Paid Members lambyUK Posted September 30, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted September 30, 2017 2 hours ago, David said: Nope, no "weird tangents" here mate, I've been pretty consistent in my views regarding titles in MMA. If McGregor isn't wanting to face the top challengers, for whatever reason, be it because they aren't "money fights" then that's cool. Drop the belt, and make the money fights your priority. Leave the actual championships for the guys who want to compete against the very best the divisions have to offer. There's always going to be "money fights" out there for the promotion, which should hopefully ensure the likes of Dana has enough money to buy food and pay his bills, but those money fights shouldn't be allowed to fuck with entire divisions and the titles. This shite with Conor lately has essentially put two divisions in flux because he's not interested in defending his titles. Either defend the fuckers, or drop them. It should be that simple. Germaine De Randamie made it clear she wasn't interested in facing the top contender, so she got stripped of the belt. As it should be. If McG wants to face Nate then cool, have at it. But drop the strap and let the guys who are out there winning fights and competing against the best in the top 3 fight among themselves for it. But the post I quoted from you didn't mention anything about titles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted September 30, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted September 30, 2017 Oh, I'm not shitting on the Hendo match, I'm just saying there's only so many times such a match can be put on within a certain time frame. I certainly would never say Bisping ducked opponents, because it would be a patently ludicrous statement to make. And whilst I agree that, on closer inspection, the Hendo match was the one to make, even if it wasn't in terms of earned contendership, one could argue that Bisping has earned the right to have the odd "stunt" opponent. The only reason why I raise that match is simply because David does have something of a point about matchmaking based on something other than worthiness, given that it's starting to look potentially like Nate Diaz could get a match he clearly hasn't earned nor deserves, purely on the basis of popularity, trash-talking, etc. The reason why I don't 100% agree with David is because under that logic, the Mousasi match should've been the one to make, no question, and sometimes there does have to be the odd flexible standard when it comes to match-making. But Diaz is a whole different kettle of fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 28 minutes ago, lambyUK said: But the post I quoted from you didn't mention anything about titles? Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 2 hours ago, lambyUK said: Of course the sport wont go under, but that doesnt mean i want to see it slump in a wcw like mess either. Again though, that's the company and not the sport.  UFC may become Russoriffic and have more freak shows than PRIDE, but the sport will continue even if UFC don't.  The main players may be in Japan and Poland or something, but the demand for it is there.  Contenders aren't going to give up the sport and start selling shoes if UFC go bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members wandshogun09 Posted September 30, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted September 30, 2017 Nah I know what you mean, Carbomb. I just wanted to defend the Bisping vs Hendo rematch because I think some of the criticism of that booking was off. Fight bookings are all about timing, aren't they? And timing-wise, Bisping vs Hendo was the best option at the time. I think there should be a balance to this whole thing. Giving Hendo the shot was a stretch, and if anyone else was champ at the time other than Bisping I don't think he'd have got the shot. But there was still enough to justify it when you consider he was coming off a KO Of The Year contender over Lombard on the same night Bisping won the title. Giving Diaz a title shot now, as great as the fight would be and as much money as it could generate, is a stretch too far IMO. Because he hasn't even fought in ages, let alone won a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members lambyUK Posted September 30, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted September 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: Again though, that's the company and not the sport.  UFC may become Russoriffic and have more freak shows than PRIDE, but the sport will continue even if UFC don't.  The main players may be in Japan and Poland or something, but the demand for it is there.  Contenders aren't going to give up the sport and start selling shoes if UFC go bust. You keep mentioning this as if I've said the sport would die without the ufc? I haven't.  However, I want to see the premier organisation thrive as they pay the most, and are considered the premier mma company in the world. I don't want to see the sport go backwards and without the ufc it undoubtedly would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 19 minutes ago, lambyUK said: You keep mentioning this as if I've said the sport would die without the ufc? I haven't.  However, I want to see the premier organisation thrive as they pay the most, and are considered the premier mma company in the world. I don't want to see the sport go backwards and without the ufc it undoubtedly would. And if they went under, someone else will be the premier company for MMA.  If UFC go under, there would no doubt be a transition period, it may not reach the commercial heights it currently does but there will still be MMA all around the world with the top competitors fighting. The demand is there.  For me, UFC is the most convenient as I can watch it on BT so that suits me fine and long may it continue.  If it doesn't, then so be it.  If Bellator had a TV deal and UFC didn't, then I'd watch that and still not be concerned with what goes on in the boardroom and finance office.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members lambyUK Posted September 30, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted September 30, 2017 10 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: And if they went under, someone else will be the premier company for MMA.  If UFC go under, there would no doubt be a transition period, it may not reach the commercial heights it currently does but there will still be MMA all around the world with the top competitors fighting. The demand is there.  For me, UFC is the most convenient as I can watch it on BT so that suits me fine and long may it continue.  If it doesn't, then so be it.  If Bellator had a TV deal and UFC didn't, then I'd watch that and still not be concerned with what goes on in the boardroom and finance office.  i do see your point, and since that's something you would personally do then that would of course would work for you. But i fear for a large portion i don't think it would. Fighters wouldn't simply be able to just jump to say Bellator and hope it would be a case of things continue as normal. There's a reason the ufc are the best. They have the infrastructure in place, the biggest budget, the biggest production values etc, and it would take years for someone to even try to replicate what they have. And then it gets to the point i mentioned earlier, it makes a potential athlete who may consider mma as a possible career certainly less appealling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 I guess they have the best "Scouting system" in place too, so to speak. Â I do think fighters jumping to Bellator because they can make more money with sponsorship is a good thing, might make UFC treat their fighters a bit better than if they had a total monopoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted September 30, 2017 Share Posted September 30, 2017 33 minutes ago, lambyUK said: And then it gets to the point i mentioned earlier, it makes a potential athlete who may consider mma as a possible career certainly less appealling. What about a potential athlete that sees a sport where you don't get fuck all by way of decent pay or title shots unless you're ready to break into pro wrasslin' mode? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted October 1, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted October 1, 2017 20 hours ago, David said: What about a potential athlete that sees a sport where you don't get fuck all by way of decent pay or title shots unless you're ready to break into pro wrasslin' mode? I think that's overstating the case a bit. There have been plenty of guys who got title shots without cutting 3:16 promos everywhere. And the money that more "restrained" champions get are hardly poverty wages. Don't misunderstand me: for the money that the UFC company and its management make, and for the liberties they take with fighters' rights, the fighters should in general be treated better, especially taking into account Dana White's objectionable behaviour, but to make out that the UFC's already hit pro-wrestling mode, or that it's even on its way there, is exaggerating. If that was the case, Teixeira, Gustafsson, Miocic, Dillashaw, MacDonald, etc. (guys not massively known for trash-talk) would've never got title shots. Clearly ability still talks. There's plenty right with what you're saying, but that above statement is overboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted October 1, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted October 1, 2017 On 30/09/2017 at 5:26 PM, David said: What about a potential athlete that sees a sport where you don't get fuck all by way of decent pay or title shots unless you're ready to break into pro wrasslin' mode? i can't be arsed to go into the argument again, but this is nothing new. Combat sports stars are created by the ability to sell tickets and draw a tv audience, if you can't do it you face an uphill battle to make the real big bucks, it's how the game works, always was, always will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 19 hours ago, Carbomb said: I think that's overstating the case a bit. There have been plenty of guys who got title shots without cutting 3:16 promos everywhere. And the money that more "restrained" champions get are hardly poverty wages. Don't misunderstand me: for the money that the UFC company and its management make, and for the liberties they take with fighters' rights, the fighters should in general be treated better, especially taking into account Dana White's objectionable behaviour, but to make out that the UFC's already hit pro-wrestling mode, or that it's even on its way there, is exaggerating. If that was the case, Teixeira, Gustafsson, Miocic, Dillashaw, MacDonald, etc. (guys not massively known for trash-talk) would've never got title shots. Clearly ability still talks. There's plenty right with what you're saying, but that above statement is overboard. Christ, of course it's overboard, it was intended as an overstatement. People on this forum take things in a Shedon Cooper-esque literal fashion far too fucking much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted October 2, 2017 Paid Members Share Posted October 2, 2017 Just now, David said: Christ, of course it's overboard, it was intended as an overstatement. People on this forum take things in a Shedon Cooper-esque literal fashion far too fucking much. How the hell am I supposed to know that?! I can't hear your tone in a post, FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 Just now, Carbomb said: How the hell am I supposed to know that?! I can't hear your tone in a post, FFS. I think it's pretty obviously a throwaway comment, no? The use of the old "pro wrasslin" term should have given that away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.