lougal88 wrote: » At what point do people think it became all about business/money? IMO it used to be the best fighters in the division fighting for the belts.
Swashbuckler wrote: » If I'm honest it seems like since McG burst on the scene.
Devastator wrote: » I think I've actually just made sense of all of this in my head... So the real champ will fight OSP for the interim belt and the winner of that will fight the interim champ for the real belt. I tihnk thats right
Gamebred wrote: » http://www.mmafighting.com/2016/4/2/11353334/jose-aldo-conor-mcgregor-was-full-of-steroids-in-his-body-before-ufc?_ga=1.41787938.1866621288.1459169987 Man Aldo is doing this all wrong,I wouldnt care if he was matched against Conor and tried hyping it but you cant even excuse this **** talk with fight promo,moron of a man hope frankie destroys him.
themandan6611 wrote: » aldo since his loss has being nothing but a scumbag, never humble, never once acknowledged the KO, and him the juicer mofo
callaway92 wrote: » Interesting. Would like to hear more about his juicing in the past
Gamebred wrote: » Would you like a link to the shadiest drug test ever where he got a usada tester arrested and almost deported then spilled a sample? Not accusing him but you have to admit that episode absolutely stinks.
callaway92 wrote: » Pretty much everyone in the game is 'juicing' one way or another.
Gamebred wrote: » Wouldnt say everyone but I do agree its rampant.
Some time ago, I created a UFC Rankings Primer noting many of the things wrong with the official UFC Rankings. A moment ago, I heard Dana on ESPN once again citing the Rankings as being the basis for which title shot decisions are made (in this case, OSP being picked to get an IC title shot against Jones). I have nothing against the OSP choice and this isn't about that. But I figured this was a good time to look back at how few people make these rankings and who these people are. I detailed in my last post that the UFC originally said about 90 people who be consulted in making these rankings. But, I noted, the number never reached that high and has dropped to a very low number. Moreover, the actual individuals are largely unknown and certainly not among the respected voices in the MMA analysis world. The number of voters: February 28, 2013 - the end of the first month of the rankings - 53 media members took part. February 28, 2014 - After one year - 70 media members took part. February 28, 2015 - After two years, below starting - 45 media members took part. December 21, 2015 - The rankings when I last looked this up, shrinking fast - 28 media members took part. Today: - 19 people. 19? That's insane. Even if these people were the respected voices in the sport (and they aren't; go to the website and see), that's insanely low. That means a single outlier has outweighed importance. And this is not an academic exercise. This is important. Fighters' opportunities and bottom line are predicated on these rankings (which is one reason why any respectable media member would not take part). We all love Nate Diaz and Stephen Thompson but are they really #1 respectively at LW and WW as ranked by David Brown of Cherokee Scout (who, by the way, ranks Assuncao above TJ at Bantamweight, and has TJ but not Assauncao on his P4P list). No disrespect to Scott Fontana of amNewYork, but maybe he could explain to us what exactly Hector Lombard did against Neil Magny to justify leapfrogging Woodley and Condit in the WW rankings. Also, while we all love Joe Lauzon, why do you have him ranked at 11 at LW? Where's Khabib? Not actively recently enough for you? Then why do you rank Kennedy at MW? In any event, where's Nate Diaz in your LW rankings? Look, even if credible journalists made these rankings, we could pick them apart, that's the nature of rankings. That's why you need a lot of people. With so few people, I mean, this thing is a joke. Then you consider that they aren't from USA Today, ESPN, Junkie, SBNation, etc, but from CFMU 93.3 FM and KIOZ San Diego and it's a bigger joke. But when you consider that fighters' opportunities and livelihood are impacted by these rankings, the joke isn't funny anymore.
ASOT wrote: » Getting kod by Conor ruined his life.
JJayoo wrote: » Made him about 5 million dollars, think he will be ok
ASOT wrote: » I'd rather have my sanity than money to be honest, he's become a paranoid babbling idiot like Wandi Silva since the lost.
JJayoo wrote: » You do get how the media works? If you follow his Instagram very few of his posts are normally about UFC/MMA. Interviews likee the one posted above are created by the journalist through leading the questions in a direction that will get clicks online. Talking about his family or about all the football games he goes to or his charity work doesn't really grab headlines
hefferboi wrote: » But that's the same for every UFC fighter is it not? And you don't here most of them talking like Aldo has been recently. The only thing you could say in his favour is that what he's saying my sound worse when translated.
Lukker- wrote: » Dana said they picked OSP based on fighter rankings. The amount of people on the media panel has gotten smaller with every new set of rankings. It started off at 78, it is now down to 19. The 19 journalists who choose the rankings aren't from any major MMA news website or organisation. Reddit post here about it:https://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/4d3rm9/ufc_rankings_now_created_by_just_19_purported_mma/
Devastator wrote: » Lads lets not turn this thread into yet another McGregor thread(we already have at least 3). At this rate we'll have to rename this the McGregor forum and open a separate MMA forum....which no doubt would then be taken over too :pac:
hefferboi wrote: » We're talking about Aldo, not McGregor?
Devastator wrote: » hmmmm not sure if thats tongue in cheek or not but ok you got me, I'll bite :pac: Talking about Aldo whos talking about McGregor. Talking about the effects that McGregor has had on Aldo. It may not be the usual insane full blown McG talks/discussions/arguements right now but guaranteed it will/would be within a few posts....hence the frindly request. Its hard enough to follow any kind of discussion already with it being spread across multiple threads.
fitzparker wrote: » anyone know when the Jones v Cormier sit down is being shown?
