Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

UFC Growing as a Popular Sport

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 1:33:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
UFC has just landed a deal with Fox and will be airing it's first ever fight for free on TV. The main card is a heavyweight bout between Cain Velasquez and Junior Dos Santos.

Even ESPN is trying to snag UFC. It is already halfway to becoming a global sport and league. With this Fox deal, viewer counts will skyrocket.

UFC has already surpassed boxing. There's about two boxing title fights a year and UFC has about 30. Boxing is slowly fading away and so is wrestling.

Do you think UFC will reach MLB, NBA, WWE status in the next couple years?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 1:38:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 1:33:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
UFC has just landed a deal with Fox and will be airing it's first ever fight for free on TV. The main card is a heavyweight bout between Cain Velasquez and Junior Dos Santos.

Even ESPN is trying to snag UFC. It is already halfway to becoming a global sport and league. With this Fox deal, viewer counts will skyrocket.

UFC has already surpassed boxing. There's about two boxing title fights a year and UFC has about 30. Boxing is slowly fading away and so is wrestling.

Do you think UFC will reach MLB, NBA, WWE status in the next couple years?

MLB - no
NBA - no
WWE - probably

And just like boxing and wrestling, it will fade away, to be replaced by something else.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 2:13:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 1:38:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/19/2011 1:33:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
UFC has just landed a deal with Fox and will be airing it's first ever fight for free on TV. The main card is a heavyweight bout between Cain Velasquez and Junior Dos Santos.

Even ESPN is trying to snag UFC. It is already halfway to becoming a global sport and league. With this Fox deal, viewer counts will skyrocket.

UFC has already surpassed boxing. There's about two boxing title fights a year and UFC has about 30. Boxing is slowly fading away and so is wrestling.

Do you think UFC will reach MLB, NBA, WWE status in the next couple years?


MLB - no
NBA - no
WWE - probably

And just like boxing and wrestling, it will fade away, to be replaced by something else.

Doubtful. It's understandable why boxing and wrestling faded away. Wrestling has no striking, is half fake, and somewhat childish. Boxing is extremely limited, punches only and must wear thick padded punching gloves. Not really close to a real fight.

UFC is real fighting, has diverse styles (hence MMA - Mixed Martial Arts), and isn't scripted. There are very few rules (no killing, no permanently/severely damaging your opponent).

Fighting has been around a lot longer than football, basketball, and baseball and has still remained a well-liked sport. Just look at the ancient Coliseum fights.

Dana White pointed out that it breaks cultural boudaries. Other sports are limited to it's respective country whereas fighting is a language known world wide and all humans like that kind of action. Not everyone enjoys balls being hit with a racket.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Loserboi
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 2:15:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 1:33:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
UFC has just landed a deal with Fox and will be airing it's first ever fight for free on TV. The main card is a heavyweight bout between Cain Velasquez and Junior Dos Santos.

Even ESPN is trying to snag UFC. It is already halfway to becoming a global sport and league. With this Fox deal, viewer counts will skyrocket.

UFC has already surpassed boxing. There's about two boxing title fights a year and UFC has about 30. Boxing is slowly fading away and so is wrestling.

Do you think UFC will reach MLB, NBA, WWE status in the next couple years?

MLB-no
NBA-Maybe I am always a fan death of NBA
WWE- yes

The only problem i see with the UFC comes straight down to competitiveness. Whoever watches the UFC knows that at this point in time the Welterweight Title, Middleweight title, Featherweight title, and Light Heavyweight title have champions that are basically unbeatable with the current crop of fighters. The last good title fight I have seen was Edgar vs Maynard 2.

Boxing is not even dead yet, they have a solid fan base and still sells a good chunk of pay per views. The politics and cowardly fighters are killing boxing. The klitsko brothers will never fight each other. Macquiao and Mayweather never going to happen. Timothy Bradley's move to top rank means no fight with Amir Khan.
Loserboi
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 2:21:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 2:13:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Doubtful. It's understandable why boxing and wrestling faded away. Wrestling has no striking, is half fake, and somewhat childish. Boxing is extremely limited, punches only and must wear thick padded punching gloves. Not really close to a real fight.

Fighting has been around a lot longer than football, basketball, and baseball and has still remained a well-liked sport. Just look at the ancient Coliseum fights.

Dana White pointed out that it breaks cultural boudaries. Other sports are limited to it's respective country whereas fighting is a language known world wide and all humans like that kind of action. Not everyone enjoys balls being hit with a racket.

This is just my opinion since I have done both boxing and sorts of MMA training. You need to be alot more well condition to do boxing. Yes MMA has more variations of fighting but its really only 3-5 rounds. I think all fights in the UFC are 3 rounds unless they are championship fights. Boxing is 12 rounds and you think its alot easier to box because you only have to watch the hands, but from my experience i have alot more trouble boxing than doing like muay thai/mma
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 2:43:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 2:21:18 PM, Loserboi wrote:
At 10/19/2011 2:13:12 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Doubtful. It's understandable why boxing and wrestling faded away. Wrestling has no striking, is half fake, and somewhat childish. Boxing is extremely limited, punches only and must wear thick padded punching gloves. Not really close to a real fight.

Fighting has been around a lot longer than football, basketball, and baseball and has still remained a well-liked sport. Just look at the ancient Coliseum fights.

Dana White pointed out that it breaks cultural boudaries. Other sports are limited to it's respective country whereas fighting is a language known world wide and all humans like that kind of action. Not everyone enjoys balls being hit with a racket.

This is just my opinion since I have done both boxing and sorts of MMA training. You need to be alot more well condition to do boxing.

First of all, I have doubts about that. If so, it's probably because it's 12 rounds compared to 3-5 rounds.

Secondly, the viewer doesn't give a crap. The viewer is not going to say to themselves "boxing requires more conditioning, I think I'll watch boxing." No, they're gonna watch the more entertaining one.

Yes MMA has more variations of fighting but its really only 3-5 rounds. I think all fights in the UFC are 3 rounds unless they are championship fights.

In UFC, there's about 8 fights on one card. So 3 x 8 = 24 rounds. Boxing, one fight, 12 rounds. Not to mention the faces change in UFC. You get more action in UFCs 24+ rounds than boxings 12 rounds of dancing, dodging, and 4 punches. A UFC fight has multiple fighters beating the crap out of eachother, no dancing.

Boxing is 12 rounds and you think its alot easier to box because you only have to watch the hands,

I'd say MMA is tougher because you have to be proficient in multiple fighting styles. In a boxing match, you never have to worry about a takedown or a foot to the face. You can just dance around comfortably knowing that no one will kick you or choke you out.

but from my experience i have alot more trouble boxing than doing like muay thai/mma

Well that's unfortunate
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 7:11:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 6:41:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Boxing has seen people get their ears bitten off, what has MMA done?

In terms of unlikely-sounding injuries or...?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Loserboi
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 1:02:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/19/2011 2:43:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:


but from my experience i have alot more trouble boxing than doing like muay thai/mma

Well that's unfortunate

Like I don't know if you do MMA but when you are doing MMA and you have takedowns and you have kicks, knees and elbows it really makes you have to think about what your going to do. In boxing its straight out fast combos, you get your distance and the punching begins, like i have a hard time adjusting from one punch to the other.

in MMA you can see when a guy is about to take you down, your opposing person has a good takedown defense or throws a knee out there I'm almost out. Like even staring each other down i throw a punch i could get kicked. You really are just staring down your opponent till you can see some opening. Like you make movements that opens yourself up in MMA. Boxing its all compact, its all speed the stance is different, its a completely different level of difficulty.

I think you exaggerate how exciting MMA is. Like if you ever watch a GSP fight its just 5 rounds of fighting for positioning with him, or GSP just smothering them on the ground. Silva fights are exciting to some degree, but he really isn't even trying in a lot of those fights. Silva toys with a lot of his opponents.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 1:11:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In summary, Loserboi: If you like watching American football-- that is, if you like watching a game with lots and lots and lots of well-defined strategies understandable to the viewer in addition to its physicality, where every team specializes in different strategies-- watch MMA.

If you like watching soccer-- if you like a contest of sheer endurance, speed, and a few specialized athletic skills that will be similar for most of the athletes, where the strategies are minimal and hardly visible because the action never stops and there's no time for strategy-- watch boxing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 5:05:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find all sports beside MMA boring. MMA is the only sport I watch religiously.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 8:30:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 5:05:45 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I find all sports beside MMA boring. MMA is the only sport I watch religiously.

MMA really isn't a sport though, so that makes sense. Gladiators aren't athletes.
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 8:32:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 8:30:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 10/21/2011 5:05:45 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I find all sports beside MMA boring. MMA is the only sport I watch religiously.

MMA really isn't a sport though, so that makes sense. Gladiators aren't athletes.

Wat.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2011 8:49:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 8:30:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 10/21/2011 5:05:45 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I find all sports beside MMA boring. MMA is the only sport I watch religiously.

MMA really isn't a sport though, so that makes sense. Gladiators aren't athletes.

Fail.

"Mixed martial arts (MMA) is a full contact combat sport that allows the use of both striking and grappling techniques, both standing and on the ground, including boxing, wrestling, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, muay Thai, kickboxing, karate, judo and other styles."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 12:33:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/21/2011 8:30:03 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 10/21/2011 5:05:45 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I find all sports beside MMA boring. MMA is the only sport I watch religiously.

MMA really isn't a sport though, so that makes sense. Gladiators aren't athletes.:

Is boxing a sport? Is wrestling a sport? Then MMA, which incorporates both, is most certainly a sport.

What isn't a sport, in my estimation, is NASCAR.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 3:36:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A sport, by my lights, is an athletic competition that involves and is supposed to involve direct physical interaction with your opponent's achievement of their goals in the competition while achieving yours. ("Direct physical interaction" meaning-- the only legitimate interaction isn't measuring numbers at the end, like in bowling or track, but one can say, tackle or in some ways strike one's opponent like in football or MMA or hockey, or take the ball from them like in basketball or soccer, or one's strike of the ball determines where they will receive it, at what angle and what velocity, like in tennis or volleyball.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Loserboi
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 8:12:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 4:36:43 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Just because we make fighting into a sport, doesn't mean that it is one (or that fighters are athletes).

How can you say fighting is not a sport? Or fighters are not athletes? Fighters have to go through very intense strength and physical training. Fighting needs a lot of strength, strategy and endurance.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 10:07:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 8:12:48 PM, Loserboi wrote:
At 10/22/2011 4:36:43 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Just because we make fighting into a sport, doesn't mean that it is one (or that fighters are athletes).

How can you say fighting is not a sport? Or fighters are not athletes? Fighters have to go through very intense strength and physical training. Fighting needs a lot of strength, strategy and endurance.

You can do anything "for sport." Driving cars and shooting guns, for example, aren't athletic at all but are sports. We can eat apples and bananas and see who can shlt out the best fruit salad and call it a sport. Al Unser Jr., Tank Abbott, and Aaron Rodgers might be "sporting" in their endeavors but only Rodgers is an athlete; Abbott is a gladiator, and Unser is neither.
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 11:27:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Define athlete.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 12:43:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Athletics: physical sports or games of any kind.

An athlete would be someone who engages in any type of physical game. So technically driving, shooting, and even video games (which are based on hand-eye coordination) are athletics. This definition obviously has some problems.

Once you somehow refine the definition of athletics to only include games which we would feel good listing, you now have to refine how often one actually participates in said games. I played tennis three times this summer. Am I an athlete?

So there are at least two issues regarding the breadth of the definition: there are no adequately defined limits on what kind of game is athletic nor are there standards on how much one must engage in them to qualify as an athlete. I am attempting to place reasonable limits on it by separating the athlete from other obvious non-athletes. I don't believe driving a car or playing vids to be athletic activities because the physical exertion is minimal, and I don't believe fighting to be athletic because it is a fundamentally different sort of physical activity. In any sport, injuries are supposed to be avoided at all costs, yet in fighting, injury is your primary (and indeed your only) goal.

My preferred definition of athletics would be physically demanding games in which the objective is not physical harm of your opponent.

Football is a good example of this distinction. While everybody loves the physical action, nobody (at least nobody that matters) wants injurious tactics in the game. Therefore, incredible measures are taken to eliminate these tactics. The awesome struggle of the NFL to create rules that protect the safety of players is a testament to the distinction I am making.
Rob
Loserboi
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 3:50:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:43:45 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Athletics: physical sports or games of any kind.

An athlete would be someone who engages in any type of physical game. So technically driving, shooting, and even video games (which are based on hand-eye coordination) are athletics. This definition obviously has some problems.

Once you somehow refine the definition of athletics to only include games which we would feel good listing, you now have to refine how often one actually participates in said games. I played tennis three times this summer. Am I an athlete?

So there are at least two issues regarding the breadth of the definition: there are no adequately defined limits on what kind of game is athletic nor are there standards on how much one must engage in them to qualify as an athlete. I am attempting to place reasonable limits on it by separating the athlete from other obvious non-athletes. I don't believe driving a car or playing vids to be athletic activities because the physical exertion is minimal, and I don't believe fighting to be athletic because it is a fundamentally different sort of physical activity. In any sport, injuries are supposed to be avoided at all costs, yet in fighting, injury is your primary (and indeed your only) goal.

My preferred definition of athletics would be physically demanding games in which the objective is not physical harm of your opponent.

Football is a good example of this distinction. While everybody loves the physical action, nobody (at least nobody that matters) wants injurious tactics in the game. Therefore, incredible measures are taken to eliminate these tactics. The awesome struggle of the NFL to create rules that protect the safety of players is a testament to the distinction I am making.

so the only reason fighting is not considered a sport to you is because it conflicts with your idea of morality and ethics? Because aside from its physical nature you ignore it completely cause its goal is to hurt someone which you find to be wrong.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 3:59:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 12:43:45 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Athletics: physical sports or games of any kind.

An athlete would be someone who engages in any type of physical game. So technically driving, shooting, and even video games (which are based on hand-eye coordination) are athletics.

Driving, shooting, and videogames are not physical. They do not rely on the physical abilities of the body. You could be incredibly weak and have zero cardio and still participate in these activities.

This definition obviously has some problems.

Once you somehow refine the definition of athletics to only include games which we would feel good listing, you now have to refine how often one actually participates in said games. I played tennis three times this summer. Am I an athlete?

So there are at least two issues regarding the breadth of the definition: there are no adequately defined limits on what kind of game is athletic nor are there standards on how much one must engage in them to qualify as an athlete.

Simple. Athlete: One who actively participates and trains for a sport.

I am attempting to place reasonable limits on it by separating the athlete from other obvious non-athletes. I don't believe driving a car or playing vids to be athletic activities because the physical exertion is minimal, and I don't believe fighting to be athletic because it is a fundamentally different sort of physical activity.

Physical activity is physical activity. All sports have fundamentally different physical activity, that doesn't mean their not sports.

I'd say it's fair to say that a sport is any physical activity in which winning is the goal. There's no way to disagree wth that.

In any sport, injuries are supposed to be avoided at all costs, yet in fighting, injury is your primary (and indeed your only) goal.

False. Fighters do not intend to injure their opponents. They intend to defeat them. In fact, in the UFC, moves that cause serious injuries aren't allowed. Most fighters will even admit, they don't want to end anyones career or force their opponent to miss work due to injury.

Being knocked out is not an injury, scrapes on the face is not an injury, being caught in a chokehold is not an injury, etc. The goal of injuring your opponent is no more present in UFC than it is in football. Since the purpose is to tackle and take your opponent to the ground, does that mean footballs purpose is to injure? No. But by your standards football isn't a sport because it involves tackling which involves high risk of injury.

Fun fact, NFL players face more injuries and more serious injuries than in UFC. UFC has smaller risk of injury than NFL, what do you say to that fact?

My preferred definition of athletics would be physically demanding games in which the objective is not physical harm of your opponent.

Football is a good example of this distinction. While everybody loves the physical action, nobody (at least nobody that matters) wants injurious tactics in the game. Therefore, incredible measures are taken to eliminate these tactics.

A chunk of my elbow fell off and had to get stitches after playing 2-hand touch football. I've sparred several times and was never injured.

The awesome struggle of the NFL to create rules that protect the safety of players is a testament to the distinction I am making.

UFC has rules to protect the safety of it's players. Look at the retired Chuck Liddel who's taken many heavy beatings, he's doing fine.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 10:40:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've always viewed boxing as an incomplete sport, same with wrestling. It's really annoying going from BJJ and back to a little wrestling in college - there's clear pluses and minuses to each. I like the idea of the practicality of the UFC and the diversity of fighting styles but I personally don't follow the sport.

On one level the athletes make me feel bad about myself, and on another isn't it pay per view?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2011 1:19:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/24/2011 10:40:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I've always viewed boxing as an incomplete sport, same with wrestling. It's really annoying going from BJJ and back to a little wrestling in college - there's clear pluses and minuses to each. I like the idea of the practicality of the UFC and the diversity of fighting styles but I personally don't follow the sport.

On one level the athletes make me feel bad about myself, and on another isn't it pay per view?

UFC is debuting on Fox next month and will continue to broadcast major UFC fights for free.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat