Some PR Advice for Dana White: Don't Act Like Vince McMahon if You Don't Want UFC To Be Compared to WWE
by Kid Nate on Apr 15, 2010 11:00 AM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
Steve Cofield breaks down what Dana could and should have done instead of blatantly lying about the Chuck vs Tito fight:
But upon reflecting a bit more, White and the promotion could have avoided a lot of this fan outrage by doing one of two things.
What was gained by violating the fan's trust and waiting three weeks? The UFC knew it had to announce the real matchup before putting the tickets on sale Vancouver.
- Don't comment at all on the initial rumors. There were no need to tweet that the rumors of Franklin sliding into Tito's slot were untrue. Stay quiet and tell everyone to watch show.
- Even better, why not just come clean about Liddell v. Franklin and work it into the preseason promos and during the early weeks of the show? We were strung along on the "will Kimbo fight again or not" storyline. They couldn't drag out a "what happens to Tito" storyline? Each week suggesting some happened between the coaches, Tito got bad news from home or a castmates lost it on their coach? Is that fibbing, sure? But it would've been within the context of the show and more easily accepted.
It's that last bit I'd like all those who are defending Dana White to consider. Those who expect Dana to lie are in a different, more cynical camp. Here at BloodyElbow, we're willfully naive and want to see Dana and the UFC continue their amazing run of success, which really has been a great boon to the sport.
At the same time, for those who think we need to "get on board" and "back Dana", I'd like to point you to a children's tale called "The Emperor's New Clothes" that expresses in a very succinct way how ill-served powerful people are by sycophants.
Blatantly lying to the fans like this damages the heart of Dana White's personal brand -- his reputation for being forthright with the fans. As he told Jim Rome last night: "We're probably the most honest, open company, in sports. We let the fans and media know everything."
Can anyone really believe that now?
And while we're talking cynical takes, it's always useful to check in with Cage Side Seats an interesting perspective about Dana's tactics:
Did he lie to everyone in the media or just the irresponsible MMA fan blogs and websites like Bloody Elbow and Sherdog? Did a chosen few who could be trusted hold their tongues? Did he lie to those who have his ear like Kevin Iole and Dave Meltzer of Yahoo! Sports? Only they know for sure. But anyone who has Dana's ear has had their credibility damaged by Dana's needless lies. As Dave Meltzer admitted to Bryan Alvarez on his April 13th Observer Radio show:
If someone goes to you and goes to me, and just goes how can you believe anything Dana White says, I mean there's no answer other than you know, you're right.
And they go on to make a very telling comparison:
Who does this lack of credibility, short temper and bully boy tactics remind you of? Why one Vince McMahon! But even he couldn't control the wrestling media like Dana White controls the responsible MMA media, Yahoo! Sports. Brock Lesnar's wrong, Dana White's bully boy tactics with the MMA media prove that the word ruthless is just as fitting to describe Dana White as it is Vince McMahon.
I was chatting with a veteran and respected MMA writer last night who pointed out the conundrum the UFC finds itself in. It's no secret that the UFC is modeled on the WWE as a business. The whole system of using cable TV to build an audience for PPV's was perfected by the WWE in the 1980s. Running the operation as a vertically integrated monopoly in which the promoter controls all aspects of event production -- announcing, production, even sometimes acting as the commission -- comes straight from the WWE.
And so does one other thing -- and this was Vince McMahon's real innovation -- transforming the management of the company into the public face of the promotion. Just as Vince McMahon is a bigger star than all but a handful of pro-wrestling legends, Dana White is far more popular with UFC fans than any single fighter.
But this creates a quandary for Dana and the UFC: when your model is a sports entertainment company and you're trying to run a sport, there are times when you must improvise.
As my writer friend wrote last night:
Problem is they don't really want to be a sport and don't want to be accused of being like wrestling. So you don't see real rankings or any substantive talk about skills or tactics.You realize we are 17 years into this sport and our leading TV announcers break every fighter down as either having none of a certain skill or "world class" skill?
If they wanted to "be a sport" 100%, they would be open to deals with traditional sports networks like HBO or CBS who want to do things like control the production, hire their own announcers, have some semblance of independence from the promotion, etc.
UFC is in a betwixt and between place. MMA is definitely a sport, but the UFC is a promotion modeled on a sports entertainment company that wants to keep the virtues of pro wrestling and avoid the pitfalls of an uncontrolled sport like boxing.
Dana White has done a great job of building the UFC and with it, MMA, but when he blatantly lies, he plays into the perception among the traditional sports establishment that he is no more to be taken seriously than Vince McMahon. This exchange between ESPN's Drew Sharp and Jim Rome (via MMA Fighting) is to be noted:
"It's a sham," Sharp said of the UFC. "It's like WWF. It's becoming like that. White is becoming a Vince McMahon type or clone."
Jim Rome responded, correctly, that the comparison between the WWE and the UFC falls flat because the WWF is scripted and the UFC is a legitimate sport. If Vince McMahon says he's mad at a WWE wrestler, that's all part of an attempt to create drama. When White spoke said he was mad at Silva on Saturday, he was expressing real anger.
Sharp, however, said he thinks White is trying to make himself bigger than the UFC.
"In Dana White, though, you have a guy who's like Vince and figures that he's a bigger part of the show than the guys in the ring itself," Sharp said. "I don't think you can respect that as a sport."
And hell might be about to freeze over, because I'm going to quote Subo from Fightlinker in total agreement, if Dana White were to fire Anderson Silva then he's admitting the UFC is not a sport:
But Anderson Silva isn't Jon Fitch. Anderson Silva is 11-0 in the UFC and building, every day, on his record-shattering title run. If he beats Sonnen - and I don't care if he does it by majority decision because he lost a point every round 2-5 due to inactivity - he should be untouchable. If this entire enterprise is, in fact, about actual athletic competition within the scope of the Unified Rules, then Anderson Silva's job is safe. If it is not - and it's about entertainment, selling PPV's and changing the rules to kowtow to the ignorant majority of fans (I'm looking at you, K-1) - then it isn't.
The UFC walks a fine line between sport and entertainment - you cannot maintain Phil Baroni and Kimbo Slice if you're going to claim that a certain class of fighter need not apply, and in fact that is a claim that UFC doesn't make: Dana has said time and time again that fighters that leave it all in the cage and excite the crowd will have a job with his company. But if this is really about sport, then you can't cut Anderson Silva. You can't even threaten it. You can say you'll put in on free TV or you'll give him fights he doesn't want and suspend him if he refuses (can they do that?), but you cannot tell a successful champion that he must change his fighting style, provided the style is legal under the Unified Rules, no matter how much you might want to. And you know what? That's the way it should be.
In the full entry, there's a very interesting video interview of Dana White talking about how much he likes and respects Vince MacMahon. He also says that he thinks there is more cross-over between boxing fans and MMA fans than between WWE fans and UFC fans. I have to differ. HBO says there's only a 5% overlap between their boxing audience and UFC PPV buyers. And it's a fact that The Ultimate Fighter followed wrestling on Spike and brought over a huge chunk of the audience. Then there's Brock Lesnar. His fans are coming from WWE.
334 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
MMA is a sport. UFC is a business.
That is pretty obvious.
by Td9d on Apr 15, 2010 10:55 AM EDT reply actions 9 recs
You beat me to the punch
You got it exactly right.
by Pantherhare on Apr 15, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Terrell Owens got cut from the Cowboys, Eagles, and 49er’s because of his antics. The NFL is still a sport much like MMA. I think thats a good comparison for your argument.
by DayGeaux on Apr 15, 2010 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Was going to say something similar.
Not to mention the comparisons to Dana and Vince are pretty weak. When I see Dana fighting his own fighters, taking the mic in the middle of the arena to yell people down or hitting them with chairs; we can talk. Commenting on rumors doesn’t make him Vince McMahon lol, it just means he is doing his job as a promoter.
I can’t believe how butthurt everyone in the “media” has been about all this. It’s really sad.
"A champion is someone who gets up when he can't." - Jack Dempsey
by JeremyShane on Apr 15, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And we can’t believe people who put “media” in quotation marks expect us to take you “seriously” or think you’re even remotely “intelligent”.
Follow me on Twitter: @MMANation.
by Luke Thomas on Apr 15, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
that’s “cute”, but I put media in quotations because the mma media tends to be a mix of actual media types with the more quasi-media of bloggers and such. Nice try, you and a couple of your buddies are either trying to hard or are literally not intelligent enough to even have any common sense.
"A champion is someone who gets up when he can't." - Jack Dempsey
and just in case that isn’t clear enough since Kid Nate is on a banning rampage for posters acting the way some of the staff are free to act:
My issue is that this being the site I usually choose to come to, I obviously don’t find you guys unintelligent (for the most part) so I’m in somewhat of a disbelief that you can’t understand the other side, can’t see the other side, etc. Hell, at this point I can’t even believe you don’t understand why I put media in quotes since I have been doing it in like fifteen posts with you for the last couple days and several posters and staff have talked about how the mma media is a weird mix of forms right now.
Which is why I’m more likely to go with my other choice of “trying to hard” as in trying to hard to be nothing more than difficult. As in your comment to me right there didn’t really do anything but attempt (poorly) to insult me. So it makes it very hard to take you guys “seriously” when you act like this.
"A champion is someone who gets up when he can't." - Jack Dempsey
by JeremyShane on Apr 15, 2010 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And I can't believe you're attacking someone...
…who puts media in quotation marks. I mean…if that’s the best you can do to rebutt JeremyShane’s post, then I suggest you move on to another topic. geez…..
I guess you don’t remember the 90 minute special on Spike TV . Dana was supposed to fight Tito , Dana dragged it out for 90 minutes before he said Tito chickened out . out & out bullshit pure Vince
oh yea lol
was that the match where they were supposed to only box or something?? I remember that now.
Although I meant more like jumping in the ring and the weirder antics like what they have in the WWE. But you are right, that is definitely pushing the line (a lot more than the stuff this article talks about does)
"A champion is someone who gets up when he can't." - Jack Dempsey
Historical perspective re: the Vince comparison
He originally was in the background masquerading as a “mere” commentator (whose most infamous line was probably “What a maneuver!”) with Gorilla Monsoon as on-air WWF President. Vince only came into the spotlight when the Montreal Screwjob incident hit, which let just about everyone know what was up — hence the “Mr. McMahon” character, who’s appeared on and off over the years after the “Attitude Era” (aka Monday Night Wars), sometimes going “face,” but hopefully after the… uhh… beating?… that Bret Hart put on him at Wrestlemania, the character was intended to be retired for good.
ah
mostly I just think of McMahon as more of a showman than a promoter though. I remember all the McMahon’s always appearing in the ring, yelling; doing whatever weird antics and being very much part of the show.
Dana rarely comes across as part of the show to me, even on TUF; he seems more the background boss guy.
"A champion is someone who gets up when he can't." - Jack Dempsey
by JeremyShane on Apr 15, 2010 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Define "sport"
How does cutting Silva violate that definition? It’s different if they ruled Silva the loser in a match he clearly won but clowned around for 4 out of 5 rounds. Then you have an argument. But cutting him would be a business decision. And the UFC is, above everything else, a business.
MMA is a sport, winning is all that matters. If the UFC is promoting the sport of MMA then you can’t cut AS. If not, then the UFC’s primary concern is not having the best fighters in the world and therefore not to promote the sport.
At this point in time every major sport is a business first. All major decisions are based on money first. Extra rounds to the NCAA tournament. Business not sport. NFL wanting to add another regular season game. Business. MLB now talking about letting more teams in the play-offs. Business.
If Anderson Silva is making the business look bad and causing people to feel cheated about buying PPVs then it weakens their whole product. Cutting him would be a business decision but don’t act like that is any different than how decisions are made in any other major sport.
Just BE.
You might be right that the UFC is a business just like any Sports League. But the NFL or any other league CANNOT kick a Team out of the league or say the Super Bowl because of their style of play (i.e. Defensive Team like say the Ravens) because They rather have the Colts in the Super Bowl because they are so much more entertaining due to being a Pass Heavy Offense.
THAT illegitamizes the LEAGUE. THE reason they call it a SPORT is because its a competition and not because its entertainment.
But keeping Anderson if he is causing loss of revenue and weakening their overall product takes money out of everyone’s pockets. That includes every other fighter on the roster. The sport gets damaged as whole and loses so much more by bowing down to the whims of one individual who is putting the sport in a bad light.
Just BE.
Dude
That SAME thing happens when “boring” or small market teams make it to the playoffs in any sport. Ratings go down, it hurts the pocket books of the owners etc. That’s how legitimate sports organizations work, you get the good times and the bad times.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Not even close to the same thing. Those are just bad teams. Not world champs acting like jack-offs damaging the product with willful intentions.
Just BE.
“Bad teams” don’t make it to the playoffs and win Superbowls, which teams in my example do. They win by any means necessary and sometimes those means ARE NOT fan friendly.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
That's an incorrect analogy
No one is getting on Silva for being boring. GSP is more like the small market, defensive-minded San Antonio Spurs — they win, but a lot of people rather them not. They’re still in the organization because they conduct themselves properly..
If an NBA team won, but consistently conducted themselves like jackasses on the court, you can bet your ass that David Stern would find a way to get a change of ownership. It’s a little different in a league where the owners have a say in decisions, but since the UFC is a dictatorship, Dana can cut Silva if Silva doesn’t shape up.
Also you can bet if Chad OchoCinco or someone like that is out there running circles for routes instead of playing the right way they would kick his ass off the team. No questions asked. Those team sports most definitely would hold individuals accountable and cut them the exact same way the UFC would if he continues to hurt their product.
Just BE.
Using a player instead of a team breaks the already strained analogy.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Basically in any sport whether it be team sports or individual if any one individual is damaging the reputation and value of the sport that player is going to get cut. Anderson Silva would deserve the same if he clowns around and runs around in circles again because it most certainly will be intentional.
Just BE.
In MMA an individual correlates to a team in a team sport. A team won’t get cut in a sport.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
No it doesn’t. Any one individual would still be held accountable for their own actions on that team.
Just BE.
Which is why it doesn’t work when boiled down to an individual. A fighter in the UFC is consistent with a franchise in a league because he is an independent contractor and a business to himself. It’s not that hard to grasp.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes it does work when boiled down to an individual. Any individual will still be held accountable to whomever is paying them. If that individual is willfully not performing as expected of them they will suffer the consequences.
Just BE.
"A fighter in the UFC is consistent with a franchise in a league because he is an independent contractor and a business to himself."
The UFC is not the sum and total of MMA
Just like the NFL, EPL, NBA, etc. are not the sum and total of their respective sports.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Obviously you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
You keep trying to make your argument based on the assumption that it’s a valid analogy. It is not .
Individuals aren’t equal to franchises. Individual sports are a completely different scenario. The closest thing you can compare would be golf, or tennis. Very loosely you can consider NASCAR. In all of those cases.
Using those as analogies closer to valid, and in each of those cases a golfer, a tennis player or NASCAR driver could and would be cut for behavioral issues regardless of their performance. Would most people agree? I think a reasonable person would.
Team sport analogy doesn’t work. Individual athlete analogy says that it’s feasible to cut/suspend a high performing athlete for embarrassing behavior.
by Doc Martin 28 on Apr 17, 2010 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions
If Chad Ochocinco ran a circle for a route after scoring 3 TDs in a blowout at the Super Bowl, you think they’d cut him then? That is a better example than what you’re offering.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes. If the game was still close they would sit his ass down and not put him back in the game. If he did it again in the next game they would cut his ass. People are held accountable for their actions in sports and they get cut when they don’t perform as expected.
Just BE.
They would not cut him. Please. The Cowboys didn’t cut Leon Lett after his infamous Super Bowl screwup…or the Thanksgiving day one…or even a few arrests.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Totally different set of circumstances. Leon Lett’s Super Bowl screw-up wasn’t on purpose. It was a bad play. An individual going out there and purposely screwing off is going to get them cut. There is no arguing about that.
Just BE.
He was showboating while running back a fumble.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh yea I was thinking about the one where the dude try to dive on the ball near the end zone. Different play.
But still this isn’t a first time offense and then cut. Anderson has been explained the situation and he knows what is expected of him. If he does it again it will be intentional and he will deserve to be cut. The same thing would happen in any other sport after a player got warned for not performing as expected.
Cutting a guy for not performing as expected happens all the time in sports. I don’t get why people are trying to hold the UFC to some kind of different standard in this situation.
Just BE.
And Lett had plenty of screwups on and off the field. They kept him anyways.
TO keeps getting contracts. Vince Carter keeps getting contracts. Milton Bradley keeps getting contracts. C’mon.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions
And it’s fine that they kept Lett. That was their choice at that time. But that has no direct effect on this. In every separate case of player misbehavior there is different ramifications for different players. That is acceptable.
With this particular case Anderson has been explained the situation. If he behaves the same way again he has been warned an should expect the consequences that come along with that.
Just BE.
Other sports do change the rules to make their sport more exciting for the fans. I know there is a lot of negatives to the yellow card rule of Pride and Dream but the UFC can find other incentives to keep fighters from sandbagging or goofing around in a fight.
Just like the NFL fines excessive celebration after touchdowns. The UFC could probably enact a structure to fine fighters that show poor sportsmanship during a fight. I know that opens the flood gates for far lesser offenders. It is fighting after all and fighting is closely tied to a persons emotions.
There is a difference between what Anderson was doing and other so called boring fighters do to win a fight. Yes Anderson got ahead on the score cards and coasted for the remainder of the match doing just enough to win the rounds but there is a line between playing to the rules and breaking the spirit of the competition.
I seriously don’t understand why this is news. Do any of the fans actually care? It seems like the media is just being pissy.
I think the UFC is an amazingly open company, and did anyone actually believe them when they said the Tito/Chuck fight was still on? No, of course not. Dana couldn’t even keep a straight face while saying it during interviews. Just get over it.
As far as cutting Anderson Silva if he continues to screw around, I support it. I think it should honestly be up to the fans though, if they want Silva to stay around. Ultimately the UFC is there for the public.
by HeroCasey on Apr 15, 2010 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 18 recs
In what sense is the UFC an “open company.”
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 15, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
In absolutely no sense at all, but Dana has propagated the myth that they’re open and honest and for some reason people still believe it, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
Oh really FRANKIE? REALLY?
Please enlighten us to this “Clear Evidence to the contrary” that ONLY YOU seem to have….
(i have a feeling I will never get an answer……which wouldn’t shocking…)
The UFC is a public good?
Now THAT’S news.
Follow me on Twitter: @MMANation.
by Luke Thomas on Apr 15, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Really?
UFC is so open and honest and available to paying customers that we never get official PPV numbers and it’s not a publicly traded company.
Seriously, the UFC is NOT an open or transparent company. At all. Have you done any business with them to make you think they are?
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I wasn’t implying that it is a public company. Obviously they keep their PPV numbers to themselves.
What I meant was that the UFC through Dana is very open to the public as far as connecting on a personal level. When do we see Scott Coker doing blogs, or saying anything that isn’t your clear-cut, sugar-coated corporate junk?
You are confusing terms, sir.
The UFC feels approachable and is emotionally accessible, which is not the same as being open to the public. They are an incredibly private, behind-closed-doors business.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Apr 15, 2010 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
You’re right, but I should have been more specific. When I said public, I should have implied I didn’t mean an actual “public company”. I’m sorry.
They put up a good face to the average fight fan, true. However, they’re as shady as any other private organization when it comes to matters of importance.
Keep in mind that this is the company that put Frankie in front of the still undefeated man that beat him 30-27 on all three cards when it came time to choose a title contender. Interesting matchmaking is obviously a priority for a company such as the UFC, but I still believe that it hurts their ability to call themselves a genuine sports company when they match as they see fit.
do you understand the reason a company goes public? it’s to raise money, not to put pieces of itself in the hands of more people. If the UFC ever needed a big chunk of change that they couldn’t raise on their own, then you might see a UFC IPO, but it’s not advantageous to a company that can support itself and wants to make its own decisions rather than leave them in the hands of a bunch of shareholders. To use that as a reason to support the NOT open company position is kinda weak. IT doesn’t apply because no company goes public for the reason of becoming more transparent or open with it’s consumers
Maybe it matters to media more than the fans because we, as media, need to have the ability to have open and honest conversation with major players in the sport to be able to cover it correctly.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 15, 2010 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wait….there’s members of the media here?
I keed, I keed.
by BradCr on Apr 15, 2010 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
well played, sir
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 15, 2010 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t even read the article because I am sick of the bitching. Get over it. This site is like MMA TMZ now.
by Dropkick434 on Apr 15, 2010 10:58 AM EDT reply actions 9 recs
then you'll thank me for banning you.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Apr 15, 2010 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 7 recs
Why would you go post in the author's blog that I didn't read the article?
The Seahawks have traded my signature to the Detroit Lions for a 6th round draft pick.
by SSreporters on Apr 15, 2010 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions
he just called every writer here a gossip columnist. that damn sure wouldn't be cool with me. I am pretty sure if he just said " i dont like these articles " nate wouldnt have dropped the ban hammer.
True or false?
"When i get in there, in his face ,pressin the action,I'm RUFF NECKIN'EM,I'm throwin him around,I'm punchin him,hes punchin me, I'm eatin his shots and I'm Blastin him back in the face he's not goin to be able to handle it ." - Chris Leben on how his fight with Anderson Silva is gonna go.
by Rayce. on Apr 15, 2010 11:33 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
No he didn't
He stated his view of the current content on a constantly changing site. Maybe he’s more of a Judo Chop fan?
the comparison to TMZ was off base and intended to insult
This post is nothing like TMZ. they do gossip. Whether you agree or not, this is an attempt to analyze the UFC’s business model and how it impacts their PR practices.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
i for one think its news
And its left a sour taste in my mouth about this season, after last night and expecting to find out about Tito, and not, I don’t care to watch and be a ufc puppet and support this crap
all you gotta do is...
by imapimp08 on Apr 15, 2010 12:46 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The sad part is
that some people here can’t even comprehend that this is real journalism. This is an excellent piece!
Those that call this “gossip” or “bitching” will happily lap up a glossy UFC press release with absolutely no qualms, questioning or objective thinking.
Great work imo.
Wow...
Banned for that? The post just said they were tired of the current content and found it venturing into the world of whining, made up issues, and gossip. One could argue that this article was “off base and inteded to insult” the UFC, Dana White, and to a certain extent the people who support them both.
Don’t get me wrong, as I posted at the bottom, I may not agree but this article got me to think about my beliefs and for that reason alone I think it was good. But I would think a site would be interested in what the readers thought of the current direction. A ban seems way too harsh in this case and almost looks like an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees.
nope
We reserve the right to ban people who piss us off. It’s a way to keep the community pruned and keep people on their best behavior.
Commenting on BE is like being in my house, you’re our guest and we’re glad to have you but if you cross our lines, you’re gone.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
You’ve been in the DC area too long. I find myself becoming more and more agitated the longer I live here. That said, I found the piece interesting.
The real question, I think, is whether or not the UFC truly does have an interest in being viewed as a legitimate sporting league such as the NFL or NBA. They can wax poetic about being the most open and fan friendly sports company in the US, but as a combat sports promotion, following a model similar to that of the major North American sports leagues would severely hurt their profitability (in my own opinion of course). It would require a transparent ranking system and objective path to a UFC title shot, which would take away much of their ability to create compelling match-ups for their fans. I’m in favor of a more objective form of matchmaking (such as requiring that Maynard, do to his dominating win over Edgar, be given a shot first), but I digress.
Ultimately, I think that the UFC is perfectly content with their two hat approach (sports league and sports entertainment business) and merely pay lip service to their critics in order to protect the former.
by Rudinho479 on Apr 15, 2010 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
TMZ does more than gossip.
They make fun of celebrities for…
Riding bikes in public, feeding their kids, walking around with Starbucks in their hand in the morning, and arriving at the airport.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Apr 15, 2010 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
They shopped Dana so much he looks like a constipated Andre Agassi who robbed Vin Diesels closet.
by jcbrewer on Apr 15, 2010 11:04 AM EDT reply actions 4 recs
banned
reasoned criticism is welcome.
disagreement is encouraged.
insults and brick bats are not.
bye.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Apr 15, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Are You Serious?
Did you really ban him for that? As a Journalist I would think you would respect the idea of FREEDOM OF SPEECH
by jmahan3 on Apr 15, 2010 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 8 recs
this is a private online forum
there is no such thing as freedom of speech here. Site members are our guests and can be banned at any time for any reason.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I worried about what’s a bannable offense? There’s a fine line between poking fun and bashing\insulting. In other words, I like Chuck Liddel. Would I get banned for making a comment about his beer belly? I could see getting banned for making refference to alleged drug use.
we have four basic rules
The laws of BloodyElbow:
Note: Long time community members have a little more latitude. N00bs should be treated mercilessly.
1) No name calling, no ethic or sexual slurs — procedure, hide comments, issues one warning then ban. This especially applies to discussions of fighters — ie its “fighter bashing”
2) no threats — procedure immediate ban, hide comments
3) discussing politics, religion — procedure warn, hide comments. If it is directly relevant to the post at hand, let people have their say in one comment but hide their comments if they continue.
4) Insulting the staff of BloodyElbow. We work too hard on the site to put up with bullshit. Procedure, hide comment/issue warning. These escalate into bans pretty quickly. Its generally better to let someone else handle it if you are the staffer in question. This one also includes, “don’t piss off the staff.”
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Nate, just for future reference, so I don't accidently use one and get banned
What is an “ethic slur”?
I think it's time for some introspection....
The very thing that the article proceeds to bash is what is going on right here.
- Dana White is the partial owner of a private company.
- Kid Nate and co. are editors/writers/etc. who moderate a private online forum
- Anderson Silva was acting in a way that does not please the owner of the private company nor many of those who purchase the product
- The now-banned posters have acted in a way that did not please the moderators of the private online forum who want to keep it troll-free.
-Anderson Silva has been warned not to continue the behavior he has displayed in two (possibly three, depending) consecutive middleweight fights, or he will be cut by the owner
-Posters are sometimes told beforehand (if not directly, through the forum rules that Kid Nate posted) that they need to watch their behavior or they will be banned.
I see so many similarities that it makes me smile. Sometimes we are exactly what we profess to dislike.
by Paul Stan on Apr 15, 2010 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
The fact that you got recs for this
is a damning referendum on the education system.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Apr 15, 2010 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
thank you, pdl
for saving me so much time by doing my commenting for me.
Do u guys not understand the majority of readers of your site r turned off by yalls
never ending crying about this situation. Yes dana white lied, u knew he was lying from thebeginning as did i, but listen to the feedback yall have been getting. And banning people for wanting u to move on to a subject people actually give a shit about is not the answer. Please guys we all understand ur mad at dana, but please move on
by 19Miles on Apr 15, 2010 11:10 AM EDT reply actions 9 recs
the traffic speaks for itself
Dana White’s not the only carny in this world.
; )
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
The fact that ur banning
half the people commenting speaks for itself also
by 19Miles on Apr 15, 2010 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If only I had world enough and time
to ban 1/2 the commenters.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Apr 15, 2010 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I don’t want to get banned because I enjoy commenting with some people on here, but really you want to ban people that provide traffic to your site? I just don’t understand that. Its obvious that a majority of people just disagree with the trend of articles that have been posted within the last month and a half, and are letting you guys know. you’re completely within your right to post them, but it just seems like a lot is being made from nothing- as the killers would put it, an ocean from a sink
by Austin Martin on Apr 15, 2010 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
we have to prune the community
regularly or it will become a morass of Sherdog style name-calling. That’s the facts.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Apr 15, 2010 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You won’t get banned for a comment like this. You’re $.
Follow me on Twitter: @MMANation.
by Luke Thomas on Apr 15, 2010 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the point is
Disagree if you want, but make a point and be at least moderately respectful.
by Worldisart on Apr 15, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Big fan of the site
i just dont understand why u guys keep beating a dead horse. U say dana is alienating the media, can u not tell ur alienating ur audience with all the childish banter and arguments
I’m very intrested in the topic. It’s very relevent to mma fans who would like the sport to become more of a “mainstream” sport.
by KING FEDOR on Apr 15, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I dont mind luke or nate having their opinions
even though i disagree, main thing thats bothered me is how they responded in the comments to certain posters. Seems they lost their compusure when responding to certain people, and now it seems as if there writing these articles more to get a rise out of people with nate saying “the traffic speaks for itself Dana White’s not the only carny in this world.; )” which is obviously working but still
The thing is
they’re more than just opinions. Did you see all the links and other sources? Its not a straight editorial, its balanced with a number of other people’s view in the world of professional sports.
I view this as the main problem here, the people complaining about beating a dead horse act as if its just constant editorial diatribes. Each article about this situation has something new from other sources.
by bleve_ on Apr 15, 2010 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
If u actually look at all those links and sources
they are just more opinions from other mma media who r also mad that dana lied to them.
Steve Cofield
has a lot to lose by pissing off DW. Don’t you think it would be a lot easier for him to not even touch this.
People in the media can see it as a principle and as a precedent. The only ones I see spouting off with emotional rants are the ones that are mad that DW is being called out… UFC fans/pr bots.
I’m very interested in this topic. I think much less of Dana now that it’s blatantly obvious that he’ll straight up LIE to the people who are making his company so successful, the fans.
by emeraldringer on Apr 15, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
knew this was a Nate article without looking
never misses a chance to bash some Dana White/UFC
by DDubleEm on Apr 15, 2010 11:10 AM EDT reply actions 7 recs
Kid Nate never misses an opportunity to bash anyone for that matter.
by MMAGuard on Apr 15, 2010 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
MMA sites overcompensate for the apparent 'lack' of drama by posting shit like this.
Who gives a flying fuck? It’s a sport! You dumbasses are turning the sport I love into a goddamn soap opera! Get the fuck over and move on, fuckers!
by hellig on Apr 15, 2010 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Thanks!
Follow me on Twitter: @MMANation.
by Luke Thomas on Apr 15, 2010 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for what?
For helping you achieve your goal of trolling your own site?
YES!!!!!!
Follow me on Twitter: @MMANation.
by Luke Thomas on Apr 15, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
This is awesome
We're just a million little gods causin' rain storms, turning every good thing to rust.
by Anthony Pace on Apr 15, 2010 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Dana?
The Seahawks have traded my signature to the Detroit Lions for a 6th round draft pick.
by SSreporters on Apr 15, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Have you seen a soap opera before?
Dana is no Dr. Drake Ramoray.
THREE MUSKATEERS BAR P4P BEST HALLOWEEN CANDY
by BloodbathAndBeyond on Apr 15, 2010 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
i really still don’t understand the gripe and i think this is being blown way out of proportion. using other blogs opinions that mirror your own to substantiate your own point doesnt make it any more valid.
you continually acknowledge that the ufc is sport and entertainment- anderson silva is like the spurs- the NBA knew they were amazing for a period but they’re style of play didnt translate into viewing for the championships, no matter how good, except that Stern couldnt very well say that if they earned their way there they couldnt play while being boring. Dana understands that his viewers depend on performances, not just names or significance to rankings. he also understands that fighters’ statuses are transitory, so he chooses to be a face that fans can relate to. Is this so hard to understand, and wouldnt you do the same thing given your own company? He’s obviously never going to drop Silva, because that would set up silva vs. fedor for another promotion. its promoter speak and it seems like everyone else takes it as it is. i have no problem with it, because i dont think this is an inherent moral issue or anything- i just enjoy watching fights. a fight is going to happen, and noone has been harmed, so why is this an issue? i think the new fight is better anyways
by Austin Martin on Apr 15, 2010 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 5 recs
I didn't say it was a bad thing
just saying Dana and Vince have that in common.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Here’s what I’m getting from all of this. The UFC wants to be treated like a legitimate, mainstream sport. Therefore, the media wants to hold Dana White to the higher standards that a mainstream sport commands from those that run them. In your example, yes the Spurs were boring as hell, but its not like David Stern could threaten to kick them out of the league. And that’s what the second half of the article was getting at, and the part that I agree with. I said in an earlier article that as long as Dana doesn’t undermine the credibility of the sport I have no issues. But cutting Silva for not winning in a fashion that he finds pleasing does undermine the credibility of the sport.
As a fan I still don’t have any issue with the TUF lie, and it seems to be more of a gripe between the MMA media and Dana. And although I don’t have a problem with it, I do understand why the media is taking issue with it.
how does it undermine credibility? you have a champion who chose to act like a jackass and then coast the last two rounds of a championship fight. If he wasnt the champion he would be in danger of losing his job, so he should be held to a higher standard than other fighters, and Dana should treat him the same, despite ranking.
its the same as allen iverson and his “practice?!” schtick- he’s correct that practice doesnt matter, but does it set a good example to his teammates that he feels he’s above everyone else? same issue here, no good example is being set, silva comes of as a dick, and Dana’s sentiments epitomized the majority of ours. case, set, point
by Austin Martin on Apr 15, 2010 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh trust me, I hated Silva’s performance as much as the next guy. But at the same time, if he is fighting within the context of the rules and continues to win, I don’t see how cutting him doesn’t undermine the credibility of the sport. By cutting him Dana is sending a message to all other fighters that if you don’t win the way I want, then you’ll be cut, and that is an indirect way of influencing fights.
I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think anybody has ever been cut while on a winning streak or after a win because of anything that happened in the ring. And I think that’s part of maintaining the credibility of the sport. The only thing I take issue with is the threat of cutting him.
I don’t know where the line in the Sonnen story that said Silva would be cut if he wasn’t exciting in the next fight came from. Is that actually some thing that Dana said? If it was then I think it should be investigated by the athletic commissions.
Every one howled when the MFC said they would cut any one that pulled guard. I contend that should have been sent to the AC’s as well. One of the the reasons there are AC’s is to prevent manipulation of fights to defraud betters. If you start telling a fighter how to fight out side of the rules you are manipulating the odds of that fighter winning. Same as a fat bonus in the locker room to keep the fight standing when it means you will likely get knocked out. Just the threat with out action is enough.
If you don’t like how the fighters fight then change the rules. Put more teeth in the section about fighters are supposed to fight or bring in the yellow card. If the AC’s won’t sign off then we need to find out why. But that would be the open way to do things.
There is a risk that some where down the road one of the promotions starts referring to them selves as the home of the sport of MMA as opposed to the show buisness of MMA. If that happens it will be interesting to see how the audiences split.
Here is Dana’s quote from Jim Rome’s show:
If he ever acts like that again in the ring, I will cut him," said the UFC president. "I don’t care if he’s the best pound-for-pound fighter in the world. I don’t care if he is the middleweight champion. I will cut him, absolutely
He doesn’t specifically say exciting, so in that sense I guess he’s left himself an out, but he clearly states that he would cut him if he was still the camp
The UFC can be compared to the WWE all it wants, but the UFC is unscripted and real.
Regardless of how much Dana can be/wants to be like Vince McMahon, he is still pedaling an entirely different product.
Even if Vince McMahon did run the UFC, it is the product that is important, it is part entertainment and part sport, but the WWE is 100% entertainment and scripted.
The comparisons in my opinion are void of any context given that they are completely different venues, however there should be no penalty to fighters who fight their way, under the rules.
They aren’t different contexts at all. They are different products, but they are presented in a very similar manner. The truth is, the UFC has actually taken big steps away from sport and towards spectacle in the Zuffa era.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 15, 2010 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Do you really believe that?
I just don’t see how the UFC took big steps away from sport and towards a spectacle under Zuffa. The early UFC’s were only spectacle. They didn’t recruit the top fighters, made up the background of fighters to make them sound better, made up styles, booked freakshow type fighters, etc. You don’t see any of that under Zuffa.
Just so I’m clear, I’m saying that Zuffa has taken big steps towards spectacle in the last five years. I’m comparing Zuffa to the Zuffa that operated from 2001-2004 and regularly posted top 10 rankings that included outside fighters, attempted to co-promote, and pushed fighters more on talent than marketability.
It should be noted that sport Zuffa lost $30 million.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 16, 2010 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
I disagree with the notion that firing Anderson Silva means it's not a sport
If Anderson Silva is refusing to do the sport of fighting 4 out of the last 5 times, but instead do a happy dance in the octagon instead of engaging, then it’s justifiable. Now if he goes in and wins an easy 5 round decision but at least is engaging and fighting the entire way then he’s safe.
Kid Nate, look what you’ve done. The sheer MENTION of subo has gotten 2 people banned. ;-)
The Seahawks have traded my signature to the Detroit Lions for a 6th round draft pick.
by SSreporters on Apr 15, 2010 11:15 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
If
a happy dance in the octagon
Wins him the MMA contest, then it is in NO way justifiable to fire him.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
If the people paying their seats don’t want to see him fight, they got to cut him. But apparently they still do.
I'm a lover not a fighter
They don’t “got to cut him”, it’s a sports franchise they have to keep him if they want to remain a legitimate sporting enterprise. He wins within the rules, that is ALL he has to do.
They don’t just kick “boring” teams out of other sports franchises.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
True
Which, incidentally, makes me bat-shit crazy with rage. Anyway… if the rules change and he is no longer able to win MMA contests in such a fashion, then they would have a legitimate reason to terminate him.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
There is a good argument for why he should be suspended as per NFL rules. Also, I am a diehard Bengals fan so if they kick him out of the league for any reason I’d probably be thrilled.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
So kicking out a dominant champion who wins within the rules then is the same as changing the rules to allow for an increase in competition? Is that your argument?
One changes the sport. The other completely disregards the value of the competition.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I love BE!!
It’s the Drudge Report of MMA!!! I come here for all of the links to other websites!!! Keep up the great work mods!
by JONBONESJONES79 on Apr 15, 2010 11:18 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I love it too
but loath the comparison to the Drudge Report… that site is 1992 formatting, GOP filth.
Yes Sir!
But regardless of what your politics are, the site generates tons of hits every day! I usually go there to get a good laugh
by JONBONESJONES79 on Apr 15, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Sigh
I had such high hopes for the huffington post, they seem to have turned into the trustfund liberal national enquirer… unfortunately i go there daily still.
HuffPo circa 2007 was fantastic
excellent, excellent bloggers
now I just go there for the Bob Cesca posts and to see if Lindsey Lohan has died yet
We're just a million little gods causin' rain storms, turning every good thing to rust.
by Anthony Pace on Apr 15, 2010 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions
You have some good points here, but can we all officially drop the “UFC should give up control of their production” storyline.
They are the best people at producing MMA shows. (definitely in the US, worldwide is debatable). Having a worse product for some sense of “independence” is bad business.
And that fact doesn’t make it any less of a sport. The NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA all have their own networks right now, and if they could make more money cutting out the other networks, they would be doing it. To harp on the UFC because they are in a position to do a better job AND make more money by doing it themselves is just silly.
by Phildo on Apr 15, 2010 11:19 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I didn't say controlling the production was a bad thing
I just said it’s a commonality with the WWE.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
And the NFL, and a large majority of Knicks, Rangers, Red Sox, Yankees, and Mets games, and lots of other teams/sports in the world.
it’s a cheap comparison that can move people’s interpretation of the article from criticism towards whining about zuffa.
by Phildo on Apr 15, 2010 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The NFL does NOT
control the production of their broadcasts.
ESPN, CBS, Fox, NBC, ABC have all provided their own camera crews, announcers, analysts and commentators.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
They do on NFL network
Follow me on Twitter: @MMANation.
by Luke Thomas on Apr 15, 2010 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And on the Red Zone channel, where they basically sit around a desk with people hired by the NFL and switch to the games they want you to see.
And that’s part of my point, the NFL would leave those networks and put everything on the NFL network if it was more profitable, so saying that Zuffa doing it makes it less of a sport is just false.
by Phildo on Apr 15, 2010 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
It’s very different though. I found that the most pointed and interesting criticism of the NFL and the athletes and coaches came from the NFL network. That’s neither here nor there, just an observation. Clearly, the message control is much stricter in the Zuffa Empire.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 15, 2010 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions
In reality, how bad is it though? (especially when the alternatives are bangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbang or "the most incredible victory in the history of mixed martial arts)
Did they hide the fact that dana spoke to Soares and left during the main event? Did they hide the fact that they didn’t agree with the Machida/Shogun decision? Does Rogan never ask hard questions after fights?
You include a few examples
but if you think the entire world of MMA doesn’t involve a whole lot of walking on eggshells because of the emotions and whims of the UFC, then you’re sorely mistaken.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
Because there’s no interest in pushing the actual value of the competition. None of the fights mean anything unless they are “fun”, which generally means guys throwing wide punches at each other until someone falls down.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
standandbangbrostandandbangbrostandandbangbrostandandbangbrostandandbangbrostandandbangbrostandandbangbro
BOOSH
BANG!
Lampley needs to do some Duane Ludwig fights.
The Seahawks have traded my signature to the Detroit Lions for a 6th round draft pick.
by SSreporters on Apr 15, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Of course the MMA media spends much of their time concerned about how to avoid the wrath of the UFC machine. Some of the newsstand magazines get their articles vetted by the UFC before hitting the streets.
The UFC operates more like wrestling than a sport for a reason. I don’t begrudge them that. It is good for their bottomline. Pointing it out isn’t the same thing as being “mad” about it.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 15, 2010 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Right.
And that’s what makes Dana’s willingness to lie so troublesome. I brought it up a few times in the last story on this, so I’ll just drop the quotes again here. And thanks to everyone who rec’d it last time, I’m always baffled that people think anything I create is worth reading.
Between revocation of Sherdog’s credentials and now the fear of outright lies, the MMA media is being systematically neutered. Anybody who claims this is a non-issue was wool firmly pulled over their eyes.
He’s essentially given the media no choice but to repeat him or starve. And now he’s made it clear that the MMA media will have to grow like mushrooms; being kept in the dark and fed shit.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
Its easy to pick and choose bad calls from other sports as examples of what the UFC is doing right, particularly if you don’t actually match it versus what the UFC actually does.
What hard questions does Rogan ever ask to begin with? Why is the best color commentator/analyst they can supposedly find a second rate comedian? Don’t you think that looks ridiculous to have the guy from Fear Factor up there telling you some guy about everyone’s WORLD CLASS skills or how every black fighter’s strength is EXPLOSIVE ATHLETICISM?
When have you ever seen their crews bag on a fight because the guys in it look amateurish or engage in a technically terrible bout? They might do it if there is prolongued lousy, but never otherwise.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
...
“Why is the best color commentator/analyst they can supposedly find a second rate comedian?”
Because that person happens to be a BJJ brown belt and holds a black belt in Tae Kwon Do? He also won the US Open Weight Championship in Tae Kwon Do in 1990.
Guess he’s not that qualified.
The Seahawks have traded my signature to the Detroit Lions for a 6th round draft pick.
by SSreporters on Apr 15, 2010 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, TKD. A sport that has vetted itself well in MMA. I’m such a fool, there’s nobody better equipped for the task.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice, you've missed the point.
Rogan is more than qualified to talk about MMA as a boxing enthusiast and an actual practitioner of multiple forms of martial arts.
Compare that to someone like Quadros….
The Seahawks have traded my signature to the Detroit Lions for a 6th round draft pick.
by SSreporters on Apr 15, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Quadros isn’t a enthusiast of boxing or a practitioner of martial arts? He’s a fight choreographer for movies, smart guy.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t even know why I’m defending Quadros. He’s not any better either.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
But those are the “better examples”
There is zero evidence that going to a network would make more money or make a better product, so it’s idiotic to expect anyone to do it.
If anything
I think there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary given that CBS’s MMA production values have been severely lacking and shoehorning in commentators that no little to nothing about the sport really detracts from the overall quality.
While I understand in principle why third party production is preferable, in practice it hasn’t worked out like that in MMA.
i have no idea what that first sentence means, but he’s asked anderson silva what he was doing in his last 3 title fights, he talked to machida and shogun about how he thought that decision sucked. If Zuffa was the big Brother you guys make them out to be they would have run with the machida era nonsense right after the fight.
What reason would the UFC have for doing that when the entire crowd is booing a guy who to that point wasn’t even recognized as a draw? Machida’s the same guy who they kept locked out of the title picture because he was boring a year prior.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
By “kept out of the title picture” you mean needing to wait for people that beat Shogun and Chuck to get title shots before him, right?
And getting a title shot only because the guy the UFC wanted couldn’t take the fight on short notice. Is there where we now pretend that Machida was getting the full power of the UFC’s promotional machine behind him?
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the UFC controlling production except that keeping Machida from a title shot is just as big of a myth.
Can you 100% say he deserved a title shot more than Rashad (beating Chuck in a number 1 contender match) and Rampage (former champ with wins over Jardine and Wandy).
Are you equally upset that Fedor isn’t getting a title shot?
I don’t know why you’re so focused on it being proof that they don’t have some sort of iron grip on their own production. They can mold whomever they want through TV specials as a deserving challenger, even if reason says they are not. How many sports really do that?
Your question about Fedor only more fully points back to how wrestling-like the promotion is.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t care that it’s wrestling like, my entire point is that none of this makes it “less of a sport.”
At least no more than any other mma org or other sport that does these things. It’s ridiculous that the UFC gets held to a different standard than every other mma org, every other business, and every other sport.
Other sports don’t do these things. The best you can do is tangentally apply examples from them and try to tie them to what happens here.
Other businesses often aren’t sports. No one argues that Dow Chemical isn’t acting as a legitimate competition.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
except when the BCS doesn’t let undefeated teams get a chance to win. Or the NFL realigns the divisions yet somehow keeps the cowboys and the giants in the same division, or when the NBA changes rules for seeding in the playoffs when a shitty team gets a home playoff series…
Seriously bro, I don’t post a lot so you might not remember but you and I agree ALOT… but your analogies are nonsensical. You’re comparing apples to oranges at this point.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Because I don’t even know why your responding to me. Them controlling production does not make them less of a sport. That was my point. Then you started talking about machida (which is complete nonsense) and that doesn’t make it less of a sport either.
EVERY sport in the universe makes decisions based on entertainment, that doesn’t make them less of sports. Other sports definitely try to control the production that they can.
They do, but they don’t take away championships or even threaten to because someone is “boring”. The BCS is a terrible example.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
At least the BCS justifies it with a computerized rankings system that takes into account a billion factors, all tied to success on the field. The UFC doesn’t bother with any of that to determine title challengers. C’mon, you know better than that.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
The BCS also pits forwards schedules that even if a team went underrated it would take a miracle for them to make the championship game.
The BCS is so bad in fact that the president of the United States has spoken about legislating a proper competitive model for them.
And it’s not just the BCS. Baseball’s competitive balance is so far out of whack that a few years ago when the Cardinals won the World Series, teams like the Toronto Blue Jays, who finished the regular season with more wins, didn’t even make the playoffs!
by Worldisart on Apr 15, 2010 2:27 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Bah, undefeated, not underrated.
by Worldisart on Apr 15, 2010 2:28 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
MLB has a playoff system that involves multiple divisions. How is that in any way comparable to how the UFC determines title shots? That’s ridiculous.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Because it's just as unbalanced
9 times out of ten the UFC gets it right in their matchmaking. By not adhering zealously to some kind of arbitrary ranking system we aren’t inundated with played out rematches.
The rankings paradox doesn’t work for MMA in regards to matchmaking. How do you rank Sonnen/Maia/Marquart fairly in the context of handing out title shots? Or in reference to your Machida example, how do you leapfrog him over a former champion and a guy who beat a former champion. It doesn’t work. Rankings are too inflexible for a sport that sees fighters at the highest level fight only 2 or 3 times in any given 12 month period.
by Worldisart on Apr 15, 2010 2:38 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Do we really recieve fewer rematches? Or do we just have fewer real eliminator bouts that feature the #1 vs. #2/3guys and, as a result, more totally arbitrary choice in title shots? Look at Anderson’s title defenses for your answer. And that is what they want, and obviously you are fine with that. But don’t say it resembles the strucuture of any real sport. And you certainly can’t make that argument that cutting Anderson Silva when he’s champ for not winning in entertaining enough ways resembles anything any respected sport in the entire world has done.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 15, 2010 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
And the BANHAMMER comes out in full force. Knew it wouldn’t take long.
This entire thing is a non-issue. And in fact, due to Nate’s “carny” comment, one might believe that this outrage is manufactured. What does that say for BE’s credibility?
For my part, this is the last article I read on the situation. It’s getting ridiculous.
by Applejack McNeil on Apr 15, 2010 11:19 AM EDT via mobile reply actions 12 recs
And how many articles
about the situation did you have to read to figure out you didn’t want to read any more articles about it?
lol
We're just a million little gods causin' rain storms, turning every good thing to rust.
by Anthony Pace on Apr 15, 2010 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Around two. Is there a lame joke hidden somewhere in your comment?
by Applejack McNeil on Apr 15, 2010 7:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Keep your day job under the bridge. Being a comedian just isn’t in the cards for you, friend.
by Applejack McNeil on Apr 15, 2010 7:46 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You’re right, I’m sorry. I was having a shitty day and wasn’t in the mood for interwebz shenanigans.
Again, apologies. My balls are fine, too, by the way.
by Applejack McNeil on Apr 17, 2010 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm continually amazed
At how many journalists and pseudo-journalists seem to think that they know how to run a mixed martial arts promotion better than Dana White. I mean, seriously, why are we getting opinion quotes from “a writer friend of mine” and “subo from fightlinker” on the UFC’s business practices and having it presented as if it were news-worthy? Any one of us posting in this thread could spew that garbage, and if these guys knew what they were talking about they’d be promoting hugely successful fight cards instead of whining endlessly about how terrible the UFC is.
If the UFC tailored its business plan to cater to the idiots who post stuff like this, they’d be out of business within a year. But they don’t, because they intend to remain a wildly successful multimillion dollar company. And if making it happens means Dana White acting like a cartoon character and pissing off a few anonymous bloggers, I’m pretty sure they’re okay with that.
by sadistikk on Apr 15, 2010 11:22 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I'm continually amazed
at how many people glance at web sites they have no respect for.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Unlike some of the respected MMA media people,
I am not as outraged about Dana lying about TUF, and I don’t think it’s that big a deal… (just my humble opinion, and maybe I’m just really not easily pissed off, cause I am also not angry with Anderson Silva for being ‘disrespectful’).. But this piece does bring up a pretty interesting take on things including Anderson Silva.
so to those bitching and those about to bitch without even reading it, I suggest you do, before assuming it’s just Dana bashing, or a rehashed rant about his lies…
Cause jeez, some of these people spawn venom for simply reading ‘Dana’ on the title, and ‘Nate’ on the author…
PS
Hi Subo.
by Anton Tabuena on Apr 15, 2010 11:26 AM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
I'm not angry with Dana
I’m concerned that he’s damaging his own credibility by needlessly and blatantly lying. It doesn’t matter what the topic is. Lying is a self-defeating practice. Even Goebbels and Trotsky ultimately had to answer to reality.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I agree with Nate. I don’t see any anger in this post.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 15, 2010 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions
outraged was a wrong word I guess.
I didn’t mean to say that you, or this article was angry at white, and I wasn’t talking about you specifically, but everyone in general. I was just saying that I personally don’t think it’s a big deal… my main point really was for people to read before spewing venom, cause this isn’t a rehashed ‘angry that Dana lied post’ like some people are assuming without even reading..
And I actually agree with a lot of your (and subo’s) points here. I just used the wrong word. :)
by Anton Tabuena on Apr 15, 2010 11:56 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I used to be a Dana/Zuffa supporter
But this week he’s got himself into the doghouse with me. First the Anderson threats piss me off, because theres no way that could end well for him, or the fans really, unless Anderson decides to make an example of Chael Sonnen. But the UFC 115 bullshit he pulled went too far. Needlessly lying to the media and fans for 3 weeks when it would have been easy to spin it in a way to drum up interest in TUF 11 is inexcusable. Part of my anger is because of the sense of betrayal I feel, since I’ve generally defended Dana on just about everything. But it’s gone way too far now.
Great article however. You make some very good points for once. ;-D
by CaliforniaCreamPuff on Apr 15, 2010 11:29 AM EDT reply actions 5 recs
Rec
Because this sort of mimics where I am at. Generally I agree with Danas position and tactics (if not his tact) and this last week has really soured me on ZUFFA in general.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Because I’m a hardcore fan? Are you really suggesting that people shouldn’t be involved in the sport they love unless they enjoy Danas mouth? Hopefully I am misunderstanding that…
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe the Anderson Silva fight
But you can’t really blame Dana for the fact that Silva decided to pitch a fit in the cage.
Anderson, do you want to fight Demian Maia? Sure!
But wait to I get in that cage…..you will see my displeasure!!
Mwahahahahahah!!!
Where did I state I had a problem with the product? I am soured on ZUFFA and the way they are handling the UFC product, is that what you mean?
This week two things happened. One, Dana acted like an idiot child regarding Anderson Silva. Two, he blatant lies and then his attempt to justify said lies about Chuck vs Tito/ TUF 11.
by Chris Barton on Apr 15, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions
It's really not that hard to figure out
Just like John Hollinger’s popularity went way up when he was trashing the Mavs for their low point differential even though they have the second best record in the west, this situation is good business. You’d have to be dumb to not take advantage of the ammunition that Dana is providing.
MDS is doing the same thing over at fanhouse.. Ariel has been getting all the attention and good interviews lately but now that MDS has pumped out several anti-Dana articles, people are suddenly interested in reading his stuff now.
All that being said, there’s really no such thing as bad press right now for the UFC. Carry on.
How is this not being rec'd to high heaven?
We're just a million little gods causin' rain storms, turning every good thing to rust.
by Anthony Pace on Apr 15, 2010 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Nice article
I think the Vince/Dana comparison is getting a little too close for comfort.
OMG DANAZ RUINING OUR SPORT I FEELZ BETRAYED
This is getting blown way out of proportion. Please more fight reporting less drama.
I honestly don't think this many articles were written about Tiger Woods lol
Dana tells a little lie that nobody cares about and suddenly he is teh devilzzz!!! What would happen if he actually did something worth complaining about?
This is killin me
Articles like this remind of those shows on discovery channel telling me how im going to die because some mega volcano in chile is going to cause global destruction. Its not the end of the world here. We got lied to, o well. We got a better and probably more competitive fight out of the deal, and the UFC didnt shoot themselves in the foot by blowing their whole reality show to shit.
Consider yourself warned, im offensive and creative like handicap porn
by II SMASH II on Apr 15, 2010 11:47 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I'm with you.
Dana was wrong. On that most rational people will agree, BUT, was it that big of a deal?
You want to call Dana out on something harmful and damaging, this isn’t it.
The thing about natural disasters
they happen.
THREE MUSKATEERS BAR P4P BEST HALLOWEEN CANDY
by BloodbathAndBeyond on Apr 15, 2010 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
agree if he wants to be accepted by mainstream
he needs to stop with the constant lying and cursing at fans and media through social websites,it won’t be tolerated by mainstream.imagine david stern doing that
Get over it.
Media sites need to move on and get over it. The first post saidbit well. UFC is a business. It’s like a car company who hides the fact their vehicle is defective (Toyota). Difference is that the UFC is not putting lives in danger. Maybe Chucks by letting him fight, but chuck made that decision. Move on. All the media outlash will change nothing that the UFC does. And the Media will still put up UFC stories and look for new and exclusive news.
by Gattsuberserk on Apr 15, 2010 12:04 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I gotta say, commisioners of Sports lie all the time. Gary Betman (NHL Commish) is regularly accused of lying to the media (especially in reagards to the proftibaility of certain franchises). I’m not saying it’s right or worng, but the heads of what are considered legitimate Sports leagues have been known to maipulate facts. Also, as far as Dana White cutting Silva, thats kind of similiar to a sport changing its rules. Usually when a sport changes its rules, its b/c a team has figured out a way to win in boring fasion (see Devils, New Jersey). The League changes the rules to make things more exciting (and occasionlly safer). I know I’m kind of reaching w/ that one, but no one really thinks he’d cut Silva, but he will try and figure out a way to get rid of him playing “the Trap” (hockey fans will no what I’m talking about). Now part of the reason people accept Dana’s behavior is b/c he’s portrayed as a straight shooter, emotional, yadda yadda. So if he lies or bends facts, it does hurt the goodwill he has created w/ fans. Anyway, they should have just said “no comment” the entire time and it would have saved us all a lot teeth knashing (and apparently banning).
Here's how I rate lies (because some lies are necessary....like when your wife asks you "does this dress make me look fat?")
Dana telling us UFC 105 would be headlined by Penn/Sanchez for free. Then it’s moved to a “third November show” to be aired on network TV. In the end the network TV deal was a bunch of crap and it got moved to UFC 107 on PPV. That’s a lie I have a big problem with. Seeing the UFC go to one of the free-to-air channels would’ve been monumental and it never came through and it should’ve gotten a lot more attention from the media than it actually did.
“We’re going to counter Strikeforce with a Fight Night….meh never mind I’m just messing with Strikeforce.” I can look at this lie in two ways:
1.) He didn’t get a decent enough card put together in less than a month to counter-program this show. This is something I think is more likely than…
2.) Wanting to mess with Strikeforce’s head.
In this case I think it’s a scare tactic to Strikeforce and it’s wise business to mess with the competitors.
“Chuck/Tito is DEFINITELY the main event.” when it isn’t is a bad lie, and should’ve been handled better. But this story is WAY overblown and out of the three significant “lies” I’ve seen in the past few months this is the most tame one. The network TV deal is the one I have the biggest problem with.
So in this case I don’t see an argument of Dana being like McMahon to be strong, but the types of lies he makes should be measured more properly.
The Seahawks have traded my signature to the Detroit Lions for a 6th round draft pick.
the difference is
with the TV deal “lie” I believed that Dana was sincerely making an effort to land a network deal, it just fell through. Similar to MMALogic’s guarantees that Fedor would sign with the UFC. I believe that is what he was told by his contacts inside Zuffa.
In both instances they were making the mistake of counting their chickens before they hatch.
In this case they are NEEDLESSLY and BLATANTLY lying on the record.
The topic is irrelevant.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Kid Nate on Apr 15, 2010 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Very good article
I think that Dana’s bullshitting is gonna hurt this sport as it did boxing. When customer’s don’t trust the salesman, it doesn’t matter how good the product might be. You feel like you’re being scammed, you go elsewhere.
Not a good thing for a sport that requires people to shell out money just to watch a broadcast. That buy is based entirely on the promotion and whether the audience buys it.
But man, this is gonna be the best _ ever!
Are Men Not Men Anymore
First off, it was a very well written and researched article with valid points. With that being said, my main problem is that MMA’s main audience is Men and the writer of this article happens to be a Man. Why is that a problem? Because Men shouldn’t be pissed when another man lies to them about something as stupid as this. What happened to the good old days when you would hear something like this and the first question you would ask is, Does this directly effect me at all? And if the answer is no, then you just didn’t give a F—k. So, if you are a man and are upset that Dana White, a president of a company that really has no effect over your immediate life lied to you, then you seriously need to take a look at yourself and get a life. Not to mention, your man card should be immediately revoked. To all you Sally’s out there that are upset about Dana lying to you, take off your skirt and grow a pair. Stop acting like a high school girl and get on with your life.
Matt from MMA Posers, check us out at www.mmaposers.com, follow us on Twitter at twitter.com/mmaposers, and friend us on facebook
by MMAposers on Apr 15, 2010 12:26 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
the picture looks like it's been massively re-touched
(dana’s bodyfat percentage is way higher)
Go big red!
Lets not kid ourselves that
Dana White does not appealing to the 20-35 yr old demographic of young angry white males
I like the article, think it makes a lot of good points....
I like MMA as a sport and also watching UFC events, the UFC is a business and I can’t hold it against them for doing what serves them the best. Sometimes the UFC’s interests are convergent with MMA’s and sometimes they diverge, banning Silva for clowning might be one of the latter. The reality show stuff is not as big a deal imo because reality show generally occupy something of an alternate universe (if that makes sense).
On a lighter note, I agree with the poster above who says that the magazine cover does not look like the real Dana White, at least not the one who was on with Rome the other night.
It's unfair to suggest that the UFC should be a pure sport
I’m all for honesty and transparency. But the realities of running a fight promotion or being a fighter, for that matter, simply don’t compare to those of other sports. Each fight poses an incredibly high risk for a fighter — not just his health, but the fact that losses matter infinitely more than they do in other sports. Most importantly, fans simply don’t judge other sports by their entertainment value the same way the do a fight card. All of this means running a successful fight promotion requires a lot more wheeling and dealing, which includes covering up schedule changes and arranging fights that aren’t ideal in the eyes of fans. Careers hang in the balance.
It’s straight-up naive to pretend that the UFC (or any MMA organization) can simply become the next tennis or golf or whatever.
I never said they should
in fact, it’s very very smart of Dana to follow the WWE model. It’s just that there’s an inherent contradiction since he also desperately wants to be accepted as a legitimate sport by the media.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
It’s unfair to suggest that the UFC should be a pure sport
So it is OK for the NFL to tell tell the teams that any one that runs the ball next Sunday will be fired because polling says TD’s are more entertaining?
is it ok for them to say they are looking into finding ways to punish teams that don’t play their starters or reward teams that do in the last weeks of the season?
Look
I dont’ think Dana’s comments in response to Silva’s fight were smart, or fair. But the Silva fight actually demonstrates my point — vastly more is at stake for the fighter and the promoter in a fight than is at stake for, say, the NFL. A team has a shitty game… they have a bunch more.
Do I think the UFC should be less eratic in the way it deals with fighter issues? Yes, I do. I think they should have a standardized system of fines that fighters are subject to. Do I think petty bullshit like banning Big John is totally unprofessional? Yes.
But this article is dealing with a more general point — that the UFC can/should transition to a more traditional sports model. To an extent that’s true, but the fact is there’s always a bit more promotion and entertainment in the fight business. The economics demand it. The instability demands it. The fact that a fighter’s career is always on the line means that you have to deal with those fighters differently than you would a mainstream athlete with a contract competing in a less high stakes sport.
you're putting words in my mouth
but it’s a good comment on the whole.
But I am NOT advocating which direction the UFC should go in. I am very aware the fight industry must be part sport part spectacle to make a go.
It’s just striking the right balance.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
Dana was contractually obligated with Spike to not divulge any of the events that took place during the shooting of TUF.
by Polyhedron on Apr 15, 2010 12:50 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Why did you add this comment?
The point of the article was that he should have said nothing, not lied.
by superflat on Apr 15, 2010 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I have no problem with how Dana White runs his ship. He brought the UFC back from the grave and obviously knows what he is doing. You can look to almost any great leader or business owner and point out mistakes tht they have made. The UFC is dominating the market and bringing in money hand over fist. Until that changes, I don’t expect DW to change anything he does. I also don’t understand why people are getting so mad at Nate. If I don’t like an article that any writer writes, I just don’t finish the article and go about my day. No need to bash Nate or any writer for their hard work!
Be a man, not a child-Phil Anselmo
by ANance on Apr 15, 2010 1:00 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Lots of people are here instead of other sites because they do ban people. I wanted high school I would have become a teacher.
You totally lost me here. I know this site bans people. What is your point? Where in my post did I say the word “ban”?
Be a man, not a child-Phil Anselmo
by ANance on Apr 15, 2010 1:33 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The anger in the comments seem to double every day....
If Derek Jeter clubbed a baby seal on earth day while wearing a mink coat and crocodile skin boots while burning tires on an iceberg, the reaction would be "Its OK Derek, you’re a Yankee." -First mammal to wear pants
it actually comes and goes with the topics
and the times of traffic growth coincide with lots of n00bs that we have to cut.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I agree. Usually it’s the Fedor and Dana White articles that get people all worked up.
Be a man, not a child-Phil Anselmo
by ANance on Apr 15, 2010 1:34 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Apparently Kid has besmirched the UFC and Dana White's honor and the only cure is pistols at dawn.
That bastard Kid, attacking the UFC yet again. Does he even have a point? Oh, yeah this:
That It’s that last bit I’d like all those who are defending Dana White to consider. Those who expect Dana to lie are in a different, more cynical camp. Here at BloodyElbow, we’re willfully naive and want to see Dana and the UFC continue their amazing run of success, which really has been a great boon to the sport.
At the same time, for those who think we need to “get on board” and “back Dana”, I’d like to point you to a children’s tale called “The Emperor’s New Clothes” that expresses in a very succinct way how ill-served powerful people are by sycophants.
Blatantly lying to the fans like this damages the heart of Dana White’s personal brand — his reputation for being forthright with the fans. As he told Jim Rome last night: "We’re probably the most honest, open company, in sports. We let the fans and media know everything.
So everyone is outraged because Kid is offering praise to the UFC at the same time pointing out the pitfalls of trying to control too much and the dangers of not allowing criticism? I wish the last US administration took this advice.
Not trying to be paternalistic, but I think most of you should take a step back, pause, and reread the article in good faith. I think many of us are falling into the trap of thin-slicing the information without the background necessary to make a quick judgement. That advice goes for the mods as well.
by John Nash on Apr 15, 2010 1:32 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
If you notice, many of the comments put words into his mouth. That happens all the time here.
“You said he should do that!”
Keywords are usually should or has done something. When in reality, the article is merely discussing the possibility. That’s much of the cause of arguments around here.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Apr 15, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I notice that all the time. There seems to be a problem differentiating between what Kid Nate (or any writer or even member) writes and a quote from another writer used as a springboard to start a discussion. The other lesson learned is that Dana White has built himself a cult of personality with regards to a large portion of the UFC hardcore fanbase. Be cautious when going against the Great Leader.
This is the first article on the “Dana White lied” topic that I truly read from beginning to end. I skimmed others but quickly grew bored with it (as it appears like others have). To me it was pretty much a non-issue. But this article actual got me to pause and think. While I don’t necassarily agree, any article that is going to make me question my beliefs gets my appreciation. Good job Kid Nate.
FWIW Nate,
I did not understand the significance of Dana’s actions, both in terms of the tito/lidell situation and his comments regarding cutting anderson silva, but I found your and Luke’s articles enlightening.
Even though I do not believe either of these situations spell out the end of days, I think they are concering
I think I've already said my piece about Dana and lying...
No comment would not have sufficed, at all. You could possibly fathom a world where Dana would say you’ll have to watch the show in find out, and I’ll actually agree that it would have been preferable, but again any suggestion he could have just said no comment or not responded is living in a dream world where Dana White has his brain swapped out with Coker.
However, the one point I read in this story that I question the most is the idea that cutting Anderson Silva if he throws up another terrible terrible fight where he taunts and refuses to engage somehow harms the status of MMA as a sport. There have been all kinds of players that have found themselves unable to find work, or cut from their team due to their actions either during or away from the game, having nothing to do with their personal talent, with a prime example being Terrell Owens. Premier WR that was cut multiple times for essentially being a pain in the ass, but there are plenty of players in football in other sports that found themselves without a job because they were causing problems for their boss and their team.
As an aside though, if you think it harms MMA’s ability to be called a sport if they cut someone skilled, then do you share the same opinion when they keep someone who isn’t a supreme talent, just because they are entertaining and a bit of a draw? IE: Bonnar
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com
Ido why Dana is getting heat, what about the mainstream media for not checking into this?
Dana is a source, since when is it acceptable to report news without checking for credibility. Jesus, good media could figure out that Tito was out, but zombie media just reprint whatever Dana says to them. That’s not journalism. Dana shouldn’t have lied, it was a poor choice, but it’s the media’s work that was truly lacking here.
umm, actually
The Yahoo.com home page has a big package right now on Cofield’s post on Dana, calling White “outrageous” in one headline and calling the Franklin-Liddell thing a “lie” in another.
But hey, don’t let your preconceived notions about mainstream media get in the way of the facts.
The MMA “media” is blowing this way out of proportion. This is absolutely no different than a team lying about one of their players either playing or not for the next game.
by RollinOnShabbos on Apr 15, 2010 2:43 PM EDT reply actions
I didn’t mean “media” as condescending. What I am trying to convey is that I think this is a story for the bloggers to run with and get a couple posts out of opposed to the guys that do more reporting from the companies themselves. I am separating the mma journos and the bloggers. Maybe that’s wrong, but it’s no different than me separating the guys from Viva El Birdos (top STL Cards blog) and the guys from the St Louis Post Dispatch.
by RollinOnShabbos on Apr 15, 2010 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
These are some interesting points
and ultimately a little disturbing as well. The signing of Kimbo, the public threats against its fighters, and this Ortiz/Liddell ruckus don’t feel like good things. Such tactics might help keep the company entrenched where it is in the market, but I can’t imagine that it will inspire much confidence in distant markets
Incidentally...
part of what annoys me, anyway, about the Ortiz/Liddell thing is that its not especially considerate. Imagine that there is somebody out there (some deranged individual) that really really wanted to see Liddell v. Ortiz 3. If he’s planning his schedule and finances, only to find that the fight isn’t happening, and that they knew about it for a month, then he’s wasted time and resources. It’s inconsiderate of the fans who need to make an effort to go see the fight.
The UFC is not a sport - period.
Dana’s doubles Vince ..then wants everyone to think that he’s not, that he’s original and that he and the ufc are totally different. Both Dana and the ufc are modeled after Vince and WWE.
The UFC is a Private Fight Club / Entertainment Business – which exploits the sport of MMA as its main draw for business.
Dana is the ring leader of this circus. He will say anything to keep the money flowing including ‘the ufc is the best’ , “we are a sport” , “I am not a liar” , “I am not like Vince” , “Kimbo Sucks” , “kimbo’s a monster” , “Fedor Sucks and is crazy” , “I want Fedor more than anyone” , “ASilva is P4P” , “I’m mad at ASilva” , " I’m mad at Tito" , “I’m mad at Rampage” , ETC ETC ETC. WHO FUCKING CARES?!?!
Current Real MMA Sports Organizations are: Strikeforce, Dream and M-1, even Bellator with their tourny format.
We will never hear these sports organizations speaking to press, lying and bashing people the way Dana does. Why? because Dana is a circus leader and head of “an entertainment business” . Dana does Not run a sports organization.
Lying to fans is wrong and this will and has hurt your brand. You render yourself unreliable.
Those defending Dana are just ‘Dana D-swingers’ who are only interested in seeing Dana drop the F bomb on tv cause “he’s so cool and says what he wants” and they are of no count to a fan of “the sport” of mma.
As a fan of the sport of MMA, I’m sick of this juvenile stand-point and being lumped in with these morons “as fans”. These are fans of cursing, a manufactured tough guy persona and the WWE!!!
The UFC has no interest in becoming a sport. Doing so would hurt their ’entertainment business model".
Sport means competition. “Entertainment” will never compete its fighters against “Sports organizations” Know why? Because it will expose the UFC for what they are, ‘an entertainment scam’.
Dana can’t claim his fighters are best while keeping them in a closet unless he’s full of shit which is common knowledge at this point. The mma sports orgs have incredible athletes just like UFC Entertainment’s “Club Fighters” and Dana knows it.
This is why I wont allow myself to get robbed of $55ppv for ‘entertainment’ .. when I can watch “the Sport of MMA” for free with sports organizations who are already on free television, which the UFC has been unable to do.
jiMMAy
The UFC has the model it has because it was born out of necessity. At the time they bought the UFC is was untouchable and they couldn’t get on TV. They had to build the model the way the did to get the job done. Now that it’s working they aren’t just going to hand over the production control to some network and take a bad deal while doing it. Their current way of doing business is working for them and there is no point in them giving that up when no one else has shown another model to be more successful or even half as successful.
Just BE.
Wrong on so many levels
I will agree with you on this point, the UFC is not a sports company but an entertainment one, but you can’t seriously say the Strikeforce, Dream, etc are real MMA Sports organization. They are all entertainment companies just like the UFC, NFL, MLB, NBA. Case in point, just look at Strikeforce’s and Dream’s entrances and some of their crazy match-ups (i.e. – Dream’s Super Hulk Grand Prix last year… Jose Canseco was one of the competitors!!!) . Sports in general stop being sports when the athletes start getting paid. Then it becomes a business that sells entertainment through competitive sporting events and we are all consumers.
Matt from MMA Posers, check us out at www.mmaposers.com, follow us on Twitter at twitter.com/mmaposers, and friend us on facebook
A little different
I’m not saying the two are mutually exclusive and I agree that you can have entertainment IN sports i.e walk-ins, crazy match-ups, for entertainment purposes.
But Strikeforce, Dream and M-1 are starting to compete fighters in the true nature of being a sport where the UFC shuns from this in the true nature of being ‘just an entertainment biz’.
Otherwise, if you’re a sport, compete your fighters and show that you are indeed the best org.
Or shut up and admit that you aren’t a sport.
Are you seriously comparing the UFC, an Entertainment Co. to Sport Leagues? NFL, MLB, NBA.
jiMMAy
How in the world are Strikeforce and DREAM “starting to compete fighters in the true nature of being a sport”? Strikeforce has a HW title fight coming up between two guys, one who hasn’t defended his title in ages and the other one who’s coming off a loss, and to you this is them “starting to compete fighters in the true nature of being a sport”? Are you kidding me?
I’m trying to understand you…. and no I’m not kidding.
So by pointing to this weekends SF fight…. where Overeem hasn’t defended in ages…..you’re saying Strikeforce, M1 and Dream DO NOT co-promote?
Maybe you overlooked the Gilbert Melendez vs. Shinya Aoki ( which is a co promoted title match from SF and Dream) on the very same card.
Make yourself clear please.
jiMMAy
You make yourself clear.
Your words:
starting to compete fighters in the true nature of being a sport
What does that mean? That what they’re doing is more of a sport? How so? Because the co-promote? Bullshit.
Alistair Overeem versus Brett Rogers to decide their HW champion is a joke from a sporting sense when you have fighters in Werdum and Fedor who have wins over each fighter respectively. You can’t sit there with a straight face that Strikeforce, DREAM and M-1 (are you really using M-1 as one of your examples?) somehow are more of a “sport” when they are booking matches like Jose Conseco vs. Hong Man Choi and Herschel Walker vs. anyone!
A fact of life
1) Yes, I am comparing the UFC to NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. All those leagues are based on two things, business and entertainment. Sports is secondary. There would be no professional sports leagues if it wasn’t good business and people wouldn’t watch if it wasn’t entertaining. This is why the production value is so good for games. This is why there are things like individual player entrances, cheerleaders, crazy promotions. It’s entertaining and gets people interested. If people were just tuning in for the sports aspect, the WNBA would get awesome ratings and have a huge attendance. ALL professional sports leagues are entertainment companies that just sports for their theater.
2) I understand the idea of cross promoting because then you would get to see some great match-ups (i.e. – Fedor vs any UFC Heavyweight), but that would turn MMA into what boxing is today. A crap ton of meaningless titles, fighters ducking on another, etc. The only way MMA becomes more like the big professional sports leagues like the NFL, NBA, etc is to eventually fall under one banner. Frankly, I don’t care if the UFC, Strikeforce, Dream, Big Bob’s Fight Club end up being that one league, it just needs to happen.
3) The only reason Strikeforce and Dream are cross promoting fights right now is because their rosters are so bare. Who was Melendez going to fight after his last bout with Thomson that is a legitimate contender? Strikeforce didn’t have a 155 pounder on their roster that they could make a case as a serious threat to Melendez so they had to bring in Aoki (which I love by the way because it is going to be an awesome fight). If Strikeforce had the roster depth, they wouldn’t being making these fights. It is out of necessity that Aoki vs. Melendez is happening, not because all involved think it is good for the sport
Matt from MMA Posers, check us out at www.mmaposers.com, follow us on Twitter at twitter.com/mmaposers, and friend us on facebook
Everybody ranting and raving
How this is no big deal and you are pissed that it has taken over your entire MMA watching experience, you do realize this is only the third article written on it here. In fact its only been today and yesterday. If it doesn’t personally offend you, why can’t you just ignore three stories? Has BE really spoiled you that much that you need a new MMA story every forty-five minutes?
MMA Bloggers care...
MMA fans don’t. Boo hoo, Dana White replaced a shitty fight with a better fight and didn’t tell the fans about it until it went on sale! What a horrible monster!
Thanks for making my case and point
“Dana’s a great great man.. everyone leave him alone.. cause I think he’s great”
Do you really care about seeing Chuck, who’s not the same Chuck as before and Rich “Ace – Jim Carey” Franklin. Here, let me save you $55 american dollars.
Chuck in middle of cage. Rich hunched over, circles outside throwing distant air-backhands to avoid getting knocked out. Chuck spins and waits. Throw in a take down attempt or two. Decision Franklin.
Wake me when its over
jiMMAy
In the week leading up to 3 title fights on Strikeforce, BE has posted SIX (!!!) different articles about Dana White. I’d much rather hear about how the three title fights on Strikeforce this weekend, but instead we have:
#
Ten Fights Dana White Should Book for Anderson Silva or Die Trying …
2 days ago
#
Dana White Has No One to Blame But Himself for UFC 112 Disaster …
3 days ago
#
Dana White immediate reactions to UFC 112. He will talk to …
4 days ago
#
Some PR Advice for Dana White: Don’t Act Like Vince McMahon if You …
5 hours ago
#
The Cliché Media Reaction to Dana White’s Rant Overlooks Casual …
1 day ago
#
Dana White Announces Anderson Silva vs. Chael Sonnen – Bloody Elbow
22 hours ago
Not to mention something like 14 articles on Anderson Silva.
Here’s an idea: If you’re so irked with UFC, write about what the other guys are doing! We don’t need to read a new rant every day.
Well put!!!
I agree man. I’m the first one to say I’m sick of Dana. He doesn’t need to be in the press as much as he is. I dont fully blame BE but I certainly could see a lot more fighter content and far less Dana White drivel. I think BE is attempting to expose Dana a bit and I dont mind that. The problem is, we all have to read about him. can’t have both I guess so I’d rather give up Dana and keep the fighters.
Everything he sputters is a blatent lie or a twist of the truth or a dodge of some sort… “lie is a big word” So why listen to him at all hoping that 1 of 1000 things out of his mouth will be true? it wont.
jiMMAy
I actually like Dana White and enjoy his way of being. I understand that it rubs people the wrong way and that’s fine. I don’t get why this site seems to take it personally and has a major issue with the guy, but it doesn’t really matter to me, just keep it to your god damned selves.
Some people like Dana White.
Some people do not.
These articles aren’t changing anyone’s minds. They’re just pushing articles about FIGHTING off the front page.
To counterpoint myself, as someone who used to do SEO, writing about someone as polarizing as Dana White is brilliant from a link bait/engaging fans POV. So I doubt they’re going to stop any time soon.
we write about what gets attention and interest
it’s pretty straight forward
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I would like to see Dana cross promote and prove that the UFC has the best fighters. But being an entertainment company, and not a sport… he’ll never do it.
I also dont like that Hype and lies are being sold, rather than to reply on the fighers and the fights, the sport of it.
Personally, I find MMA as a sport, entertaining enough.
I dont need all the drama, quarrels between Dana and fighters, press. TUF guys drinking and throwing furniture in the pool, wrecking the house.. that is all just the dumbest shit to occupy ones time with and has nothing to do with any of the martial arts …and it all comes from the UFC
jiMMAy
Cross promoting is a horrible idea, it generally always means the bigger party loses and the smaller party gains.
See:
M-1 + Anybody
Strikeforce + Dream (Oh, Dream’s champion lost in the US? Grats, Dream!)
The only promotion that is even kinda-sorta on the level in fighter quality is Strikeforce, and really they have maybe 5 guys that people are even a little interested in seeing. Co-promoting is a buzzword for some small org trying to piggy back off of an established one. No need for UFC to try to subsidize Strikeforce or M-1 when they’re doing bad enough business that 90% of those fighters will come to UFC on their own anyhow.
LOL@angry bloggers
No wonder you guys are just bloggers and not to be taken any seriously when it comes to important reporting, you could at least try to be professional but i guess that is just too much to ask from just another Blog site. But you are absolutely right, you have the right to ban whomever you want regardless of what they say because in the end it doesn’t really matter considering the nature of the site.
Translation
“You guys are idiots and I am both smarter and better looking than you. I have been watching ultimate fighting since UFC 1 and I was at the TUF 1 finale, front row. I obviously know ten times as much about ultimate fighting as you ever will but for some reason I keep coming here to read your articles instead of starting my own website and sharing my vast knowledge with the rest of the world.”
To Nate:
Dana White Tells Rolling Stone That He’s the Reason Why UFC’s Successful
See, this is the one part of the business I f—-ing hate. Everybody wants more money, they want it now. And then all these fighters are like, ’We’re the superstars, not the UFC! It should all be about us.’ You dumb motherf—-ers. You don’t know what you’re f—-ing with. I’m a promoter. And a lot of this s—- is built with smoke and mirrors.
Enjoyed the write up Nate. Thought about this quote above as I was reading your post. Though the part about Anderson Silva needs to be stressed a bit more in a different way. The fact that the UFC is threatening to cut Anderson Silva doesn’t make it any different from any other sport, but the fact that they are threatening to cut Anderson for winning while NOT violating any rules under the Unified Rules is a concern. It means that MMA could be skewing more to the entertainment side than to the sport side, and when you model yourself after the WWE and Vince McMahon, it definitely is a fine line that he has to walk.
Interesting point for everyone here, a survey among UFC PPV buyers was taken not too long ago. No need for me to explain any further, I will just quote it below:
There were also focus groups done regarding sport vs. entertainment when it comes to the UFC PPV audience, and what people want and they skewed more heavily toward entertainment. That’s why the new promotions that open up, whether it’s IFL or Bellator, with the idea of making it more sports-like, are missing the boat as to what the key to UFC success is. – Meltzer
Good Point but...
Guys like Meltzer are cheerleaders and mouthpieces for Dana which is why he talks to them and bars others who dont play his game. So while a good point, the source is suspect for me.
jiMMAy
LOL at that picture, Photoshop I cry.
"I'm Nobody's FanBoy" - higgledy-piggledy
by higgledy-piggledy on Apr 17, 2010 8:38 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
