BJ Penn vs. Diego Sanchez in November: on Network TV?
by Brent Brookhouse on Aug 27, 2009 10:03 PM EDT
in News
95 comments
From MMAWeekly.com:
UFC president Dana White on Thursday said a third UFC event was in the works for November, featuring a headlining bout between lightweight champion B.J. Penn and Diego Sanchez.
What may really peak interest is that he said the event was neither a pay-per-view nor a Spike televised affair, lending credence to strong speculation of a long coveted network television deal.
"Wait and see boys... if I can pull this one off," he said.
I don't really know what else there could be that would make the last line make any sense other than one of the many rumored network deals finally happening. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part but Lesnar/Carwin on PPV, Anderson Silva defending on Spike and Penn/Sanchez on network TV would make for one hell of a month to be an MMA fan.
UPDATE by Kid Nate: It won't be ESPN, per Michael David Smith:
ESPN Executive Vice President John Skipper says he loved attending UFC 100 last month and would be interested in finding ways to work with the UFC, but he said nothing is in the works to have ESPN televise live UFC fights.
...
But what about televising live fights? Skipper said it's not likely to happen any time soon. ESPN already has a fairly full plate of sports programming, Skipper said, meaning ESPN would only want the absolute best UFC fights. And it's hard to see how ESPN would benefit from taking its best fights off pay-per-view, where fights can generate upwards of $25 million in revenue.
...
"Nothing is imminent," Skipper said. "I came away with a good impression, but don't get your hopes up."
0 recs |
95 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
He’s probably trying to get HBO or ESPN to sign off on this. It has to be HBO, though. The foul language during the corner look-ins would be too much for ESPN.
http://twitter.com/FlyByKnite
by FlyByKnight on Aug 27, 2009 9:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
pic caption = win
The whole beef with Showtime thing probably leads me to believe HBO.
by Tonley on Aug 27, 2009 9:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
A network deal would be awesome, but Dana has been known to make bold announcements only to have them fall through. So I’ll just wait for an official press release or something regarding any deal. Just trying not to get my hopes up.
I love me some Sexyama!
by pud333 on Aug 27, 2009 9:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So UFC 105 on Nov. 14th, UFC 106 on Nov. 21st….this new event will probably be Nov. 7th, which I believe was the date Strikeforce targeted for Fedor/Rogers. That would be crushing to Strikeforce to have to go against the UFC’s network debut (If that is indeed the case).
Twitter.com/mmagroundnpound
www.mmagroundnpound.com
by bigtim on Aug 27, 2009 9:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is correct. UFC on Network TV would demolish a Showtime card, even with Fedor and Carano co-headlining it.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Aug 27, 2009 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
omg omg omg
I’m mean my pants just got tight reading that, and I don’t care who knows it.
Shoes with me!!!!
by bearcox13 on Aug 27, 2009 9:48 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
I hate that my phone auto spell checks
whoes* with me
by bearcox13 on Aug 27, 2009 9:50 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
epic fail me
but fuck that still jacked for November
by bearcox13 on Aug 27, 2009 10:02 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
No ABC either?
All sports on ABC are shown as “ESPN on ABC”. I don’t think they could do Saturday nights, esp in November, on ABC or ESPN due to College Football.
CBS is with Strikeforce, so they say.
NBC has Notre Dame football BUT the game on November 7 (the weekend in question) is a 2:30 game at Navy, so that’s possible.
This leaves FOX as the only real option left. No real CFB games on Saturdays and they can advertise the show like crazy during NFL on FOX.
by bigern on Aug 27, 2009 10:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm thinking it's FOX...
but that is a guess
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Aug 27, 2009 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, FOX also seems the most likely to let Zuffa handle the production themselves which was a major sticking point the last time they were talking to networks.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Aug 27, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
FOX makes the most sense, as it’s the most edgy of the 4 major stations.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Aug 27, 2009 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ken’s burns “american fighters” on pbs?
by woooburn on Aug 27, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Does…does that mean Joe Buck will get involved?
by woomikee on Aug 28, 2009 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really hope UFC 105 isn't going to be headlined by Bisping/Kang
As a result of this.
But I’d love for Penn/Sanchez to be on network TV.
Beverly Hills 90210.......Denver Broncos 7.
by SSreporters on Aug 27, 2009 10:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh okay it's Co-main event
PHEW!
Beverly Hills 90210.......Denver Broncos 7.
by SSreporters on Aug 27, 2009 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
HBO
Don’t see any other option. I really wanted the Lesnar Carwin show to start the HBO parade off though.
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 Aug 27, 2009 10:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
this seems retarded though
don’t more households get Spike than HBO?
Just because it is on HBO doesn’t mean more eyeballs. Maybe more ‘mainstream’. But not more eyeballs overall.
by rainmaker6 on Aug 27, 2009 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s a premium channel. For UFC it would pay a higher rate per program. And there is the prestige factor.
by nottheface on Aug 27, 2009 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeh I get that it's 'premium'
But the audience doesn’t seem ‘right’.
I doubt they’d make as much money on HBO as PPV. Nowhere close.
The only reason I can see is to get the UFC into the ‘mainstream’, because HBO is very much in the ‘mainstream’.
by rainmaker6 on Aug 27, 2009 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Read the bottom posts. Always Relaxing and Phildo did a good job of explaining something I said. Basically a weekly show is constant advertising.
by nottheface on Aug 27, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could it be streamed on the internet in some form?
http://www.fourouncestofreedom.com
by Beer Monster on Aug 27, 2009 10:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
sports.yahoo.com
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Aug 27, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant them streaming it strictly on UFC.com/yahoo.com in PPV form, like they do now. But ONLY doing it that way, so they can take the lion’s share of the profits and not have to split with a PPV provider.
http://www.fourouncestofreedom.com
by Beer Monster on Aug 27, 2009 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that would take a huge chunk out of their buyrate though. can’t imagine bars that would normally show a ppv card, settling for an online stream.
by woooburn on Aug 27, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, but does the UFC really turn a huge profit on bars doing the viewing? I’m just trying to think outside the box a bit, because of the way Dana phrased his responses. Network TV seems like a bit of a stretch to me right now.
http://www.fourouncestofreedom.com
by Beer Monster on Aug 27, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i can't find the previous discussions on the topic, on b.e., but here's some outside insight:
“Most bars charge a cover ($10 or so) when they are showing UFC or Boxing pay per views. I often see this categorized as “overcharging” or “ridiculous” but I think most people are unaware that bars don’t pay the same PPV rates that individuals pay. A bar can be charged $1000-$4000 to show an event depending on square footage and other factors so they charge a cover to balance out the cost of the fight"
totally understand where you’re coming from. anything’s possible. just wanted to illustrate my point about the extra revenue those bar purchases bring in.
by woooburn on Aug 27, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t be surprised if bars make up at least 10% of PPV revenue.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Aug 27, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would think that it would be
even more than 10%.
by rainmaker6 on Aug 28, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's higher...
Every bar is charged differently, prices are all set by your cable/satellite provider. I know that Cox Communications and DirecTV both charge $5.00 per person by listed capacity. So if your bar has a capacity of 400, you pay $2,000. It can get a little ridiculous especially when some places have to count beer gardens…
by Screwface on Aug 28, 2009 10:27 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I know a bar gets charged a lot. But I highly doubt it’s 10%, as stated below.
http://www.fourouncestofreedom.com
by Beer Monster on Aug 27, 2009 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
or above
Dammit.
http://www.fourouncestofreedom.com
by Beer Monster on Aug 27, 2009 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
UFC Public Licensing Fee
Which is what the bars & other public viewing businesses are charged by the UFC. My buddy owns 3 bars & 2 night clubs in which he gets the bigger UFC cards and he pays 2500.00 per event as the standard fee.. He does this for each of his establishments as they’re all spread out across 3 counties..
I’m not sure if the fee rate varies in different areas, but that’s what he’s been paying all year on the UFC cards he gets..
by MMAuthority on Aug 28, 2009 8:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great news just hope in this competition with Strikeforce and Boxing that Dana doesn’t blow his load. Saturation the public with back to back to back matches could be bad three months from now.
by rocket8188 on Aug 27, 2009 10:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree. USA Tuesday Night Fights was on weekly for years. It did not hurt the sport of boxing.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Aug 27, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Zuffa will not be doing more than 12 ppv’s per year… Zuffa will break 8 million buys this year.
Now the focus is to improve reach and average buys per show. The short term focus is to meet all the new market demand that has generated, cultivate it and use it as much as you can as a springboard to even bigger levels.
by mmalogic on Aug 28, 2009 4:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The big thing EliteXC or Strikeforce had over the UFC is Network TV. It never paid much, but it still got in a lot of viewers. If the UFC lands on FOX or ABC, it’s literally game over. This doesn’t mean Strikeforce is going out of business. But it does mean they have not one advantage at all. Even Fedor being in there means nothing as he is not marketable in the US.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Aug 27, 2009 11:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
2 points
1. This seems to be why many are calling for competition: Dana gets mad and what happens? Starts giving away free programing and giving fighters raises to keep them from Strikeforce. And think, they’re not even really a real threat. So I don’t know why people are clamoring for their downfall.
2. Isn’t there a risk that by offering major events free of charge, he may be killing the golden goose, What is the percentage of UFC Customers who may suddenly decide that a card is not worth it, because the last title fight was free? (That’s why I’m thinking a fight like Penn and Sanchez will be a one time affair – don’t look to see GSP or Lesnar on TV anytime in the future but if we: thank you Dana in advance)
by nottheface on Aug 27, 2009 11:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There isn’t much risk. If they get another TV deal, they will likely merge the UFC and WEC together. That will give them 8 champions, with about 20 title fights per year (4 defend it 2 times, 4 defend it 3 times).
What they will likely end up doing is putting the better title fights on PPV, and the lesser one’s on free TV.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Aug 27, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are right. I was actually addressing point to everyone who seems to think TV will mean Lesnar-Machida on TV. I doubt it will happen. But at the same time the UFC will have to make sure there is definite separation between a TV card and PPV card. How many times a year can boxing run a major ppv? How about pro wrestling? (No really, I don’t know anything about it. How often do they run something?)
by nottheface on Aug 27, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that there needs to be a seperation. I don’t think the link will be concrete, but enough that the big time fights are on PPV.
Tito Ortiz fighting for a title would be on PPV….. Tito Ortiz fighting Mark Coleman might not have to be….
by AlwaysRelaxing on Aug 27, 2009 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dana isn’t going to go on network TV just to go on network TV.
Going on network tv but losing money on the cards is stupid (right Shaws?). Dana wants to crush Strikeforce, but he’s not going to risk his company to do that, if it goes to network TV, the deal will be good enough to make up for that.
by Phildo on Aug 27, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What will people’s reaction be if the UFC ends up on CBS? A few people’s heads will explode.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Aug 27, 2009 11:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
including several contract lawyers.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Aug 27, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does CBS already have a deal in place with Strikeforce?
It doesn’t matter if they have a deal in place with Showtime. They own them. They can remove that offer in a second without any legal action. That’s a business decision, not a law matter.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Aug 27, 2009 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no… CBS has an “option” to order strikeforce events. CBS nor Showtime are exclusive to strikeforce. Both can show any MMA they want.
by mmalogic on Aug 28, 2009 3:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correct, though it is possible, it is not probable.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Aug 28, 2009 3:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And unless CBS executes its option they can sign exclusively with any organization they want.
by mmalogic on Aug 28, 2009 3:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Penn/Sanchez would be a neat main event for an inaugural network TV event. Two highly skilled lightweights, neither of whom looks or fights like your stereotypical “ultimate fighter” (why, they’re not even white!) It’ll probably be a good fight, too.
by JRN on Aug 27, 2009 11:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t expect anything official on this until Strikeforce gets further along in the planning stages of the Fedor/Rogers fight.
The point of this is to counterprogram, so they need to get the date right. And they’ll use the announcement to get people to stop talking about Strikeforce.
If they’re having it in Vegas, and all the fighters have a general idea of when the card is, they can pull this card off very quickly after officially announcing it.
by Phildo on Aug 27, 2009 11:31 PM EDT reply actions 13 recs
^^^ Everybody who reads this post, should put the thumbs up recommendation on it. This is exactly what it going to happen.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Aug 27, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, as soon as strikeforce lets the cat out of the bag on when Fedor is fighting expect a UFC fight announced within a week.
by Riley_96 on Aug 27, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they’re going to wait to schedule it until after Strikeforce announces Fedor’s fight date then I don’t see it being on network tv. I’m thinking ESPN or the CW or something.
If Strikeforce is ever going to do a CBS show they might as well do it now. If Dana doesn’t have a network deal, you’re meeting him head on. And if the UFC does have a deal? It doesn’t matter what you do because you won’t be able to compete.
by nottheface on Aug 28, 2009 1:23 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I hope its not a Network deal..
I enjoy hearing the commentating while the fighters are walking to the Octagon and the trainers in their fighters corner during rounds. Commercials completely kill the event for me.
by steveoc24 on Aug 27, 2009 11:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Is that any different
From Spike’s Ultimate Commercial Night?
Beverly Hills 90210.......Denver Broncos 7.
by SSreporters on Aug 27, 2009 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope. I just don’t want to see PPV quality cards stacked with commercials.
by steveoc24 on Aug 27, 2009 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Commercials are fine with me
If PPV cards are airing on network TV.
Beverly Hills 90210.......Denver Broncos 7.
by SSreporters on Aug 27, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is always the potential to have a bigger sponsor pay for one fight in which it is commercial free. And we are still likely to see the ring entrances to the big fights.
Mike Goldberg: “Round One has come to an end. The mid-round commercial free time is brought to you by CondomDepot…..”
by AlwaysRelaxing on Aug 27, 2009 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Problem is...
The UFC doesn’t get ad money from commercials run on TV. That’s why networks constantly try to outbid one another for the Super Bowl, World Series, etc… ESPN pays out 10 billion to get the BCS rights, the NCAA nor BCS will get a dime of ad revenue that ESPN makes while showing those games because the NCAA and BCS made their money up front.
The same would apply to the UFC, a network drops a guaranteed 50million and the UFC keeps it’s octagon ad money, but wouldn’t see a dime of FOX’s or ESPN’s ad money…
by Screwface on Aug 28, 2009 10:38 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
So then those companies would pay the network. Just like they do when that thing happens on Spike, and just like every time there is a soccer game on TV.
Plus, they could work out a deal where the network pays less up front and the company is responsible/gets a piece of the ad sales, that’s why Elite’s deal sucked. they got a small amount from CBS and then couldn’t sell the ads.
by Phildo on Aug 28, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe for network TV cards they could have an option where you could still buy the card as a PPV, I’de pay $50 for no commercials and extra fights…
by Reaser16 on Aug 27, 2009 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want to get excited, but we’ve had these things dangled in front of us too many times for me to get excited from anything less than an official announcement.
by Zack Gobie on Aug 27, 2009 11:39 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
It's the UFC on FOX!!!
Cleatus the NFL Robot vs. Ken Rosenthal in the main event of the evening!
Your commentators are Joe Buck and Tim McCarver.
Not feeling the FOX idea.
Beverly Hills 90210.......Denver Broncos 7.
by SSreporters on Aug 27, 2009 11:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, and McCarver by 2nd round overcomplication
Beverly Hills 90210.......Denver Broncos 7.
by SSreporters on Aug 27, 2009 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe instead of the skinless creatures Showtime uses they can have Jay Glazer demonstrate on McCarver.
Maybe Glazer will “accidentally” make it so McCarver won’t be able to speak until the world series is over.
Maybe I’m getting a little to excited about this.
by Phildo on Aug 27, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You see Joe
“The positioning of Cleatus the Robot’s forearm under the chin of Rosenthal creates a sensation that blacks out the mind for…”
Beverly Hills 90210.......Denver Broncos 7.
by SSreporters on Aug 27, 2009 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NFL robot is one of the greatest creations in the history of mankind…
by Tonley on Aug 27, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
tim mccarver vs deion sanders, please!
by woooburn on Aug 27, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing would make me more sad than to have those two involved. As long as Scooter the talking baseball doesn’t have an MMA equivalent (Chokey the Glove?) and we don’t have Buck and McCarver, Fox would be fine.
by woomikee on Aug 28, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“And it’s hard to see how ESPN would benefit from taking its best fights off pay-per-view, where fights can generate upwards of $25 million in revenue.”
Do you mean UFC?
by majesticlamb on Aug 27, 2009 11:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It’s a quote and MDS likely did mean that.
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 Aug 27, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m guessing whoever it is, it’s a Viacom held company.
Mark "The Ezequiel" Figula is the biggest wuss to ever enter a cage... the most spindly chickenass dude to ever tap out at NAGA... the boy who was told that the pen is mightier than the sword... and thus he writes. Check out his home page of scribblings at www.markfigula.com.
by Mark The Ezequiel Figula on Aug 28, 2009 12:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
""Nothing is imminent," Skipper said. “I came away with a good impression, but don’t get your hopes up.”"
Same thing you’d say to a woman that was not good looking enough to date on a long term basis, but good enough for a one night stand.
by DirtyML on Aug 28, 2009 12:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
For Those Wondering...
MMAPayout.com has learned that FOX is now widely believed to be the leading candidate to become the UFC’s network television partner. Earlier this month White met with FOX executives in Los Angeles. While a deal with FOX is not believed to be imminent, industry sources have told MMAPayout.com that they believe the companies are making progress toward a deal.
Obviously this would be another watershed moment for the UFC and the sport of MMA as a whole. The only thing that I don’t think is in UFC’s favor is that EliteXC is going to have the first crack at network television. If EliteXC doesn’t do the numbers that are needed to be a success, FOX could get cold feet even though the UFC has a much better overall roster of marketable talent.
Fortunately or unfortunately, EliteXC is going to set the standard when it comes to MMA on network television and if it does poorly, networks could be looking elsewhere without giving the sport a real shot.
- April 23rd, 2008
by MMASuPreMaCy on Aug 28, 2009 2:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
HBO, Fox, ABC, and ESPN have been rumored as close to a deal for 2 years.
=)
by MMASuPreMaCy on Aug 28, 2009 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, this is why I’m not getting to excited over it. This is the same song that’s been playing for a while now. I’ll be excited once an actual official announcement is made by the network.
I love me some Sexyama!
by pud333 on Aug 28, 2009 2:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t like Fox at all. It’s just not a place where I would expect to see UFC.
'Ello G'vnor!
by IHateMMA on Aug 28, 2009 2:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fox is actually the only network where I would expect to see the UFC…
by Reaser16 on Aug 28, 2009 3:11 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yup. If you can do Celebrity Boxing, you should not be ashamed of putting on MMA.
=)
by MMASuPreMaCy on Aug 28, 2009 3:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 years ago BJ vs Florian would not have sold 1 million plus ppv buys…
Shit, in todays climate BJ vs GSP would do more than 50% more buys than what they did just 8 months ago.
The Market is now ready.
by mmalogic on Aug 28, 2009 3:49 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Please be NBC
because then they could use the NBA on NBC theme.
by TJ3117 on Aug 28, 2009 2:42 AM EDT reply actions 5 recs
in regards to the NBA on NBC song.
by I Can't Feel My Face on Aug 28, 2009 3:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not HBO
Was looking at the story at MMAweekly.com, and saw another one about Dana waring with Showtime and one of the last quotes were interesting. Dana stated in regards to showtime ""They got their ass kicked always by HBO at boxing, yet they tried to stay in it," he said. "They got their ass kicked with HBO in programming, and they’re still around. Their going to get their ass kicked in mixed martial arts too. Just not by HBO." The last sentence is key to me, so it must be a regular TV channel in my book, maybe Fox or even ESPN, all executives are going to deny things that may be true. Clinton said he did not have sex with that women, was a lie/ Britney and Justin were virgins, now known to be a lie confirmed by justin. So people can say nothing is happening, but deep down there may be something.
by Jordan S on Aug 28, 2009 10:22 AM EDT 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.
