I just wanted to quote a great line from Coach Tim Walker from the ESB front page. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=21278&more=1 "While both sides downplay the importance of the boxing vs. UFC weekend but now that the pay per view numbers are trickling in it will be interesting to see if it stays that way. Truth be told, boxing isn’t dead and it owes a big high five to the UFC for forcing it to get back on track. No matter which sport won, or which sport did more sales, a lot of people watched a lot of guys fight this weekend. You gotta love that."
For those of us who enjoy both boxing and MMA, it's great time to be a fan. And I hope boxing continues to feel threatened by the success of the UFC. Having serious competition for PPV dollars will force boxing to make the best fights possible. Even people who hate MMA surely can't argue against that. As long as good fights are made, everyone wins, no matter which sport you follow. Although I'd prefer that the UFC doesn't go up directy against boxing again. It's a ***** to have to watch both in the same night.
I agree its a ***** to have to find a way to watch both on the same night especially when its big fights like this. I can dig what goes down November 14th with the Pac-Cotto PPV while UFC runs the Couture-Vera fight for free on Spike TV. Ill likely order Pac-Cotto since its a fight actually worth the 50 bucks and use my free TV to record the UFC. If some cant record the UFC at the same time for whatever reason well there will be replays and probablly one immediately after the orginal airing to begin with. Now them putting 2 big PPVs on the same night and basically forcing us to choose one is pretty ****ed up IMO.
Someone who calls himself coach is guaranteed to be an idiot. The sport is called MMA. How can you compare bananas to the label stuck to them. Folks, this is really an example gross stupidity. No argument can be taken seriously if you don't at least get your facts straight.
Boxing has been revived over the past few years. I don't know how responsible the UFC is for that, but I'm thinking it didn't hurt.
The Mayweather/Marquez under card was not on par with an UFC under card in terms of equivalent name recognition when comparing sport to sport. However, it was evenly matched with decent talent; and provided a full night of entertainment. The dullest fight on the card was between John and Juarez, and even it provided plenty of thrill at the end. Your also hearing the boxing promoters mentioning the importance of their under cards now. If your one of those people that get off saying one of these sports is better than the other, fine. Keep it up. I enjoy both sports. I became a boxing fan in 1989, and started following mma after the first couple UFC's. Your bantering back and forth is forcing each sport into what is probably a non-competition among fans, and forcing each to try and match each other quality for quality.
The boxing undercard for JMM/Mayweather was far superior talent wise to that of the UFC 103 undercard. Thats for sure. But overall, UFC undercards are better. But Main Events are what sells. Thats what people buy PPVs for. The main event. Not to see Josh Koscheck or Rob Emerson.
The Mayweather JMM card was infinitely superior to the UFC card. Apart from a feeble main event the UFC card was rubbish.
The boxing card was good quality match ups and that is what we want to see. Good match ups which creates good fights. The UFC usually do pretty well at that. They put on fights that aren't two legends but two guys who will give it a good go.
