The MMA thread

I don't want to give up on holly but that was sad.

I would go for Tate/Holly 2 and then Nunes/Sheva.

Assuming of course Ronda is still playing Pokemon Go
 
I'd say Nunes should fight Juliana Pena and the winner fight Shevchenko

Holly should probably get either Tate or Cat Zingano

Never thought i'd say this but Rousey definitely needs to hurry back to add some mojo back into the division.
 
I bet there's a lot of people in the world who would love to see that happen for one very specific reason.
 
Raoul said:
I'd say Nunes should fight Juliana Pena and the winner fight Shevchenko

Holly should probably get either Tate or Cat Zingano

Never thought i'd say this but Rousey definitely needs to hurry back to add some mojo back into the division.
Click to expand...

A lot of people, such as Joe Rogan, say that the women's bantamweight division is so strong as anybody can beat anybody. I'm of the opposite opinion. I think they all have huge weaknesses and it's pretty evident when fighting a particular fighter.

I couldn't see Rousey beating Holm because Rousey's stand-up is technically awful. Holm was well and truly beaten in her last two bouts. Nunes' cardio is so bad that if she is taken to the second round by anyone half decent she's in big trouble. Poor aul Miesha wouldn't stand a hope against Rousey. It's all over the place.
 
Name Changed said:
A lot of people, such as Joe Rogan, say that the women's bantamweight division is so strong as anybody can beat anybody. I'm of the opposite opinion. I think they all have huge weaknesses and it's pretty evident when fighting a particular fighter.

I couldn't see Rousey beating Holm because Rousey's stand-up is technically awful. Holm was well and truly beaten in her last two bouts. Nunes' cardio is so bad that if she is taken to the second round by anyone half decent she's in big trouble. Poor aul Miesha wouldn't stand a hope against Rousey. It's all over the place.
Click to expand...

BW is too diffuse at the moment imo. As in, two many cooks in the kitchen and no Chef. Preferred it much more when Rousey (who I loved to hate) was in charge and mowing girls down left and right. She needs to come back asap imo.
 
I think divisions can be more fun when the belt is in hot potato mode personally. I'm enjoying Women's bantamweight more than ever right now. Although the one downside is that you don't get the huge shock factor/upset moments in an unstable division, like you do when a dominant champ loses.

Nunes is ferocious for 2 rounds, it's the 3rd where she really falls off a cliff. I think Valentina can take her in a 5 round fight. The matchup is quite similar to Joanna and Claudia actually.
 
I'd go with Nunes-Pena, Tate-Shevchenko and Holm-Zingano. Although Shevchenko's win was bigger and in a main event, so i could see her getting a title shot before Pena.
 
justboy68 said:
I think divisions can be more fun when the belt is in hot potato mode personally. I'm enjoying Women's bantamweight more than ever right now. Although the one downside is that you don't get the huge shock factor/upset moments in an unstable division, like you do when a dominant champ loses.

Nunes is ferocious for 2 rounds, it's the 3rd where she really falls off a cliff. I think Valentina can take her in a 5 round fight. The matchup is quite similar to Joanna and Claudia actually.
Click to expand...

I don't really rate Nunes. She was very good against Tate, but she began to fade in the 3rd round v Shevchenko, who battered her that round after being outclassed in the first two. Rousey should have no trouble storming back to regaining her belt when she returns. Holm, who is now nearly 35 seems to have faded since last year. Tate is out for a long time after Nunes broke her nose, and Zingano was found out v Pena this month.

Logically the next round of fights should be

1. Nunes v Pena (winner fights winner of fight #3)
2. Holm v Zingano
3. Tate v Shevchenko (winner fights winner of #1)

Obviously all bets are off if Rousey returns, as she'll fight for the title right away.
 
Raoul said:
I don't really rate Nunes. She was very good against Tate, but she began to fade in the 3rd round v Shevchenko, who battered her that round after being outclassed in the first two. Rousey should have no trouble storming back to regaining her belt when she returns. Holm, who is now nearly 35 seems to have faded since last year. Tate is out for a long time after Nunes broke her nose, and Zingano was found out v Pena this month.

Logically the next round of fights should be

1. Nunes v Pena (winner fights winner of fight #3)
2. Holm v Zingano
3. Tate v Shevchenko (winner fights winner of #1)

Obviously all bets are off if Rousey returns, as she'll fight for the title right away.
Click to expand...

She definitely fades hard in the 3rd round and that is her glaring weakness. But with that said she is a killer in the first 2 rounds. Heavy hands, strong, with top notch BJJ. 5 of her 7 UFC fights have been first round stoppages which is pretty crazy for the women's divisions, what she did to Tate is close to the norm for her. (Obviously Rousey was doing the same even quicker and crazier). 12 of 13 wins are finishes (Shevchenko the only decision). If you can survive the onslaught then you can win.

The one blemish in her UFC career is against Cat Zingano two years ago (who has been on the slide ever since), and that fight showed exactly what we said above. She was absolutely battering Cat but one thing Cat has is unbelievable toughness and stuck it out. Then Nunes was completely done afterwards. Not many women in the division are withstanding that initial onslaught though. I think Holm would be the obvious one. Shevchenko can too. I don't really rate Pena, I still think she is waiting to get shown up but we'll see. Nunes has improved significantly in the last couple of years IMO. Her striking has looked much improved technically and she was still looking good in the second round against Valentina, which is at least a slight cardio improvement.

Nunes vs Rousey would be a really interesting fight I think, both front runners who come charging out of the gates. Nunes is big and strong like Holm, while also a better grappler, but on the other hand easier to clinch up with which could play in Ronda's favour. I'm just not sure Ronda will want it over a bigger payday and chance to avenge her loss to Holm. I guess we're all waiting to see what Ronda does. The other thing to consider is USADA. Ronda looked dreadful at the weigh ins for 193, with USADA in play and no IV to rehydrate. So who knows how she will look if she comes back.

Nunes - Zingano fight for anyone with fight pass. A really interesting one to go back and watch
 
Last edited:
Pscholes18 said:
Its bs Rousey gets a immediate title shot when she returns.
Click to expand...

Why? She carried a division, made a company an absolute shit load of money, brought new faces to the sport and was a dominant champion. I get people think she's a dick and I get people aren't huge fans of immediate rematches for certain fighters (i.e. it'd of been a joke if Rockhold got one for example) but surely champions like Rousey deserve one? She's one of the 2 biggest names in the sport.
 
Anyone heard Mark Hunt's rant on MMA Hour yesterday? Should go and have a listen if you haven't. Man's pissed! And I don't mean pissed like Phil Mitchell.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
Anyone heard Mark Hunt's rant on MMA Hour yesterday? Should go and have a listen if you haven't. Man's pissed! And I don't mean pissed like Phil Mitchell.
Click to expand...

For those who haven't :

“All these people who follow that piece of crap cheater are saying ‘why are you still talking about it? It’s OK to cheat,’ Listen here; all these boys and girls who want to be prize fighters just stick a needle in your ass and you’ll be fine!”

“I reached out to Dana to ask him what’s going on, and they aren’t doing a damn thing. What if I get really badly hurt or die? He’s a cheater, Brock is sticking needles in his arsehole, they should go to court for it. Who’s gonna look after my kids if I die against one of these cheaters?”

“That’s how these dirty cheaters win titles, they are all cheating, they aren’t clean. At this moment I don’t want to be a part of this company unless they do something about this sh*t. They are not doing anything about it.”

“If you are gonna make this a cheaters sport, lets all cheat, we’ll all stick needles in our arse and see who dies first. To be honest I don’t know why they gave him the exemption, it’s like he’s walking in to the octagon with a gun. Someone could die because someone was cheating.”

“There’s no way that white monkey is gonna make 265. Then when he gets caught then they throw me under the bus? You f*cking cheaters should all die in a fire, f*cking kiss my arse. I’m thinking maybe (the UFC) knew.”

“Why did they give him the exemption? They were just like ‘let’s stick this juiced up monkey in there for a big fight.’ Then the fool had his own press conference. People are scared because of what the company says, f*ck the company. They don’t care about you!”

“I’ll probably get a firing message from the company, but f*ck them, the company is a bunch of scumbag. They made enough money from our blood for years. The worse thing about it is I get sh*t from these steroid using monkeys, are you gonna look after my family? C*nts.”

“They should get sued and go to criminal court. I’m considering legal action. F*ck the UFC, bunch of c*nts, motherf*ckers, f*ck you fire me for that!”

“Trying to start a union is hard, but I can’t carry on fighting cheaters. It’s a bunch of cheaters and crooks. We need all the fighters to get together, this is about the future of the kids who look up to us as fighters. The UFC just thew me under the bus, they don’t give a sh*t about us.”

“It’s time for us to stick together, these companies don’t make nothing without us, they make no money without fighters. It’s gotta be done, somethings gotta be done. I’m not interested in working for a company that throws you under the bus. They are all cheaters, f*ck em’”

“Sooner or later someone is gonna die, are they just gonna let the other guy walk away if he gets caught doping. This is up to the fighters to make it better. Why would you want to get in the UFC when everyone is cheating anyway?”
 
In fairness to the UFC they are doing something. They brought USADA in to clean up their organisation. Their 2 biggest stars on their most recent PPV both got done for drugs there's not that much more they can do. Hunt fought in places like Japan where everyone was on the juice so in all honesty I don't think he's got this huge moral compass he's making out he has. I think he just wants to get a bit more money which is fair enough if he'd just admit that's the reason.

I'm sure deep down before the fight Hunt would of thought Lesnar was on the juice in all honesty. He even said it. I do feel sorry for him but he's fought plenty of people who he would of known wereo n drugs before and not batted an eyelid til he realises he wants a portion of the $2.5mil Lesnar got.
 
Fair play to Hunt, the testing procedures are a good move but it all counts for sh*t when someone that fails gets to walk away with their full purse.

Oggmonster said:
I'm sure deep down before the fight Hunt would of thought Lesnar was on the juice in all honesty. He even said it. I do feel sorry for him but he's fought plenty of people who he would of known were on drugs before and not batted an eyelid til he realises he wants a portion of the $2.5mil Lesnar got.
Click to expand...

It's an entirely different scenario 'presuming'/'suspecting' someone is on drugs (but having no solid evidence to substantiate the claim) than definitively knowing that someone is juiced for a fight because they fail the reduced testing criteria put in place by the company.
The initial scenario allows the UFC to operate under the guise of ignorance whereas the current outcome portrays the UFC as complicit in the offence or as being bitched by Brock Lesnar.
They bent over backwards to get him on the card, he turned up and hugged his way to a boring victory, juicing with impunity, and walks away with a paycheck that 99% of the roster can only dream of. It doesn't reflect well on a $4bn company and I'm amazed that there wasn't something contractual in place to automatically deal with this sort of instance.

Does the loss stay on Hunt's official record?
 
facund said:
Fair play to Hunt, the testing procedures are a good move but it all counts for sh*t when someone that fails gets to walk away with their full purse.



It's an entirely different scenario 'presuming'/'suspecting' someone is on drugs (but having no solid evidence to substantiate the claim) than definitively knowing that someone is juiced for a fight because they fail the reduced testing criteria put in place by the company.
The initial scenario allows the UFC to operate under the guise of ignorance whereas the current outcome portrays the UFC as complicit in the offence or as being bitched by Brock Lesnar.
They bent over backwards to get him on the card, he turned up and hugged his way to a boring victory, juicing with impunity, and walks away with a paycheck that 99% of the roster can only dream of. It doesn't reflect well on a $4bn company and I'm amazed that there wasn't something contractual in place to automatically deal with this sort of instance.

Does the loss stay on Hunt's official record?
Click to expand...


Has anyone actually said he'll walk away with his full purse? He's not even had a hearing yet. The fines etc come after then you can't really fine someone before they've told their side of the story. I'm not suggesting Brock is innocent by the way but that's the case for any fair trial. I've heard various things saying he probably will be fined.

Of course it is, but then why not mention it after the Frank Mir win? He got popped for steroids. Why not mention mention it after Antonio Silva? He got done for steroids as well. I sympathise with fighters who are clean and they get put in the ring with someone on steroids as it is a danger increase, my point though is Hunt to me has no reason to suddenly get dead annoyed cos he's in the octagon with someone who's been caught juicing. Why wasn't he outraged previously? To me he's doing this cos he wants more money which is fair enough but just say that. Steroids were huge culture in stuff like Pride and I can't remember him making a big deal of it then.
 
Hunt knew he was on the juice when he took the fight with Brock.
He can jog on with this fake moral outrage after he lost
 
Oggmonster said:
Has anyone actually said he'll walk away with his full purse? He's not even had a hearing yet. The fines etc come after then you can't really fine someone before they've told their side of the story. I'm not suggesting Brock is innocent by the way but that's the case for any fair trial. I've heard various things saying he probably will be fined.
Click to expand...

I think the commission will be the ones to implement a fine and ban, the UFC most likely won't as they never have.

As for the rest, Hunt's past silence on the issue doesn't invalidate his current argument. Yes he should have been upset on the prior occasions his opponents got popped but that doesn't nullify his right to express an opinion now.

Talking about Pride and it's unregulated culture is also moot. The fighters knew the score, they could join in the doping if they wanted to level the playing field. The UFC has introduced stringent testing to eradicate/minimise drug use, this creates an environment of good faith (or at least the illusion of) whereby the fighters enter the octagon presuming other fighters are clean. If they fail to convince fighters of this then they remove the incentive for any fighter to stay clean by perpetuating the uncertainty that has long existed. All their efforts take on a token quality if they allow a fighter to take possibly the highest purse ever away from the company whilst cheating when all it would take to stop such outcomes would be an addition to their contracts.
 
facund said:
I think the commission will be the ones to implement a fine and ban, the UFC most likely won't as they never have.

As for the rest, Hunt's past silence on the issue doesn't invalidate his current argument. Yes he should have been upset on the prior occasions his opponents got popped but that doesn't nullify his right to express an opinion now.

Talking about Pride and it's unregulated culture is also moot. The fighters knew the score, they could join in the doping if they wanted to level the playing field. The UFC has introduced stringent testing to eradicate/minimise drug use, this creates an environment of good faith (or at least the illusion of) whereby the fighters enter the octagon presuming other fighters are clean. If they fail to convince fighters of this then they remove the incentive for any fighter to stay clean by perpetuating the uncertainty that has long existed. All their efforts take on a token quality if they allow a fighter to take possibly the highest purse ever away from the company whilst cheating when all it would take to stop such outcomes would be an addition to their contracts.
Click to expand...

I think his past silence is quite damning though. he of course has a right to express an opinion but again why is it suddenly an issue now? Why wasn't it with Frank Mir in his last fight? Why did he not come out all guns blazing saying he should give him all his money etc.

The point about Pride though is Hunt mentions he could of died fighting. Yet he's willing to go in to an organisation which allows drugs cheats? Surely someone with such a great moral compass as Mark Hunt wouldn't do that? He obviously doesn't agree with them so why did he do that? His whole stance at the moment completely contradicts his career. I don't dislike the guy and don't blame him for wantign to get paid I just wish he'd admit that instead of trying to make out he's a hero for the fighters....at least someone like a Bisping for example has always spoke out about steroids.
 
cyberman said:
Hunt knew he was on the juice when he took the fight with Brock.
He can jog on with this fake moral outrage after he lost
Click to expand...

Its certainly not fake. Hunt probably lost a lot of money because Lesnar cheated (and beat him). Hunt would've probably clocked a non-roided up Lesnar who had been out of the octagon for 5 years and collected a significantly higher fee for it. Therefore he's correct in wanting half of Lesnar's purse.
 
Raoul said:
Its certainly not fake. Hunt probably lost a lot of money because Lesnar cheated (and beat him). Hunt would've probably clocked a non-roided up Lesnar who had been out of the octagon for 5 years and collected a significantly higher fee for it. Therefore he's correct in wanting half of Lesnar's purse.
Click to expand...
But he knew Brock was roided up before the fight. All he had to do was look at him. Add in the drug test dodging and I can't see how he didn't know.
He even said Brock was juiced to the gills before the fight!
Fact is he wouldn't have been on 200 for any sort of payday if he didn't fight Brock. Now that he did it's this moral outrage about fighting a drug cheat. Nobody forced him to take the fight.
He knew, we knew, the whole world knew that Brock was roided up.
 
cyberman said:
But he knew Brock was roided up before the fight. All he had to do was look at him. Add in the drug test dodging and I can't see how he didn't know.
He even said Brock was juiced to the gills before the fight!
Fact is he wouldn't have been on 200 for any sort of payday if he didn't fight Brock. Now that he did it's this moral outrage about fighting a drug cheat. Nobody forced him to take the fight.
He knew, we knew, the whole world knew that Brock was roided up.
Click to expand...

We all did, but the responsibility to provide a fair fight falls on the UFC, and if they played a role in allowing a roided up Lesnar to fight (to save the UFC 200 card etc) then they should do the right thing by reducing Lesnar's prize money because he cheated and give half of it to Hunt, who by all accounts would've probably knocked him out if Lesnar wasn't juiced up. There's a massive difference in performance when you're on juice and its patently unfair to have one guy knowingly juiced up against Hunt, who looks like he spends his days looking for the nearest McDonalds.
 
Like Hunt said, he didn't know Lesnar was cheating (as in had actual proof), he just very strongly suspected it along with everyone else. Once Lesnar actually gets caught then it should be a different matter. It shouldn't be Hunt's responsibility to turn down big fights just because the UFC don't deal with cheaters properly themselves.

This goes beyond Lesnar for Hunt anyway. Like Bisping, he's fought a few cheaters in his time and gets no compensation for it.

He makes a good point really: If they are happy to punish people who miss weight by taking 20% of what they're getting paid then why not fine drug cheats in a similar way?
 
Oggmonster said:
I think his past silence is quite damning though. he of course has a right to express an opinion but again why is it suddenly an issue now? Why wasn't it with Frank Mir in his last fight? Why did he not come out all guns blazing saying he should give him all his money etc.

The point about Pride though is Hunt mentions he could of died fighting. Yet he's willing to go in to an organisation which allows drugs cheats? Surely someone with such a great moral compass as Mark Hunt wouldn't do that? He obviously doesn't agree with them so why did he do that? His whole stance at the moment completely contradicts his career. I don't dislike the guy and don't blame him for wantign to get paid I just wish he'd admit that instead of trying to make out he's a hero for the fighters....at least someone like a Bisping for example has always spoke out about steroids.
Click to expand...

Pride was Pride, what would have been the point of him making any sort of statement when the organisation had no pretence towards clean competition. He accepted those fights on the basis of not knowing if his opponent was doped or not. There was no cheating involved because those rules/controls didn't exist.

His recent fights against Mir and Lesnar are different in that he is now fighting for an organisation that uses USADA testing as a virtue signal of it's intent to have a clean organisation. Hunt accepted the fight on these grounds, the presumption that his opponent would be either clean or caught by the pre-fight testing. The UFC circumnavigated normal procedure to enable Brock to both fight and cheat. This is a failure on their part and irrespective of people's opinions on Hunt (who understandably comes off as a bit bitter and selective), he has a valid point. The fact that it happened against Mir may have been easy enough for him to overlook as "one of those things", helped by the fact he beat him, but for it to happen two fights in a row makes a lot easier to see his frustration. The UFC are asking fighters to not dope but consistently putting fighters in against juiced guys.

I think we'll continue to see things differently here as although I can see your point about Hunt the issue it raises is too valid for me to dismiss it on the basis of who said it.

cyberman said:
But he knew Brock was roided up before the fight. All he had to do was look at him. Add in the drug test dodging and I can't see how he didn't know.
He even said Brock was juiced to the gills before the fight!
Fact is he wouldn't have been on 200 for any sort of payday if he didn't fight Brock. Now that he did it's this moral outrage about fighting a drug cheat. Nobody forced him to take the fight.
He knew, we knew, the whole world knew that Brock was roided up.
Click to expand...

He presumed or alleged Lesnar was roided, he didn't know. Surely it is right that such decisions are left to the organisation and testers to definitively establish and why not assume Hunt did just this in good faith. Lesnar tested positive on a test taken 12 days before the fight, when exactly these results became available is unclear but it doesn't strike a ringing endorsement for the UFC's preventative ability in terms of cheating and/or protecting their fighters.
 
justboy68 said:
That's good news for folks in the UK.
Click to expand...
Very good news. I couldn't say this before but can now. I was in a meeting with Zuffa a while ago, who wanted Sky to outbid BT Sport for the rights because Zuffa are not happy about how BT Sport televise their events. Sky wanted to go down the PPV model. But the new Sky Cinema rebrand (along with rebranding Sky Living soon) took precedence and it fell through. Great news for us in the UK.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
Very good news. I couldn't say this before but can now. I was in a meeting with Zuffa a while ago, who wanted Sky to outbid BT Sport for the rights because Zuffa are not happy about how BT Sport televise their events. Sky wanted to go down the PPV model. But the new Sky Cinema rebrand (along with rebranding Sky Living soon) took precedence and it fell through. Great news for us in the UK.
Click to expand...
off to sky in 2018 then with 4K on sky Q
 
Definitely good for the wallet as mentioned but I do think Sky would do a much much better job with the product. BT is also amateur how it's run. UFC has potential to be a huge cash cow and they don't really seem to embrace it as much as they do. For comparison look at Sky with boxing. Boxing is still bigger in the UK but they really could do so much more on BT. There's 2 huge UK and Irish names in UFC at the moment (Bisping and Conor) and they do nothing to promote it. Sky would have shows on at prime time slots etc for stuff like this.
 
Oggmonster said:
Definitely good for the wallet as mentioned but I do think Sky would do a much much better job with the product. BT is also amateur how it's run. UFC has potential to be a huge cash cow and they don't really seem to embrace it as much as they do. For comparison look at Sky with boxing. Boxing is still bigger in the UK but they really could do so much more on BT. There's 2 huge UK and Irish names in UFC at the moment (Bisping and Conor) and they do nothing to promote it. Sky would have shows on at prime time slots etc for stuff like this.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with you. Sky would do a great job with the UFC but it would come at a cost, usually to you guys... the viewers.
 
Oggmonster said:
Definitely good for the wallet as mentioned but I do think Sky would do a much much better job with the product. BT is also amateur how it's run. UFC has potential to be a huge cash cow and they don't really seem to embrace it as much as they do. For comparison look at Sky with boxing. Boxing is still bigger in the UK but they really could do so much more on BT. There's 2 huge UK and Irish names in UFC at the moment (Bisping and Conor) and they do nothing to promote it. Sky would have shows on at prime time slots etc for stuff like this.
Click to expand...
It would be straight on Sky box office and the fans lose out.
Sky have WWE on box office ffs.
The coverage would be a few appearances on SSN and a ringside type show on a midweek evening.

Edit: listening to JRE and Rogan confirmed he has signed on for another year. Great news.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
Completely agree with you. Sky would do a great job with the UFC but it would come at a cost, usually to you guys... the viewers.
Click to expand...

Agreed, unfortunately can't have it both ways. It just seems an afterthought on BT which is odd cos it has potential to be probably one of the best things they have on there and does attract a loyal market unlike football for example which people will drift in and out of (i.e. I'm not particularly arsed about watching West Brom vs. Stoke but I would watch a UFC card with 2 lesser fighters on it)

cyberman said:
It would be straight on Sky box office and the fans lose out.
Sky have WWE on box office ffs.
The coverage would be a few appearances on SSN and a ringside type show on a midweek evening.

Edit: listening to JRE and Rogan confirmed he has signed on for another year. Great news.
Click to expand...

Yeah don't get me wrong I'm glad that don't have to fork out the money for it, as I said it's good for the wallet but I just think Sky would do such a better job of the show.

Look at what they do with boxing. It is on SSN a lot, they have Ringside, the production value of their stuff is better, the pundits are better, in the lead up to the fights they have "Gloves are Off" and "Behind the Ropes" stuff. BT pretty much just takes the stuff UFC produces and puts it on their channels. How much of that is UFC demanding that I'm not sure but it just seems odd that when Conor and Bisping (especially Conor in fairness) would of raised the popularity of the sport over here they didn't capitlize on it, just seems a bit amateur to me.

For all the faults Eddie Hearn has in boxing he has done a brilliant job in marketing his fighters with Sky's assistance. It's cards like the one this weekend which need help to be watched yet UFC just has it on and seem to expect people to know.
 
Oggmonster said:
Agreed, unfortunately can't have it both ways. It just seems an afterthought on BT which is odd cos it has potential to be probably one of the best things they have on there and does attract a loyal market unlike football for example which people will drift in and out of (i.e. I'm not particularly arsed about watching West Brom vs. Stoke but I would watch a UFC card with 2 lesser fighters on it)



Yeah don't get me wrong I'm glad that don't have to fork out the money for it, as I said it's good for the wallet but I just think Sky would do such a better job of the show.

Look at what they do with boxing. It is on SSN a lot, they have Ringside, the production value of their stuff is better, the pundits are better, in the lead up to the fights they have "Gloves are Off" and "Behind the Ropes" stuff. BT pretty much just takes the stuff UFC produces and puts it on their channels. How much of that is UFC demanding that I'm not sure but it just seems odd that when Conor and Bisping (especially Conor in fairness) would of raised the popularity of the sport over here they didn't capitlize on it, just seems a bit amateur to me.

For all the faults Eddie Hearn has in boxing he has done a brilliant job in marketing his fighters with Sky's assistance. It's cards like the one this weekend which need help to be watched yet UFC just has it on and seem to expect people to know.
Click to expand...
Yeah but those boxing events are produced by Sky with unrivalled access to the fighters because of that.
They wouldn't get that access with fighters all the way over in America. Look at their coverage of Mayweather v Pac.
They got a few soundbites and videos of them standing outside of the MGM but there was no face off etc because Sky was a number of broadcasters, not the primary broadcaster.
They didn't have the access. That problem would repeat itself if they acquired the UFC imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.