Big Stories of 2006

Vince135792003

What was the major story outside the ropes in 2006?

For there is only 1. The rise of the UFC and MMA generally in America.

Will it hurt professional wrestling like it did in Japan? Is it a fad? Maybe but as each month goes by it gets a little more mainstream and as a pay per views buys remain very strong it looks like its hear to stay.

They basically have shown the way on how to promote a fight that people will be willing to pay for be it in boxing, wrestling or MMA itself. There's even talk of WWE wanting to promote some MMA.


WWE pretty much stayed steady. TNA didn't grow.

Other major stories that come to mind are the extension of the WWE brand through ECW, the new wrestling show coming on the pipeline at MTV, the return of Russo, the goings on with Kurt Angle and RVD and Sabu's arrest.

There are probably alot more but my mind has gone blank.

Charlie

I was in Canada for the summer and even there, MMA, and in particular UFC, was getting really hot. All the bars downtown were showing Ortiz/Shamrock and I know many of them got big turn outs. So for me, yeah UFC is the story of 2006 and lets hope long may it continue because competition (although not direct) will have to be good for the wrestling business.

The return of Jeff Hardy springs to mind as I remember at the time, his return was greeted with skeptisism because of his chequered past and, the fact some people don't like his work. I think his return has been a big success and he is having as big a push as he ever had, at least in mind. Hopefully they will pair the Hardys and the tag team dvision can get a energized. I belive the plan is to have the Hardys as a tag team going into Mania, TLC???:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Also think TNA has in general been a big story. Whilst I agree with Vince that it hasn't really grown, I really feel that '06 has been the year where they have laid serious foundations. The Angle acquisition, prime time slot, very good chance at getting a 2hr impact and the fact that t now seems that Wrestlers see TNA as a viable option to leave WWE, RVD suppose to be giving it serious thought.

The recent story of Heyman being let go, whilst not a massive story at the moment could, possibly, be huge. The wrestling business has been in decline ever since WCW folded and Heyman has been with WWE all that time. Now that he is a free agent, the possibiltyof him linking up with TNA could further strenghten TNA's chances of becoming 'real' competition for WWE which has to be good for the industry as its best days have always been where there was real competition.

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

WWE pretty much stayed steady. TNA didn't grow.

TNA didn't grow? They are coming off the back of their biggest ever rating - a 1.2 on Thursday. Of course they've grown. Compare them to last year and the difference is striking. It began with Sting at the start of the year and now it's continuing under Angle. They are now in Prime Time. If that's not growth I don't know what is.

I don't think UFC is a big deal yet. Yes their PPVs have got the WWE worried but I wouldn't label them the major story of 2006.

The major story outside the ropes in my view was the huge swerve involving Kurt Angle heading to TNA. No one saw it coming.

Minto

For me, the biggest story of 2006 was CM Punk and his first proper WWE run! Heres to him being on RAW in 2007!

Angle's defection (which i'm about 90% was the reason he got himself released) was a close second, but Punk got it because I had never really seen him before he debuted on ECW and I knew right then hes gonna be huge!

Vince135792003

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

TNA didn't grow? They are coming off the back of their biggest ever rating - a 1.2 on Thursday.

That is 1 week. It could be the publicity they got from the angle they shot on ppv with the sport celebs which got them coverage on alot of the news networks over there. It could be a general upward trend. Who knows? But its way too early to make assumptions over one week. Stick their ratings in an excel sheet and get their average.

You'll pretty much get what you would have gotten this time last year including their move to pimetime. They still have a limited house shows, they run the same place for tv every week, they all get in for free and they do on a good month 40000 buys. Thats not substantial growth/progress to me. And they still haven't had a year when they have made profit.


UFC are going to gross 3-4 million dollars in ticket sales alone for their event on December 30th. They expect to do 1 million buys at 40 dollars a pop. That is mind blowingly good and it has been like this for all of 2006. It keeps growing and growing, month after month. A match with little fan fair, Hughes v Penn is being talked about in the 700000 buy range. Thats phenomenal for a sport still really in its tv infancy.

Sure even a small MMA group that set up during the year, the IFL is worth 175 million dollars on the stock exchange according to 60 minutes. It doesn't even have tv.

Pride, with no real tv over here, got 120000 for a pay per view buy rate in November with a 2.5 million dollar gate in Las Vegas.

And if you think MMA can't or won't effect wrestling in North America, look at Japan. WWE domestic buy rates are taking a hit already. There's a reason why the WWE are looking into MMA seriously.

Contrast the growth of UFC to TNA or even WWE this year and there is no contest. Judge it whatever way you like. The figures don't lie. 2006 was the year MMA truly broke new ground in terms of growth in America with UFC blazing the trail.

Vince135792003

charlie mchugh wrote:

The recent story of Heyman being let go, whilst not a massive story at the moment could, possibly, be huge.

I've been away a few days but as far as I know Heyman hasn't been fired. At this point they just sent him home still under his dual contract which isn't the first time that has happened.

Charlie

Vince135792003 wrote:

I've been away a few days but as far as I know Heyman hasn't been fired. At this point they just sent him home still under his dual contract which isn't the first time that has happened.

I think though realistically he is gone. Heyman is smart enough to know that ECW is messed up and that he won't be given the power or control to fix it, presuming he was even brought back into the fold. Further, I honestly think Vince and Steph won't think that they are making a bad move letting him go and possibly head to TNA as they clearly don't recognize his creative talent presently, or ever even.

Fozzy

I think that at the time, ECW coming back was the biggest story of the year. It had us all talking and speculating for weeks. I think most of us have just forgotten about that now because of how it turned out

UFC has done a good job. I've been watching their events for years and years, and I can't say that I've seen a massive improvement in their shows, but I think the reason they've done so well is because of The Ultimate Fighter series. It got people emotionally involved with certain guys, which is how wrestling usually works. And off the back of that they didn't slack off with promoting their biggest names on the ppv's. I don't think Shamrock vs Tito or Hughes' fights would've drawn so big if they hadn't been coaches on TUF

I would say that TNA have grown. A lot more people seem to be paying attention to them now, I have noticed that. Certainly a lot more talk on this board of them these days

Vince135792003

I think they have had alot of great great fights this year but I agree with you, they always have. But thats not what its all about.

What they have done and what every wrestling company in America this year has failed to do is every month have people saying "I want to see these 2 guys fight and I care who wins". Thats where they truly get it.

Getting tv was huge for them and the way they use it to make stars, push fights and build their sport is brilliant and thats the improvement. Contrast the way UFC has used they're hour of tv to make stars against TNA. No contest.

And its all through old school wrestling promotion. Larry Matyzik long time booker, at the St. Louis territory talked in detail on a recent figure four radio show about the parralels between the 2. And its all about making people care about who wins.

Don't forget UFC All Access. We don't get it over here and it airs before each ppv. They promote fights so well. I think thats the show that really makes the numbers go from good to great.


On TNA, i'm sure Dixie appreciates that 5 people on here are now talking about her wrestling company. If your saying thats an example of an overall upward trend in their popularity, I don't really buy that to an significant level.

She might just prefer charging people to her tv, running a fixed house show schedule or regularly doing 50000+ buys. When/if things like that start happening, then you can say TNA are on the way.

I don't want to keep bashing TNA. I want an alternative to the WWE too. TNA's pay per views from a wrestling standpoint are usually very good. The problem is that for alot 2006 they could'nt get people to buy them (through their promoting and booking) except for the loyal 35000 who were buying their shows before they got on Spike anyway.


Ok no more long winded responses from me that only I will read the whole thing.

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

That is 1 week. It could be the publicity they got from the angle they shot on ppv with the sport celebs which got them coverage on alot of the news networks over there. It could be a general upward trend. Who knows? But its way too early to make assumptions over one week. Stick their ratings in an excel sheet and get their average.

Their two previous shows got 1.0 ratings. I regard that as growth.

Clearly they have a long way to go but to say they haven't grown at all is baffling to me. Hell, they have arguably the best wrestler in the world today on their roster. Who'd have thought that this time last year?

UFC are doing well and are on WWE's radar but I just don't think they are making as big a mark as you think they are. I feel the same about MMA in general. And this is what Mike Johnson reported after this past Thursday's rating for TNA:

There is a lot of happiness inside TNA and SpikeTV offices this afternoon as the preliminary rating for last night's edition of Impact was a 1.2, which would be a series high for TNA on SpikeTV. I haven't heard an audience share yet. Both parties have to be happy with the rating, especially since the live UFC Fight Night special only scored a 1.3 in comparison.

And I think the Impact audience share turned out to be a 1.8 so they're going along nicely.

Vince135792003

They were getting 1.1s for Sting at 11 pm at night last January. I've said it all about TNA and its all pretty reasonable I think. If people think otherwise fair enough.

You don't get it with UFC. First off Spike is basically the UFC channel with it being showing all the time and as a result saturation is occurring. There is just too much of it on tv which is potentially a danger. But in terms of tv numbers, UFC has done superb this year in general, particuliarly again for a sport still really in its tv infancy.

Secondly and more importantly tv ratings are important. No doubt. But its the conversion from tv viewer to pay per view buyer thats the the bottom line. Thats where money is made.

Meltzer did a study on it and concluded that TNA have a conversion rate of 4% against 40% by the UFC.

Now if you don't think the UFC's numbers for live gate and pay per view aren't a big deal or making a big mark or are just doing "well", i can't convince you other wise. The numbers are there and if you do a table up with UFC's, TNA's, WWE's and boxing pay per view buys beside each other, it tells you all you need to know.

And for the UFC to be getting such buys and to increase at such a rate over such a short period of time is the story for me.

Also if you don't think the numbers I showed you for MMA in general aren't impressive, again I give up. I mean besides invade a small country I'm not sure how more of an impact MMA could have had this year in north America with a multitude of companys springing up seemingly every month.

By the way since you mentioned tv viewership, 16 million people watched a lengthy positive feature on MMA on the 60 minutes show last week over there. For MMA to even get on a show like that and for them to treat the sport with such respect says how far its come in a year.

Sure even the plan for ECW was for Bob Sapp to get the Bobby Lashley position on the show.

I broke my promise on another long winded response. I just feel to underestimate the level of business UFC has blatantly done this year is wrong.

Fozzy

UFC is only going to get bigger. That UFC Fight Night that was on last week, I don't believe there was any added attraction to it like the finals of TUF, it was basically like Heat compared to a WWE ppv. UFC are planning to do some ppvs in Europe next year, 2 more seasons of TUF, moving into Canada, they've got a deal with HBO, and a tv deal for another MMA promotion that they're launching. Add to that the fact that they bought 2 MMA promotions last week and now have some decent heavyweights under contract (aswell as their reported attempts at signing Crocop and Fedor), and their heavyweight division is going to start to interest people. They've been a bit like TNA in that recently, people are often more interested in the stuff outside of the heavyweights, who are the traditional main eventers. It seems a fair prediction to say that they'll get one million buys for their next ppv, and WWE gets around 850000 for WM, right? I think they're making a huge mark

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

I just feel to underestimate the level of business UFC has blatantly done this year is wrong.

I feel the same way in regards to TNA.

I'm not saying UFC haven't done well as they obviously have but I just don't see them being a mainstream force. They have no one on their books in my opinion who can be regarded as a mainstream star. One of their key figures this year (and over the last few years) is a former WWE wrestler who never was the top guy there. And weren't they desperate to acquire Kurt Angle too?

TNA this year got their highest ever rating, they got prime time TV, they got a 2 hour special, they acquired perhaps the greatest wrestler in the world today (arguably ever) who is a bonafide star and who WAS a top guy in WWE, they proved they can exist and thrive without Jeff Jarrett and there were chants for the company at a WWE PPV.

This to me quite clearly represents growth and while I have given UFC credit for their growth, I think you are being too harsh by not doing so for TNA too.

In my opinion when you weigh it all up TNA's growth is more impressive. They were a small operation originally yet are now making their presence felt not only nationally but globally and even have their own computer game in the pipeline.

Charlie

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I just don't see them being a mainstream force. They have no one on their books in my opinion who can be regarded as a mainstream star..

This is just wrong. UFC is definitley more mainstream both here and in the states. There are alot of my friends that don't watch any sort of wrestling/mma but they would definitley recognize the name UFC before TNA.

To say that they don't have a mainstream star is also wrong. Tito Ortiz????

Vince135792003

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

In my opinion when you weigh it all up TNA's growth is more impressive.

Bull****.

That statement is the business equivalent of saying Ken Kennedy is better than Benoit. Actually I think its worse because you have simple facts staring you in the face (attendence figures, pay per view buys, tv ratings and general mainstream awareness). But hey, at least TNA are getting a video game and 50 people were cheering for them at the ECW pay per view. I think I'll take the 1 million buys.

And you won't see Dana White crying over the loss of Kurt Angle in 2 weeks time. He'll be busy lighting up cigars with whods of money. TNA need Kurt alot more than the UFC do. Although no doubt, he would have done great business for 1 show.

Again I don't want to keep bashing TNA. I have given my reasons and solid ones ones why I don't believe they have grown substantially based on facts (pay per view buys, tv and money from drawing houses). I really hope they make money in 2007 and grow tangibly in 2007.

To look objectively at TNA, moving to 9 o'clock and getting Kurt Angle (which were there main 2 plusses this year in my opinion) is progress and I can Charlie's argument that it is foundation building. Whether it will lead to growth particuliarly long term viable financial growth is another issue and remains very much to be seen.

However, it can't compare to the level of growth and/or progression UFC has made this year on any level. I listed alot of figures and Fozzy posted a bunch more of things I didn't even mention because quite frankly, alot of positive things have happened for the UFC this year that its hard to keep track. Will it always be like this for the UFC? I have no idea but for the year 2006, they have have done hot business

I'll try one more time. You make a big issue about the 1.2 TNA got on Thursday which equals the highest rating they got this year back in May I believe. In my opinion I think its too early to tell if thats a one hit or its a consistent upward trend.

But be that as it may, lets compare this peak number for the TNA show in 2006 (a 1.3 with a 1.8 share) to UFC's peak numbers this year.

Quoted from figure four about Tito v Ken 3:

The 3.1 equaled 2.8 million homes and 4.2 million viewers. It drew a 4.46 rating and 2.4 million viewers in males 18-49, and a 6.0 and 1.6 million viewers in males 18-34. The 9:30 to 9:45 quarter, which contained the two-minute Shamrock vs. Tito fight, drew 5.7 million viewers. That quarter also drew a 9.7 rating in males 18-25 and an 8.0 in males 18-34. At the peak of the WWE boom period it is believed that nothing, even the record-breaking Austin vs. Undertaker Raw match, came close to touching those demographic numbers. And keep in mind that the fight was only two minutes long, and historically the rating grows throughout fights/matches, meaning this number would have been insane had they gone fifteen minutes.


Ken Shamrock, Chuck Lidell, Forest Grifin and Matt Hughes are pretty mainstream too.

2006 was the year MMA became more and more mainstream.

Mr.Nice Guy

charliemchugh wrote:

This is just wrong.

No, it's right.

charliemchugh wrote:

UFC is definitley more mainstream both here and in the states.

This is just wrong.

charliemchugh wrote:

There are alot of my friends that don't watch any sort of wrestling/mma but they would definitley recognize the name UFC before TNA.

Well if your friends feel that way then that must be the case!

You know if I was to mention the letters UFC to my friends they'd probably respond with, "Nah, let's head to Abrakebabra instead."

charliemchugh wrote:

To say that they don't have a mainstream star is also wrong. Tito Ortiz????

LOL. He's mainstream is he? Right. The only reason I know this guy is because he appeared on TNA. Maybe he did so in an effort to become more mainstream?

Vince135792003 wrote:

Bull****.

Eh? Suddenly this thread has become quite hostile. Do you have a problem with someone expressing an opinion that differs to your own?

Vince135792003 wrote:

That statement is the business equivalent of saying Ken Kennedy is better than Benoit. Actually I think its worse because you have simple facts staring you in the face (attendence figures, pay per view buys, tv ratings and general mainstream awareness). But hey, at least TNA are getting a video game and 50 people were cheering for them at the ECW pay per view. I think I'll take the 1 million buys.

You sound like you work for UFC. By your rationale, UFC are more popular than ECW ever were because they're doing well financially but I think we both know ECW in its heyday was able to become mainstream despite low ratings, buys, attendance. The bottom line is your figures don't equate to "general mainstream awareness" and since their recent rating was a 1.3, going by your rationale using figures, there quite clearly isn't much between UFC and TNA!

Oh wait that's right I forgot, what was the reason you gave for that? Oh right - "saturation". Whatever.

Vince135792003 wrote:

And you won't see Dana White crying over the loss of Kurt Angle in 2 weeks time. He'll be busy lighting up cigars with whods of money. TNA need Kurt alot more than the UFC do. Although no doubt, he would have done great business for 1 show.

He might be crying in a few month's time though when Kurt has his MMA match in TNA. Yes I suspect that might sting a bit.

Vince135792003 wrote:

Again I don't want to keep bashing TNA.

And yet you do!

Apparently TNA is exactly the same right now as it was this time last year. No growth at all. Zilch. None whatsoever. Oh and Charles Haughey was a noble man!

Vince135792003 wrote:

I'll try one more time. You make a big issue about the 1.2 TNA got on Thursday which equals the highest rating they got this year back in May I believe. In my opinion I think its too early to tell if thats a one hit or its a consistent upward trend.

But be that as it may, lets compare this peak number for the TNA show in 2006 (a 1.3 with a 1.8 share) to UFC's peak numbers this year...

(Sigh) I'll try one more time. Your argument is that the greater growth (key word) is with UFC based upon the admittedly impressive figures but compare TNA's position NOW to what it was this time last year (remember the G word now) and it is clear that TNA GREW the most.

Your problem is that you see things as an accountant would without taking on board things like proper media awareness - for example major baseball stars appearing on TNA, arguably the greatest wrestler in the world now on their roster, TV deals, videogame deals etc. This is huge when you consider what they were doing last year. This is GROWTH.

But hey, you cling to your figures from American homes and your big stars like Tito Orton, Ortiz, what is it? And I'll stick with seeing the icon that is Kurt Angle leading TNA's charge into 2007.

Watch the growth and realise that they ARE wrestling and accept that wrestling > MMA.

Vince135792003

Honestly, everything you've virtually said in this thread I have a problem with. This sounds totally up my own ass but I think you need to do some reading.

Actually after Christmas I'll go through my observers for the year and if I can find it, I'll gladly give you the feature issue on the business breakdown of TNA, UFC and WWE for free. A more credible voice than mine might register with you better, even though I've probably paraphrased half of it at this stage.

I've said everything I wanted to about 5 times over. But sure why not a 6th.

Firstly Kurt Angle did about 50000 buys and no house with Joe last month which is great business for TNA and hopefully they'll continue it and grow. Certainly its way better than the 35000 they were doing for the 10 previous months of 2006. On, the other hand Tito and Chuck for the UFC are expected to do 1 million buys and a 4 million dollar house. Maybe even more.

I've said this about 6 times but you know I cling to these figures like tv ratings, pay per view buys, tv exposure, tv deals, houses being drawn for 2006 because TNA and UFC are in the business of drawing money. Thats it. Thats the litmus test. You don't need me to tell you who comes out on top there for 2006.

ECW was more mainstream than UFC has been in 2006? What?

1 million buys isn't mainstream?! An 8.9 rating for a fight in the 18-25 demographic is'nt mainstream?! 16 million people watching a positive feature on MMA isn't mainstream?! Getting a deal with HBO isn't mainstream?! Having a line of A+ celebrities front row at each of your shows isn't mainstream?! Sports bars packed with people to watch your show isn't mainstream?! Getting Mark Ratner (very famous boxing official for the commission) to work for you isn't a sign of a company being mainstream?!

Also, there are a lot of parralels between UFC and TNA. Both for a long time had no tv. Both for a long time were bleeding money. Both had very patient owners. One company (the UFC) got an hour on Spike iniitally and has gone on to dominate the schedule of the network and do about 400000 buys (very rough estimate, could be a little more could be a little less) on average in 2006. The other, TNA hasn't had the success yet that UFC has had in 2006 in terms of anything be it growth, further tv deals, ad revenue ppv buys, houses, dvd sales, mainstream coverage etc etc etc (I'm a broken reocrd).

I don't know whats going to happen in 2007. I have my own ideas of course but its all speculation. But at least for 2006, in the MMA/professional wrestling/boxing world, the growth of UFC was the story.


Just on Kurt Angle doing MMA in TNA, Meltzer on his radio show last week there is zero chance of it happening. I'm not saying he's infallible. He makes mistakes. We all do. But he went into great detail about it.

Fozzy

I seem to be right in the middle with my opinion here, I think both companies have grown! And I haven't got the time now, but I'd be arguing for UFC rather than TNA right now, as UFC's growth has been far more impressive. They're standing to make $40 million from their next ppv, they weren't making that much this time last year

Just to take up some points by Mr.Nice Guy if I have the time:

for example major baseball stars appearing on TNA, arguably the greatest wrestler in the world now on their roster, TV deals, videogame deals etc.

UFC's had bigger celebrities than the two baseball lads on their shows. UFC's had some guys back who would've increased interest in their product this year, guys like Royce Gracie (who had me and a lot of people I know more psyched up for a UFC event than ever), BJ Penn (definitely peaked many people's interest), Frank Mir (back from a motorcycle crash, inspirational story and created more interest in the heavyweight division..even if it did kinda fall flat on it's face), not to mention Ortiz and Shamrock. UFC has gotten better tv deals itself. They can match all the signs of TNA's growth that you've pointed out, yet still surpass it in other ways

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

Actually after Christmas I'll go through my observers for the year and if I can find it, I'll gladly give you the feature issue on the business breakdown of TNA, UFC and WWE for free. A more credible voice than mine might register with you better, even though I've probably paraphrased half of it at this stage.

It's like you read what I said and decided to completely miss the point. I don't need the business breakdown of TNA and UFC because I'm not disputing that UFC is doing better business than TNA! My reasons for stating that TNA has had better growth than UFC are not centred on financial statistics. I stated that in my previous post.

This whole argument is akin to a mother saying how proud she is that her 14 year old son grew three inches to become 5'10, whereas you are the other mother coming along crapping all over that and saying "So what? My son is 20 and he' grew two inches to become 6'2, therefore since my son is bigger than your son he has had the most growth!"

Well, that's actually quite debateable because the first mother can cite her son as having had significant growth too just like TNA can!

Vince135792003 wrote:

TNA hasn't had the success yet that UFC has had.

Of course it hasn't. TNA is young. That is not the issue! This isn't a TNA vs UFC thread. The issue we are talking about is growth and I maintain to you that TNA can cite this year as being the year they had more significant growth than UFC. (And I beg you not to bring out the figures again please)

Vince135792003 wrote:

But at least for 2006, in the MMA/professional wrestling/boxing world, the growth of UFC was the story.

In your view. Don't say it like it's an objective fact when in reality it's a subjective opinion.

Vince135792003 wrote:

Just on Kurt Angle doing MMA in TNA, Meltzer on his radio show last week there is zero chance of it happening. I'm not saying he's infallible. He makes mistakes. We all do. But he went into great detail about it.

None of us can know yet what the deal is with that. Not even Meltzer.

Fozzy wrote:

UFC's had bigger celebrities than the two baseball lads on their shows. UFC's had some guys back who would've increased interest in their product this year, guys like Royce Gracie (who had me and a lot of people I know more psyched up for a UFC event than ever), BJ Penn (definitely peaked many people's interest), Frank Mir (back from a motorcycle crash, inspirational story and created more interest in the heavyweight division..even if it did kinda fall flat on it's face), not to mention Ortiz and Shamrock.

Never heard of any of them with the exception of the last two. Seriously.

Fozzy wrote:

UFC has gotten better tv deals itself. They can match all the signs of TNA's growth that you've pointed out, yet still surpass it in other ways

You need to look at it from the perspective of where TNA was last year to where they are now and where UFC were last year and where they are now. That is the issue.

The greater growth is with TNA...

Vince135792003

I give up. The offer still stands on the observers.

Just to clarify on the Meltzer Angle MMA thing, I think you should listen to the show before you make a value judgment on what he knows and doesn't know. I'd give you a rundown but I genuinely can't remember. It was quite detailed. The bottom line was "no chance" when asked about Angle doing MMA in TNA however.


You quoted:
"You need to look at it from the perspective of where TNA was last year to where they are now and where UFC were last year and where they are now. That is the issue."

I agree. I just have a different conclusion to yours. I think most would.

Fozzy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Never heard of any of them with the exception of the last two. Seriously.

Have you watched any UFC events this year as a matter of interest? If you haven't, then maybe it's because of that that their growth doesn't seem to register with you. The guys I mentioned are known outside of the UFC world. Royce for basically transforming the way martial arts are looked at (by winning 3 out of the first 4 UFC tournaments when he was the smallest guy there, he made Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu one of the most popular martial arts in the world). He created a lot of interest in going back. Frank Mir's story was covered in a lot of American media outlets. They created interest in the UFC product that was greater than the interest in the TNA product created by the two baseball lads

Well, I think I just found the article to sum up what I'm trying to say: http://www.latimes.com/sports/boxing/la-spw-mmacol15dec15,1,4630236.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-boxing Written by Dave Meltzer for the LA Times on UFC's growth in 2006. It's been huge

Vince135792003

Fozzy wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/boxing/la-spw-mmacol15dec15,1,4630236.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-boxing

A must read article. I had problems reading it again. Here it is in its entirety:

When Chuck Liddell and Tito Ortiz meet on Dec. 30 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas, it will be the biggest match of the modern-era Ultimate Fighting Championship. In many ways, it will be the biggest fight in the United States in seven years in any genre, whether it be real fights (pro boxing) or the more popular choreographed fights (pro wrestling).

The big story for mixed martial arts in 2007 is going to be the repercussions of its rapid growth in 2006. Is Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) simply this year's fad? Or is it the beginning of a new major sport, with 2006 being the ground floor?

Looking at the past helps build a framework for the answers to those question.

The first Ortiz-Liddell fight in UFC was on April 2, 2004, in Las Vegas. While that may seem like just a couple of years ago to most people, when it comes to the mixed martial arts industry, it was the stone ages.

They were at the time battling over who was the top contender for the UFC light-heavyweight title. Liddell was supposed to get a title shot dating back to 2002, but obstacles got in the way.

First, UFC asked Liddell to step aside so Ortiz could fight Ken Shamrock. At the time, UFC was losing money and Ortiz vs. Shamrock was the biggest money fight they could put on.

Then, after beating Shamrock, Ortiz said he didn't want to fight Liddell, because they were friends, which Liddell says was an exaggeration.

Then there was a contract dispute, as Ortiz felt he should be paid more than the $80,000 guarantee and $80,000 win bonus of his contract.

Then there was a movie commitment.

Finally, UFC President Dana White got tired of waiting.

He decided to make Liddell the champion. He asked former heavyweight champion Randy Couture, 40 at the time, to drop to 205 pounds, and UFC would create an interim light-heavyweight champion. Ortiz wasn't officially stripped of his title, but the message was clear that unless Ortiz faced the winner, his title would be forgotten.

June 6, 2003, was to be Liddell's coronation as the top star. But Couture, a former Greco-Roman national champion in wrestling, shockingly outstruck Liddell standing, and took Liddell down and pounded on him, winning via ref stoppage in the third round.

With Liddell out of the picture, Ortiz came back for a unification match after a new deal was reached where he would get $125,000 as his guarantee and a $50,000 added win bonus. But on September 26, 2003, Couture scored his second upset, dominating Ortiz via superior wrestling. He won all five rounds, and almost symbolically, spanked Ortiz, literally, in the fifth round, leaving Ortiz in tears after the match.

So the two fighters, who were both supposed to beat Couture, were meeting in a grudge match years in the making. Liddell battered Ortiz with rapid punches in the second round of before the match had to be stopped, with Ortiz bloodied and clearly beaten. The show did about 105,000 buys on pay-per-view, which at the time was considered a huge success.

After beating Ortiz, Liddell went on to avenge his earlier loss and win the title from Couture. By getting a percentage of the more than 400,000 buys that the show did, Liddell and Couture became the first fighters in UFC history to top $1 million for a fight.

Ortiz shook off the loss to Liddell to win five straight fights, two of which, to Forrest Griffin and Vitor Belfort, could have gone either way.

Now, the Dec. 30 rematch sets the stage for the future. The growth of UFC, and to a lesser extent, the sport of mixed martial arts in North America, happened in the blink of an eye this year.

In April, UFC was growing fast enough that White was hoping to some day be on the same level as boxing and World Wrestling Entertainment on pay-per-view.

By the end of May, after putting together the return of early-90s legend Royce Gracie to face then-welterweight champion Matt Hughes in a battle of dominant fighters from UFC's two glory eras, they topped 600,000 buys. For North America, they were already ahead of every boxing event for the year except for the Oscar de la Hoya-Ricardo Mayorga fight.

On July 8th, they took another giant step when Ortiz faced Shamrock for the second time, in a match hyped by 13 weeks of the two coaching opposite teams on White's Ultimate Fighter reality TV show. The rematch did approximately 775,000 buys. Ortiz won quickly, but controversy over a quick stoppage led to a third match, this time on Spike TV on Oct. 10th.

Ortiz won the third match almost as quickly, but the real news was that, according to Nielsen ratings, 1,598,000 males 18-34 watched the two-hour special featuring that match. In that same age bracket, 1,223,000 watched Game 1 of the World Series.

Liddell vs. Ortiz is expected to the biggest PPV event of any kind in years. The current industry projections of 1.2-million buys will be more than any boxing match since Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson in 2002.



While UFC is the major league brand and the only one doing strong numbers, there are a multitude of competitors on the horizon:

PRIDE — Until this year, the Japan-based Pride organization was the biggest MMA company in the world. Their big events ran on prime time on the Fuji Network, equivalent to one of the big four networks in the U.S. Its highest-rated match, held on Dec. 31, 2005, had 30 million viewers.

But even though MMA fans will say Pride has better fighters and puts on better shows than UFC, they have not been able to break through in North America. Their PPV events draw less than one-tenth of what UFC's do. And most of the recent news has been bad. Several months ago, due to a scandal, the Fuji Network canceled its contract with Pride. Despite its popularity, no other network has picked it up. Without television exposure, the company's popularity in Japan will dwindle greatly. In addition, the company's most charismatic star, Mirko Cro Cop, is negotiating to come to UFC. Pride comes to the United States on February 24th for a PPV show at the Thomas & Mack Center in Las Vegas.

ELITE XTREME COMBAT — This group hasn't run a show yet, but is already a key player having signed a multi-year contract with Showtime. The group is headed by boxing promoter Gary Shaw. Its debut event will be on February 10th, headlined by Frank Shamrock vs. Renzo Gracie. Shamrock, 34, who was UFC's biggest star from 1998 to 99, but has not fought against a top opponent in more than six years, is one of the sport's top personalities.

INTERNATIONAL FIGHT LEAGUE — This group has a different concept, running MMA shows using a team concept. IFL, which has a television contract with Fox Sports Net, has a 12-team league, with each team fielding fighters in five different weight classes in a best-of-five series. The teams consist of fighters who are generally the level below that of UFC and Pride, but are coached by big names from the past, such as former UFC champions Pat Miletich, Bas Rutten and Maurice Smith. Its championship match takes place December 29th in Uncasville, Conn., where Miletich's Quad Cities Silverbacks face Rutten's Los Angeles Anacondas. They have an extensive schedule at major arenas in 2007, starting January 19th in Oakland.

BODOG FIGHT — This company has limited exposure, with its only TV being on The Men's Channel. It ran its first PPV event on December 2 in Vancouver, Canada, drawing few buys, and creating almost no interest even in the MMA world. It would not be taken seriously except its owner, Calvin Ayre, is a billionaire because of his Internet gambling website, bodog.com. He lost money on the first set of tapings and first PPV, with the idea the fighting is simply a way to expose his Bodog brand name. They scored a big coup when signing Russia's Fedor Emelianenko, Pride's world heavyweight champion and generally considered the best fighter in the world, for their March 3rd PPV event.

STRIKE FORCE — This is the strongest of the regional promotions that have sprung up across the United States. The company is based in San Jose, and with the exception of UFC, draws the biggest crowds of any promotion to live events. The March 10 show at the HP Pavilion, with Frank Shamrock knocking out Cesar Gracie in 21 seconds, drew 18,265 fans — still the North American record for the sport. The biggest drawing card is San Shou champion Cung Le, whose fights, with his flashy kicks and crazy takedowns, often resemble a movie fight scene more than a MMA fight. They are also attempting to expand nationally, for a show in April or May, with Frank Shamrock vs. Phil Baroni headlining the first PPV event.

WORLD EXTREME CAGE FIGHTING — Zuffa, the parent company of UFC, purchased this company a few weeks ago. No plans have been announced other than White saying UFC and WEC would be kept separate.

WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT -- Shane McMahon, the son of WWE owner Vince McMahon, has been a long-time fan and years ago, when UFC wasn't doing so well, there was very preliminary talks about buying that company. But the comany is in discussions about getting into the MMA game now, which Linda McMahon confirmed at a recent company quarterly investors conference. While pro wrestling and MMA are entirely different animals, they share a lot of the same fan base, and it's not a coincidence that the WWE's decline in PPV buys for recent shows coincided with UFC's rise. There is also a dangerous cycle of long-time fans of WWE moving to UFC this year because it has done a better job at what makes pro wrestling click, the creation of new stars and building of artificial grudges and storylines. While White has brushed off most of his competition, he has admitted that the day Vince McMahon decides to get in the game, and gets weekly television, he will immediately become a serious player.

Dave Meltzer is the creator and writer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, a weekly publication featuring in-depth coverage of mixed martial arts and pro wrestling. For more information, go to www.wrestlingobserver.com

Charlie

Great find Fozzy, got the juices flowing for when Bravo air the fight.

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

I give up. The offer still stands on the observers.

(Sigh)

Vince135792003 wrote:

Just to clarify on the Meltzer Angle MMA thing, I think you should listen to the show before you make a value judgment on what he knows and doesn't know. I'd give you a rundown but I genuinely can't remember. It was quite detailed. The bottom line was "no chance" when asked about Angle doing MMA in TNA however.

As far as I know Angle hasn't said the event isn't happening so I don't see how there can be "no chance" as long as that remains the case?

Or is big Dave now calling himself Mystic Meltzer?

Vince135792003 wrote:

I agree. I just have a different conclusion to yours. I think most would.

Well I think that's debateable. Obviously our positions aren't going to be reconciled.

Fozzy wrote:

Have you watched any UFC events this year as a matter of interest?

I've watched a couple from flicking through channels but that's about it.

Fozzy wrote:

If you haven't, then maybe it's because of that that their growth doesn't seem to register with you.

Their growth registers with me but I just don't see it on the scale that some of you do. Perhaps the fact you go out of your way to watch it has you thinking it is more mainstream than it actually is?

Fozzy wrote:

The guys I mentioned are known outside of the UFC world. Royce for basically transforming the way martial arts are looked at (by winning 3 out of the first 4 UFC tournaments when he was the smallest guy there, he made Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu one of the most popular martial arts in the world). He created a lot of interest in going back. Frank Mir's story was covered in a lot of American media outlets. They created interest in the UFC product that was greater than the interest in the TNA product created by the two baseball lads.

These seem to be just MMA figures though so I don't see how that garners mainstream interest.

And if one is to use financial figures as a mark of growth and influence then WWE would be regarded as the big story of 2006 since they make more than UFC do.

Vince135792003

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

(Sigh)
And if one is to use financial figures as a mark of growth and influence then WWE would be regarded as the big story of 2006 since they make more than UFC do.

Eh no. In terms of financial growth its as you were for the WWE in 2006 pretty much. You know all the figures for UFC by now.

You say their growth registers with you but you put it on a different scale. Where do you put the expectation of 1.2 million buys on your scale?

By the way I put your point across to Bryan Alavarez on the f4w website. I asked him, what would he say to someone that says "TNA's growth in 2006 is more impressive than the UFC's?"

He replied and this may result in me getting my hand slapped but its on the site so I'm telling no lies.

He said, he would say to that person "Your a ****ing idiot" . I took the low road doing it but sometimes when you get involved in an argument that seems to be so obvious but people won't recognise anything you say (except UFC have done "well". They have done alot better than well), I guess I needed some feedback going my way. And I got the answer I expected.

I wouldn't go that far. Thats thats the response however from a guy whose been covering wrestling and MMA through his newsletter for 10 straight years and whose job it is to report and write on this industry.

I do think though your very ignorant on the growth of MMA and UFC in general in America in 2006. Besides invading a country, I'm not sure how much more they could have done in 2006.


If you read the article that Fozzy found, I just find it totally implausible for you to still be able to maintain your argument. I just don't get it.

I don't have an agenda. If TNA had done 700000 buys last month, had gotten a deal with HBO and had gotten an 8.9 in the 19-25 male demographic for a show and had done this all in about 12-18 months, I'd say it. But they haven't yet (and I hope they do) and both TNA and UFC have come very similar backrounds which I wrote about earlier. The UFC have and it goes far beyond "well".

Sorry about the figures but they are very useful when your putting an argument together about 2 promotions whose objective is to make as much money as possible.. Anyone that shares my view has about 100 to chose from. You have 0. You tried tv ratings but when we looked into that, we found UFC doing much better. Why do you not have a figure in the world to suggest TNA have grown more than the UFC in any terms? Because your wrong.

I can stick the radio show (if I still have it) where they discuss Angle for a while on rapidshare if you'd like a listen. Either that or I think they have podcasts on the the show on sportsbyline.

I guess I haven't given up.

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

Eh no. In terms of financial growth its as you were for the WWE in 2006 pretty much. You know all the figures for UFC by now.

But your logic centres around bigger meaning better so therefore WWE beats UFC. I'm just using your own philosophy.

Vince135792003 wrote:

You say their growth registers with you but you put it on a different scale. Where do you put the expectation of 1.2 million buys on your scale?

What scale would you like me to put it on? That of a financial analyst? I see growth as involving more than that as I said already. Progress isn't centred purely on who makes the most dollar bills. As I said above, if you take that philosophy then you ought to be singing the praises of Vince McMahon!

Vince135792003 wrote:

He said, he would say to that person "Your a ****ing idiot" .

Did he now? I'm sure he did well in debates at school. You might want to mention the words "argumentum ad hominem" to him. Maybe an anger management counsellor as well...

Vince135792003 wrote:

I took the low road doing it but sometimes when you get involved in an argument that seems to be so obvious but people won't recognise anything you say (except UFC have done "well". They have done alot better than well), I guess I needed some feedback going my way. And I got the answer I expected.

You're coming across quite patronising over an issue which, as I told you, is SUBJECTIVE and not OBJECTIVE. In my personal opinion TNA had more significant growth than UFC did. I'm not trying to knock UFC as I have explained already the reasons for my view.

Why can't you accept a different opinion to your own? If someone said to you that WWE's growth was more impressive than UFC and cited viewing figures for the newly launched ECW etc. would you accept that since this person would have figures he/she could trot out?

It's not just about figures man. It's about growth, progress, development. If a person like Mr Alvarez can't accept a different opinion then he's clearly a ****ing arsehole isn't he?

Vince135792003 wrote:

I do think though your very ignorant on the growth of MMA and UFC in general in America in 2006. Besides invading a country, I'm not sure how much more they could have done in 2006.

I've not shown ignorance. For the last bloody time I acknowledge the impressive figures UFC have done but feel their growth is not as impressive as TNA's when the latter are far younger and were, IN MY OPINION, in a far more fragile state this time last year compared to where they are now.

In fact, if anyone's shown ignorance it has been you as you didn't give TNA any credit and said they had not grown at all when even using figures it's clear they have!

Vince135792003 wrote:

If you read the article that Fozzy found, I just find it totally implausible for you to still be able to maintain your argument. I just don't get it.

If you can't accept a different opinion that's not my problem. And has been pointed out to you (using figures which you enjoy so much), the most recent TNA Impact did a 1.2 while the UFC special did a 1.3! So there is hardly a massive gulf at this present moment in time!

Vince135792003 wrote:

I don't have an agenda. If TNA had done 700000 buys last month, had gotten a deal with HBO and had gotten an 8.9 in the 19-25 male demographic for a show and had done this all in about 12-18 months, I'd say it. But they haven't yet (and I hope they do) and both TNA and UFC have come very similar backrounds which I wrote about earlier. The UFC have and it goes far beyond "well".

Yeah keep churning out the figures (even though I don't dispute the figures!), the key issue is progress and development and GROWTH and I feel TNA's is more significant. Must I say it in a different language?

Vince135792003 wrote:

Sorry about the figures but they are very useful when your putting an argument together about 2 promotions whose objective is to make as much money as possible..

But this is where you're wrong and where your argument dies because taking that view then this has been WWE's year since they make more money than UFC do! Do you understand?

Vince135792003 wrote:

You tried tv ratings but when we looked into that, we found UFC doing much better.

Did we? Because I seem to recall mentioning the recent figures of 1.2 and 1.3 which hardly constitues UFC "doing much better".

Vince135792003 wrote:

Why do you not have a figure in the world to suggest TNA have grown more than the UFC in any terms? Because your wrong.

Now who's the idiot? I already told you my argument isn't about the bloody figures. I don't dispute the damn figures! Did you miss me saying that all through this thread? Quote:

Vince135792003 wrote:

TNA hasn't had the success yet that UFC has had.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Of course it hasn't. TNA is young. That is not the issue! This isn't a TNA vs UFC thread. The issue we are talking about is growth and I maintain to you that TNA can cite this year as being the year they had more significant growth than UFC. (And I beg you not to bring out the figures again please)

Notice how I pointed out to you my opinion that TNA had a more significant year growth-wise than UFC, isn't centred, like yours is, on statistics? Hell I even mentioned it to you AGAIN in another post:

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I don't need the business breakdown of TNA and UFC because I'm not disputing that UFC is doing better business than TNA! My reasons for stating that TNA has had better growth than UFC are not centred on financial statistics.

Why can't you get this through your head?

You can try and smother me into submission with figures but you are wasting your time because I do not dispute the f*cking figures!

My opinion (which I am entitled to) is that TNA's growth was more signficant in 2006 then UFC's was and if you don't like the fact I have a different opinion to your own, guess what? TOUGH TITTIES.

It is a SUBJECTIVE ISSUE and not an OBJECTIVE ISSUE and the fact that Bryan Alvarez and other UFC supporters may agree with you really doesn't alter MY OWN OPINION.

I repeat - our positions cannot be reconciled so we may as well agree to disagree because you won't change my opinion - which I am entitled to - and to be honest, unless you're a fascist, I don't see why you would go to such lengths in order to do so!

Vince135792003

I give up.

Mr.Nice Guy

Like I said before, our positions aren't going to be reconciled. You have your opinion and I have mine.

There's no use in continuing a discussion that is likely to become quite bitter.

All the best.

J.R.HARTLEY

can the UFC people answer me a slightly off topic question, what relation to ufc is this cage rage thats on Sky sports , saw Butterbean in it last night, he was a mess.

Vince135792003

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

can the UFC people answer me a slightly off topic question, what relation to ufc is this cage rage thats on Sky sports , saw Butterbean in it last night, he was a mess.

I don't think there is a relation although I have a vague recollection that UFC were talking about buying Cage Rage (I think thats what their called out). They have been doing alot of that lately.


Cage Rage at least from the bits I've seen is very low rent looking to the UFC.

Fozzy

Cage Rage is a British MMA promotion. Basically, UFC and Cage Rage are like WWE and TNA, two completely separate promotions. I think they have pretty much the exact same rules (might differ slightly in time limits or something, I'm not too sure). I heard about that Butterbean fight a while ago, I've never thought that much of him. He's won plenty of fights, but in his MMA debut he was beaten by Genki Sudo, a guy smaller than Rey Mysterio

Vince135792003

Fozzy wrote:

I heard about that Butterbean fight a while ago, I've never thought that much of him. He's won plenty of fights,

He gets around alot but he's more of a feature attraction than any kind of real player in the sport.

For those that remember Sean O'Haire of "I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know" fame, he beat him in about a minute at Pride in November.

Fozzy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Their growth registers with me but I just don't see it on the scale that some of you do. Perhaps the fact you go out of your way to watch it has you thinking it is more mainstream than it actually is?

I go out of my way a lot more to watch TNA, and I watch a lot more TNA than UFC. I think it is as mainstream as it actually is. They're setting new records every few ppv's, 1.2 million people are forecast to buy their next one. More than WWE has done in a long long time, and I would regard them as mainstream

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

These seem to be just MMA figures though so I don't see how that garners mainstream interest.

They got mainstream coverage. And they got more people watching the shows

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

And if one is to use financial figures as a mark of growth and influence then WWE would be regarded as the big story of 2006 since they make more than UFC do.

They wouldn't, as WWE have not grown very much. They're pretty much as they were. UFC has taken giant leaps every few months, in many ways more than just financially. TNA has only grown in non-financial ways, but they don't come close to UFC. I think the problem here is that I don't see that as my opinion. I see that as fact. I've seen the facts and they come together to form the big fact. Nothing more I can say either

Fozzy

Vince135792003 wrote:

He gets around alot but he's more of a feature attraction than any kind of real player in the sport.

He's got a very impressive boxing record, but he hasn't really fought that many skilled boxers. Pretty much the same as his MMA career. A lot of Bart Gunn-like opponents!

Mr.Nice Guy

Fozzy wrote:

They got mainstream coverage. And they got more people watching the shows.

Sting returning to TNA got coverage and got more people watching but it doesn't make it "mainstream interest". The names you listed aren't mainstream names.

Fozzy wrote:

They wouldn't, as WWE have not grown very much. They're pretty much as they were.

"WWE have not grown very much" is a relative statement. A WWE spokesman could spin it that they have grown by trotting out their statistics.

Fozzy wrote:

UFC has taken giant leaps every few months, in many ways more than just financially. TNA has only grown in non-financial ways, but they don't come close to UFC. I think the problem here is that I don't see that as my opinion. I see that as fact. I've seen the facts and they come together to form the big fact. Nothing more I can say either

Well that is a problem because you're wrong. It's not a statement of fact it's a matter of opinion.

Real Madrid might have made more money than let's say Bolton but that doesn't mean it is a statement of fact that their growth is more significant than Bolton's was.

This thread is not called "Big financial stories of 2006". If it was, maybe then you could claim your argument on UFC's growth is based upon fact.

Vince135792003

I want to let this lie. But God I just can't.


Point 1. In 2006 the following people are mainstream in North America: Chuck Lidell, Randy Coture, Ken Shamrock, Royce Gracie, Forest Griffin, Matt Hughes and Tito Ortiz. If you can't see that because as you admitted your knowledge/interest on the sport isn't the best, I can't do anything about it. Next week, you can bet both Tito and Chuck will be on all sorts of mainstream shows promoting the hell out of the show.

Point 2. WWE could spin in an airplane 5000000000 times and they still could n't put numbers up that rival UFC growth in 2006. It is impossible.

Point 3. The Real Madrid Bolton analogy doesn't apply because up until very recently they were both Leeds United. UFC is now Chelsea at least for 2006.

Point 4: This thread is about the big story of 2006. This forum does allow for talk about MMA. Read the article by Meltzer. Read the article undernath my sig. by Todd Martin. Buy the observer that reviews 2006 next week. Read everything you can from people who are impartial. And once you do all that, you'll reach only 1 conclusion:

UFC out of all the boxing/MMA/wrestling promotions in North America had 1 great year.

Have a look at the 60 minute piece on MMA http://www.dailymotion.com/visited/search/60%20minutes/video/xs69t_de100660mins

Even if you still don't agree, its a very good introduction to the sport and it captures the history of it in about 15 minutes and how its grown in media exposure, mainstreamness and yes tv ratings, ppv buys and gate receipts.

Its a really good feature on the sport in a pretty balanced way.

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

Point 1. In 2006 the following people are mainstream in North America: Chuck Lidell, Randy Coture, Ken Shamrock, Royce Gracie, Forest Griffin, Matt Hughes and Tito Ortiz. If you can't see that because as you admitted your knowledge/interest on the sport isn't the best, I can't do anything about it. Next week, you can bet both Tito and Chuck will be on all sorts of mainstream shows promoting the hell out of the show.

I don't agree with you on this. If you look up these names on Wikipedia for example there is no indication that they are mainstream.

Are you seriously suggesting that UFC has someone who transcends their sport? I'd be surprised if you feel that way. Hell, I've read Ortiz talk about how he'd be willing to work for TNA again in the future. Hardly the comment of someone who is a mainstream star.

Vince135792003 wrote:

Point 2. WWE could spin in an airplane 5000000000 times and they still could n't put numbers up that rival UFC growth in 2006. It is impossible.

It's all relative though at the end of the day.

Vince135792003 wrote:

Point 3. The Real Madrid Bolton analogy doesn't apply because up until very recently they were both Leeds United. UFC is now Chelsea at least for 2006.

Again I disagree. UFC weren't in anywhere near as weak a position as TNA were this time last year. UFC were at least on the map, TNA were not.

Vince135792003 wrote:

Point 4: This thread is about the big story of 2006.

I know. And you know my opinion on that.

Vince135792003 wrote:

This forum does allow for talk about MMA. Read the article by Meltzer. Read the article undernath my sig. by Todd Martin. Buy the observer that reviews 2006 next week. Read everything you can from people who are impartial. And once you do all that, you'll reach only 1 conclusion:

UFC out of all the boxing/MMA/wrestling promotions in North America had 1 great year.

Have a look at the 60 minute piece on MMA http://www.dailymotion.com/visited/search/60%20minutes/video/xs69t_de100660mins

Even if you still don't agree, its a very good introduction to the sport and it captures the history of it in about 15 minutes and how its grown in media exposure, mainstreamness and yes tv ratings, ppv buys and gate receipts.

Its a really good feature on the sport in a pretty balanced way.

I've no problem doing that but I'll still feel TNA's position now relative to where they were this time last year makes their growth more significant and impressive than UFC's growth relative to where they were last year.

Vince135792003

1. When I say that these people are mainstream I don't use Wikipedia as the litmus test. I use ppv buys because for every promotion thats is their bread and butter.

This will be the biggest ppv fight since Tyson and Lewis and possibly bigger. 1.2 million tv sets are expected to show it. That includes the loner in his bedroom to 100 people in a bar. God knows how many people will end up seeing this fight, let alone watch it on the net and eventually get it on dvd. When your expecting to get 1-1.2 million buys domestically in America (the biggest buy rate in a long long time), that makes you pretty mainstream to me.

Is it as mainstream as American football? Hell no but that doesn't take away from the giant leap they have made into the mainstream in 1 year. And they have made giant leaps. No doubt about that. We don't need the list again.

If TNA ever brought in Tito again, Dixie and Panda energy better start building a lot of windmills and solar powered houses because he'll cost them alot of money.

2. I disagree but I won't go into the details about the relativity of figures. I know you hate figures. But relatively, comparitively, or whatever UFC have grown more in 2006. Like I said, read up on it from impartial people who have nothing to gain. Do your relative and actual comparisons and then you can only come to 1 logical conclusion. I even think Dixie Carter would agree because its there relatively and comparitively in black and white.

3. You used the analogy of Real Madrid being UFC and Spike being Bolton which was farcical . I countered that argument saying they were both Leeds with UFC being now Chelsea. My analogy wasn't bullet proof (because this time last year UFC wasn't quite Leeds under Peter Ridsdale. It was Leeds under Ken Bates ie. they now had a chance) but its a hell of a lot closer to the truth than yours.

You make it sound like UFC have been some massive comglomorate for a while. This is a promotion thats only been on tv barely 2 years, was leaking money and was bought for next to nothing 4 years ago.


For the UFC to grow from where they were last year to where they are today, well I have never genuinely seen anything like it in my 21 year lifetime.

What were your thoughts on the 60 minutes feature, shown on NBC to 16 million? You'll never guess (or maybe you will) what happened to IFL stock after the program. All I'll say is, I wish I bought some.

Fozzy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I don't agree with you on this. If you look up these names on Wikipedia for example there is no indication that they are mainstream.

Guys in UFC get a lot more mainstream media coverage than they did last year. I just did a search on Google News for Chuck Liddell, there were some MMA and wrestling sites, obviously, but also many newspapers' sites from all over America, even MTV.com has a story up about him. Ortiz is even more mainstream, although a lot of that recently seems to be because he's going out with Jenna Jameson. He presented awards at a Fox Network ceremony recently. A year ago, UFC would've gotten a mention in some papers, like WWE does at times, but now they're all over the place. That's growth, right? I'd like to know exactly what you think growth is!

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Hell, I've read Ortiz talk about how he'd be willing to work for TNA again in the future. Hardly the comment of someone who is a mainstream star.

Interview can be seen here. Basically all he said was "stay tuned". Not really any indication either way. A point to think about is that when he left UFC originally, he lost a lot of his star quality. He wasn't as famous as he is now, but even then most UFC fans seemed to forget about him. When he was in TNA last year I don't believe he made any significant impact on their ratings or increased interest in their product. But look at him since he came back to UFC this year: headlining the next ppv which is set to have 1.2 million buys. That's not because of him, that's because of UFC

So what exactly do you regard as being the growth in TNA this year? I understand your point about signing possibly the best wrestler ever, but if that doesn't translate into increased ratings and increased revenue, do you really see it as growth?

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

1. When I say that these people are mainstream I don't use Wikipedia as the litmus test. I use ppv buys because for every promotion thats is their bread and butter.

Well that seems quite flawed to me because Wrestlemania doing great buys doesn't mean WWE have mainstream stars as I'm sure you'll agree.

Vince135792003 wrote:

I even think Dixie Carter would agree because its there relatively and comparitively in black and white.

Would Dixie Carter agree with you that TNA hasn't grown at all and that their position relative to last year is insignificant? I would doubt it. I have already stated UFC had impressive figures, I'm merely saying that the figures are relative to one's position.

Vince135792003 wrote:

You used the analogy of Real Madrid being UFC and Spike being Bolton which was farcical .

I don't think it's farcical. UFC had and have far more stroke than TNA did and do.

Vince135792003 wrote:

I countered that argument saying they were both Leeds with UFC being now Chelsea. My analogy wasn't bullet proof (because this time last year UFC wasn't quite Leeds under Peter Ridsdale. It was Leeds under Ken Bates ie. they now had a chance) but its a hell of a lot closer to the truth than yours.

I think it's unfair to compare any group to the mess that is Leeds but I digress.

Vince135792003 wrote:

You make it sound like UFC have been some massive comglomorate for a while. This is a promotion thats only been on tv barely 2 years, was leaking money and was bought for next to nothing 4 years ago.

I'm not trying to make them look like a conglomerate but to hammer home the point that their future was pretty secure this time last year whereas TNA's could have gone either way and thankfully went up.

Vince135792003 wrote:

What were your thoughts on the 60 minutes feature, shown on NBC to 16 million? You'll never guess (or maybe you will) what happened to IFL stock after the program. All I'll say is, I wish I bought some.

Didn't catch it but I can give you my thoughts on the Only Fools and Horses special on UK Gold. Pretty decent actually...

Fozzy wrote:

Guys in UFC get a lot more mainstream media coverage than they did last year. I just did a search on Google News for Chuck Liddell, there were some MMA and wrestling sites, obviously, but also many newspapers' sites from all over America, even MTV.com has a story up about him. Ortiz is even more mainstream, although a lot of that recently seems to be because he's going out with Jenna Jameson. He presented awards at a Fox Network ceremony recently. A year ago, UFC would've gotten a mention in some papers, like WWE does at times, but now they're all over the place. That's growth, right? I'd like to know exactly what you think growth is!

Have they names that transcend the sport itself? Seeing as their recent rating was a 1.3 I'm guessing they don't.

I see growth as being in a better position than you were at a previous point in time. I think both UFC and TNA have grown (I recall you saying likewise) but my view is that TNA's is more impressive relative to their particular position last year when they were basically minnows next to the shark that was WWE. Now they're more like piranhas taking bites here and there. UFC is kind of like an electric eel delivering shocks here and there but don't discount the piranha. (What is that now my fifth analogy?)

Fozzy wrote:

Interview can be seen here. Basically all he said was "stay tuned". Not really any indication either way. A point to think about is that when he left UFC originally, he lost a lot of his star quality. He wasn't as famous as he is now, but even then most UFC fans seemed to forget about him. When he was in TNA last year I don't believe he made any significant impact on their ratings or increased interest in their product. But look at him since he came back to UFC this year: headlining the next ppv which is set to have 1.2 million buys. That's not because of him, that's because of UFC.

Nothing you've said here indicates Ortiz is a "mainstream star". If he failed to increase interest in TNA doesn't that also prove quite telling? I'm not saying his star isn't on the rise - I'm saying I don't buy he's a star right now.

Fozzy wrote:

So what exactly do you regard as being the growth in TNA this year? I understand your point about signing possibly the best wrestler ever, but if that doesn't translate into increased ratings and increased revenue, do you really see it as growth?

Well it already has translated into growth (or else it's Russo's booking but I don't buy that argument!) but I regard TNA's growth as being more than that.

What do I regard as TNA's growth? I said it already:

TNA this year got their highest ever rating, they got prime time TV, they got a 2 hour special, they acquired perhaps the greatest wrestler in the world today (arguably ever) who is a bonafide star and who WAS a top guy in WWE, they proved they can exist and thrive without Jeff Jarrett and there were chants for the company at a WWE PPV.

And since I wrote that there was the recent ECW main event involving Test, Sabu and RVD and if you watched that you will be aware of the TNA chants that were ringing out during the piss-poor match they had. Doesn't bode well for Vinny's little baby!

To be honest, to say TNA haven't grown in 2006 is like saying the ECW brand hasn't suffered a decline.

Vince135792003

1. Wrestlemania got 6000000 domestic buys this year. UFC will double that, its expected. That statement alone should tell you something. If you had said that a year ago, that a UFC pay per view would do double the domestic buy rate of Wrestlemania, people would have laughed at you. Thats how much things have changed in a year.

2. Relative to ones position?!? Thats why they are so freaking impressive!

3. UFC have more stroke that TNA? They sure do now. But if anything UFC have had it harder in the past given the stigma that was attached to the sport.

4. My analogy as I said wasn't perfect. But Real Madrid being UFC and Bolton being TNA this time last year??!?

5. UFC have gone from a relatively okayish position to beating WWE in pay per view in 2006 somtimes by a margin of double, treble and quadruple the WWE. That is amazing. Nothing relative that TNA has done can compare to it. Thats not a knock on TNA, thats the truth. And theres plenty more UFC figures as you well know. And it all seem to explode from February on with the Lidell Coture fight.

6. Look I just gave you the link to the 60 minute special because informative and it is interesting too. I remember Dame Meltzer said a while ago about following the industry something to the effect "The minute you get left behind following this business, your dead".

Things changed in 2006. And you totally miss the gravity of it. The 60 minutes piece brings that home.

7. A 1.3 for a show with none of the people I mentioned fighting who I consider to be mainstream. One show that featured 2 on the list fighting out rated the major league baseball play off for the night. Again, that should really really hit home to you that thats very very impressive for a sport not on tv at the time for 2 years.

This is why TNA has grown more "realatively than the UFC! :

"TNA this year got their highest ever rating, they got prime time TV, they got a 2 hour special, they acquired perhaps the greatest wrestler in the world today (arguably ever) who is a bonafide star and who WAS a top guy in WWE, they proved they can exist and thrive without Jeff Jarrett and there were chants for the company at a WWE PPV."

Relatively, UFC achieved so much more than that. If you can't see that or maybe dont want to see it, fine.

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

1. Wrestlemania got 6000000 domestic buys this year. UFC will double that, its expected. That statement alone should tell you something. If you had said that a year ago, that a UFC pay per view would do double the domestic buy rate of Wrestlemania, people would have laughed at you. Thats how much things have changed in a year.

Even if that prediction holds, it's not proof that UFC is mainstream. If their recent special only did a 1.3 then they are hardly sweeping America.

Vince135792003 wrote:

2. Relative to ones position?!? Thats why they are so freaking impressive!

I know that. I never said they haven't had an impressive year. I simply said I regard TNA's as more impressive relative to their position.

Vince135792003 wrote:

3. UFC have more stroke that TNA? They sure do now. But if anything UFC have had it harder in the past given the stigma that was attached to the sport.

Wrestling has its own stigma to deal with as you will be aware. I don't see you disputing my claim that UFC were in a way better position than TNA this time last year!

Vince135792003 wrote:

4. My analogy as I said wasn't perfect. But Real Madrid being UFC and Bolton being TNA this time last year??!?

The former example might have been off but the latter holds. Let's just say UFC were akin to a team that was comfortable and set to do better...

Vince135792003 wrote:

5. UFC have gone from a relatively okayish position to beating WWE in pay per view in 2006 somtimes by a margin of double, treble and quadruple the WWE. That is amazing. Nothing relative that TNA has done can compare to it. Thats not a knock on TNA, thats the truth. And theres plenty more UFC figures as you well know. And it all seem to explode from February on with the Lidell Coture fight.

We've been down this road already. Financially of course TNA can't compare. That is not in dispute. But TNA have gone from a Jeff Jarrett-run small scale operation to a prime time show fronted by perhaps the greatest wrestler alive with very solid ratings and things down the pipeline such as video games and appearances by Major League Baseball stars, giving them air time on major shows such as ESPN. They were barely on WWE's radar and now they certainly are and for an organisation in a far more precarious state than UFC's, I think that's commendable.

Vince135792003 wrote:

Things changed in 2006. And you totally miss the gravity of it. The 60 minutes piece brings that home.

How do I miss the gravity of it when I've given them props throughout the thread. YOU are the one not recognising the impressive leaps forward made by TNA!

Vince135792003 wrote:

A 1.3 for a show with none of the people I mentioned fighting who I consider to be mainstream. One show that featured 2 on the list fighting out rated the major league baseball play off for the night. Again, that should really really hit home to you that thats very very impressive for a sport not on tv at the time for 2 years.

But WWE could throw out a show without their major stars and at least expect ratings in the 2's. TNA's ratings have been impressive when up against stiff competition too.

Vince135792003 wrote:

This is why TNA has grown more "realatively than the UFC! :

"TNA this year got their highest ever rating, they got prime time TV, they got a 2 hour special, they acquired perhaps the greatest wrestler in the world today (arguably ever) who is a bonafide star and who WAS a top guy in WWE, they proved they can exist and thrive without Jeff Jarrett and there were chants for the company at a WWE PPV."

Relatively, UFC achieved so much more than that. If you can't see that or maybe dont want to see it, fine.

LOL that's rich coming from a guy seriously trying to argue that TNA hasn't grown at all!

Relative to their position TNA's growth has been more impressive than UFC's. UFC have been known for years, (they were even featured in an episode of Friends one time) whereas TNA are making baby steps. Those baby steps turned into strides though and their achievements have made the world take notice.

Vince135792003

Just to get back on topic Dave Meltzer was on figure four weekly and he gave his 5 top stories of 2006 in the following order:

1. Th rise of UFC.
2. The cancellation of Pride on Fuji tv in Japan.
3. The boom in wrestling in Mexico.
4. ECW
5. Kurt Angle's ups and downs.

Honourable mentions went to the death of Antonio Peña and the voluntary exits of people leaving WWE.

Mexico was definitely a talking point for sure. There was an estimated attrendance of 250000 at wrestling shows in one weekend alone in Mexico city. Also you have Mistico up for top awards in the wrestling observer year end poll and I don't think a Mexican wrestler has ever won wrestler of the year before. Plus the death of Peña, who you could argue was the Vince McMahon of Meixican wrestling and its effect on AAA was big too.

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

Just to get back on topic Dave Meltzer was on figure four weekly and he gave his 5 top stories of 2006 in the following order:

1. Th rise of UFC.
2. The cancellation of Pride on Fuji tv in Japan.
3. The boom in wrestling in Mexico.
4. ECW
5. Kurt Angle's ups and downs.

Honourable mentions went to the death of Antonio Peña and the voluntary exits of people leaving WWE.

Mexico was definitely a talking point for sure. There was an estimated attrendance of 250000 at wrestling shows in one weekend alone in Mexico city. Also you have Mistico up for top awards in the wrestling observer year end poll and I don't think a Mexican wrestler has ever won wrestler of the year before. Plus the death of Peña, who you could argue was the Vince McMahon of Meixican wrestling and its effect on AAA was big too.

All hail Lord Meltzer! His word is gospel!

As an interesting aside, Wrestling Observer's Todd Martin gave his picks for the 2006 Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards and gave such embarrassingly bad picks as:

Best wrestler - Mistico (Who?)

Worst show of the year - Royal Rumble (Did he miss the ECW PPV?)

Worst match of the year - Sting vs Abyss (Now he's just taking the piss)

Best on Interviews - John Cena (Wha?)

The above is explained by quote:

Cena is phenomenal on the mic, and is able to excite the crowd with just about any material.

Yeah we all popped big for the fart jokes.

Martin alos engages in OTT fauning of UFC (must be a site requirement). Best box office draw is Matt Hughes? How is he a draw when most people don't know who the hell he is?

It's bullsh*t like this which, to my mind anyway, leaves PWInsider easily winning the best wrestling site of the year award!

Fozzy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Seeing as their recent rating was a 1.3 I'm guessing they don't.

Like Vince said, that rating has to be taken into context. It was a show with no big names and it wasn't building up to any big event, seeing as it was 3 weeks before their next ppv. If you put so much emphasis on that single rating, why not wait til after their next show?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

As an interesting aside, Wrestling Observer's Todd Martin gave his picks for the 2006 Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards and gave such embarrassingly bad picks as:

Best wrestler - Mistico (Who?)

I'm gonna take a wild guess and sau that you don't watch much Mexican wrestling! I've actually watched a good bit of it this year, but I haven't read about it at all and I'm actually surprised to hear about its growth being one of the big stories. But I can't argue with Mistico being one of the best wrestlers this year

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Martin alos engages in OTT fauning of UFC (must be a site requirement). Best box office draw is Matt Hughes? How is he a draw when most people don't know who the hell he is?

Were you keeping in mind the UFC ratings and record ppv buys already mentioned in this thread when you wrote that? UFC's last ppv broke more records and it was headlined by Matt Hughes, so obviously a fair amount of people must know him. It was after a ppv a few months ago that was headlined by Hughes that there was a lot of talk about UFC cementing their place. The ppv was not expected to do huge buys, as Hughes vs Penn wasn't seen as a highly anticipated fight. But they were proved wrong as they got 700000 (I think?) buys. Hughes was the biggest name on the card and definitely drew a LOT of people. If you don't understand how big a draw Matt Hughes is then you obviously can't see how big UFC has made an impact this year!

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

But TNA have gone from a Jeff Jarrett-run small scale operation to a prime time show fronted by perhaps the greatest wrestler alive with very solid ratings and things down the pipeline such as video games and appearances by Major League Baseball stars, giving them air time on major shows such as ESPN

Can their coverage on ESPN be classified as growth when they've already had 2 shows on that channel last year (or possibly 2004?..)? There was talk of TNA's videogame a long long time ago (keeping in mind that it isn't being realesed until 2008), and they've had appearances by celebrities ever since their first few shows, so how is it growth only now?

Mr.Nice Guy

Fozzy wrote:

Like Vince said, that rating has to be taken into context. It was a show with no big names and it wasn't building up to any big event, seeing as it was 3 weeks before their next ppv. If you put so much emphasis on that single rating, why not wait til after their next show?

Fair enough if they had no big names but does that excuse a 1.3 rating for an organisation that is being heralded as "mainstream" do you think?

Fozzy wrote:

I'm gonna take a wild guess and sau that you don't watch much Mexican wrestling! I've actually watched a good bit of it this year, but I haven't read about it at all and I'm actually surprised to hear about its growth being one of the big stories. But I can't argue with Mistico being one of the best wrestlers this year.

No I can't say I do watch much Mexican wrestling but considering the stuff Edge put up with last year and considering where he is now, can anyone seriously deny him the best wrestler award? He became the top heel in the biggest wrestling company and for years people said Triple H had to be in the main event because no one could be the top heel besides him...

Fozzy wrote:

Were you keeping in mind the UFC ratings and record ppv buys already mentioned in this thread when you wrote that? UFC's last ppv broke more records and it was headlined by Matt Hughes, so obviously a fair amount of people must know him. It was after a ppv a few months ago that was headlined by Hughes that there was a lot of talk about UFC cementing their place. The ppv was not expected to do huge buys, as Hughes vs Penn wasn't seen as a highly anticipated fight. But they were proved wrong as they got 700000 (I think?) buys. Hughes was the biggest name on the card and definitely drew a LOT of people. If you don't understand how big a draw Matt Hughes is then you obviously can't see how big UFC has made an impact this year!

In all honesty Kevin Federline is a bigger draw than Matt Hughes and it's tough to have to write that but that's a fact. Matt Hughes > Hulk Hogan? Hmm...I think not.

Fozzy wrote:

Can their coverage on ESPN be classified as growth when they've already had 2 shows on that channel last year (or possibly 2004?..)? There was talk of TNA's videogame a long long time ago (keeping in mind that it isn't being realesed until 2008), and they've had appearances by celebrities ever since their first few shows, so how is it growth only now?

Of course it can be classed as growth. It's all part of continuing public awareness. And there may have been talk of the video game, but now demos of it have been played at video game shows so that's more growth.

Mr.Nice Guy

With regards to TNA, here is the latest on their recent rating courtesy of Mike Johnson at PWInsider:

The rating for TNA Impact this past Thursday featuring AJ Styles & Samoa Joe vs. Kurt Angle & Rhino in the main event was a 1.1. No word yet on the audience share. That's down slightly from last week's 1.2, but SpikeTV and TNA sources both indicate they are pleased with the rating.

So they continue to get over a 1.0. Good stuff.

Fozzy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

No I can't say I do watch much Mexican wrestling but considering the stuff Edge put up with last year and considering where he is now, can anyone seriously deny him the best wrestler award?

Of course you can deny him the award if you feel that there is someone better than him. And yer man obviously thinks that Mistico was better than him this year. If you haven't seen him then you can't say whether or not he deserves it, can you?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

In all honesty Kevin Federline is a bigger draw than Matt Hughes and it's tough to have to write that but that's a fact. Matt Hughes > Hulk Hogan? Hmm...I think not.

Nobody's disputing that Matt Hughes is bigger than Hogan. But there's no way that Federline is a bigger draw than Matt! If that's the case then it would be a reasonable assumption to say that if Federline is at New Years Revolution then it will do a better buyrate than the ppv's Matt Hughes has headlined (remembering that one ppv this year did a huge buyrate when Hughes was the only big name on the card). Do you honestly believe that or would you rather withdraw that comment?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Of course it can be classed as growth. It's all part of continuing public awareness. And there may have been talk of the video game, but now demos of it have been played at video game shows so that's more growth.

I wouldn't call that growth at all. It's the same as saying that a company with a show on tv is growing simply because their show is on tv every week. If nothing else happens in the company then they are just standing still, not growing

Mr.Nice Guy

Fozzy wrote:

Of course you can deny him the award if you feel that there is someone better than him. And yer man obviously thinks that Mistico was better than him this year. If you haven't seen him then you can't say whether or not he deserves it, can you?

Well there might be a superb footballer right now in the slums of Rio who I haven't seen before but that doesn't mean he deserves the World Player of the Year award since he's never performed at the biggest stage like Cannavaro. Know what I mean? But fair enough the guy is entitled to his views no matter how bizarre they might be.

Fozzy wrote:

Nobody's disputing that Matt Hughes is bigger than Hogan. But there's no way that Federline is a bigger draw than Matt! If that's the case then it would be a reasonable assumption to say that if Federline is at New Years Revolution then it will do a better buyrate than the ppv's Matt Hughes has headlined (remembering that one ppv this year did a huge buyrate when Hughes was the only big name on the card). Do you honestly believe that or would you rather withdraw that comment?

Withdraw my comment? Certainly not. Federline's upcoming appearance has drawn attention from pretty much everyone in the US media. Even Jay Leno made a joke about it on the Tonight show. Can Matt Hughes claim likewise? Hell no.

Fozzy wrote:

I wouldn't call that growth at all. It's the same as saying that a company with a show on tv is growing simply because their show is on tv every week. If nothing else happens in the company then they are just standing still, not growing

That might be true if baseball stars were appearing on TNA every week but they are not so it is a big coup for TNA and evidence that they continue to grow.

And what do you cite as TNA's growth this year as you said in this thread a few days ago that you felt they had grown...

Vince135792003

Wrestling in Mexico is just as good (no better or no worse) than wrestling in America.

If a guy is a great wrestler and drawing money better than anyone else it shouldn't matter where or what country he's doing it. That achievement should be recognised.

And Mistico is favourite to win. People who vote on these awards tend to have a good global knowlegde of wrestling and I'd certainly respect their decision.

Mr.Nice Guy

Vince135792003 wrote:

Wrestling in Mexico is just as good (no better or no worse) than wrestling in America.

If a guy is a great wrestler and drawing money better than anyone else it shouldn't matter where or what country he's doing it. That achievement should be recognised.

And Mistico is favourite to win. People who vote on these awards tend to have a good global knowlegde of wrestling and I'd certainly respect their decision.

But surely you should support the decision of Edge since Edge has drawn more money and higher ratings with the WWE?

Or does fiannce only come into it in certain areas?

If people vote for this unknown as wrestler of the year then they have let their smarkiness take control of their brain cells. Something that would make the late great Brian Pillman sick to his stomach I'm sure!