislike for professional wrestling.  Others are fans, or are former fans of the sports entertainment genre.  With this in mind, it's easy to understand why Brock Lesnar and his post-fight antics have been the focal point of much debate within the MMA community.  While some showmanship is probably good for the sport, following the path of a scripted sports hybrid too closely could prove detrimental.  Polly elaborates:

Lesnar’s victory was sufficiently one-sided that Herring’s demoralized entourage held back. But I doubt this will be the case in the future, especially if he fights a Brazilian. (Think Coleman v Rua.) A skilled heel instinctively knows where that fine line is between provocation and parole. In his younger days Ali certainly did. We’ll see about Lesnar.

In the short term, the UFC would do well to keep a tight lasso on their current crazy horseback mountain rider. Gary Shaw’s EliteXC kept pushing for Tyson-bites-Holyfield moments and look where it got him and his network program.

Athletes pretending to be classy and care about disadvantaged children and the troops overseas when all they really want is more money and more groupies is as boringly hypocritical in MMA as it is in the NFL, the MBA, or the NBA. But it’s how the game is played in America. There is plenty of time to fly the true colors and keep it real when/if MMA secures a permanent rotation on Sports Center.

Did you like EliteXC's first, or second CBS show better?  It may be more a question of what more people like - including casual fans.  However, I tend to believe that keeping the hardcore base of MMA fans satisfied is extremely important for the sport in the long-term.  If you are one who believes in the pro-wrestling model, remember that its popularity is not as steady as that of major sports in America.  Is that scenario good for MMA?

A compromise must be met between theatrics and sport.  Too much use of theatrics will likely turn off sports fans that prefer a more pure competitive experience.  A fight sport completely devoid of all hype and showmanship could become too dull to satisfy casual fans.  Casual fans are definitely needed for the sport to grow.  What MMA doesn't need is the perception that it is a scripted affair like pro-wrestling.  MMA is a sport.  It's not just entertainment.  MMA is also a competition that must maintain some sort of integrity.  Unfortunately, perception is sometimes as important as reality, and the reality is that MMA doesn't want to look too similar to professional wrestling.

4 recs | Comment 138 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Agreed

Anyone who wants to watch Theater, or needs a face/heel dynamic to enjoy a match needs to stop watching MMA and go back to WWE.

by mythbuster on Aug 13, 2008 4:33 PM EDT   0 recs

Eh

In almost all major sports, the majority of athletes are respectful of each other and don’t go the theatrics route. But the small minority that do really get people talking and polarize the fans. They either love it or hate it. But the people that hate it, love to hate it. Not every jerk that does it pulls it off, you have to have the right personality and the skill to back it up.

The common thread is that everyone is talking about it and when people talk about something, other people start to take notice, etc.

So yes, I think there is definitely a place for it, as long as not everyone is doing it and the person doing so can pull it off.

For the record, I had a pretty good lol when he did it after the fight. But I have to admit, the alcohol probably helped.

by LiuLang on Aug 13, 2008 4:47 PM EDT   0 recs

People don't get it

People don’t understand what draws and what will makes this a successful sport.

People shit on Tito Ortiz because he’s not the best fighter anymore. But his drawing power has never been about him being a good fighter. It’s about who he is as a person. He has persona, personality and charisma. That my friends is marketable.

What isn’t is pure sport.

Take the purest sport you want and it’ll get NOTHING for viewers without the proper promotion. The NFL isn’t the most watched sport in America because it’s “the best” sport or the purest sport or the most sporting thing on television. It’s the most popular because it has the biggest marketing machine behind it. On NFL Countdown when they highlight games, they highlight the players in the games and give us some insight into who they are – their ups and downs.

That’s how they draw in the viewer.

If you think “the sport” has anything to do with it, tell me how ABCs ratings are for non-olympics track and field on the weekend? Oh that’s right. The “Wide World Of Sports” ended in 1998.

Carano, Kimbo, Tito, Chuck – they all draw big because they’re larger than life people. They’re stars.

What seperates Anderson Silva from GSP? You certianly can’t tell me it’s talent that makes GSP a draw of Anderson Silva?

And how do you explain the buyrate of Serra vs. GSP? On paper that fight is crap. But there was heat to it because it had a story and characters. That is why The Ultimate Fighter used to work.

Just look at the last EliteXC rating. The sport was on TV with great fights but equalled nothing because there was no star on the show. It was just people fighting and it bombed.

For the sport to succeed, the sport needs stars. The stars don’t have to be good at fighting, they need draw buys and public interest.

The best thing that ever happened to EliteXC was the Diaz /Noons pull-apart and the dumbest thing they ever did was not use the footage.

Lesnar as a cocky asshole heel is THE BEST thing going for the heavyweight division this side of a Randy Couture comeback.

Why is it we’re all talking about Lesnar and not Cain Velasquez? Again – because Lesnar is a draw in MMA. And we all know he’s not a draw because he’s a better fighter than Velasquez because he likely isn’t. It’s because he’s a larger than life character with a personality. Turns out he might be able to back it up, maybe.

I’m not saying MMA shouldn’t be treated as sport. It’s an awesome sport – but the sport needs stars and draws. And the fights themselves will never create that.

Even in the Olympics, the most sporting event of them all, we focus on the stars of the sport and not the sport itself.

MMA doesn’t need everyone to be a Brock Lesnar, but a few of them here and there are great for the sport.

my apologies for the rant, sort of

by ghettoiam on Aug 13, 2008 4:52 PM EDT   1 recs

DISAGREED

1: “People love to hate him” No sir. Disgusted by him and his antics. Someone in another thread wrote that people will buy PPV to see him get his ass kicked. On the contrary – I have no desire to even hear about him anymore. The sooner people STOP making posts about him, the better.
2: We get it, we don’t like it. Please don’t assume that because everyone isn’t jumping on the bandwagon that we don’t get it.
3: The UFC has been doing just fine, growing the sport amazingly, without needing to resort to a Shaw-McMahon type of theater. This bullshit is just going to destroy all the legitimacy that Dana has fought so hard to bring to the sport.
4: If it got decided that every fight would be a fight to the death, I guarantee that people would talk about it a lot. By your logic, it is therefore good for the sport.

In other words, please try to understand the difference between trash talk that sells fights and sports entertainment style theatrics.

by mythbuster on Aug 13, 2008 5:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ha ha ha. Dana grew the sport all by focusing on personalities in a reality show, and fooling millions of people into thinking Tito Ortiz was a god in 2006. The two biggest buyrates of all time in MMA remain complete spectacles and one sided affairs.

by Michael Rome on Aug 13, 2008 5:32 PM EDT to parent up   1 recs

Thank you

For proving my point.

The TUF show changed many peoples opinions that MMA fighters were just roid-rage-assholes. It shows the humanity, the athleticism and the courage involved in the sport. When someone acted to the contrary, they got kicked from the show.

The two biggest names at the time the UFC became popular were what? Chuck Liddel and Randy Couture. Neither of these guys needed the dipshit WWE antics to get over. You can have the love/hate Tito relationship, but it was Chuck and Randy that people wanted to see most.

by mythbuster on Aug 14, 2008 8:51 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Great. So how does one expect to use that same method to grow again using the same mediums as before?

by D.Capitated on Aug 14, 2008 8:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Lesnar as a cocky asshole heel is THE BEST thing going for the heavyweight division this side of a Randy Couture comeback.

That says a lot about how terrible UFC’s heavyweight division is.

by George Lucas on Aug 13, 2008 5:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It also completely contradicts his point – there’s no drama with Randy.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Aug 14, 2008 7:04 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

With all due respect, are you kidding?

It’s a VERY different sort of drama, but to say that an 40-something former LHW and HW champ coming out of retirement to beat guys nearly half his age has no drama is flatly incorrect. It’s OK if you don’t like the type of drama people like Lesnar bring to the sport, but don’t falsely assume that there is no drama (read: story with an emotional tint to draw the viewer in) related to other marketable fighters.

by Estrada on Aug 14, 2008 12:12 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think you know what kind of “drama” I was talking about.

If not, I’m talking about reality, not antics. Right?

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Aug 14, 2008 3:44 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I understand that you’re talking about the difference between “manufactured,” and “real” drama (though even then it’s not a dichotomy, but rather a continuum), but I don’t see how the differences in the type of drama contradicts the original quoted point that Lesnar’s heel status is the best thing for the UFC short of Randy returning. Particularly since ghettoiam painted “off the field drama” used to sell tickets with a very broad brush. If you want to disagree with his opinion that it’s a good thing for the UFC, that’s fine. Furthermore, if you chose to define drama as a (false) dichotomy (antics and reality), that’s your prerogative. However within the context he framed his argument, he did not contradict that point.

by Estrada on Aug 14, 2008 10:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think the word that’s causing confusion here is “heel.” From Wikipedia:

In professional wrestling, a heel is a villain character. In non-wrestling jargon, heels are the “bad guys” in pro wrestling storylines… Heels are often portrayed as behaving in an immoral manner, breaking rules or otherwise taking advantage of their opponents outside of the bounds of the rules of the match.

(Which all of a sudden makes it clear to me why Brock was shoving Heath into the ref after round 1: acting! Genius! Thank you!)

I contend that by using the word, “heel,” ghettoiam was specifically talking about acting, which is completely different from every other example he provides. And the reason that I claim that there is a big difference between the two is that many MMA fans are not going to be motivated by “manufactured” drama.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Aug 15, 2008 12:01 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Good piece Cannon

I agree that showman ship is necessary in MMA, as long as most fighters and commentators publicly acknowledge it merely as showmanship. As a prior poster here noted, we see this kind of behavior in most, if not all of America’s mosts popular sports. I mean, from what I hear Chad Johnson is seriously considering to legally change his name to “Ocho-cinco.” The examples among NFL wide receivers abound; we see showboating in the NBA.

And actually, there’s a cultural history of this in sport that is widely celebrated – in the Negro Baseball Leagues, the players showed a lot more “showboating,” and many African American fans were disappointed when this declined as the NBL was absorbed into MLB. I mean, it was fun to watch Ozzie Smith in MLB do backflips after making a good defensive play. So yea, perhaps Lesnar’s actions were over the top, but a degree of showmanship is a part of sports in general … not just WWE/F, or combat sports.

I think it is wrong that Lesnar is getting more heat for this than Nate Diaz did for flipping the double bird while catching his last opponent in a triangle choke, and maybe even more heat than the Noons-Nick Diaz fiasco that involved physical pushing and stuff with family members. Although Lesnar’s a bigger name and all, those two cases in my opinion were worse for MMA and deserve greater scrutiny.

by dmayeda on Aug 13, 2008 5:01 PM EDT   0 recs

I think you made my point better than I did. At the risk of taking a position on the fence, I think there needs to be a balance. I just don’t agree with some who look at employing tactics that may produce short-term growth, but don’t necessarily serve a long-term benefit to the sport. A few Lesnar’s or Ortiz’s may benefit the sport, but I feel like there should be more GSP’s and Anderson Silva’s.

I understand that big personalities are prevalent in all sports. Hell, I’ve been a Dallas Cowboys fan all my life. I’ve probably made some enemies now. I didn’t mean to single out fight sports or pro-wrestling although I may have.

by Cannon Jacques on Aug 13, 2008 5:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

For every Jason Witten, there’s a Terrell Owens. Your team was featured on HBO’s Hard Knocks because of their desirable personalities (TO, Tank, Romo). Spectator sports are entertainment. And quite frankly, the casual observer (which, for all spectator sports, comprises the majority of income) needs additional motivation beyond the purity of the sport. That’s just the way it works..

by Blackout612 on Aug 13, 2008 5:29 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I can’t really disagree with you. I think the NFL has largely found the balance between showmanship and sport.

by Cannon Jacques on Aug 13, 2008 5:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The difference is that the Dallas Cowboys will not be on Monday Night Football every week or automaticaly given a bid to the NFC title game because “they draw”. Listening to this meltzerese is hilarious when applied to real sports. I can’t even imagine what Herb would think of something like the San Antonio Spurs of this decade.

by D.Capitated on Aug 14, 2008 8:59 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You’re right about the title game aspect, but the decision to televise a game nationally actually does have to do with what game the majority of people are expected to want to see.

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard on Aug 15, 2008 1:54 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I can’t help but think that Lesnar’s action were a combination of events:
1) disappointing loss to Mir and a seemingly endless parade of questions about that fight when he was interviewed (I believe I saw an interview where he basically walked away from the questions when continually asked about the previous fight)
2) fighting in his hometown with a VERY pro-Lesnar crowd
3) a serious domination of a veteran, not just a wrestling domination but a striking domination as well

I think we’ll see a lot more subdued Lesnar in his next fight, there were a lot of things amping him up to that fervor…similar to Houston Alexander’s win over Jardine and the post fight antics.

by pr0cs on Aug 13, 2008 5:07 PM EDT   0 recs

3) a serious domination of a veteran, not just a wrestling domination but a striking domination as well

All the more reason to show some class.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Aug 14, 2008 7:05 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Eh..

It takes a lot of theater to approach that of pro wrestling. Emotion intensifies fighting. That’s just natural. Everyone points to Brock when making this association, because he’s a former pro wrestler. Huerta’s vignette was edited so as to appear that he called his fight with Florian a cakewalk.

Two men fighting each other is always a more desirable commodity if they don’t (or appear not to) like one another. I think Polly’s article was entirely needless. He, in fact, is creating or motivating this perception (to no avail, might I add). MMA hasn’t come anywhere near to an association with the theatrics of pro wrestling.

by Blackout612 on Aug 13, 2008 5:18 PM EDT   0 recs

That’s a good point. I think people when they compare Brock’s “antics” to that of pro wrestling forget just how outrageous the behavior is in pro wrestling. Pointing and laughing at someone isn’t exactly zipping their unconscious foe up in a body bag (which I swear someone used to do in pro wrestling).

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard on Aug 13, 2008 5:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The Undertaker

Who also buried people alive, hung a guy from a noose, crucified a few dudes on his logo and put guys in caskets. Evidence that Brock is totally approaching that territory. One day it’s an invisible lasso, the next—an actual noose.

by Blackout612 on Aug 13, 2008 6:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Thanks. I was pretty sure I wasn’t making that up, but I haven’t watched pro wrestling in a long time.

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard on Aug 13, 2008 7:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Can’t we admit that different people will be drawn to the sport for different reasons? For every person who is drawn in by the speed and skill (and humility) of GSP, there’s a person who is drawn in by the power and hype (and aura of menace) of Lesnar. They’re both fans of the same sport, they just have slightly different tastes within the sport. If the sport as a whole just outlawed showmanship (hypothetical – I know it’s not actually possible), they’d lose a lot of fans. If the sport as a whole embraced non-stop theatrics, they’d lose a lot of fans. There HAS to be a mix for the sport to thrive.

by AJB on Aug 13, 2008 5:22 PM EDT   0 recs

That’s why I think this speculation is needless. Maybe this should have been discussed more seriously when the Noons and Diaz families were brawling, or when Rogers “confronted” Kimbo at the XC press conference. I don’t really see the looming issue here..

by Blackout612 on Aug 13, 2008 5:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think is addressed here, because, for better or worse, the UFC defines much of what MMA currently is in North America. What happens in EXC probably doesn’t matter as much to “hardcore fans,” because they don’t see it at the level of the UFC. What Polly wrote isn’t really original speculation. Many commenting right here have been at odds about the place of antics in MMA.

by Cannon Jacques on Aug 13, 2008 5:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The post over at Fight Linker is kind of mind boggling. You had about 20 seconds of taunting in a 3 hour show, some of you are building up a straw man to knock down by acting like the Undertaker interfered in the main event. Lesnar’s actions were barely worse than Couture spanking Ortiz, but that was okay because we love Randy.

by Michael Rome on Aug 13, 2008 5:34 PM EDT   0 recs

Lesnar’s actions were barely worse than Couture spanking Ortiz, but that was okay because we love Randy.

Lesnar’s actions were worse than Couture spanking Ortiz because it was Ortiz getting comeuppance for making an entire career out of taunting and “showmanship”.

Herring was not the least bit disrespectful to Lesnar in any of the pre-fight interviews or stories that I’ve read and never took the fight as anything but a serious opportunity. To mock him so openly after dominating but being unable to finish was crass and unnecessary. Florian and St. Pierre showed their outmatched opponents a great deal of respect when they won their decisions.

by George Lucas on Aug 13, 2008 5:40 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Really? They spent all week shit talking the Lesnar camp, demanded to come out second after Lesnar because he was a freak show, and there was all sorts of stuff that went down on the way out.

by Michael Rome on Aug 13, 2008 5:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

For what it’s worth: just heard Herring on Sherdog denying that he made any disrespectful comments about Lesnar (or any of his opponents, ever) before the fight. He also said the only reason he insisted on coming out second was because he had won his previous fight and Lesnar had lost his.

by Chris Nelson on Aug 13, 2008 5:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, but that doesn’t count because Lesnar used to be involved with pro restling.

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard on Aug 13, 2008 5:47 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Meltzer says:
With seconds left, Lesnar let Herring up and started mocking him, which got over big in the arena, but not so much to those watching on TV who thought it disrespectful, not knowing the back story, plus not understanding business.

That’s from the latest Wrestling Observer where Dave was recapping the fight.

Let’s not get too altruistic and naive when it comes to our beloved sport.

by ghettoiam on Aug 13, 2008 5:50 PM EDT   0 recs

Haha yeah, “let Herring up”...

by Chris Nelson on Aug 13, 2008 5:53 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Speaking of Meltzer, that guy Brian Alvarez who does the Observer show with him needs to not talk about MMA. Like, ever.

by Chris Nelson on Aug 13, 2008 5:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Someone needs to tell Dave that sports fans don’t obsess over DA BIZ. What a fucking tool.

by D.Capitated on Aug 14, 2008 8:55 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

There is something really great about MMA fighters with class. They know they can whip some ass so they don’t need to act like it. Lesnar is a idiot. Like Tito back in the day he is eventually going to get shutup and then hopefully he’ll grow up.

I think people like Anderson and GSP make the sport a sport.

Rob Dib
http://www.break-your-face.com

by Rob Dib on Aug 13, 2008 5:50 PM EDT   0 recs

he is eventually going to get shutup and then hopefully he’ll grow up.

And many, many people will pay a good deal of money to see it. Hence, why it works for the business.

by AJB on Aug 13, 2008 6:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The thing is, he doesn’t even have to keep continuing this stuff. Some subtle comments are all he needs after doing it once, because he is already a divisive figure. If he comes out to pyro with a snake in a bag next time then I’ll be a bit concerned.

by Michael Rome on Aug 13, 2008 5:56 PM EDT   0 recs

I think you’re right, and I hope that’s the course he takes. However, I’m quite nostalgic when it comes to Jake “The Snake” Roberts.

by Cannon Jacques on Aug 13, 2008 6:02 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The Dragon!

Okay, now I must take umbrage with your article. Jake Roberts??? I’ll never forget him bouncing Ricky Steamboat’s head off the cement floor on SNME (if you know that acronym, like me, you may have problems). War Steamboat!!! Hahaha.

by dmayeda on Aug 13, 2008 7:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I have problems.

I did like the Dragon, though.

by Cannon Jacques on Aug 13, 2008 7:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Dragon was def a fave, but he never fought nearly enough :(

by LiuLang on Aug 13, 2008 8:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No one is talking about how exciting lesnar is as a fighter.

Because as a fighter, he is not exciting. Watching him lay on herring for three rounds is boring as hell and if his trash talk makes that sad fight exciting for you as a fan—youre not an mma fan, youre a pro wrestling fan.

I completely disagree with this “big personality” is good for the sport bullshit. These are fighters, not contestants on the newest reality series. Let them talk with their skill, endurance, strength, and technique—if they do that, this sport will never die.

As MMA fans we want to see good match ups. Match-ups that pit styles, and strengths against each other—not personalities. If I want to watch a personality match-up, I’ll watch an episode of The West Wing, or Survivor.

by mma_dude on Aug 13, 2008 6:58 PM EDT   0 recs

I actually find him rather exciting to watch as a fighter. His quickness and size are incredible to see in action.

Intentional Blog on Balls

by Richard on Aug 13, 2008 7:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Right I thought the fight was plenty exciting too. He’s in his early stages of development, and still needs to learn to finish, but I thought it was a perfectly entertaining fight in the same way Randy fights are: If anyone else did it it would be boring, but it’s Randy. Similarly, the curiosity about Brock carries him a long way.

I like how Randy, Hughes, Rampage, Fedor, and numerous other legends seem to have a lot of respect for Lesnar, but he hasn’t proven himself yet to online fans.

by Michael Rome on Aug 13, 2008 7:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

maybe I'm just an "online" fan

Gracie’s fight with dan severn in ufc 4 was great because you knew eventually he was gonna lock in the triangle (before anybody even knew what a triangle was). Herring, on the other hand, was just gonna turtle until somebody pulled that monster off of him.

by mma_dude on Aug 13, 2008 7:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I enjoy the tactical battles

just as much as the displays of dominance. Watching a pair of highly-tuned BJJ guys play their version of chess is spectacular, as is watching a Tyson Griffin/Clay Guida fight where it’s literally just wrestling plus strikes. I also enjoy watching Anderson knock people out, and watching Brock impose his will for fifteen minutes on his opponent.

So from that standpoint, I loved the Lesnar/Herring fight. Heck, I loved the Lesnar/Mir fight because it showed so much about Brock that we didn’t know, and it did it really quickly. We knew going into it that Mir was dangerous in the submission game, and that Brock was green. Watching that stuff unfold is as much a spectacle as the actual combat techniques employed.

Rampage vs. Liddell was also pretty intriguing, with tons of story and drama to it that you literally can’t make a la WWE/F/wtf. THAT is the interesting part of our sport, to me. There are so many questions going into every single bout, and we’re lucky enough to actually know many of those questions before the fighters touch gloves, so we can follow along with the story threads.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Aug 13, 2008 9:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

You don’t think that Lesnar has pointed to a fundamental flaw in the weight class structure. None of the guys you mentioned (randy, fedor, rampage) have to cut to get to 260. If I had the skill set and size of couture, I wouldn’t want to fight lesnar, he’s just too freakin big and strong.

by mma_dude on Aug 13, 2008 7:46 PM EDT   0 recs

correct!

look at all the other weight classes, cutting to reach top limit is the norm whereas in HW it is the rarest of exceptions.

But, sadly, I don’t think this sport is big enough yet to support a super HW division. UFC HW is thin enough on talent already…

by dubside on Aug 13, 2008 8:15 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I understand this sentiment, but really

it’s a non-starter for me. The weight limit is the same as the other weight classes, and if a guy is walking around like Fedor at 230ish, with the extra weight around his midsection, there’s no question he could cut to 205 if he wanted to. Now, having wrestled, I can tell you that cutting even six or eight pounds can be ridiculously draining, and I elected to wrestle guys 8-10lbs heavier than I was during my final year simply because I had so much more energy and explosiveness that I felt ‘right.’

So if a guy like Fedor wants to fight in the 265lb weight class, I’m thrilled. To me, that’s a statement of his Alpha personality, waving a middle finger to Brock’s/whoever’s extra fifty pounds of muscle. I don’t view it as a massive disadvantage at all. If he chooses to take on Brock where he’s strong, then yeah, he’s going to get some pain. But a smart guy like Fedor would do everything in his power to limit his opponent’s advantage, while exploiting his weaknesses.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Aug 13, 2008 9:33 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Be yourself

I think the fighters should be themselves. If your a dick, your a dick. Somethimes all of that respect stuff starts to get old. How else are you going to get feuds going. Why do you think thats its all acting Brock is probably kind of a dick. And I love him for it.

by The_Vig on Aug 13, 2008 9:39 PM EDT   0 recs

Did T.O. hurt football? Briggs or Tyson hurt boxing? Brett Hart or Chris Benoit kill pro wrestling. Did Tito’s ‘Mezger is my b*tch shirt’s hurt anyone? I don’t like it but to believe mma could go down the tubes because of one ass whom happens to also be loved by million is silly. This is no longer a time where the UFC is relatively unknown and has no political connections or regulatory commisions to back them. No presidential hopeful like John McCain to get it kicked out or banned. We’re talking a company that generates revenue upwards of a quarter billion a year. Also backed by several sanctioning bodies such as NSAC. You might not like it but the sport is here to stay.

by Tommy7 on Aug 13, 2008 10:05 PM EDT   0 recs

According to Lesnar, some things occured backstage prior to the Fight. Dana admited that things were said and that Herring’s camp had some issues with Herring having to face somebody as inexperienced as Brock.

So both Dana and Brock said things went down that we did not see.

One rumor, and this is only a rumor since I have not had anyone confirm it, is that Herring’s camp refused to have Herring go out first, insisting that Brock be the first to enter in his hometown.

Lesner, in the post fight press conference, said that his actions were for Herring’s camp.

Does that make it right? Maybe not, but if Brock felt disrespected then his actions make a little more sense.

It is strange that nobody commented when Kos was doing the crotch chop while Jon Goulet was unconcious on the ground.

by Lynchman on Aug 13, 2008 10:47 PM EDT   0 recs

It’s not a rumor – Herring said he wouldn’t come out before Lesnar and that it was simply an issue of respect. I don’t think anyone can dispute that Herring had earned that right.

by Chris Nelson on Aug 13, 2008 10:54 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

By that same token

..should Herring fight in Texas next, he’s coming out first. Fair enough..

by Blackout612 on Aug 13, 2008 11:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually I think it’s childish. The whole point of the bigger star coming out second is creating this big live buzz in the arena and a huge ovation. And, clearly, Lesnar is the bigger star of the two.

by Michael Rome on Aug 14, 2008 12:25 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And

Brock was home.

No matter why Herring asked to come out second, it’s a prima donna move and he has no say in that decision. I’ve never heard of anyone insisting on their entrance position.

by Blackout612 on Aug 14, 2008 1:48 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Counter-point: it’s tradition that the champ – even a former champ – always comes out last. Herring isn’t a former champ, but he’s certainly the more established fighter. It only makes sense that he comes out last.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Aug 14, 2008 7:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Was that a diversion?

So what purpose does your champ assessment serve?

Seems to me you just simply don’t like Brock.

by Blackout612 on Aug 14, 2008 2:05 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Correct, I don’t like Brock. How many more times do I have to go on record saying that I don’t like the cocky, homophobic juicer before people stop acting like that’s a good counter-argument to whatever it is I’m saying?

Regardless: watch the walkouts and you’ll see that the more established fighter traditionally comes out second. Herring was that guy in this case.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Aug 14, 2008 3:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Counter argument?

The argument needs to be made to be countered. I indicated that your intended point was baseless.

by Blackout612 on Aug 14, 2008 7:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Why do people keep doing this? I write two paragraphs, they read one of them. I’m just going to have to start breaking things into paragraphs entirely. GO WATCH SOME FIGHTS. SEE WHO COMES OUT FIRST AND SECOND. COME BACK WITH DATA.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Aug 14, 2008 8:59 PM EDT