Does the Mixed Martial Arts Broadcasting Model Need Changing?
by Luke Thomas on Mar 5, 2009 2:35 PM EST
in News
108 comments
Josh Gross pinpoints the problem with MMA televised broadcasting today and in his judgment, a key issue is that broadcasting is done in-house. That means the commentary cannot be considered much more than politburo talking points:
Veteran MMA broadcaster Stephen Quadros has covered fights all over the world under many conditions. During his time as the play-by-play man for the Pride Fighting Championship, Quadros was employed by the promoter, an example of what he called the "pro wrestling" broadcast model where production and control over what fans see at home is dictated by the same people promoting the event. This, sadly, is a far cry from what sports fans in the U.S. have come to rightly expect from broadcasters and commentators, though it's still predominantly what they get when the tune in to MMA.
In his most recent gig calling MMA on Showtime, Quadros served a far more traditional role as a journalist calling the fights. And while MMA broadcasts are beginning to trend this way, particularly thanks to the work done by Kenny Rice on HDNet and producers like David Dinkins Jr. at Showtime, there are still far too many events that have degraded to the point where the ugly results of vicious knockouts or other newsworthy events can be edited out, or completely ignored in favor of cheerleading commentators assigned to call the action.
Following the controversy surrounding Georges St. Pierre and B.J. Penn, I didn't wonder why the UFC broadcast team failed to mention the commotion in St. Pierre's corner with Nevada State Athletic Commission inspectors. I wasn't surprised when a post-fight interview with Penn was forsaken for a chance to hype up the UFC welterweight champ's next defense against Thiago Silva. This was simply status quo. Had there been a hand-wrap issue, as there was when HBO produced a fight recently between Antonio Margarito and Shane Mosely, I'm not so sure viewers would be informed.
Veteran broadcaster Todd Harris calls the WEC action for Versus. He's falling into the same trap that makes whatever UFC play-by-play man Mike Goldberg says irrelevant, and taints what his color man, Joe Rogan, brings as well. Harris asked Page three questions following the fight. None had to do with the fact that Galvao was struggling to regain consciousness. The closest he came was a query wondering when Page thought he had Galvao in trouble -- an odd question considering the fight was considerably shorter than the time it takes to microwave a slice of pizza.
In fairness to Rogan and Goldberg, I've certainly heard my fair share of cheer leading from Rice and others on the HDNet broadcast team. The one-arm distance the UFC shows HDNet has helped the Mark Cuban-owned channel to enthusiastically partner with MMA entities that are of little significance or value simply to find their own sense of relevancy.
As for Gross's point, I'm sympathetic to it. With what little broadcasting experience I have (3 events, 2 different promotions) I can tell you that while talking points aren't handed out to commentators ahead of time, there is a clear concern about presenting the product in the most appropriate way. No one has ever told me what to say and not to say, but I also get the sense that whatever any commentator says in those situations is evaluated for many purposes not limited to that commentator's employment status.
Gross's real issue, though, is transparency and what messages are sent when transparency is or isn't a key feature in a MMA organization's broadcast. For my money, embracing transparency is pragmatic for more reasons than upholding basic journalistic standards. The truth is, when a promotion isn't lying to you and you're able to get a fresh perpsective on the matter, the product is better for it both now and over time. Part of the appeal of any well-written blog is that the perspective of the author is often thoughtful, interesting, competent and candid. Those combinations in a MMA broadcast in the appropriate balance neither patronize the viewer nor the product.
0 recs |
108 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I agree with Gross, but like you said, Kenny Rice does it all the time even as a “neutral” third party commentator.
It’s not something I ever expect to see change. The UFC does not seem willing to sign any sort of TV deal without control of production. Rogan, for the most part, gets to say what he wants, which is fairly refreshing. That said, when they completely erase Randy Couture for a year because of contract disputes and beat around the bush with regards to Sean Sherk’s steroid suspension, it annoys me to no end. If Dana wants to push the UFC as a legitimate sports organization, it should be held to the same standards as the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. and not WWE.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Mar 5, 2009 11:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I wish it MMA reaches that level. Fringe sports have there benefits though.
by Bandaka on Mar 5, 2009 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thiago Silva is gonna have a hell of cut to make 170
by bkiser81 on Mar 5, 2009 11:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
lol
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."
by xFenixKnightx on Mar 5, 2009 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good perspective
Glad Luke added perspective on this because Gross’s piece seems a bit one-sided and anti-UFC.
"It's like a flying knuckle sandwich." --Rogan
"And many men have eaten it." -- Goldy
by thetakeover on Mar 5, 2009 11:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I am sure that’s the BE take on this issue but CBS and EliteXC did it right with Gus Johnson, as he was not tied in to the promotion what so ever and gave legitimacy to the sport in that sence.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Mar 5, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
See hee is a huge fallacy in this whole arguement, was Gus Johnson tied to the promotion and the event? Yes he was, CBS was an investor in ProElite and Gus is one of their employees. Even if CBS wasn’t a direct part owner of ProElite they have money on the table for the event and their sucess with that program is directly tied to the way they present the event. Everything discussed in the article as legitimacy in these situations is flawed from the very start, the legitimacy comes from the person doing the commentating not from the method and source of his payment. Gus Johnson’s legitimacy doesn’t come from the fact that it didn’t say ProElite on his paycheck it comes from the fact of who Gus Johnson is as a sports reporter. He was terrible on the EliteXC events due to his utter lack of MMA knowledge and as an annoucer and he said some of the worst shilling comments I have ever heard on a MMA event, his percieved credibility comes from who he is as an announcer and a public figure. A shill is a shill regardless of who is signing the paycheck and a legitimate commentator with integrity is going to be one regardless of who is paying them. Quadros and Rice are both shills and that has nothing to do with who is paying them.
When you talk about the “pro wrestling model” it should be noted that the issue isn’t who is paying those guys it’s the fact that Vince McMahon is in the back telling those guys what to say through their ear pieces, that is the difference between a journalistic commentator and an actor delivering his lines. WWE shows are scripted by Hollywood writers and the “pro wrestling model” goes a lot deeper than who is paying for the production.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’ve got much respect for Gus Johnson, but did some cheerleading and engaged in some wild exaggeration himself. Much of that was probably due to the fact that he was limited in terms of MMA knowledge. Petruzelli beating Kimbo wasn’t the upset, from the standpoint of athletic accomplishment, that the broadcast team made it out to be.
The EXC arrangement with CBS was quite incestuous when you take into account that CBS owned part of ProElite and were basically enabling their existence through financing. Gross has a point, but he completely minimizes the presence of bias in non-Zuffa broadcasts. Bias in broadcasting is certainly not unique to MMA or the UFC. All you have to do is watch other sports and listen closely to what’s being said.
Zuffa’s failure to update injuries and the like is something that should be addressed. Transparency is the bigger issue. Now I’m seeing that who me has just beat me to the punch with some of my points. I’m out.
by Cannon Jacques on Mar 5, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Gus will be doing Strikeforce events now and are not owned by CBS/Showtime.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Mar 5, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Poor fact checking by Gross. First, it’s Thiago Alves. And if anyone thinks that bringing in the next challenger after a fight is ever going away, they’re crazy. It helps casual fans understand who the next guy in line is, and possibly starts some of the hype for it. Why would they interview BJ Penn? He had just gotten crushed for 4 rounds and had to go to the hospital. They don’t interview guys in that condition, nor should they.
I don’t discount any of Goldberg’s or Harris’ PBP in fights, but I don’t always like every comment. And for Rogan’s perceived bias, he’s a very informed analyst and can shed light to fans on some very technical aspects, as can Frank Mir or Pulver for the WEC. In-house announcer’s don’t mean they are biased.
by Hardcharger on Mar 5, 2009 12:04 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I can’t think of any reasons why Todd Harris would get flack for not asking Page about his knocked out opponent.
Half of the world is crying about the WEC showing Galvao seizing and the other half is crying that Harris didn’t draw more attention to it by asking Page about the state of Galvao.
Ridiculous.
by aicdan2000 on Mar 5, 2009 12:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think Lampley also had something to say about how UFC broadcasts their shows. he said it was something along the lines of Pro Wrestling.
Well, when UFC finally gets a deal with HBO done (lol) we’ll see if they do indeed allow Max Kellerman to join the broadcast team.
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."
by xFenixKnightx on Mar 5, 2009 12:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
UFC commentary is totally along Pro Wrestling lines. Obviously Goldberg and Rogan have more latitude to call the action as they see it, but they are part and parcel of the company’s promotional machine, not outside voices. This is why they talk about Koscheck being Chuck Liddell 2.0 and how Paulo Thiago should pull guard seconds before the KO, and why they were worshipping Forrest Griffin’s skills in the guard even as Rashad was cutting right through it.
I really hope they move away from this model. They really get too involved with pumping up the big names, lately it seems like they’re more concerned about the storylines than the in-cage action. They came up with so many damned excuses for Karo during his fight with Kim that I was tempted to just mute them and listen to it untainted. Gus Johnson makes them look like amateurs.
by smoogy on Mar 5, 2009 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
yeah, I always assumed if you are boys with Rogan, you’re going to be ok when he’s commentating on your fights.
An example of this is his nut hugging of a guy like Karo. Everytime Karo fights Rogan is just gushing over his “super human” strength, his “Insane” judo and his “dangerous” submission skills. Without fail.
Same with Forrest. It’’s just insane. A casual viewer would think Forrest was on Fedor’s level.
by Bigperm on Mar 5, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Heh, have you seen Dan Miller vs. Matt Horwich? Rogan makes it sound like a battle of some IFL guy vs. unstoppable rubber guard monster
by smoogy on Mar 5, 2009 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
CBS did that too didn't they?
I mean listening to those guys on CBS talk about Kimbo was ridiculous.
They were hyping him like he could crush Fedor.
by mattman73 on Mar 5, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You mean Lutter is not the Micheal Jordan of BJJ?
:(
by MMASuPreMaCy on Mar 5, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is why they talk about Koscheck being Chuck Liddell 2.0 and how Paulo Thiago should pull guard seconds before the KO, and why they were worshipping Forrest Griffin’s skills in the guard even as Rashad was cutting right through it.
Agreed. Then they fall back on their “oh this is MMA, anything can happen” excuse. I’ve noticed this on a crap ton of fights. I’ll admit I didn’t like G Johnson at first but he grew on me. He’ll be back with Strikeforce.
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."
by xFenixKnightx on Mar 5, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Johnson did well..
he’s a professional and with more seasoning he could be the best play-by-play guy around
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 5, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ROCKY!!
I’m sorry, but while Gus is nice, his bias is just as strong as anyone paid to sell an event. That’s what they have to do, sell the importance of this event, the future of that fighter, the value of some PPV. So far I haven’t heard anyone do this without sounding like idiotic shill.
But at the end of the day, they’re all fans. There will likely never be un-biased announcing. Anyone who gets to the UFC/Strikeforce level has to have knowledge of the sport which only comes from being a fan or practitioner. I think no matter what Fan/practitioner = biased.
by asa on Mar 5, 2009 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
God, I forgot about that horrifying display, much worse than just about any egregious UFC announcer moment.
by Michael Rome on Mar 5, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
but you have to remember that this isn’t someone with a full grasp of MMA yet. So to him this was the guy who was THE FACE of a promotion losing to a nobody who was not even scheduled to be on the televised card that night.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 5, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So what’s worse: a highly knowledgeable commentator with bias or an uninformed commentator with no bias?
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Mar 5, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
he’s a professional and with more seasoning he could be the best play-by-play guy around
I stand by that. He’s obviously not “great” at the moment but he has the ability to develop into someone very good.
It’s not a matter of “who is better” it’s a matter of looking at things objectively and not just dismissing every non-rogan/goldberg combo
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 5, 2009 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s also a case of not dismissing Goldberg-Rogan merely because they are Goldberg-Rogan and the faces of MMA announcing.
by Hardcharger on Mar 5, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not a matter of "who is better" it’s a matter of looking at things objectively and not just dismissing every non-rogan/goldberg combo
Fine, which has more credibility? I’m sympathetic to the notion that the credibility of Goldberg’s/Rogan’s commentary wouldn’t be enhanced by things not being so in-house. However, Gus Johnson’s commentary can’t be seen as any more credible during his short tenure w/ EliteXC (I know he was employed by CBS). How can you say somebody with such a limited knowledge of the sport can provide meaningful and legitimate commentary? He doesn’t get credibility based on potential.
And I think I might be reading this wrong (I hope so), but if you’re implying that I was dismissing or would dismiss every non-rogan/goldberg combo, I’ve already mentioned in the past that I really like Quadros (when he’s rational and analytical).
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Mar 5, 2009 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I never...
once said the word credibility. I said he needs seasoning and has the potential to be the best pbp guy in the sport. Seasoning means exposure to the sport…etc.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 5, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I thought that you were implying it. Sorry about the miscommunication.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Mar 5, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Gus could be good in the future but that has nothing to do with him not being employeed by the promotion(which during the EliteXC shows he techically was employeed by owners of the promotion) it’s due to the fact that he is a high level professional commentator. He is on another level talent and credibility wise compared to what MMA fans are used to getting (EliteXC is the same company that gave Bill Goldberg a mike). If you put Bob Costas or Bryant Gumbal out there calling MMA events then what they say would have instant credibility even though they have limited knowledge of the sport because of who they are, heck they would still have that kind of credibility if they got their checks directly from Dana White’s hand.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No
Gus Johnson I don’t believe was ever employed by EliteXC. He was employed by CBS or Showtime only.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 5, 2009 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes CBS/Showtime, the part owners of ProElite.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stephen Quadros was employed by Showtime as well, which was done by the company to provide as much space as possible. Same with CBS.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 5, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Showtime wants to control the production of what is on Showtime but their unbiased view in the matter was a fallacy as they were owners too. The level of respectable unbiased commentating comes from the person involved not the name on the paycheck. I found Gus to be unbiased in his commentary, his problems involved ignorance not bias; Quadros always seems to have a bias to me regardless of who he is working for.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Either point is moot since Gus will be doing the Strikeforce event and CBS/Showtime does not own Strikeforce in any way.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Mar 5, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point is that Gus’s credibility as a journalist isn’t tied directly to who is paying him. He will do the same job for Strikeforce(hopefully at a better informed level) as he did for CBS EliteXC events. Gus isn’t an example of a journalist untied to the promotion he’s an example of a professional journlaist at a higher talent/ability level as what we normally get in MMA.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What does that have to do with how he called EXC shows?
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 Mar 5, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the sport is unpredictable
some things are just going to happen that don’t make sense…. it’s fair to make comments that Joe Stephenson is going to look for a guillotine and that Damian Maia is going to look for a submission. If they say that, and one lands a KO shot, it’s not like Joe Rogan is un predictible. In kos’s last fight, he’s going to win that on the feet 9 out of 10 times… they weren’t out lof line saying what they were saying. It’s ridiculous to say they are having a model issue when the unpredictibility of the sport that makes it so exciting isn’t being called out before hand
by adamdd on Mar 5, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’ve admittedly never heard you do a broadcast Luke, so no offense to you, but despite their faults, Rogan and Goldy are some of the best MMA announcers out there right now. They don’t have Bas consistently making strange noises and Rice doing whatever the hell he does.
The broadcast for the first CBS card was not very good, Gus Johnson is a good PBP guy, but he doesn’t really have the knowledge to be a great one for MMA.
It would be nice if the broadcasters to be “objective,” but until there are some objective announcers that have the knowledge to put on a quality performance, there’s no reason the UFC should be paying anyone else to do a substandard job.
by Phildo on Mar 5, 2009 12:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Really? I much prefer Bas over Rogan as the color guy. He tells it like it is for the most part. Can’t say that about Rogan. And Goldberg is unbelievably annoying with his commentating.
by Bigperm on Mar 5, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve only heard a bit of Bas lately…but imho:
Bas in PRIDE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bas right now
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Mar 5, 2009 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s what I’m getting at.
He used to be great, but he really hasn’t done anything at all for me when broadcasting the latest Dream stuff.
by Phildo on Mar 5, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bas now make me want to rip my ears off
or gouge out my eyes as well when I try and watch Inside MMA.
by Razreshat on Mar 5, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I wasn't in disagreement with you...
just saying to Bigperm that if he’s living in the “Bas in PRIDE days” for him being an awesome colour guy he’s probably a bit out of the loop as to how “good he is”.
I far prefer Rogan, in fact I think he’s pretty good – he pisses me off with his man-crushes on guys, guys who the UFC really wants to push (see: Sanchez, Diego) – but for the most part he’s very informative and he still goes against the grain more often than he gets credit for.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Mar 5, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know, I was echoing your point instead of typing the same thing to perm man.
by Phildo on Mar 5, 2009 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Gus Johnson did a great job and kept improving after doing only 3 shows on CBS.
He will only get better and he brings legitimacy to MMA as he is a REAL broadcaster who does CBB, CFB, Boxing, and MMA. Gus also has great insight on striking and foot movement as he is a boxing guy and does boxing regularly. He also takes BJJ classes now, so he should be one of the best MMA commentators in the next year or so.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Mar 5, 2009 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He also does
NFL for CBS as well. I should know, he damn near did every single Texans game this past year.
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."
by xFenixKnightx on Mar 5, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He did improve, so he would be OK. but that won’t make me jump to say that everyone should be using impartial people.
If everyone was as good as Johnson, fine, but right now, that’s not the case.
The UFC should not pay for substandard products, and that’s what they’re going to get with most of the announcers out there, and it will reflect badly on the organization.
by Phildo on Mar 5, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
eh...
The thing is that “neutral” commentators are often just as guilty. HBO has the problem all the time with their boxing commentary. They are hopped up on one guy and will continue to hype him to extremes even in fights where they appear to be losing. It is why a lot of times to score fights accurately (or at least without influence) you need to watch fights with the sound off.
I’m not saying the UFC model is great and smoogy is completely right that they tend to focus in on certain aspects regardless of truth and really start to hammer them in to try and influence the viewer more than an independent announcer would.
I have never been a huge Bas fan on the mic as he can be very hit or miss…I can not stand Mauro at this point. I really liked him at the start of his PRIDE tenure but can’t stand him now with his awful puns that feel so rehearsed and are just distractingly bad. Quadros has suffered the same kind of slide for me.
I enjoy Rogan but could do without Goldberg but right now they represent the “voices of the UFC” and the broadcast would fell strange without them.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 5, 2009 12:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I thought they were excellent in the Chris John vs. Rocky Juarez and JMM vs. Diaz fights.
While both Diaz and Juarez were the “hometown boys” and the guys you would think they’d want to win – they were quite impartial. They were even pointing out how (and why) John and JMM were actually winning the fights, but making sure to explain to the audience how (and why) the judges could be scoring it the other way.
They were all in agreement that Juarez should have lost and that the judges made a real “hometown call”.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Mar 5, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. To generalize that boxing is biased too is wrong, IMHO.
I have heard many boxing matches where the announcers are outstanding.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Mar 5, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've watched a TON of boxing...
and covered it as well. It’s not that ALL boxing events feature a bias (and no. I never said that)…just like every fight in the UFC doesn’t feature a Rogan/Goldberg hard sell bias.
I was just saying that it DOES happen with independent announcers. If you don’t believe me I can provide a list of fights where this happened in boxing but I don’t really want to go through that exercise right now.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 5, 2009 3:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I didn’t mean that what I said was a condemnation of your post – it certainly wasn’t. Just meant to point out I saw some really good and really frank commentary on HBO.
There’s definitely bias in boxing announcing…I mean the fact that Emmanuel Stewart commentates and is an active or former trainer of lots of fighters, he’s most likely going to incorporate some of his own biases into his commentating whether it’s intentional or not.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Mar 5, 2009 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
According to an interview with Rogan done by CP
Theres a good reason why WWE was throwing LOADS of cash at Mike Goldberg to go and broadcast for them. lol
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."
by xFenixKnightx on Mar 5, 2009 12:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This point is overstated. The “neutral” HBO commentators aren’t really neutral at all. Instead of going off on UFC talking points or promotional talking points they just have their own tangents. Bias is all over the place.
by Michael Rome on Mar 5, 2009 12:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
And this happens in all sports.
The stupid evil empire, star wars nonsense from the 2004 ALCS, GJ calling Petruzelli the greatest uspet in MMA history (or whatever nonsense he yelled).
Who’s bias do you want, the UFC’s, or the networks?
by Phildo on Mar 5, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that should be whose.
me fail english, that’s unpossible.
by Phildo on Mar 5, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Journalistic integrity is more a function of the individual involved as opposed to the person signing his paychecks. Just because the event producer is paying the announcers instead of the event promoter doesn’t make the announcers legitimate or unbaised, heck the event producers have as much (if not more) invested into the event as the promoters do thus they have the same bias to insure the event is successfully pimped by the announce team. We have been groomed to believe we are getting unbiased legitimate sport reporting from announce teams but when you honestly look at it the same biases are still in play.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well when i listen to a miami dolphins game on the radio i hear commentators that are biased and rooting and basically talking just about the dolphins…but thats cool…i dont really want to hear about the other team….
by baldspot23 on Mar 5, 2009 12:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
thats because radio stations are affiliated with the team. The official home of the Miami dolphins. On the other side there is someone doing the same thing for the Jets or who ever they are playing.
by ryanwk628 on Mar 5, 2009 12:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t speak for Gross, but I’m not talking about exchanging one set of biases for another in the name of neutrality. Neutrality isn’t what we are after necessarily, although the closer to that the better. The larger idea is a trade off of biases and that with an outside perspective of the network commentating the event, a more well-rounded picture about the event of itself is more LIKELY to be achieved with the right kind of professional team and network involved. In-house commentating isn’t going to be strictly controlled, but it is going to be steered and engineered away from facts that explain larger parts of the story: a fighter’s ability, crowd attendance, injuries, etc. None of this is a guarantee, of course, but its hard to argue that sort of candor is more difficult to achieve outside of the UFC than from within.
Think of this in blogging or writing terms. If the UFC hires you to cover UFC fighters, there’s going to be some measure of candor simply not available to you. By contrast, an independent, knowledgeable and honest writer not affiliated with the UFC does not have those constraints. Admittedly, there is a tipping point where we see folks at HDNet hyping fighters not in the UFC to suggest life outside of the UFC is robust and real, so I agree that’s a concern. But on balance, the trade off is worth it if you have a professional network and broadcast team handling the situation. Gus Johnson may need more work, but once he’s ready he and Stephen Quadros could make for a formidable and hopefully honest pair.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 5, 2009 1:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
What you are talking about is more a function of completly uninvolved journalist not event announcers. Announcers and commentators are paid by companies that have a direct monitary involvement in the events regardless of which entity they work for. We think of ESPN as having “journalistic integrity” because they have built up that reputation but when they are announcing a NFL game ESPN has just as much on the line as the NFL does in a financial sense, they aren’t without a bias. The real issue here isn’t that the UFC is paying Goldberg and Rogan it’s that the UFC and Goldberg and Rogan have absolutly no built up reputation for journalistic integrity. Joe Rogan pretty much says whatever he wants whenever he wants and he would do that regardless of who is paying him, by the same token Mike Goldberg would be the same shill regardless of who is paying him because that is his job. Yes it could be pointed out that the production team in the back controlling what is shown is biased by being UFC employees but then there would be production bias if they were Spiketv employees too.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thats a very good point.
I think some are using an arguement about oranges in application to apples here.
We should be pushing for this kind of objectivity in the reporting about MMA and not expect it so much from the announcing…kind of what we already have going on.
So, in essence, nothing to report here. ;-)
by Razreshat on Mar 5, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not under the illusion that outside of in-house commentators comes the nirvana of objectivity and “uninvolved journalist”. That’s impossible and I recognize it. What I am suggesting, however, is that each level of being removed from the source of operation allows a wider latitude of commentary, observation and coverage. There are inherent limits to any broadcasting model one chooses and whatever TV partner MMA orgs saddle up to will also have bias issues. I’m with everyone there. But with some separation comes some buffering comes some opportunity for more forthright coverage. Would Showtime be more willing to show Galvao had it happened under their watch? That’s an open question. But by and large, they’d be able to more closely dictate the terms of the coverage along their guiding principles, not those of the parent company. There is overlap, but its not in complete convergence. For me, where they don’t converge is where there is more openness, more transparency. It’s easy to claim where they don’t converge is just space of the biases of the TV partner to shine through, but that’s overstated. It’s the added dimension of another perspective outside of the originating source that is of value. And when handled properly, one can often get a better dose of “reality” than what is available from strictly in-house commentating teams.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 5, 2009 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That transparency will come with mainstream outside news reporting as much as adding a layer between promotion and production. You can gloss over things when you know that the casual fans won’t know the difference but it’s a lot harder to do when you know someone like ESPN is looking over your shoulder and is going to report it if you don’t. The actual unbiased view is supposed to come from outside reporting not announcing and commentating.
As for the Galvao KO as a fan of the sport I am incredibly glad that it wasn’t shown as the sport already feeds enough ammo to those people who are fighting to kill it without adding that kind of footage. The NFL doesn’t have to worry about being banned in a state because a guy gets injured during a play MMA does. Yes it takes away from the legitimacy of the reporting but at this point in the sport’s growth their image is more important to their establishment than their legitimacy of commentator coverage.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You know Zuffa had YouTube remove the fan’s video footage of the Galvao KO, right? Off the break they are making it harder for those in the media to do their job. And the more obvious point is that whatever the MMA media does likely does not reach the audience as much as having SOME kind of injury update on Galvao. The idea that the media will pick up the slack for Zuffa simply is only partly true, if not for numbers then for direct attempts from Zuffa (or whoever) to withhold content.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 5, 2009 3:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Zuffa has YouTube remove content all the time. I agree that that isn’t really on the up and up but then I really didn’t want to watch it happen anyway in the same way I don’t want to watch replays of Joe Thiesman having his leg broken, it’s enough for it to be reported on without the graphic footage being shown. Of course the Galvao injury isn’t really an injury that I see that requires a lot of repeat coverage or reporting, I would like to see more from them on say the Corey Hill leg break and that does fit with what you are saying in regards to their lack of injury reporting.
As far as them making it harder for the media to do their job yea I agree but that would change if the media was mainstream, the UFC isn’t going to be able to pull the same games with ESPN as they do with the smaller players. You guys do a great job reporting(as do a lot of other sites) but the difference between the leverage any internet site would have compared to ESPN wanting to put footage on Sportscenter is absolutly uncomparable. It’s at that point that the UFC will be forced to change the way it covers it’s own events. It’s not about the media picking up the slack it’s about the fact that not covering it and getting scooped on national tv becomes more embarassing than the actual events they are covering up. When you get right down to it sports news is it’s own valuable product, the commentators don’t report on it because it’s the right thing to do they report on it because that news is also entertainment for public consumption. When MMA news gets to the level of mainstream as NFL news then there will be nowhere to hide and they won’t be able to gloss anything over anymore.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There’s a lot I don’t agree with here, but: Josh Gross is coming on MMA Nation this Saturday. I’ll be sure to unpack as much of that as possible here.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 5, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That would be interesting. I won’t even pretend to be an expert on any of this it just seems that a lot of these issue will take care of themselves as the sport grows and this is a very interesting topic for discussion.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They handled the Corey Hill leg break very well in my opinion. Which they put up on their own website and updated with how he was doing as well as taking care of him (and making sure everyone knew they were taking good care of him).
As far as the Galvao thing was, I don’t want to see how badly he was hurt live on the television. To me it is much better for his condition to be reported later as a text or website thing rather than on the live broadcast.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Mar 5, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would have liked
to hear about the corner issue with GSP and BJ during the fight, rather than reading about it the next day. It really casts a shadow on the fight, during which I was thinking BJ is really getting out classed – maybe he was, maybe he wasnt but Id like to know as it happens if Im going to pay 50 bucks to watch it.
As for contract disputes, they get mentioned in boxing all the time. This guy is supposed to fight this guy, but this is holding it up… you dont hear that in UFC. They glaze over what went down with Rampage. Its frustrating.
Anyone who is enough of a fan to care is going to find out anyway, so why not be open about it?
by ryanwk628 on Mar 5, 2009 1:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think..
the announcers really knew what was going on as far as the corner thing the night of the fight. It wasn’t really a “story” until people understood what had happened. I don’t think they were trying to gloss over a controversy…it just wasn’t a really clear thing where they could be like “oh, he’s greasing…”
It’s kind of like asking for announcers to have covered the “spygate” thing with the Patriots when it happened when it wasn’t really known by them it was happening.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 5, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If a basketball player goes down with an injury, or an NFL guy is down, they usually show you and make an educated guess as to whats going on. A lot of times they will do slow motion replays and say “oh thats just a rolled ankle” or “blew out his knee”.
In boxing they show whats going on with the corner. If a guy gets a talking to from the ref for spitting his mouth piece, they go in and show when he did it.
In the case of GSP, the NSAC got into it with his corner man. Rather than show what they were arguing about there was a cut away. Its not like spygate because they talked about that as soon as they knew. Odds are they dont mention it on any UFC broadcasts from now on.
by ryanwk628 on Mar 5, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i doubt that, Dana hasn’t shut up about it.
If another incident like that comes up, they’ll mention the GSP one, but there’s no reason for them to just bring it up out of nowhere.
by Phildo on Mar 5, 2009 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You act as if there were some major confrontation between rounds. There wasn’t. There’s a minute between each round, and all that was done during the frenetic between-round activities was that Nurse wiped his hands off to the satisfaction of the NSAC, and GSP was also wiped off to the satisfaction of the NSAC. That resolved any potential issues per the rules.
It’s no different than Franklin having grease rubbed on his body in multiple fights, Tito having it rubbed on him, or Hughes having it rubbed on him. Nobody noticed it between those rounds, because it wasn’t seen as a big deal or out of the ordinary to people watching what was going on.
by Hardcharger on Mar 5, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All im saying is in every fight there is a camera man in each corner. Boxing shows whats going on when a ref, doctor or anyone from the NSAC comes over to the corner. The commentators then try and explain whats going on. During the GSP/Penn fight, they went into the studio between rounds. (Personally Id like to hear more of the coaching) I think it was a real disservice to BJ to not show it because GSP got by his guard so easily… not that he wouldnt anyway.
by ryanwk628 on Mar 5, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You are assuming that the commentators even knew what was going on or that the UFC intentionally cut away because of what was going on as opposed to what they normally do. Lets face it the UFC isn’t dodging this issue or trying to cover it up, Dana White has been very vocal about it in darn near every interview he has done in the last month and they were talking about it immediatly after the fight. During boxing shows they do tend to cover the corners and then they give their opinion of what they think is going on but that isn’t always the case. Unless you have evidence that Goldberg and Rogan knew what was going on and were ordered to not talk about it then this is just pure speculation.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
here is what happens. In a little control room there is a producer/director. You dont know who they are but their names appear on the credits somewhere. They have a little mic to the commentators ear and to the teleprompter guy.
in the magic room are tvs that show each camera. There is a camera in each corner. The producer sees whats going on. In a boxing fight or any other sporting event, they say “go to camera number (who ever is in GSPs corner)” and they show the NSAC guy talking to the trainer. Most educated fight fans would rather hear directly whats going on as opposed to a 3rd partys commentary so HBO turns the audio on down there. In UFC (and WWE) they ignore it. That way less people care that GSP was cheating (lets call it like it is)
Im not saying the PBP guys knew, but the guys who see whats going on every camera knew SOMETHING was happening and chose not to cover it. As a result we have the article we are all commenting on.
Im not trying to start an argument here, but this is a great example of what the author is speaking to. And I hate to say it, an area where boxing has a leg up on MMA coverage. (they know when to cut the PBP guys off) Failing to see this for what it is is just as bad as the stubborn guys who still argue pro wrestling is real.
Arguing that because they didnt have prior knowledge so they didnt show it just gives more credibility to the notion that the production is closely controlled.
-over and out-
by ryanwk628 on Mar 5, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1. Who argues that Pro Wrestling is actually real? Even the WWE doesn’t do that anymore.
2. The UFC does sometimes turn the volume down and film the corner but just like boxing they don’t do it every single time.
3. Even GSP’s corner didn’t know what the NSAC guys were talking about at the time, they didn’t come in and give an explination they came in and told them to stop and then took a towel to GSP, even if a camera had been pointed at the corner people would of just been scratching their heads about what was going on. If the people involved were confused about what was going on then how do you expect people the producers watching in the back to get it?
4. The UFC didn’t try to cover this up, they addressed it after the fight and Dana White has been very vocal about the issue in interviews. The fact that it wasn’t covered in real time during the event isn’t a sign of weakness of their production it’s a sign that this was a confusing event. There are examples that you could use that would fit what you are trying to show but this event just doesn’t fit that.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
GSP and his guys dont speak english as a first language. But Im not going to turn into a troll here.
Later
by ryanwk628 on Mar 5, 2009 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Greg Jackson doesn’t speak English? That’s news to me.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well its the producers job to know who the fighters are, whos in their corner, where the celebrities are sitting, who the doctor is, the judges and who is representing the NSAC in the event they become relevant. Again we are getting into production value questions and if dana is skimping on that, more money into his pocket.
And im done.
by ryanwk628 on Mar 5, 2009 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So your saying that it’s the producer’s fault for not dropping what they were showing and cutting to GSP’s corner just because a NSAC official was in the cage? I’d be willing to give you that but that woudn’t of really cleared up what was going on during the event. I think the only way you would of gotten to that point would be to have a cageside reporter asking questions about those kinds of things(like a sideline reporter in the NFL)and yea that would be somewhere were I can see the UFC skimping on money for a non-essential person.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're really..
asking for something that I don’t think would have been covered in the way you want anywhere. When you watch that fight there wasn’t any explanation in the corner. The commission ran in and wiped him off and it was very chaotic.
It’s really easy to go back after the fact and say “they should have known” but no one really knew what was going on beyond the commission and the corner. There was no in cage discussion really that would have been caught by the cameras. You’re also making it seem like there was an intentional cut away but that very clearly wasn’t the case.
Regardless this is going to be one of those conversations where you came in with your mind made up so I’ll bow out here.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 5, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I just don’t see that not being covered at the time as a real issue for that very reason, it was confusing and no one really knew what was going on at the time, now if they had tried to gloss over it or squash the reporting of the news afterwards then there would be a real problem. This is just one of those issues that doesn’t fit with the probem being discussed now(completly different from a guy going into convulsions in the cage for everyone to see).
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What are you referring to when you say they went “into the studio” between rounds? The between-round coverage of GSP-Penn was just like every other between round coverage. Cameras in each guys corner, a short camera time in each corner seeing what’s going on and being able to hear (sometimes) what the corner is saying. There was nothing going on in GSP’s corner to raise any attention from the announcers or anyone watching at home.
Heck, watch the Franklin-Silva 2 fight after Rd 1. Franklin’s corner man rubs grease all over Rich’s body, but nobody ever commented on it then, or up until the recent greasing “controversy” came about. It’s just not very noticeable or significant given all the other things going on in that 50-some seconds between rounds (and talking with your friends watching with you about the round you just saw).
by Hardcharger on Mar 5, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome to the 21st century, Josh Gross.
The existence of the internet makes this whole point a complete non-issue. I’m not missing anything just because TV broadcasters want to edit it out.
by pumaman on Mar 5, 2009 1:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Correction
I obviously DISmissed the point as irrelevant in the 21st century.
by pumaman on Mar 5, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not everyone follows the sport closely on the internet.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Mar 5, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You didn’t need to follow the sport ‘closely’ on the internet to know that there was a controversy in gsp’s corner, you only needed to follow mma journalism in any form with a minimal amount of effort.
If you don’t, you probably don’t care anyway. Problem solves itself.
by pumaman on Mar 5, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That goes for most every sport, the actual unbiased news reporting doesn’t come from the announce team it comes from the sports news shows that cover the event afterwards. If ESPN ever gets into reporting on MMA in the same manner it reports on other big sports then we will see a real change in how MMA news is reported to fans and what does and doesn’t get coverage during events.Zuffa isn’t going to gloss over things if they know that a major news outlet is going to run with those stories after the event.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True that. A little more mainstream attention to MMA would go a long way here. Although I don’t think internet fans are going to be happy when they find out that mainstream sports reporters don’t smell conspiracy and controversy in every little thing a la Zach Arnold.
by pumaman on Mar 5, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the in-house production just doesn’t give off the same vibe as other live sporting events. It’s all little too perfect and scripted. It’s probably better for ratings, but it’s a turn off to me.
by starvin on Mar 5, 2009 1:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If mike goldberg were reading from a script
he wouldn’t say things like “take a book out of chuck’s chapter!”
Mike Goldberg reeks of failed extemporaneity.
Oh, also… “rape choke?” Was that in the script? C’mon now, hey.
by pumaman on Mar 5, 2009 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There is no way they could be scripting the stuff that comes out of Mike Goldberg’s mouth.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Goldberg is a pro, I heard him doing an Airshow once for the Redbull air show where they do acrobatics and such.
He is probably one of the best sponsor promoters/on the fly quotable comments/announcer I’ve heard.
He is very distinctive, I recognized him right away on the airshow.
Doubt he has a script at all other than the pre-recorded plugs for sponsors and upcoming shows.
by DirtyML on Mar 5, 2009 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Goldberg turned down a very lucrative WWE contract because he wanted to continue to work with legitimate sports. He does have his limitations but he is a professional.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Was the airshow live? That would go a long way to explaining why you didn’t here any of his dumber remarks,
by pumaman on Mar 5, 2009 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“UFC welterweight champ’s next defense against Thiago Silva.”
“pragamtic”
Other than that, I fail to see how candid journalism would be an effective adoption for a company that brands itself as Ultimate Fighting as opposed to mixed martial arts.
Even in Danas Video blog #2 for this weeks UFC says (slightly paraphrased) “Look at those chicken sh*ts, waiting to cross the street, "You guys are supposed to be ultimate fighters!”…"
It is in the UFCs interest to maintain their WWE-style broadcasting method, as they consider it a business of ‘ultimate fighting’. Their most truthful moments is when they talk about other companies or fighters they do not care for.
by DirtyML on Mar 5, 2009 1:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Would it be any different if
a boxing promoter shouted “your supposed to be World Boxing Association fighters?”
by Razreshat on Mar 5, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This topic always seem to garner far more attention than it deserves
in my opinion.
There is no perfect model for this, and as someone above said, its all about the person doing the commentary.
Personally, I like Rogan and accept Goldberg as a necessary part of the team.
I think too much gets made out of who they focus on. Its their job to talk, and they talk about not just what they know (MMA to a certain degree) but also WHO they know. Is it really some monster flaw that Rogan talkes more about the fighters that have taken the time to let him train with them, to get to know him?
Or, as in the case with the Kos fight, that he focuses on the information he knows about the fighters in the ring…which in that case was absolutely nothing about Kos’ opponent.
by Razreshat on Mar 5, 2009 2:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It was born out of necessity.
The in house model was a necessity when the UFC was created. It is working pretty good for them right now isn’t it? Why would they want to change that? I don’t get the big deal with this. It’s not like they are trying to fool us into thinking they aren’t employed directly by the UFC.
by mattman73 on Mar 5, 2009 3:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
MMA is still in a fight for mainstream acceptance and it has issue with detractors that other sports just don’t have, hopefully those problems won’t exist in the future and there won’t be a need to gloss over the bad things like there is now.
by who me on Mar 5, 2009 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
