I think the MMA just acquired legions of fans.

I think it's relative to anyone who cares about the future of the sport. If the "Classic Stance" is to consider boxing a closed book (which very well seems to be the case), then it is of no importance. However, if we wish to see our sport progress or at least endure, we need to acknowledge that MMA has learned a few very pertinent tricks that boxing has forgotten, like giving the people the matches they want in a timely fashion and making the sport available in some form, or on some level, on free TV. Neither the success of the sport can not be denied nor the fact that this success has come largely at the expense of boxing.

I don't love MMA the way I do boxing but I find it mildly interesting and respect the participants. They are always in great shape, have high level technical abilities, and the best ones usually end up fighting each other.

 

Actually, Fedor is already being ducked or ducking the UFC champions for years, and fighting mediocre opposition.

I'm not expert on MMA, but from my understanding there is already a split between organisations - UFC and Strikeforce (?). This is after 10 years. Boxing has been around for 100 years and has 4 major organisations. Corruption and split sanctioning bodies is an irreversible process and will hit MMA just like it did boxing. Right now there are two, next decade there might be three and soon everything is the same.

When someone whispers the MMA champions that boxers make millions for a title fight when they make 50-100k from an (in America) similar revenue, they might start their own sanctioning body to get payed a fair amount of money. This will further mess up the "one champion and no one ducks the other"-idea.

Trust me, MMA's great position in terms of having few champions and the top fighters facing each other is a temporary one and only getting worse as time progresses. And i'm not saying that because I "threatened" or care about MMA, but because ...... it's the way it is.

 

That's the one major fight that has not been made, and since then Fedor has lost (thought defeats don't mean as much in MMA- another bonus). Meanwhile boxing is desperate for the lifesaver of Paq-Mayweather and it's not going to happen, or happen far too late. And we will never get a Klit v Klit fight. And Roy Jones, possibly the best talent of the past 20 years in the sport, went the better part of his prime fighting garbagemen, roided up lightweight guido's and no-hopers. I could go on and on regarding the matches not made over the past 20 years.

You are probably right, though. Unless UFC absolutely creates a monopoly, they will probably develop their own issues of unmade fights. But it's not a real issue right now.

 

Not you too, Brutus. :-(

 

That's the thing - they've already tried to make a monopoly, but there's another sanctioning body (Strikeforce), and from what I understand, it's there to stay. McGrain makes a good point that it doesn't just make it hard to fight each other across organisations, but that it makes it impossible. The intended monopoly is backfiring.

One other thing that hurts MMA is that they have no Ali, Tyson, De la Hoya or even a Mayweather. They had Fedor, who I must admit made even me a bit curious, but he just lost to a nobody after years of only facing nobodies.. and their Klitschko (Brock) has just lost in a single round in embarrassing fashion.

My point? MMA, by it's very nature, is simply too complicated for one fighter to dominate. Just look at how hard boxing by it self is. Now look at kick boxing: most of their top fighters are not that good at pure boxing. Now add to that an entire sport of wrestling and jiu jitsu. It's just too ****ing much. Maybe that leads to varied styles, but it also leads to a seemingly invincible champion losing in chancelessly in less than a minute to a relative nobody. This has happened several times now. And the fights that are regarded as their best, are the so-called "Stand-up wars!" where they don't dryhump each other like normally. If you like that, then just watch boxing instead.:huh

I think 70% of it's popularity is due to:
-The popular image of "it's real fighting, yo!";
-Short 3 round fights that coincide with the attention span of the average viewer;
-As a consequence of the former, the fighters are incredible buff and as such, become more marketable.

The best fighters facing each other and having fewer champs contributes, but I doubt it's the main reason..

 

The sport wilts on the vine.

This discussion is getting pointless.

 

Just like Chris and McGrain I think more organizations will pop up the more money that gets involved, rather than the opposite. The fighters themselves have little interest in one monopolizing organization.

Today there's Affliction, Strikeforce and UFC. Let's see how long the UFC can keep its stars happy.

 

ass shown? my points are entirely valid. mma has used recruitment strategies that boxing has forgotten and has taken a big part of its audience. you have done nothing to rebut this fact. more people BOUGHT the PPV fight last night than watched the MLB playoff game for FREE. Fact. Boxing is never doing that in the States. Now, will any of the major players bother to emulate these tactics? What are the benefits of the monopoly styled UFC model compared to the promotor-run (with their hands in the pockets of the sanctioning bodies) model of boxing?

i thought you wanted this topic moved yet you have responded to it more than anyone? why? were your little feelings hurt on a previous thread? jesus, it's ****ing message board, not the sum total of your life's worth. ignore the topic if it doesn't interest you. ignore me if my comments or insight don't interest you. no reason to play tough guy faux moderator.

 

I agree. But I see that as a positive.

 

The inflated sense of worth can get really high here. When it comes to self-importance McGrain is like the leading candidate for president.