Second Captains

I don't know if people are necessarily pissed with the angle they took, if they'd have had someone educated on the matter as a contributor or even someone capable of making a coherent point (I quite enjoy Ken's fresh eyes reflections on MMA, for example, because even without knowledge he can still come up with interesting points to make), but moreso that a podcast we'd all have reasonably high expectations for had someone on who had no idea what they were on about. He admitted as much! And then it was like, "Well if you don't care enough to learn how basic fight-scoring works, why am I being asked to listen to you as an 'expert'?! And I genuinely did want to hear Second Captains take on this!"

Hannigan has a long history for this kinda blaggery too. He's the antithesis of the 'sports nerds' type of journalist that the SC champion, which appeals to its listeners (us) as a result. He's a blagger with a taxi driver-level of sports knowledge and hot-take opinions to burn without any kind of interest in doing knowledge or research because he's been getting away with the lazy man's take for long enough. In short: he's a Wordpress blog level journo on an Irish Times podcast. It's a shame they let their standards drop for what is a pretty big story with so many legitimate angles that could've been covered with very little work.

leggo wrote: »

I don't know if people are necessarily pissed with the angle they took, if they'd have had someone educated on the matter as a contributor or even someone capable of making a coherent point (I quite enjoy Ken's fresh eyes reflections on MMA, for example, because even without knowledge he can still come up with interesting points to make), but moreso that a podcast we'd all have reasonably high expectations for had someone on who had no idea what they were on about. He admitted as much! And then it was like, "Well if you don't care enough to learn how basic fight-scoring works, why am I being asked to listen to you as an 'expert'?! And I genuinely did want to hear Second Captains take on this!"

Hannigan has a long history for this kinda blaggery too. He's the antithesis of the 'sports nerds' type of journalist that the SC champion, which appeals to its listeners (us) as a result. He's a blagger with a taxi driver-level of sports knowledge and hot-take opinions to burn without any kind of interest in doing knowledge or research because he's been getting away with the lazy man's take for long enough. In short: he's a Wordpress blog level journo on an Irish Times podcast. It's a shame they let their standards drop for what is a pretty big story with so many legitimate angles that could've been covered with very little work.

+1. I'm not a MMA fan, but they'd hardly have treated it any less seriously if it was WWE. First encounter my ears have had with that Hannigan chap, wouldn't mind waiting a bazillion years for the second one.

dulpit wrote: »

Jesus, the MMA fans have been kicking off... :rolleyes:

Anyone know why Mark only covers Eoin for the non-football show? He's great covering, pity he doesn't cover both shows...

Read through the posts before talking rubbish.

"I wonder what Dave Hannigan thinks of MMA!"
- Nobody. Ever.

I think the point was that most people complaining weren't die hards. Just people with a passing interest. I watch about five or six events a year. I don't think it's that polarising at all.

People who "can't get their heads around it as a sport" really shouldn't be paid by the Irish Times to report on it.

We give out about Marcotti and Thornley, but at least they know and understand the sport they're reporting on. Hanningan had nothing but contempt for the sport.
The show would have been better if the lads in studio had mentioned it briefly and moved on.
I know the die hards would complain that their sport wasn't' given it's due attention, but I think it would be preferable to scorn that was heaped on it.

dulpit wrote: »

One thing I think they should have mentioned but didn't (or if they did only briefly) was one of the fights before McGregor's finished with a flying knee to the head, the guy went down bleeding badly and the guy who won ran around like an idiot flashing salutes/etc. It was only after that that he decided to check if the other guy was okay (he was still being checked on by doctors).

That's far more worrying behaviour than McGregor running his mouth.

That fighter more than likely earned a title **** with that win. Of course he's going to celebrate.

Hardly worrying behaviour. Pretty normal to be honest with adrenaline running high.

corwill wrote: »

I think we're now into an area of what a lot of non-fans, such as myself, find challenging about MMA. While I'm awestruck by the athleticism, fitness levels, toughness and skill of these guys, I just don't have the stomach for the violence they inflict on each other.

That's not me advocating against it as a sport as such, that's just my personal viewing choice. The visceral negative reaction that many such as I feel to the violence of MMA gets channeled into heated denigration, which leads absolutely nowhere. I think there's a debate to be had about the merits of MMA in terms of participant safety and wider social impact; in fact, I think both sides of the debate need to have a conversation around addresing issues about MMA.

But all too often it accelerates straight into preachy hectoring on one side and defensiveness and entrenchment on the other, which renders a given conversation useless, as it's now a slagging match.

It could easily be done well (MMA fans don't get defensive or particular care about the violent argument anymore. It's like like saying "you know it's fake" to a wrestling fan: an inane, uninformed opinion that everyone who says it is convinced they came up with, whereas anyone informed knows all of the counterpoints and has made their mind up already), and Second Captains are exactly the kind of guys to do it. Shame they couldn't.

Mark Horgan needs to get over himself.

seiphil wrote: »

Mark Horgan needs to get over himself.

because he doesn't like something that you do?

seems like a lot of people need to get over themselves

lawred2 wrote: »

seiphil wrote: »

Mark Horgan needs to get over himself.

because he doesn't like something that you do?

seems like a lot of people need to get over themselves

No that's not the case. I have no problem with people not liking stuff I like. That segment was just set up to take stabs MMA/McGregor. Which they have done before.

They take issue with people fawning over McGregor, so they just go completely down the other end of the spectrum. Didn't like the bang of elitism coming from them either.

Regardless of his heritage, this is clearly not a black man. :pac:

Plus Griffin is a basketball player. If he was looking to make the point that Donald Sterling's racist comments had upset the Clippers team (which was the point he was making - not some complex one about Griffin's lineage), especially the black players, he was NOT stuck for options. What happened is that he didn't know what Griffin looked like, because he was blagging and accepting a contributor's fee to talk about a sport he didn't watch, and Griffin was the only name he'd heard that played for the team.

To prove as much: I also tweeted about him afterwards and he made a poo-pooing remark rather than even trying to clamour together that weak excuse. If he'd have known that all along, then would've been the time to explain that rather than look like a fool who didn't know what he was talking about...

leggo wrote: »

Regardless of his heritage, this is clearly not a black man. :pac:

Plus Griffin is a basketball player. If he was looking to make the point that Donald Sterling's racist comments had upset the Clippers team (which was the point he was making - not some complex one about Griffin's lineage), especially the black players, he was NOT stuck for options. What happened is that he didn't know what Griffin looked like, because he was blagging and accepting a contributor's fee to talk about a sport he didn't watch, and Griffin was the only name he'd heard that played for the team.

To prove as much: I also tweeted about him afterwards and he made a poo-pooing remark rather than even trying to clamour together that weak excuse. If he'd have known that all along, then would've been the time to explain that rather than look like a fool who didn't know what he was talking about...

Why should he be under any obligation to explain himself in a Tweet to some nobody?

Arghus wrote: »

I think Dave Hannigan was perfectly entitled to hold some opinions of his own regarding UFC and Conor McGregor.

Of course he does but I've heard and read them many many times now both on radio and in print yet he's still wheeled out as some sort of authority whenever McGregor fights (I think mainly because he happens to live in the US) even though he clearly knows very little about MMA and just flat out doesn't like it. It's like sports producers in Ireland still can't quite grasp that MMA is a sport (albeit a violent sport) so they cover McGregor fights like some sort of bizarre cultural oddity crossed with the WWE.

In fairness Off the Ball might be the exception as they often have highly respected MMA journalists from the US on before and after big fights.

As a hard core mma fan myself i have no problem with a show discussing the violence or pageantry or pay in mma. The timing after an Irishman achieving something great and being the superstar of the sport could have been covered and praised so much better. They went down the negative angle.

What the hell is all this ali talk. The second captains were the ones to bring this up not conor or any other media afaik and then they used that comparison as a stick to beat conor and the sport.