The Case for UFC Salary Reform
by Michael Rome on Sep 15, 2009 8:40 PM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
It’s time for the UFC to restructure the Pay Per View percentage contracts for main event fighters. They began as a good faith way to reward fighters when the company does well, but these deals are unresponsive to the UFC’s needs, and they are unresponsive to the needs of the sport.
The last year of Anderson Silva’s career provides a good example of why the Pay Per View percentage deals do not make sense for the UFC. After signing a deal with a Pay Per View bonus, Anderson Silva headlined UFC 90, and got a terrible payday because the buyrate was so poor. He then took an extended break, and agreed to fight Thales Leites only because he was told that either St. Pierre or Chuck Liddell would be on the card as well. The show broke the 600,000 buy mark, and Silva made a killing.
Silva’s next Pay Per View fight was against Forrest Griffin in a marquee match on a huge show with two main events. The pay was great, and now Silva is playing the game again. He refused to fight on the UK card, and while people think he is ducking Henderson and Marquardt, I think his real goal is to get on a stacked New Year’s card for the buyrate.
We saw this last year too, when a number of fighters turned down fights toward the end of the year to try to get on the New Year’s show. As more and more fighters sign these deals, we are going to see wild swings in card quality. A show like UFC 100 will attract all the top stars, but the result is shows like UFC 103 with no Pay Per View draws in sight.
The PPV bonus scheme is also unresponsive to the needs of the sport. Quinton Jackson actually turned down a light heavyweight title shot because he rightly believed that he would make more money against Rashad Evans following a season on The Ultimate Fighter. We should be seeing Quinton Jackson vs. Lyoto Machida next month, but instead we’re seeing a fight that almost nobody believes will be competitive. Similarly, Anderson Silva wouldn’t be making ludicrous demands to fight heavyweights if he made almost as much money to fight guys in his weight class.
If fans want consistently strong shows and champions willing to fight legitimate contenders regardless of their drawing power, the UFC needs to restructure their contracts for top stars so that the base pay is more than 75 to 80 percent of their pay on an average Pay Per View. According to Loretta Hunt, Randy Couture’s contract pays him a base 6 times higher than his old base per fight combined with a Pay Per View percentage. If this is correct, is it any wonder why they were able to get a huge superstar like Randy Couture to fight on Spike TV against a guy like Brandon Vera on short notice? A large part of it is Randy’s character in comparison with other stars, but at the same time money is a major factor for everyone, and under his new deal the fight made sense for him.
For a number of top UFC stars, their Pay Per View percentage can account for upwards of 60 to 80 percent of their pay on big shows. As a result, it’s only rational for a guy like Silva to hold out for a slot on a show that could do a million buys rather than a Spike TV show or a show that will pull 400,000 buys.
Finally, the key to the business of MMA is making new stars as old ones fade. This becomes impossible if the top names won’t fight any young stars because the Pay Per View money is better against established draws.
I’m obviously not advocating for the UFC to pay fighters less. I’m advocating for a salary structure that incentivizes fighters to fight all comers on an active schedule instead of cherry-picking opponents and fight cards. I believe this change will be better for the UFC, the fighters, and the fans in the long run.
94 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Similarly, Anderson Silva wouldn’t be making ludicrous demands to fight heavyweights if he
Alla som inte dansar är våldtäktsmän.
Be the 17th person to follow me on Twitter: @EugeneSchelfaut
by Eugene Schelfaut on Sep 15, 2009 8:03 PM EDT reply actions
How do you
Alla som inte dansar är våldtäktsmän.
Be the 17th person to follow me on Twitter: @EugeneSchelfaut
by Eugene Schelfaut on Sep 15, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Oddly, the two different versions of this article got mixed up and the draft got posted rather than the final. Let me know if you see anything else.
by Michael Rome on Sep 15, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions
You nailed it Rome, as usual. Agree 100%. It’s too bad money is the sole reason we are seeing these shenanigans by the best fighter in the UFC but I guess it’s to be expected.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Sep 15, 2009 8:16 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I don’t think it is just money. Frank Mir is not a big draw. I think it is for some of the same reasons BJ wanted to fight everyone from Gomi to GSP to Wandy Silva.
Frank Mir on the new years card would be a big draw.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Sep 15, 2009 9:23 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
1) Only Big Money fights (Lesnar, Randy, Silva, Penn, GSP, etc).
2) No to Fighting Across The Pond (less PPV’s and no titles involved).
3) No fighting teammates.
4) Wanting to fight on stacked cards to only to get a large PPV %.
5) Fighters wanting to act
= crazy scheduling problems and watered down events.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Sep 15, 2009 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Better than one card every six months.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Sep 15, 2009 8:53 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Yup, but could you imagine the crazyness of 3 cards per month, like we have been hearing? That would be just crazy.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Sep 15, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Gents, if Anderson Silva wants the money...
He needs to be able to speak fluent English to increase his marketing visibility. Advertisers in the MMA and dare I say even outside would flock to the most successfully P4P fighter in the world. He could go from the Wii’s dance dance revolution to energy drinks pimpin’ everything under the sun. How many of you remember the “I dare you to knock this battery off of my shoulder” that starred Robert Conrad. Now imagine that plus an Old Spice commercial and he’ll be drowning in a sea of his own money.
However, for all the other fighters…read Michael Rome.
by JAYGK95 on Sep 15, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think you make some good points, but the current system allows the pay to stay in sync with the revenue.
The UFC tried larger base pay right off the bat and got burned with guys like Ricco and Pedro.
Penn and Sanchez were going to fight on Spike, but Penn was going to get a bonus for agreeing to it. Same as Shammy and Tito did for their third fight.
Nicely said
Rome makes some very good points, and I agree the UFC needs to find a way to stop this cherry picking crap.
The UFC has to keep their business interests in mind though to make sure the paydays are in line with their revenue. I could see something like this as a solution:
- keep the base pay the same as it is today
- PPV Bonus #1: a smaller cut of the PPV revenue from the event they compete on
- PPV Bonus #2: a negotiated cut of the total yearly pool of PPV revenue
This way fighters stay incentivized to build up their own fights (PPV Bonus #1), but also know they’ll do well to stay company men and compete well and often against anybody the UFC sets them up with (PPV Bonus #2). I think this more closely aligns their itnerests, while also taking into account the UFC’s business needs.
by Meeaaat on Sep 15, 2009 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
And I’m assuming their cut of the total yearly pool would be based on how many times they fight that year? Fighting 3 times would be a much larger cut than fighting once?
by Swordslasher on Sep 15, 2009 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I think option #2 with the percentage getting bumped in correspondence with the amount of fights in a year, is the smartest thing anyone has posted on this site. It not only makes it less imperative for a fighters ppv numbers to be huge, but it also encourages them to fight more. So rather than Silva fighting twice, we get him 3-4 times a year.
by Screwface on Sep 15, 2009 10:59 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
A really great idea here!
Bonus #2 -→ Incentivise the fighters to fight more often, giving more main event fights, more opportunity to build main event stars, stopping the cloak and dagger with regard to fight scheduling.
Love it Love it Love it.
Great article too. Rec’d.
'He built his whole reputation as a waffle house chef. They’ve been serving him up ham and eggs with a side of canned tomatoes' - Don Frye on Fedor Emelianenko
by Well Read Idiot on Sep 16, 2009 7:51 AM EDT up reply actions
We should be seeing Quinton Jackson vs. Lyoto Machida next month, but instead we’re seeing a fight that almost nobody believes will be competitive.
I guess I fall into the “almost nobody” category.
Im a huge Shogun fan, so maybe my opinion should be considered an outlier, but to me, Shogun is much more well rounded than Quinton at this point. He ran through Quinton, when Q was actually using all his tools (wrestling, chough, cough). Now Page only uses boxing, which should make for easy preparation for a master like Machida.
Shogun poses a HUGE threat on the floor, and although his blitzkrieg striking style DOES leave him open to getting caught with a huge bomb… but truth is, we’ve seen that happen exactly as many times as we’ve seen Machida lose. I think Machida is rightfully a big favorite, but I expect a competitive and exciting fight.
All that aside, I think the whole “payscale restructuring” is a great point by Rome. This is why I love BE, because the writers consistently bring up points that may be overlooked by most fans and sites, but that deserve thought and discussion. Great points Rome. Who wants to fight a dude like Todd Duffe and risk an ass-whoopin from a relative no-name to make chicken scratch on their PPV cut.
A true MMA fan from the great state of Arkansas.
Take a look at the line on that fight-“almost nobody” is an understatement.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Sep 15, 2009 8:54 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Do you guys really think
Rampage has a better chance against Machida than Shogun. I think Rampage has the LEAST chance of everyone against Machida. He’s slower, less versatile and less agile. He’d get completely picked apart by Machida on his feet and he’d never get close to Machida to take him down.
Shogun is a more competitive fight.
I’m sorry but what is it that Shogun does better than Rampage that actually gives him a chance?
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Sep 15, 2009 10:02 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
He can move better and kick far better than Rampage. Punching Machida with his stance is rather tough.
i also think shogun is a better opponent than rampage… but clearly, rampage is the big money fight tho…. i just think rampage is on the backend of his career.
"I’m not going to stop yelling because that would mean, I lost the fight!"-Kenny Powers
shooter/cutter for AllElbows.com
what is it that Shogun does better than Rampage that actually gives him a chance?
The easiest way to answer that question is for you to head down to your local Blockbuster and rent Total Elimination 2005. When Shogun is on his game, he is a beast.
The only problem with that argument is it’s not 2005 anymore, if it was Shogun would be fighting Liddel for the titlel. Chuck isn’t the same fighter he was back then and I don’t think Shogun is either. Tim Sylvia, Matt Hughes, a lot of guys aren’t what they were a few years back, just because Shogun is younger doesn’t mean he can’t have gone downhill as well.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
depends which rampage shows up. go back and watch the rampage that fought dan henderson… before rampage went on his rampage and he was training with juanito….
that was an agile, fast, powerful rampage. that dude could give machida a good fight, but i don’t know if we’ll see that rampage again anytime soon…
Rome
Do you begrudge Anderson for doing this? It would be nice if he didn’t but I totally understand why he’s doing it. He’s got limited time left in this sport and wants to maximize his earning potential. I agree with your article 100% and we need pay reform to prevent things like this from happening.
"I will do nothing lightly. When I walk, I will walk heavily. When I fight, I will fight with conviction. When I speak, I will speak strongly. When I love, I will love with everything"
I don’t begrudge him at all, but as a fan it sucks. I don’t take these things personally as a fan.
by Michael Rome on Sep 15, 2009 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
I was just wondering.
"I will do nothing lightly. When I walk, I will walk heavily. When I fight, I will fight with conviction. When I speak, I will speak strongly. When I love, I will love with everything"
Hendo is trying to do the same thing. Fighters know they can get a good amount of money right now, and it is their jobs to do so. As the UFC gets bigger and has more revenue, fighters will always be looking for a bump in pay.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Sep 15, 2009 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the current system works fine – if the event makes good money, both the fighter and the UFC do well. The UFC’s also not stuck losing money on events because of guys that don’t bring the dollars in.
And If the UFC really wants a guy to fight on an unattractive event in the UK or wherever, they can just cut a check – simple as that.
Besides, if they UFC can’t get big names on a particular card, it only increases the chances of it being on free TV. That’s good for the fans.
And as a person who watches all UFC PPV’s at a bar, I’m cool with events that aren’t stacked with mega-fights. I’m just paying for the beer and wings, and sometimes the events without the huge names are awesome. UFC 101 had four big stars but the event was mostly a stinker.
However, the UFC could institute a bonus system for the live gate, which would help balance out fighters relying upon PPV’s for salary. A $3 million gate is the equivalent of about 133K PPV buys so it could definitely be factored into the package.
And If the UFC really wants a guy to fight on an unattractive event in the UK or wherever, they can just cut a check – simple as that.
Not that simple. Fighters may have additional concerns about popularity, and thus the prospects of ever drawing on their own.
How about the point about building new stars by having them fight the current stars? It seems that the less star power the UFC has, the less likely it is that the sport reels in top athletes in the future. Bad for the fans.
by ununkvadrium on Sep 16, 2009 4:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Not to mention that the UFC may not be able (or, more realistically, willing) to cut a fat check every time they need a decent main event for an unattractive card. If they build and incentive for fighting more frequently into the pay structure, they won’t have to deal with this dilemma.
Now as to what exactly “building an incentive for fighting more frequently into the pay structure” would entail, I have no idea.
Franchise Model
What if the UFC left the boxing promotion-based model for a modern sports franchise model?
Gyms could get backing, pay a franchise fee to the UFC, sign their own talent, get title sponsors for their gym etc. Think NASCAR.
Or not.
Maybe I’m reading too much into the rumoured ppv #s for 102, but exactly how big of a “superstar” is Randy if his ppv is “only” pulling in ~400k buys?
Seemed like he used to be a lock for at least the 600 area – and while his return to the octagon against Lesnar did monster numbers, how much can be attributed to Randy’s pull alone (i.e. Not Lesnar, not omg Randy is actually back)? Seems like he couldn’t carry a card fighting Nog, who I thought had a decent enough following. Maybe it was just ppv fatigue from having 100 and 101 so close, but after 102’s numbers I wonder if this large base was such an awesome idea afterall. I think I’ll reserve judgment and see if that was an outlier or not.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Sep 15, 2009 9:43 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Non title match, second PPV in a month, and they did no press for it.
Even so, there is nobody at heavyweight besides Brock lesnar who would come even close to 435k buys against Nogueira. Nogueira means absolutely nothing on PPV, his name means nothing to casuals. If 102 was Mir vs. Nogueira 2, you’re talking a 320,000 buy show.
Randy’s never been Chuck or Brock. But besides Brock and GSP right now, nobody else in the company is pulling 435k against a guy like Nog with nothing on the line in the second show of the month.
by Michael Rome on Sep 15, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions
I am pretty sure he was on TUF. That means SOMETHING.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Sep 15, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, you’re not seeing the big business picture at all. The payment was to make sure Randy didn’t give Strikeforce a golden ticket to CBS ratings success in Randy vs. Fedor.
by Michael Rome on Sep 15, 2009 9:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh I absolutely do thanks. In my opinion that was the #1 reason for him getting the deal he did – obviously there were other great reasons for it – but preventing your opponent from getting a perfect main event fight (one that could really legitimize your opponents #1 fighter) is worth its weight in gold. From their perspective – and my point was – they probably wished they gave him the usual deal with the ppv/ratings escalators than such a large guarantee when his drawing power looks like maybe its waning.
I was just a little surprised that while I didn’t expect 800’ buys, it only (again, “only”) pulled those numbers bc I really expected a 550-650 off a Randy card.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Sep 15, 2009 10:07 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Just a note, Randy has never broke 600 on PPV before Brock Lesnar. His return against Tim was 540, Gonzaga was about 520.
The fight was more like Chuck Liddell vs. Rashad Evans…except the second in a month, Randy isn’t chuck, and Rashad is way more of a draw than Nog.
by Michael Rome on Sep 15, 2009 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
PPV numbers are about to come down to earth for a little while after 100. I’m guessing 300-320k this weekend for 103, unless Kimbo and the TUF ratings lead to big numbers somehow. This show has no buzz at all right now, but it’s also possible the press over boxing vs. UFC will help it if ESPN picks up on that.
104…Shogun is not a draw, but a big audience that came for Serra v. Hughes saw an impressive Lyoto performance. I don’t know, I’m going to guess 400k for that one because it is a title match.
106 should be huge, Rampage-Rashad should be huge, and we’ll see what they pull out of their hat for New Year’s.
by Michael Rome on Sep 15, 2009 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions
don't underestimate machida
machida got a lot of attention during/after UFC 98. he could be a real surprise drawing power for 104.
Though they probably felt they “owed” Randy out of loyalty or whatever to make sure he had a good chunk of guaranteed pay or that’s what it took to get such a long contract out of him.
Interesting on those numbers, I guess I never had a hard look at them and always assumed they were higher.
P.a. Reading my reply it sounded a bit douche-y in tone. Sorry if it did it, not the intention. The article was the tits.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Sep 15, 2009 10:41 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Two things at work, as I see it.
1. It’s hard to say, in most cases, exactly how much a certain fighter contributes to buyrates. If there was a verifiable way to establish this, contract negotiations would be easier (for Zuffa).
2. How much is a fighter worth to the company in terms of drawing power, and how much would same fighter be worth to the competition in terms of legitimacy and future drawing power (not necessarily for said fighter)?
I have no idea just how Zuffa reasoned when forming Randys new deal and what his base amounts to when compared to past buyrates. I’m just saying there’s more to it than simply looking at existing numbers.
by ununkvadrium on Sep 16, 2009 4:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Randy is a big name, but fans know he can’t bring it like he used to. The fight was definitely exciting, but not because both guys were at the top of their games. Each was coming off of a big loss, it’s unsurprising that sales were low – though I thought the reported # was rather close to the UFC’s supposed floor. Maybe buyers were exhausted as 100 and 101 each had two fights bigger than 102’s ME?
And about the money, I figure that part of it is a retirement gift and the rest buys some loyalty after retirement (maybe for him not to start a fighters union?). One thing I hate about pro-sports (though I love them) is that the builders don’t see the money and the ones who come along later reap the rewards. We saw Coleman get an undeserved bonus vs. Rua, so I could see there being a little bit of charity in this deal too.
Guys being over the hill has never affected buyrates. Chuck did some of his best after his worst losses, and some disappointing ones after his best wins. It’s all about the individual matchup, whether there’s one star or two, whether there’s a good co main event, how the promotion for the fight is, and whether they’ve done too many shows in a short period.
by Michael Rome on Sep 15, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, and whether a title is on the line is usually a big factor too.
Can turn a borderline buy/pass leaning toward pass into a leaning toward buy.
by Michael Rome on Sep 15, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I disagree with that. There’s just such a small sample to go from to draw that sort of conclusion, and we’ve been following the UFC through an upswing. Almost every headliner must have seen his buyrate be flat or go up.
I think Liddell would have gotten poor buyrates for his standard supposing he headlined a card around this time. And his last headline was at UFC 88.
Look at Tito at UFC 84 (Penn/Sherk) and Liddell at UFC 97 (Silva/Leites). They didn’t headline – they were both not the main events (and actually 3rd last fight of the night). Hughes (whatever draw he is) has been pulled off headlining duty as well. Franklin is only used to headline in spot duty because champs are only fighting 2-3 times per year (previously fought Lutter and Hamill further down the card). The UFC knows that these guys are not capable of singularly generating huge buyrates anymore. Otherwise, they would be standalone main events at a time when the UFC is scrounging for MEs. I don’t dispute that those guys have name value and do add buys, but dumb fans are not as dumb as many think. They may not figure out if a guy is losing it after his first loss, once you get KOd three times in a row – the book is out. Despite his popularity, I doubt you find Forrest in a main event any time soon either. Fans do remember.
Pay Structure
Great article.
The most important discussion topic to come out of this piece is HOW WOULD PAY BE STRUCTURED?
In total agreement that the pay structure needs changing.
Even though you want fighters to contribute to the end result (PPV buys), that is not always under their control.
It’s essentially like tying managers’ bonuses strictly to profitability or company revenues. You have to let their bonus float a little depending on the market, but if you give them nothing for busting their asses in a down economy that isn’t exactly fair either.
You would think with so much money that they could hire someone to build a structure that is more equitable.
There is no need for any reform of the UFC pay structure first off the UFC runs things fighters don’t this idea that fighters left and right dictate things to Dana and company is ridiculous.
The UFC always rewards guys who bring in the big buys and you want more money you have to earn it by bringing in the buys. Anderson Silva is just being a diva and a guy who thinks he can call the shots but is going to find out just like others that he doesn’t run shit.
There will always be a pecking order in sports and guys will always bitch about money, rightfully so the UFC has structured things as to the guys who make money for them earn more. The one’s who don’t they still get a nice check anyway, if you don’t like that then you can pull an AA or a Sylvia and we all know how it turned out for those 2 idiots.
I have no idea what this means, but it’s not what I addressed in the article.
by Michael Rome on Sep 15, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s pretty simple really things are fine the way they are with the way the UFC does business and there’s no reason to change it because a couple of guys get on an ego trip.
Noone is saying they shouldn’t be paid based on how they draw. But right now, top fighters are essentially being paid solely on how they get buys (suppose 200k out of 2 million is fixed, the rest is based on PPV). The effect of this is that fighters and managers try to game the system to maximize their pay, which is to the detriment of fans and other fighters.
PPV share fighters will not want to face lesser-name fighters, go on TV, go on Europe PPVs, will try and get onto the NYE card, etc..
The UFC has to make these opportunities a more level playing field, because the same card could draw much differently based on where/when it is held.
Right, fighters with better drawing power can be paid higher bases rather than with better PPV percentages.
Look at these hypothetical scenarios:
A) They offer Henderson a 700k base, with a bonus structure that would make him a million dollars on a monster show.
B) They offer Henderson a 125k base with a bonus structure that will make him 1.5 million on a monster show.
The natural incentive in scenario B is for Henderson to refuse to fight Nate Marquardt, refuse to fight on Spike, and refuse to fight in Europe. It also gives him extra incentives to come up with bogus reasons why he needs an extra month when its clear that if he waits a month he’ll co-main event with a big star.
The problem is they’re moving closer to scenario B lately.
by Michael Rome on Sep 16, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Calling AA and Sylvia idiots is fighter bashing. You’ve been warned but for the sake of the discussion below this comment I will not be deleting it.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Sep 16, 2009 8:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Excellent article. Would you mind elucidating the pay structure itself that you have in mind? And how do you think the UFC can get folks to agree to this new contract structure if they are coming off the current type?
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
That will be another article down the line. It’s a pretty in depth topic.
by Michael Rome on Sep 16, 2009 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Lurker here...
Just wanted to say that I can’t help but check in on BE every day lately. There is never a shortage of good content, and this particular article stands out as exceptional. Very interesting stuff. I hope that Dana is thinking along the same lines as you because I think your point about the pay structure would be great for the sport.
The idea posted above about getting a percentage of the yearly PPV numbers depending on how many times you fight seems like another smart way of doing things. At the very least it would help to balance cards. It might not do as much to encourage interesting matchmaking as an increased base salary, but it would be a move in the right direction.
The only problem I see with any change to the pay structure is that it could get complicated during the transition when some guys are pulling a big PPV % and other guys have a larger base salary or a yearly PPV %. But hey, they probably have some smart accountants at Zuffa so I’m sure they could figure it out without getting screwed.
Thing 2
Again, good work Rome. I was wondering about Srikeforce. They still have not announced a date, you think they could be considering the idea of countering Brock?
by The Bronzeville Bully on Sep 16, 2009 1:32 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
They always said they were going to do a show late October or November, so, they are still in pace for that. No rush since they have a Challenger’s card coming up in a week or so and then another in early November.
by MMASuPreMaCy on Sep 16, 2009 3:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I thought you said about ten days ago that they would be announcing the October 10th show soon?
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Sep 16, 2009 9:02 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
It’s pretty obvious there is some shit going on backstage. Everyone that is not blind knows they should have had a date by now, there are obviously issues going on.
by Michael Rome on Sep 16, 2009 3:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Micheal Rome,
“almost nobody believes will be competitive.”
Machida vs. Shogun not competititve? OK, that’s your opinion. I see several people above feels differently, including me.
Similarly, Anderson Silva wouldn’t be making ludicrous demands to fight heavyweights
Demands? Interesting choice of words, I think “suggested” a fight against Mir would be a better choice. I understand to drive the point, but does the quote below really sound like a demand? I think there are more factors into fighters wishing to face certain opponents than just money, but your argument is pretty solid.
“I’m 200 percent healthy and there’s no injury. UFC can set the next fight whenever they want, I’m ready. I’m interested in fighting Frank Mir. He can be the next one”
Check out my recent MMA drawings on my blog, drop a comment, or subscribe via RSS for updates http://www.scritchandscratch.com/blog/?tag=mma
by VeeisAnimated on Sep 16, 2009 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions
That quote is obviously bullshit because they wanted him to fight at 105 and he said no.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Sep 16, 2009 9:20 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
When the offshore books have a guy between a -400 and -500 favorite, it’s being looked at as a non-competitive fight, no matter what the casual donk fan wants to say.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
^ufc4,
I can’t figure out exactly what you’re referring to.
^Mike Fagan,
How often have those offshore books, MMA pundits been proved wrong in the last 2-3 years? How many times have we seen fights that had crystal-clear favorites only to be surprised by the unexpected outcomes.
I don’t really know jack about sports betting but . . . check these numbers
Examples::
- Chuck Liddell (-450) vs. Keith Jardine (300)
- Gabriel Gonzaga +370 vs. Mirko “Cro Cop” Filipovic -450
Matt Serra (800) vs. Georges St. Pierre (-950 Bodog)
I’m not going to spend a lot of time writing up this fight. Despite being the headliner, it’s such an uncompetitive fight that it simply does not warrant any sort of detailed analysis. – Eric Foster (Performify)
Note, Performify’s picks are usually solid. Interestingly enough, he chose Forrest Griffin to upset Anderson Silva.
Check out my recent MMA drawings on my blog, drop a comment, or subscribe via RSS for updates http://www.scritchandscratch.com/blog/?tag=mma
by VeeisAnimated on Sep 16, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
performify did not straight up pick forrest
the way that performify makes his picks is based upon the betting line.
he’s looking for “value” in the betting line. let’s say the oddsmakers have forrest griffin at +500, but performify thinks that it should only be +300.
in this scenario, performify still thinks that anderson silva SHOULD win, but that there is good value in taking a chance on putting money on forrest griffin.
Thanks for the clarification, my main point is regarding the whole perspective that Machida vs. Shogun will not be competitive . I really think they’re really overlooking Shogun.
Liddell vs. Jardine, Liddell vs. Evans, Cro-Cop vs. Gonzaga and GSP vs. Serra 1 are examples of competitive fights that many thought would be uncompetitive fights.
Check out my recent MMA drawings on my blog, drop a comment, or subscribe via RSS for updates http://www.scritchandscratch.com/blog/?tag=mma
by VeeisAnimated on Sep 16, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions
i agree that people need to give more respect to shogun. i’m picking machida, but he’s a live underdog.
each fight’s circumstances are unique.
in both liddell/jardine and liddell/evans, you’ve got an aging liddell who is in decline and getting upset.
in cro-cop/gonzaga, you’ve got a young guy who wasn’t properly scouted. gonzaga was a lot better than we thought.
in gsp/serra, i’d say the oddsmakers pretty much had it spot on. we knew all we needed to about both GSP and serra… it was just a total fluke and these things happen.
i’d say the biggest risk with machida/rua is that we might be overrating and putting machida on a pedestal too quickly. now that people are seeing exactly how he fights and what his style is, his opponents will start to gameplan better and better against him. if rua comes with a solid gameplan and solid coaching, this could get very interesting.
“I’d say the biggest risk with machida/rua is that we might be overrating and putting machida on a pedestal too quickly.”
I definitely agree!! Just like fans were quick to believe Griffin could accomplish anything because of his victories over Shogun and Jackson. We’ve seen Machida face some real adversity in the final round against a super-surprising triangle choke from Tito Ortiz but other than that not much. We know he’s just recently had super-flawless victories against two good LHW fighters but we’ve never really seen him challenged in the Octagon.
I was a Machida fan prior to the two victories that created the hype surrounding him. Technically he’s phenomenal, I think it will be very interesting once a LHW can expose a flaw in his arsenal.
Check out my recent MMA drawings on my blog, drop a comment, or subscribe via RSS for updates http://www.scritchandscratch.com/blog/?tag=mma
by VeeisAnimated on Sep 16, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions
It isn’t so much putting on a pedestal as asking “what are the ways Opponent X can win” and then looking back on how Machida has handled that in the past. There is also what the numbers tell us:
Machida has the lowest SApM (strikes absorbed per minute) of any fighter in UFC history by a very large margin. Coming into the fight last night, Machida’s SApM was 0.58. After the fight, that dropped to 0.55. The next lowest SApM belongs to Anderson Silva, but it’s not even close. Silva’s SApM is 0.73, even after 25 minutes of not getting hit by Thales Leites. Just as a reminder, Fedor’s SApM is 0.53.
Machida is the second-most accurate striker in the UFC (for fighters with at least 300 strike attempts), with a hit rate of 65%. The only fighter better is Silva.
Coming into the fight, Machida had the second-highest takedown success rate (for fighters with at least 10 attempts) at 82%. The only fighter better is Gray Maynard.
Machida’s takedown defense rate is 84%, second best (among fighters with 25 takedowns attempted against them), trailing only Georges St. Pierre.
Machida has scored a knockdown on all but one of his UFC opponents (can you name the one he didn’t?). After last night’s thrashing, he’s scored nine knockdowns in seven fights, a rate that matches Chuck Liddell at his peak.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Silva said:
UFC can set the next fight whenever they want, I’m ready
Well they wanted him to fight at UFC 105 and he said no, if they can “set the next fight whenever they want” then he would be booked for November but he isn’t. That means they can book the fight as long as he thinks it is the highest paying matchup available.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
