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

Sigh.

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.

 

Does Vegas lay odds on MMA fights?

 

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

 

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.

 

This dude represents what UFC truly is. Human cockfighting.

 

Yes.

 

millions?

really? is this true?

 

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.

 

Now this, I will cover

 

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.

 

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

 

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.)