Guest Drake Posted October 13, 2005 Report Share Posted October 13, 2005 I'm a huge fan of MMA, although it's quite a recent thing for me. It's only happened over the last three months or so but I thought I'd give it a look, bought some UFC DVD's, and now am really into it. It's incredibly different to pro wrestling, there's few similarities if you really break it down. I think it can be difficult to get into MMA, sometimes it's hard to understand exactly what's going on down on the floor and the mechanics of the grappling, but once you begin to it's fascinating. Is it barbaric? I don't see how it's any more barbaric than boxing, and I love boxing. The merging of it with pro wrestling is something that I don't think will ever happen fully, but which I do think is neccessary in some ways right now. Spike's Slammin Saturday night thing needs to be a success, for the good of the business as much as anything else. As such TNA and UFC, despite having very different products, need to at least have a solid working relationship. By that, I don't mean co-promoting shows or anything like that, but they need to be able to help promote each other. The two products are so different that there's no real danger to it. UFC can show that they give you things TNA can't, TNA can show that they can give you things that UFC can't. I don't see as it's an issue. Does MMA really expose wrestling? I thought ECW, and then Vince, did that a long time ago. I'm sure there are many hardcore MMA fans who look down on wrestling, but frankly the majority of the pro wrestling fans I know find MMA at the very least, entertaining, even if they're not a big fan of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brian Posted October 13, 2005 Report Share Posted October 13, 2005 Well, I see things as closely related for a few reasons. One, pro-wrestling is obviously derived from MMA, and vice versa for the modern version of MMA. Pancrase, RINGS, UWF-I, all of which I'm pretty sure are pre-cursors of the UFC (and definately PRIDE). Second, the audience bases are similar, and I'm not just talking about Japan but the demos here that both groups are trying to reacch (18-34) tend to overlap. Third, and this is what I see happening in the near future, is that they are going to start tapping into the same talent pool soon. Ex-footballers and especially amateur wrestlers who Vince recognizes as marketable talent will soon be looked at as heavyweight and light-heavyweight prospects in the UFC. Especially amateur wrestlers, because both MMA and pro-wrestling have seen a lot of successes through them. And if UFC becomes an option, which it will with the big TV deal and the expanding of the fan-base (which, admittedly, it will probably be another boom or two down the line before UFC really goes mainstream, but the point is that they expand their base of fans). So though many do not see this, I think this is going to be the forefront of the actual "war". Fourth, I think Vince is still a carny at heart and he wants to protect the image of "sports-entertainment". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cam Chaos Posted October 13, 2005 Report Share Posted October 13, 2005 One, pro-wrestling is obviously derived from MMA, and vice versa for the modern version of MMA. Pancrase, RINGS, UWF-I, all of which I'm pretty sure are pre-cursors of the UFC (and definately PRIDE). UFC came about when the Gracie family wanted to showcase Brazilian Jiujitsu outside of their home country, So Rorion Gracie set it up and they had Royce in competing in the USA in style vs style fights and Rickson over in MMA in Japan to bolster the reputations and that of their martial art. However Shooto was founded before UFC by the original Tiger Mask Satoru Sayama in Japan in the late eighties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brian Posted October 13, 2005 Report Share Posted October 13, 2005 Well, I forgot the Gracie story when I wrote that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 13, 2005 Report Share Posted October 13, 2005 Question from someone who's seen *very* little MMA -- is it marketed as a sport or marketed as violence? Does the commentary focus on strategy or violence more? Do the fighters typically attempt to win or just attempt to maim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted October 13, 2005 Report Share Posted October 13, 2005 Sport Strategy Win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Local Jobber R Posted October 13, 2005 Report Share Posted October 13, 2005 Well on every UFC special on Spike tv it has Joe Rogan go to extra length in detail of how the ref is doing the right thing of ending the fight early. Joe would go into Mike Tenay mode of explaining the submissions and chokes of ju jitsu and how an expert in that style could win at any moment. What I noticed since Dana White took over is that UFC is promoting KO specialists as champions in the heavyweight divisions. While in the lower weight classes they have submission masters like Matt Hughes winning with chokes and armbars. The current UFC is promoted as a sport as it should be but in the early 90s it was so violent that it had the US Congress investigate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brian Posted October 13, 2005 Report Share Posted October 13, 2005 The thing about winning and maiming is that sometimes maiming is a part of winning. When you keep the fight standing up, someone can get K(TF)O'd. When you can land a good elbow, you can cut people up (though the cuts are generally clean and superficial). When you have a hold in, sometimes people don't give up (Mir-Sylvia comes to mind). So maiming is a part of winning in the sport you kind of come to accept in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 13, 2005 Report Share Posted October 13, 2005 Is there anyone in UFC that you would say is there only because they want to fuck people up, not because of the sport of it all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brian Posted October 14, 2005 Report Share Posted October 14, 2005 No. It takes a real head case to fight for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheShawshankRudotion Posted October 14, 2005 Report Share Posted October 14, 2005 You'd hear a lot of fighters, Rich Franklin comes to mind first, that talk about hurting their opponent as a necessary evil. There is tremendous respect amongst fighters where you see guys huggin each other after a fight, even though their bloodied and bruised. The days of the violent bar-brawler are pretty much over. You do get guys like Tank Abbott, and to a lesser extent Chris Leben and Phil Baroni, who talk trash and want to "knock their opponents jaw into the audience". That's all marketing, though. Then you have a team like Chute Boxe who have no problem stomping on a guys face and kicking him in the head - it's not because they hate the guy, it's just that's an effective way to win. It's very rare that you get a fighter who fights with the intent to injure or maim. MMA is marketed both as a sport and as a violent spectacle. The UFC and PRIDE try to market it as a sport, but a lot of the lesser-known fighting organizations in the US try to spin it as a blood-sport because that's the easiest way to get noticed. And even the UFC and PRIDE subtlely play up the violent aspects. You don't see the promo packages and highlight reels featuring guard passes, you see the knock outs. UFC has become a lot more stand-up oriented in the past few years because they think that's what the fans want. And it is what the fans want. But its a circular kinda thing where if you don't put out there great grappling then how do you know the fans won't like it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts