Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

MMA Journalists, Pundits and Commentary

  • 06-03-2010 2:34pm
    #1
    Sid_Justice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,720 ✭✭✭


    Which do you follow? Why?

    I don't really follow anyone in particular, most of the writing on MMA I read is factual rather than speculative or analytical. Therefore I mostly read what's on the front page of mmaweekly.com for news about who's fighting who and when. I irregularly take a look at sherdog.com's front page after big events to read their critical review. More recently I've been keeping an eye on bloodyelbow.com, seems like a good site.

    Based on what rovert says Dave Mezger seems like one of the top guys, he writes for the wrestling observer a subscription only website about wrestling and MMA.

    I follow a couple of people on twitter too.

    The reason I'm asking is that I've been reading criticism about English soccer punditry and journalism recently. Those with the highest profile jobs on the television - Sky, BBC, Rte etc. are mostly former professional players. They are, according to many, despite being former professionals, mostly clueless, inarticulate and dull. There seems to be better analysis in the non-tabloid news papers by real journalists, but again, most of the columns are of a predictable nature written by ex-pros.

    To bring it back to MMA, the UFC and most other organisations have salaried, hand chosen colour commentators and presenters. They very much, 'tow the party line' so to speak. The analysis of play-by-play by Rogan while sometimes flawed, is often insightful in my opinion.

    What I am getting at is, will future commentary/analysis be monopolised by ex-fighters? Is this a good thing? Can only people who've participated in the sport at a high level be truly capable of understanding it? Robbie Savage, a welsh footballer, basically said recently that journalists and fans that comment on football don't really understand what they're talking about.

    Another view is something like good horses don't make good jockeys. There are many expert boxing journalists i'm sure, who've never once set foot in a boxing ring. Bernard Dunne seems to have support from fans to take over from Jimmy Magee for rte's coverage of boxing. Is he the exception?

    Hope to hear some opinions here, hope I haven't scared anyone off with the length (and probably convolution ) of this post.


Comments

  • #2
    Martin Walker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Martin Walker


    I dont really follow any MMA journalists. I prefer to keep a close eye on the domestic scene. I mainly use this forum and the cagewarriors forum for the UKMMA.

    I havnt sat up and watched the UFC live in quite a while prefering to stream fights the next day.
    I do like Rogan and Goldie. Some times they do talk utter crap and Rogans shameless nuthugging does get tedious but they are entertaining. I suppose thats what they are there for. Gone are the days when they had to explain to the viewer what was going on.
    I dont think its a must to be en exfighter (player in football) to commentate. Just perhaps train full time and most of all be a massive fan. You need to understand the tactics and the skill envolved to know what could happen to be able to tell the people watching.
    Hope that makes sense.


  • #3
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    This was kind of discussed here recently:
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055801450

    But still I a like and respect Dave Meltzer a lot but at times he has been too "UFC positive" in his reporting. IMO there are very few actual journalists in the MMA a lot of them come from blogging on the net and basically do it get free tickets from UFC. At the other end of the spectrum are nutters who are completely biased against UFC and everything they do.

    On the UFC announcing situation Id take Goldberg and Rogan in their first years announcing over the current day version.


  • #4
    Devastator
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,480 ✭✭✭Devastator


    http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/MMA


    IMO newsnow is one of the best sites on the whole internet. Basically it gives you up to date headlines from many various news sources and you click on and read what you want.


  • #5
    Fozzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭Fozzy


    Dave Meltzer writes for Yahoo Sports as well. I'd definitely call him the most insightful MMA journalist, he has a lot of connections within the main MMA promotions. Scott Coker refused to start the press conference after Strikeforce's last CBS show until Dave was in the room

    Meltzer focuses a lot more on the business aspect of MMA than the actual technicalities of fights. In that respect I'd agree with what you say about journalists without a background in fighting not being that good in their analysis. It's not that Meltzer talks nonsense about fights, just that he avoids talking too much about things that he wouldn't have the knowledge to talk about

    On the other hand, you do get some journalists who are really nothing more than armchair fans talking about the intricacies of fighting. With football it's not so bad, because pretty much everyone has played a game of football in their life. Fighting is a different thing I think

    There are some fighters who make good analysts too. Frank Mir is good when he's not being too ground-biased. I wouldn't call Kenny Florian outstanding, but he does a fine job on MMA Live. Bas Rutten usually has some good insight when commentating. Guy Mezger has never really impressed me on the DREAM shows. Frank Shamrock is a good speaker but his analysis in Strikeforce always seems to be all over the place

    In summary, I don't think that being a fighter or not makes much difference. Some fighters are able to use their experience to give better insight and some aren't, and it's the same with journalists with no background

    One thing I have found though is that a large proportion of what I'd call bad MMA journalists are also boxing journalists. Some of them would have been pushed into covering MMA by their newspaper/magazine/website, who figured that they could save money by just getting their boxing guy to cover MMA when it became more popular. Sometimes they aren't actually fans of MMA and it can come across in their writing


Advertisement