Fox News on Women's MMA

by Michael Rome on Jan 12, 2009 9:12 AM EST in News Comment 22 comments

Women's MMA is always a hot button topic, and Mike Straka explores it in a nice segment for Fox News below.

Steve Cofield raises a number of questions at Yahoo. If they have such good gas tanks, why do we see them gas regularly? If women's MMA is so good, why aren't there any outlets?

First, I can't comment on the gas tank issue, but you can watch all sorts of female MMA from Japan and Brazil and you won't see women gassing in 5 minutes. There just aren't enough fights out there on a regular basis in the U.S. for fans to make that kind of judgment on.

There are a number of obstacles blocking female MMA from getting an outlet. The first is that it's hard enough to get any TV deal in MMA due to the stigma, let alone a deal for female MMA. Second, no promotions besides the UFC have really lasted a long time with regular TV exposure, and the UFC has refused to put on women's fights. The UFC holds the keys to the door and so far they've shut women out. Finally, network executives that once opposed men's MMA are still very squeamish about women. Dave Meltzer told a story about how intense the opposition was at Showtime to airing Carano vs. Kedzie, and what a fight Gary Shaw had to put up to get it on the air. Once the Showtime execs saw it, they never questioned it again.

Finally, comparisons between male and female MMA are really unfair. Men training in MMA have their choice of numerous high end camps, dozens of promotions to fight in, and a virtually unlimited supply of training partners. Women's MMA is newer and less developed.

To give an example, when Randy Couture was training to fight Tim Sylvia, he was able to look around the MMA world for men that posed similar striking problems, and brought them in to train with him. When Gina Carano trains to fight Cyborg, what are her training options? She has less partners and less people to learn from just because the women's side of the sport is new and developing. Even so, there are teenage girls in gyms tearing it up across the country that will be future superstars in 5-7 years if women are able to get any kind of outlet.

If you compare the quality of female fighters in 2008 to male fighters in 2008, there is a large discrepancy, but the comparison is also unfair. The better comparison is to look at skill level today among women in the U.S. and then compare it to skill levels among male fighters in 1996-1997 in the U.S. Once you have your comparison right, you can see how talented the girls are.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

great write up as usual...

Many people believe that the UFC is a monopoly and for that reason is why other organizations are hardly staying alive. The people that suffer from this are the fighters who cannot find enough work to earn a steady paycheck. Dana has mentioned several times he needs these other organizations to stay afloat

So why does everybody get so upset that the UFC hasn’t allowed women to fight in their organization. If Carano is such a star, wouldn’t it be best to have her fight for another promotion and help keep other MMA organizations alive and build womens MMA? I think the UFC is doing other promotions a favor by cutting some of their big names and not trying to put every fighter under the Zuffa umbrella.

by steveoc24 on Jan 11, 2009 5:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

some decent points... some... meh...

Not a bad write up, but I disagree with some of these points.

Carano can train with other male fighters from the lighter weight classes. It’s the same damn sport. She can run all the same drills, and learn all the same skills as her male counterparts. When she’s sparring, she doesn’t have to train with a woman. Sure there might be some strength differences, but she can always pick smaller partners if she needs the adjustment. The sport doesn’t change just because she has breasts. She just needs to adjust her conditioning regimen for the 3-minute rounds.

As far as comparing how women are doing vs. men in 1996-1997, see above. Women can take advantage of all of the training men receive right now. The sport and the training have evolved greatly since 1996-1997. A better comparison would be to compare current male mixed martial artists who have been involved in the sport for the same amount of time as the particular woman in question. Comparing the athletes from 10+ years ago doesn’t make sense. Compare the women now, with the men now who’ve been involved in the sport for the same time. Here’s some MMA Math:

Breasts + MMA = still MMA

Crazy huh?

by Meeaaat on Jan 11, 2009 7:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

You can compare individuals from the same time period, but you can’t take male MMA as a whole vs. female MMA as a whole and compare them. The number of organizations, training camps, and options available to men far surpass what is available for women. You need to compare it to 96-97 if you’re going to compare men’s mma vs. women’s mma as a whole.

There are a number of problems when women train with men. Some of them should be very intuitive to you. I’ve heard from multiple women that men they train with are unwilling to really fight hard in sparring for some sense of it being unfair to hurt a woman, or other types of similar notions. There are also significant strength and weight differences.

Anyway, if you take Carano’s MMA game today and compare it to a male with a muay thai pedigree and just 7 fights, you are going to get a pretty equal level of skill. In fact I think she’s more skilled than most at the same level. This idea that goes around that somehow women can’t learn the sport and just aren’t as good at it is ridiculous.

by Michael Rome on Jan 11, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Full on sparring is only one aspect of training though. Women can take advantage of many aspects of the current MMA gym, even with the limitations you point out. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I agree with your last point though. Women certainly can learn the sport, and certainly can become as good as men. Carano’s put on some nice fights, though her dedication hasn’t been up to par in her last few showings. There’s certainly talent there though.

by Meeaaat on Jan 11, 2009 8:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's all about depth.

The pool from which to cull great MMA fighters is just so small among women today. It’s going to take time – and I sincerely hope the sport is not so flimsy as to exclusively count on Cyborg v Carano in order to save the sport.

I’m sorry, but I think the sport has to exist a little more vibrantly before it can be saved.

by subo on Jan 11, 2009 8:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

people tend to prefer watching men compete

why would mma be any different?

im not impressed with your performance

by troy145 on Jan 11, 2009 8:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Good question.

Probably one that needs to be answered by the teeming hordes which would tune in specifically for Carano’s prime-time fights on network TV.

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

by misterjonez on Jan 11, 2009 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Would they?

im not impressed with your performance

by troy145 on Jan 11, 2009 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Seeing as she’s drawn bigger increases on free TV than any other fighter in history, and her opponents had no name value whatsoever, my guess is yes.

by Michael Rome on Jan 11, 2009 11:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

was that her

or her looks? or kimbo?

call me a cynic but i doubt people will watch girls who aren’t as beautiful as gina pound on eachother.

im not impressed with your performance

by troy145 on Jan 12, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Gina is a poster-girl

for Women’s MMA. If she can force it into mainstream acceptance, then the spectacle (gorgeous woman with unmistakable athletic skill competing in a ‘new’ sport) will gradually morph into a sporting experience.

Gina Carano presents a unique opportunity to literally build a sport around one person. And the results say that people REALLY want to see her do what she does.

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

by misterjonez on Jan 12, 2009 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It was also free TV. I don’t think most of the people who tuned in to see the “hot chick fight” would shell out $50 just to see her.

by mythbuster on Jan 12, 2009 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i think you can look at the ratings at the time she was on

but im not sure on that.

Cus if you looked at that card, and saw the internet phenom, espn cover guy, and all around pop culture fad, and gina, and pinned the ratings on gina… well then…. i wouldnt even know what to say

im not impressed with your performance

by troy145 on Jan 12, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No, her minute by minute increases are through the roof. Her gains in viewers while she is on are greater than any fighter on free TV in MMA history. And she did it without being the centrally promoted figure.

People won’t pay to see her is just the latest line now that the ratings myth is disproved. If she was on UFC with UFC marketing she would be one of the top 5 solo draws. There is a very strong correlation between free TV draws and PPV draws. They aren’t the same, but Gina does well in every measured metric with correlation to PPV drawing. The only key one she’s missing is being in the UFC.

by Michael Rome on Jan 12, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

People won’t pay to see her is just the latest line now that the ratings myth is disproved.

That would be true if it were true, but since it isn’t true, it must be false. Even when EliteXC was still around people were asking if the same type who flipped on the channel to watch the “hot chick fight” would shell out the money to get the PPV to “watch the hot chick fight.”. Some would, of course, but most wouldn’t.

You don’t have to like it, but don’t create conspiracies. Tho I guess it depends on what your definition of “latest” is…

by mythbuster on Jan 13, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

same old ridiculous argument re: paying to watch

It was also free TV. I don’t think most of the people who tuned in to see the "hot chick fight" would shell out $50 just to see her

every time there is a discussion re: women’s mma and/or gina fighting cyborg or whoever really, the comments are made re: her ratings and huge draw etc. then someone always tries to counter w/, “but would someone pay $50 to see her fight.” that is NOT the right ? to ask b/c you are not paying $50 to watch her fight by herself. you are paying for an entire card of fights, of which, she is 1 of those fights.

of course everyone is entitled to their opinion but i just cannot believe that true mma fans such as we are all i would presume, would all of a sudden not pay the ppv just b/c one of the fights happens to be gina. if she was fighting on the last ufc card or even randy’s card, you can’t tell me you wouldn’t have bought it if one of the fights was gina. i base my purchase of a ppv on the entire card, not just one or two fights and i think most people, whether it be due to her looks or not, do like to see her fight.

on the same note, cyborg clearly doesn’t possess gina’s physical beauty but once people saw her whip shayna bazler’s butt, everyone wanted to see more of her. if a promotion would exist that would a)last long enough to continue to promote womens’ fights and b) market the women, you would be suprised at how many more women you’d be interested in seeing fight and eventually be ok w/ being one fight on a ppv card or free if in the wec, etc.

i am a fan of women’s mma n don’t just follow gina and i actually was looking forward to kaitlin young v sarah kaufman and until it got cancelled, larasa v modaferri so there are women out there who are good and would put on good performances. they need the platform and marketing and i truly believe that women’s mma will then fall into place from there.

by theflyingtsunami on Jan 13, 2009 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to be a grammar nazi, but I have no idea what you are trying to say… I gave up after trying to decipher the first paragraph with a vague sense that you disagree with me.

by mythbuster on Jan 13, 2009 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“If you compare the quality of female fighters in 2008 to male fighters in 2008, there is a large discrepancy, but the comparison is also unfair.”

The comparison is completely fair. If we could expect women’s MMA to catch up, it wouldn’t be fair. But that isn’t the case. Women’s MMA will never have the overall talent level and quality of men’s MMA. Maybe they can eventually reach the level that men’s MMA is at now, but by that time, men’s MMA will be chock full of incredibly talented and skilled fighters. The comparison is reasonable, because women’s MMA will always be fundamentally less talented and competitive than men’s MMA.

by Michaelthebox on Jan 12, 2009 4:53 PM EST reply actions 2 recs

Great post.

Rec’d.

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

by misterjonez on Jan 12, 2009 8:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

mis-placed.

Meant to be reply to Michaelthebox’s 1:53 post.

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

by misterjonez on Jan 12, 2009 8:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hooked on phonics works 4 u mythbuster?? :)

not sure why you say “grammar nazi” b/c grammar has nothing to do w/ it. what is screwed up is i tried to quote what you had written so the reply would follow but that obviously didn’t work out, so sorry 4 that.

to restate: it’s clear from what i wrote that you and many others make the same tired argument that you wouldn’t pay 50 bucks to watch gina fight or a women’s fight on a PPV card. my pt. is that i believe that is a misplaced argument b/c you don’t buy a PPV b/c of one particular fight typically, you buy it for the entire card. i gave as an eg. that if gina was fighting on the ufc’s last PPV or on randy v. brock’s PPV, i think you would still buy it even if gina was fighting on it too.

and if the card is stacked, i don’t really see people not willing to buy it if there is 1 fight on it that happens to be a women’s bout, particularly gina carano. and i believe if women’s mma gets promoted properly & fans get to know them just as they did gina and cyborg who everyone wanted to see after her 1 fight w/ bazler, then i think people wouldn’t mind seeing a women’s bout on a PPV card in general.

does that make more sense for you?

by theflyingtsunami on Jan 15, 2009 1:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would personally be less likely to buy a PPV if one of the televised bouts was being wasted on women’s MMA.

Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

by Richard Wade on Jan 15, 2009 2:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs