Gamebred wrote: » Date the last one for me there wonder, its a waste of time the new ufc owners are a law to themselves, this week alone the people they let go says it all they havent a notion, and I admit to wasting numberous posts talking ppv numbers in the past its a lesson learned try learn from my lesson your going around in circles.
Gamebred wrote: » Yeah they have me you and everyone included, its getting boring now is what I mean, its gone so stale it has led people to discuss it, its gone full sports entertainment if and when Maia and Romero get overpassed because they arent ppv ''stars'' I will snap.
wonderfullife wrote: » But the (sad) truth is Maia headlined the lowest rated UFC on Fox Card EVER. That matters to the UFC, even before WME/IMG bought them out. And let's be real, Maia v Condit was a cracking fight on paper too. So I honestly think Nick Diaz and GSP would get unjust title shots ahead of Maia and Romero and that's just business. It's silly to pretend UFC is a traditional sport, it's prize fighting sold as a "league" with rankings decided by journalists and matches decided (broadly) by 3 men - Sean Shelby, Mick Maynard and Dana White.
Gamebred wrote: » I know its a not a legit sport where contenders get deserved shots, its gone even worse in the last while with the interim joke belts, Maia should be fighting for the strap next so should Romero no question about it but everyone can tell the pair them are going to be ****ed off royally somehow as a purist it sickens me, But again I probably take some blame because I tune in no matter what fights they give us so I suppose im part of the problem, Its a joke how they use the rankings when it suits them ie negotiating contracts and then throw them out the window to make some crazy matches.
krustycustomer wrote: » Why are ratings measured in PPV's? Doesn't sound like they consider how much they cost? Or do they all cost the same? Would assume the top fighters cost more to watch, less PPV's but more profit made. Hard to rate fighters and cards as it takes years to know how much each card makes overall but PPV doesnt seem accurate.
dave1982 wrote: » Ive no interest whatsoever in GSP v Conor
Lukker- wrote: GSP vs Nate is a high possibility for the first fight. Either at 155 or 170.
VW 1 wrote: » Doesn't gsp struggle to make 170 never mind 155?
wonderfullife wrote: » I think the far bigger issue with Ronda is that women's MMA evolved past her. When she was the dominant force it was partly because women's MMA was so new, lacked talent, lacked depth and her brute strength and clinical Judo was enough. It's why I've been so encouraged to see the likes of Kayla Harrison and Helen Maroulis both say they will be taking time to develop MMA skills before contemplating setting foot in a cage. They both realize their Olympic-Gold-Level Judo and Wrestling won't be enough to guarantee success. Whereas 5 years ago, I think it's fair to say either of them could have gone straight into the UFC and been immediately competitive. What I'm trying to say is that Ronda being aloof and unlikeable was only highlighted by the fact she got starched twice in a row. If Conor had lost back-to-back against Nate and got choked out both times, there's a chance a similar backlash would have occurred.
JohnMc1 wrote: » If Conor lost back to back against Nate via choke at the time he wouldn't have gotten as much backlash since he still seemed to know when to turn the act off. Now on the other hand is a different story. People would really enjoy it seeing him choked out twice. Much like with Ronda's back to back KO losses it would have been seen Karma finally catching up to him.
VW 1 wrote: » I guess my thought on his struggle to drop to 170 were around the fact that he used an IV to rehydrate, hence thinking he couldn't have gotten to 155 even a few years ago when he was younger and it would have been easier to drop.
