UFC results

I saw the fight last night, my first experience with UFC. I am not sure why there is such disdain for it on here. It seemed more entertaining than boxing, and it's undeniable that it is popular. My opinion is that the mainstream sports media are missing the boat.

 

I'm not trying to be a smartass on here, but may I ask why? I'm hoping there's some legitimate reason and it's not just because you're ignorant about the sport or you're just a dickhead (though, I can respect the dickhead part cuz I've been known to be one on an occasion. Ha!)

 

What's your reasoning? I mean, it's easy to say that's where it belongs, but I want to know WHY it belongs there?

 

No name recognition for the overwhelming majority of the audience, the fact that it's still two guys trying to beat the crap out of each other, and it's not local. Just for starters.

 

A brilliant (not to mention all that unexpected) response.

 

No name recognition for the OVERWHELMING majority of the audience? Sure, the "older" audience has been slow to accept mixed martial arts, but you simply cannot deny that the younger audience is flocking to the sport. The ratings for UFC programming on SpikeTV have been impressive and, head-to-head against the MLB playoffs and the NBA, has drawn higher ratings amongst males 18-36. And the pay-per-view buyrates have been staggering. Only Oscar De La Hoya and Mike Tyson have drawn higher than what last night's UFC event is expected to pull in (1.2 million).
Sure it's two guys beating each other up. How is that any different than boxing? But, there's a lot more strategy to it than one who doesn't watch it regularly might think. Most people who aren't fans of it probably just catch the highlights of someone getting knocked out and it looks "brutal" and "barbaric." But as some posters mentioned above, there's so much more to the fights. Guys who are great wrestlers taking guys who prefer to stand and fight down to the ground and watching them maneuver into submission holds. It's really a chess match.

Your last argument, "it's not local" has some validity to it. I don't think every newspaper needs to assign a writer to it. It'd be great to see AP or one of the other wire services cover it, giving all newspapers the option of at least running the results.
I'm not saying that it should be displayed centerpiece on the front page. But it does deserve some coverage, if only to satisfy the fast-growing portion of the readership that does enjoy it.
I despise soccer, yet I think it deserves coverage. Why? Because there's a market out there for it. Just like there's a market out there for MMA.

 

Still one of the best fights I've ever seen, though it doesn't top Daniel Larusso of Miyagi-Do Karate vs. John Lawrence of the Cobra Kai.

 

At what j-school do they teach you to ignore something, no matter how big it is, because you personally don't like it?

I'm not even going to get into debating whether it belongs in the newspaper at this point, because every thread devolves into pro-MMA people laying out how it fits every definition of the word "sport," and anti-MMA types coming up with nothing better than "it isn't a sport because I say so."

Besides, you're on the wrong side of a losing battle. On one hand, we have the LA Times, Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, and Las Vegas RJ, among others, regularly covering the fights, none of whom were doing it a year ago, and even the New York Times did a preview of this weekend's show. Not to mention NBCSports.com and Foxsports.com covered the fight and even MSN.com had coverage. So you have all those lined up on the side of covering it, and a few people on a message board making crank jokes and posting wacky pictures on the other.

 

I'm sure WWF was doing some pretty serious numbers in its heyday too. Now, before you get all fired up about my comparison, my point is that UFC is built to cater to the tastes of people who like aggression and hostile conflict. In other words, males 18-36. Pay-per-view buyrates don't impress me, because that's still a sign of those who are already interested. In other words, no common sports fan without any knowledge of UFC in his right mind is going to buy a pay-per-view event.

First of all, it's not really a chess match. If it were, then it would be chess. Of course there's strategy, but there's also strategy in scrabble, and despite ESPN's urgings, we're not that interested in watching. And it looks brutal and barbaric because on some level it IS brutal and barbaric. On that level, it's not any different than boxing. Now, boxing has plenty of problems of its own, but a large part of its nosedive over the last 20 years has been the fact that the American lust for pugilism is going the way of the dodo. We simply aren't interested in it anymore. Why that is, well, you could write a book about, or at least a pretty good term paper (SJ college students, feel free to credit me in May). UFC is a more entertaining product than most highly-touted boxing matches (though I'd argue its an even split when you're talking about the good fights on Showtime or Fox Sports), but it's still about two guys fighting each other.

There's also a market for the one-off obstacle course shows on Spike and OLN. That alone does not make it something the mainstream sports media should handle. Maybe someday MMA will be a big enough deal that the media will want a bigger piece of it. But right now, you're talking about a little-known sport, catered to and watched almost exclusively by ONE demographic. Making a big deal out of that just isn't smart for any sports media outlet that is trying to attract as many eyes as possible. I'm not telling you you are stupid for enjoying MMA, or that it's not a sport, or any of that. But it's still a fringe sport, and just like all the other fringe sports, it doesn't yet deserve the attention of the sports media at large.