1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

San Francisco Chronicle refuses to cover MMA and UFC and UFC President bashes em

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by blog415, Aug 11, 2010.

  1. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member


    Because now the Chronicle can say "HA! They're just a bunch of drug cheats!" whether that's right or wrong.

    Honestly, who cares? You guys really are worse than soccer fans.
  2. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Does Vegas lay odds on MMA fights?
  3. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    I look forward to UFC 178, when George Foreman will box a kangaroo trained in muay thai.
  4. sgreenwell

    sgreenwell Well-Known Member

    I strongly dislike MMA - I can't watch it. It seems barbaric to me, like I'm watching society regress. But it's definitely an event, and it would be silly for me to not cover it if it came to my town, whether by the sports or news or entertainment department. The Chronicle not doing anything on the event just makes them seem out-of-touch, stupid or petty, take your pick.
  5. printdust

    printdust New Member

    This dude represents what UFC truly is. Human cockfighting. :)
  6. StaggerLee

    StaggerLee Well-Known Member

  7. millions?

    really? is this true?
  8. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Re: San Francisco Chronicle refuses to cover MMA and UFC and UFC President bashe

    Yes, but the question is whether those people would have been there anyway.
  9. Now this, I will cover
  10. SoCalScribe

    SoCalScribe Member

    Boxing ruins a lot more brains (and lives) than MMA does. Anyone who's covered or even casually followed both would know that, per bout, one involves hundreds of head blows and the other involves a handful of head blows. Watching some guy's elbow get dislocated in an armbar may look more gruesome than shot No. 97 to the dome that a fighter shrugs off, but the long-term neurological consequences are vastly different.

    The science is out there, not that anyone cares.
  11. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Yeah, the neurological impact of a dislocated elbow would by default be nil. Anyhoo, damn good argument for minimizing boxing coverage, and mission accomplished.
  12. Mr7134

    Mr7134 Member

    I don't know how relevant this is the argument about the San Francisco Chronicle. The internet and print are two different animals. However, a fun fact off Dave Meltzer (who among other things works for Yahoo Sports.)

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page