Jump to content

The UFC becoming the new WWE?


Mentor

Recommended Posts

In North America you will always see hype and sensationalism being opted towards for the sake of moneymaking, that is the way our entertainment and society is built. As Tayne is saying though, there is still the best at the top the way it should be. It's not like we have tons of amazing fighters sitting at the bottom of the rankings and stagnating and being overlooked due to what is happening.

In the end the best will always rise to the top.

 

Only the lower end of the card, you are right, in general you have an organic and correct procedure, with fighters slowly climbing the ranks based upon performance, but here are a few cases in the recent past which did not make sense (in terms of belt credentials).

 

-Lesnar got a title shot in the UFC when he was just 2-1 in MMA.

-Frankie Edgar was on a 2 fight losing streak in a different division when he got a title shot.

-Bisping avoided the top contender on 2 occasions, to fight more "marketable" fights.

-Rousy got a title shot after losing her title and being out for a long period of time...................doing movies.

-Holm got a title shot after losing her last 2 fights.

-GSP got a title shot at 185lbs, a division he has never fought in and he has been out for around 4 years.

 

In every case above (and there are more), more marketable fighters were getting pushed into the title picture not on merit, but due to popularity. All i am saying is, you can still have the celebrities fight each other, just leave the belt for the real competitors. I also think that is should basically be compulsory for whoever is champ to fight the top contender. If you do not want to do that, then do not fight for the title.

 

I have been hearing recently that GSP will likely vacate the belt if he wins it, to move back to his natural weight class. So why put him in the title fight if he plans to vacate the title? These are typical cases of UFC bullshit. I get the impression that the UFC has become the merge of Boxing and WWE at this point.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mentor's right on the money to be honest, the amount of investment that would be required to make an organisation that could challenge UFC into a situation where it had to not "do whatever it wants" would be astronomical so it's what we have right now. You can look to Asia if you like but that has a deep history of pro-wrestling finishes in MMA so I do not hold much hope something rising in the east.

It's going to take a major network to decide to get into the MMA game and back it the entire way and it's going to not need a guy like Scott Coker anywhere near it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can hardly call the Edgar and Lesnar situation recent, in a sport that's like 25 years old.

 

You can argue the recent, but not the fact that a 2-1 fighter should be nowhere near the UFC HW title.

 

Everyone knows why he got that shot and it was not due to his awesome fighting skills. The funny thing is that the only 2 fighters he beat before getting the title shot, were Heath Herring (who was 4-5 in his last 9 fights going into the Lesnar fight) and a Korean guy i do not even know (who ended his career 3-7).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find the Lesnar example so frustrating. The man was so obviously more than his 2-1 record (way to misrepresent someone by how they appear on paper) and his title reign proved this out. Dana White and co should be lauded for this foresight, not derided. The fact that this amazing success on the part of the UFC is cited as a failure proves how nonexistent the logic is in this argument.

 

Lesnar won and, far more importantly, *defended* his HW title TWICE, so it turned out for the best. You underestimate the volatility of the heavyweight division, where quality athletes towards the top of the weight limit come sometimes decades apart. It's a special case. You have to think about how thin the talent is in that division, especially how barren the heavyweight landscape was before Brock was champion. Brock brought money to the division, and money brings talent. This is why the people who cry about big money fights are so insane - don't you realize that better prizes (this is PRIZE fighting, by the way) result in better competitors?

 

People act like Brock Lesnar was C. M. Punk - he didn't go in, get embarrassed and prove he never should have been there. He went in, won, proved YOU wrong for saying he shouldn't have been there, and enriched the sport in the process by increasing it's visibility and profitablility. Shut up about it already. You are wrong. Demonstrably, provably wrong.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find the Lesnar example so frustrating. The man was so obviously more than his 2-1 record (way to misrepresent someone by how they appear on paper) and his title reign proved this out. Dana White and co should be lauded for this foresight, not derided. The fact that this amazing success on the part of the UFC is cited as a failure proves how nonexistent the logic is in this argument.

 

Lesnar won and, far more importantly, *defended* his HW title TWICE, so it turned out for the best. You underestimate the volatility of the heavyweight division, where quality athletes towards the top of the weight limit come sometimes decades apart. It's a special case. You have to think about how thin the talent is in that division, especially how barren the heavyweight landscape was before Brock was champion. Brock brought money to the division, and money brings talent. This is why the people who cry about big money fights are so insane - don't you realize that better prizes (this is PRIZE fighting, by the way) result in better competitors?

 

People act like Brock Lesnar was C. M. Punk - he didn't go in, get embarrassed and prove he never should have been there. He went in, won, proved YOU wrong for saying he shouldn't have been there, and enriched the sport in the process by increasing it's visibility and profitablility. Shut up about it already. You are wrong. Demonstrably, provably wrong.

I give this post a Tayne on Tayne.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always find the Lesnar example so frustrating. The man was so obviously more than his 2-1 record (way to misrepresent someone by how they appear on paper) and his title reign proved this out. Dana White and co should be lauded for this foresight, not derided. The fact that this amazing success on the part of the UFC is cited as a failure proves how nonexistent the logic is in this argument.

 

Lesnar won and, far more importantly, *defended* his HW title TWICE, so it turned out for the best. You underestimate the volatility of the heavyweight division, where quality athletes towards the top of the weight limit come sometimes decades apart. It's a special case. You have to think about how thin the talent is in that division, especially how barren the heavyweight landscape was before Brock was champion. Brock brought money to the division, and money brings talent. This is why the people who cry about big money fights are so insane - don't you realize that better prizes (this is PRIZE fighting, by the way) result in better competitors?

 

People act like Brock Lesnar was C. M. Punk - he didn't go in, get embarrassed and prove he never should have been there. He went in, won, proved YOU wrong for saying he shouldn't have been there, and enriched the sport in the process by increasing it's visibility and profitablility. Shut up about it already. You are wrong. Demonstrably, provably wrong.

 

I did not say he was a CM Punk, i am saying he was 2-1 and got a title shot. That has never happened in the history of the UFC and the only reason he got a title shot was due to his popularity, not his ability. If Lesnar did not have his popularity, he would be nowhere near the title at the time, in fact, he would likely not even be in the main card. If you have a look, how often do we see an unknown fighter with a 2-1 record on the main card of a PPV? Exactly, never.

 

As a fighter his record is just 5-3 with one no contest, so not exactly a stellar career and easily the least impressive among any UFC champ in the past 15 years. When he finally fought someone of real quality (Cain and Overeem) he got beaten up like a girl. Brock is a celebrity on steroids who does not like getting hit. A guy who was pushed to the moon by the UFC and a fighter who started off the new era of WWE style MMA.

 

I am not saying i do not respect Brock and his achievements, he did get good wins against Carwin (at the time he was considered a good prospect), Mir and an ageing Couture. He also had size and wrestling as well, but that does not take away from the fact that he was pushed up the ladder way before he deserved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I did not say he was a CM Punk, i am saying he was 2-1 and got a title shot. That has never happened in the history of the UFC and the only reason he got a title shot was due to his popularity, not his ability. If Lesnar did not have his popularity, he would be nowhere near the title at the time, in fact, he would likely not even be in the main card. If you have a look, how often do we see an unknown fighter with a 2-1 record on the main card of a PPV? Exactly, never.

 

As a fighter his record is just 5-3 with one no contest, so not exactly a stellar career and easily the least impressive among any UFC champ in the past 15 years. When he finally fought someone of real quality (Cain and Overeem) he got beaten up like a girl. Brock is a celebrity on steroids who does not like getting hit. A guy who was pushed to the moon by the UFC and a fighter who started off the new era of WWE style MMA.

 

I am not saying i do not respect Brock and his achievements, he did get good wins against Carwin (at the time he was considered a good prospect), Mir and an ageing Couture. He also had size and wrestling as well, but that does not take away from the fact that he was pushed up the ladder way before he deserved it.

Dude... your grasp of mma history is selective at best, at worst nonexistent. Putting aside the insane use of the term "unknown" in this sentence, lots of people with worse than 2-1 records or at least close have fought on MMA PPV main cards. Off the top of my head - Satoshi ishii, James Toney and Steve Jennum - so unless you meant *precisely* 2-1 for some reason...

 

I'm not going to deal with alternative facts. I've got enough Kellyanne Conway in my life.

 

Lesnar won his title and defended it. Therefore he deserved his shot. End of discussion.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Jennum was in the main event of the UFC in their 3rd event, back then everyone had 0-0 records. Satoshi ishii never main carded a UFC event. James Toney is a perfect example of another celebrity type, but at least in his case he was not getting a title shot. Either way, the fact is that Lesnar is the only fighter anywhere close to a title shot in the UFC with just a 2-1 record, so no he did not deserve a title shot for beating a couple of nobodies and winning and defending his title does not mean he derserved getting it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

winning and defending his title does not mean he derserved getting it in the first place.

It very much does, because it means he was good enough to be champion. Winning and defending the title is actually the only thing in this discussion that does matter, as much as I love correcting your trivia knowledge.

 

In fact, two defenses in one reign remains a ufc heavyweight defense record, so he's actually one of the best ufc HW champions ever. That's just a fairly meager list.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 times UFC champ is a bad fight ? that's smply retarded.

 

Yes, it is a bad fight because that 11 time UFC champ is a champ at a different weight class AND he has not fought in 4 years, besides that, the only reason he is even taking this fight is because GSP considers Bisping a "weak" champion (and he is right), so this is an opportunity to win a new shinny belt in a higher weight class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, it is a bad fight because that 11 time UFC champ is a champ at a different weight class AND he has not fought in 4 years, besides that, the only reason he is even taking this fight is because GSP considers Bisping a "weak" champion (and he is right), so this is an opportunity to win a new shinny belt in a higher weight class.

"Weak" champ that KO Luke in 1mn ??

You have to stop putting fighters lower than what they are, Bisping worked hard for this he increased his skills a lot vs the bisping from 6 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at Bisping, his biggest win is BY FAR the Rockhold win and the 2 wins over the ageing Anderson and Henderson. Before that, he virtually always flopped in the big fights, losing to virtually everyone including Wanderlei, Rashard Evans, Sonnen, Henderson, Kennedy, Belfort, Rockhold. Actually, until you started to mention Bisping, i did not know he was so bad. He is what i would define a classic gatekeeper, in other word's someone you keep relevant and then feed to the big boys. Can you pull off an upset? Sure, but he is still one of the weakest champs crowned in a while.

 

Over his career, Mark Hunt has beaten fighters such as Wanderlei, Cro Cop and since joining the UFC, Roy Nelson, Frank Mir, Big Foot and Ben Rothwell. In fact, until he lost to Overeem in the last event, he only ever lost to UFC champs, even Overeem was a World title challenger. Hunt is essentially the Bisping of HW (in other words a gatekeeper), simply he has had less, fights overall and he started MMA way later. He was mid-30's, by the time he joined the UFC and on a poor 6-7 record, so he did pretty good for himself considering.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bisping's title defences are weak, sure. But -

 

A - the UFC owes him for all those years of making him fight steroid and TRT junkies

and

B - his win against Rockhold is legit as they come

at least Bisping defended or attempted a title defense as a true champion ( decision win controversial or not )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that Henderson was either #14 or #13 when he fought Bisping the second time. As for GSP, it is not my opinion, it is a fact, he is an unranked WW fighter at this point in time. He most certainly is not the #1 ranked MW fighter since he has never fought in that weight class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at Bisping, his biggest win is BY FAR the Rockhold win and the 2 wins over the ageing Anderson and Henderson. Before that, he virtually always flopped in the big fights, losing to virtually everyone including Wanderlei, Rashard Evans, Sonnen, Henderson, Kennedy, Belfort, Rockhold. Actually, until you started to mention Bisping, i did not know he was so bad. He is what i would define a classic gatekeeper, in other word's someone you keep relevant and then feed to the big boys. Can you pull off an upset? Sure, but he is still one of the weakest champs crowned in a while.

 

Over his career, Mark Hunt has beaten fighters such as Wanderlei, Cro Cop and since joining the UFC, Roy Nelson, Frank Mir, Big Foot and Ben Rothwell. In fact, until he lost to Overeem in the last event, he only ever lost to UFC champs, even Overeem was a World title challenger. Hunt is essentially the Bisping of HW (in other words a gatekeeper), simply he has had less, fights overall and he started MMA way later. He was mid-30's, by the time he joined the UFC and on a poor 6-7 record, so he did pretty good for himself considering.

Hunt only lost to champs? What? Did I dream that bit about Sean McCorkle submitting him with (i think?) a kimura from guard like a white belt?

 

Is this a game we're playing now where you intentionally say wrong stuff so I can correct it? Because I kinda don't hate it. Kinda fun.

 

To your overall point - Yes, Bisping has been a gatekeeper of sorts and will be again if he doesn't retire after his title reign. Yes, Mark Hunt is a gatekeeper of sorts in a much worse division (in fact a complete dumpster fire of a division outside of the top 5), but obviously of a lower tier, if only for having a worse record in general. Hunt's record has lower lows AND lower highs.

 

Not a terrible analogy but only really works if you ignore the Rockhold win entirely.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...