Is Cain-JDS the most important, significant fight in the history of MMA?

And I don't think it is the most important, because the most important fight would be between the two best fighters in the sport, and Cain/JDS aren't there yet. Just my opinion. Fedor-Crocop and Fedor-Nogueira were more important IMO.

 

The fight none, the TV deal maybe

 

It's the biggest most important fight regarding how much advertising revenue Fox can get out of their MMA venture. Dont confuse that with the history of the sport, it's neither the biggest, or most important

EDIT and Nev just summed that up in one sentence

 

This.

 

Could be but we won't know for a few years. Of the top of my head I'd pick Royce's original tournament win, Sakuraba's series with the Gracies, Griffin-Bonnar I, Ortiz-Shamrock III as the most important

 

People say this about every big fight. So, in short....NO

 

What you wrote (which im sure was in the heat of passion, sword wielding defece of Zuffa from us "Haters") had nothing to do with what I stated.

I was talking about the Hyberbole of Ufc promotion, that seems to be the rule when promoting UFC fights: "the most dangerous striker in the world" - when refering to Anderson silva. Im quite sure in order to attain that title you would need to compete in pure striking sports against international competition and dominate to prove that. Anderson, while a fantastic striker by mma standards, has only beaten a handful of non accomplished strikers under MMA rules :deal (I am probably one of his biggest fans, but facts are facts)

"The most important, significant fight in the history of MMA"

Any ways, I am addressing the common annoyance of the mma culture to overhype everygoddam thing!

I mean how can this be the most important fight in MMA history when Cain valasquez is the least proven champion in the ufc? And he is making his first tile defese against a guy who is not any better experience wise.

in addition, theoretically, neither Cain or JDS can not even be heavyweight champion this time next year.

Instead of people trying to predict the future, lets simply wait and see. Even if that means we "MMA fans" have to get our ADHD under control.

It could be better long term:good

 

I think people are arguing at cross purposes.

Is this the most meaningful title fight in the sport's history? Hell no, for all the reasons people have outlined.

However the start of the Fox deal and the debut on Network television is a huge deal and if this fight somehow plays a significant impact on the success or failure of the new partnership then it would be hugely important a la Griffin-Bonnar I or Ortiz-Shamrock III. That unfortunately is something we may won't know for years.

 

Its also worth noting that next week will tell us a fair a bit about how the presentation of UFC is going to change next year and how it will synch up with standard Fox presentation. The fact that they're doing things like have an actual panel of pundits suggests this is going to be a very different style of presentation that what we see on PPV and Spike.

 

I feel the hyperbole can get pretty ludicirous at times but I struggle to see how calling Anderson the most dangerous striker in the world is one of them. Its debatable but surely there's a perfectly valid argument that a striker who has almost uniquely proven himself able to impose his kickboxing on opponents who have the opportunity to take him down to the ground is more dangerous than one who is just a double-leg away from going night-night? Particularly when Anderson has shown the ability to **** people up even off his back.

 

Hmmm not too keen on the pundits idea, will it be a between fight thing? The action flows nicely from fight to fight as it stands and is one of the UFC's best points, the fights flow with very little filler inbetween

 

The pundits are Brock Lesnar, Dana White and Curt Menefee (an NFL announcer). They'll be doing pre and post fight discussions.

 

Ohh dear. Just for the Fox shows though?

 

Dunno. Dana's said that all production gets overhauled next year but then again Dana says a lot of things. I personally have no problem with pundits in theory but we'll have to see how its done.

 

I cant say Im a big fan of pundits myself, but we'll see how it goes. They should be getting Mir/Miletich type guys in there, as most punditry quickly descends into who can put the most clichés into a single sentence

EDIT actually, Bas Rutten would be the perfect guy for the job