[x]

See Where You Rank in Washington

  1. Missed the undercards, but the ME was horrible.

    How were the other two fights?

     
    Originally Posted by PoWdA View Post

    If anything the boxing guys are like "wow, this is just like boxing, except they don't know how to throw punches and they wear smaller gloves!"

    FYP.

    Davis's standup was pathetic. Like I already said, I'm sure the other two fights were better but the ME was a snoozefest.
    Edited By: gamma21 Jan 29th, 2012 at 04:09 AM
     
  2. These fights weren't good for UFC, my group of friends get every PPV regardless and we weren't even hardly paying attention tonight. For UFC to appeal to non-casual fans they have to put on fights people are willing to pay for for free. I imagine if tonight's lineup was on PPV no one would give a shit. Dana White pushed Phil Davis too soon. He's not ready for a top tier fight like this. Especially coming off an injury. Just b/c he has a sick physique like Jones doesn't mean he'll fight like him. I love UFC, but the whole free card on Fox isn't helping them at all. The casual fan knows GSP and Silva tier fighters, but neither will EVER fight on a free card. Dana White is fucking up this opportunity so much.
  3. I am a casual fan to the UFC, but when I heard they were coming to Chicago I decided I wanted to check it out live. I would have to say overall i was more disappointed than thrilled with my experience. The fights they decided to put on fox were boring and even the fans began to boo throughout the stadium. Bisping vs Sonnel was the only fight that was ok to watch. There is a lot of areas the UFC can improve on with their live production. I was def expecting a lot more entertainment and I think the UFC needs to address some things or they will soon turn off fans. IMO they need to stop pushing out so many different fight cards week after week and really take time to promote the individuals more. The sport will only get as big as their top stars. By having a ppv every other week it has watered down the sport and outside of the serious fans its extremely hard to get pumped up for a fight between two guys you never heard of. Something else to consider would be shortening the rounds. These 5 minute rounds are absolutely useless when both guys are dead tired after the first couple minutes. The last 2 minutes of the round are a complete joke. In a few of the fights, after the first round it looked like you were watching a fight in slow motion. I understand how well trained these athletes are and would never boo their effort because I know they are trying, but the excitement factor is not there. I think Dana White needs to really take a step back from this whole UFC vs the world mentality, keep his mouth shut a little bit, and really get to work improving the sport or they will quickly find themselves spewing money again. The live productions are completely lacking the entrainment factor you expect from any major sporting event.
     
  4. Did anyone else notice that Davis's feet seemed to be sliding on the mat? In the area near the MetroPCS logo. I thought something looked odd in Round 1 so I started paying closer attention, and it definitely looked like his feet were sliding a few times. Very strange . . .
  5. I noticed his feet sliding too. It was so weird because once I saw it I was distracted by it the rest of the fight. He never seemed to lose balance at any time though and it looked like it was just natural for him.

    This was not a good Fox card. Obvious reasons already stated but I watch almost every UFC that goes on tv or ppv and I was bored senseless by the whole thing. Maia and Weidman was not good at all. Bisping and Sonnen was alright but Sonnen was gassed wayyyy too early, I guess the weight cut was bad. I thought that Bisping and Sonnen should have been main event anyway because Davis probably shouldn't have been main eventing yet. I have no problem with him fighting Evans because it was time for him to challenge a top tier guy, but yeah, he showed he's not that close yet. At least it will shut up the Shertards who thought Davis' wrestling would be enough for him to beat Jon Jones.

    Speaking of Jones, love watching him fight, but not as an analyst or whatever you would call his role tonight. Big fat "meh" for the whole thing last night, I don't say that very often with the UFC.

    Also have to disagree with guy who said to promote the individuals more than the brand. I think they were going that way with Liddell and some of the other guys 4 or 5 years ago, but they just can't do it because of how often they get injured and the fact that if you do that, and the fighter loses, then it kind of takes the air out of that balloon. They are pretty much stuck marketing the brand and not the fighters IMO.
  6. Okay, so it wasn't just me (Davis foot slide). Never noticed it in his other fights, so I wonder if it might have been something with how they cleaned the mat before the FOX broadcast, although I did not see other fighters have that problem. Very odd.

    Jones was terribad in the booth. Starting with his posture, to his obvious reading of his script, he was simply out of his element. I can understand why the UFC wanted him there, but this was not good for Jones, or for the broadcast. Even Randy, who is a good colour guy, but only a decent commentator, looked bewildered at Jones performance. If KenFlo retires, I know where he could find a job . . .

    And, of COURSE you market the brand ahead of the talent. Talent comes and goes, but the UFC is who puts on the show.
    Edited By: Milo Jan 29th, 2012 at 03:24 PM
  7.  
    Originally Posted by Milo View Post

    Okay, so it wasn't just me (Davis foot slide). Never noticed it in his other fights, so I wonder if it might have been something with how they cleaned the mat before the FOX broadcast, although I did not see other fighters have that problem. Very odd.

    I've seen it in other fights. Could be due to humidity or some other environmental factor.
     3
  8. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...sy-win/117913/

    The early ratings are in and they aren't very good for the UFC and FOX. The article says that they expect the numbers to be adjusted upwards, but I figure they're going to have to be adjusted a lot for FOX or the UFC to be happy.
     
  9.  
    Originally Posted by gamma21 View Post

    http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...sy-win/117913/

    The early ratings are in and they aren't very good for the UFC and FOX. The article says that they expect the numbers to be adjusted upwards, but I figure they're going to have to be adjusted a lot for FOX or the UFC to be happy.

    This is what Meltzer had said yesterday (before the show) in regards to how to interpret the ratings:

    --I've got an article at http://www.yahoo.com on why tonight's show is actually in the big picture the most important UFC show not only of this year, but in a few years. The gist is that a bad rating will force a revamp of the entire battle plan of the FOX/PPV synergy and a good rating will be affirmation that UFC is a prime time player. Under a 2.0 rating would be bad. 2.0 to 2.5 would not be good, and would be more mean there would be added pressure on 5/5 to do better. 2.6 to 3.0 is fine, and it's about where it should be. 3.0 or better would be a success and anything above 3.3 they should be popping champagne corks for this show. I've heard people talk about the show doing 10 million viewers. It's not doing close to 10 million viewers. 5 million is fine and 7 million is a home run.

    So doing a 2.2 is going to cause a lot of concern.
    1
  10.  
    Originally Posted by PoWdA View Post

    If you are going to do a Heavyweight bout there have to be other fights on the card. I mean they generally do not last long and Dana knew it, I am sure that is how he got two hours out of Fox this time. I mean if the Henderson/Guida fight were on Fox that shit would have gotten people into it but no, you put a heavyweight title bout up where you just know it isn't going out of the first round and wonder why it sucked and then follow it up with this horseshit. I almost think Munoz was paid to take a dive to bring some excitement to tonight's card.

    The reason they only put on the one fight the first time on FOX was because their contract hadn't started with them yet and it was just a little kick off show to get things started with them.

    After tonights fights I think you will see them put more entertaining cards on there. Its not like they didnt try tonight tho they did put 2 number 1 contender fights on it.

     
    Originally Posted by Mkind16 View Post

    This is what Meltzer had said yesterday (before the show) in regards to how to interpret the ratings:

    --I've got an article at http://www.yahoo.com on why tonight's show is actually in the big picture the most important UFC show not only of this year, but in a few years. The gist is that a bad rating will force a revamp of the entire battle plan of the FOX/PPV synergy and a good rating will be affirmation that UFC is a prime time player. Under a 2.0 rating would be bad. 2.0 to 2.5 would not be good, and would be more mean there would be added pressure on 5/5 to do better. 2.6 to 3.0 is fine, and it's about where it should be. 3.0 or better would be a success and anything above 3.3 they should be popping champagne corks for this show. I've heard people talk about the show doing 10 million viewers. It's not doing close to 10 million viewers. 5 million is fine and 7 million is a home run.

    So doing a 2.2 is going to cause a lot of concern.

    Sounds like the 2.2 was just for the 18-49 demo which is their key demographic.

    http://www.mmafighting.com/2012/01/2...minary-rating/
  11. The key demo is the most important and they can't really point to overall viewership, since a re-run of CSI, Wipeout, and Harry's Law pulled in more overall viewers than the UFC.
     
  12. I wouldn't be shocked to see some weird matchups being forced onto future Fox cards now, like getting Forrest Griffin, Korean Zombie, or maybe a few blatant mismatches to try and get some finishes and wild punch fights on there. I don't expect we will see the Maias or Fitchs of the UFC on the Fox cards any more, it's gonna have to be guys who are not likely to gas and who will go for KOs.
  13.  
    Originally Posted by Bonestein View Post

    I noticed his feet sliding too. It was so weird because once I saw it I was distracted by it the rest of the fight. He never seemed to lose balance at any time though and it looked like it was just natural for him.

    This was not a good Fox card. Obvious reasons already stated but I watch almost every UFC that goes on tv or ppv and I was bored senseless by the whole thing. Maia and Weidman was not good at all. Bisping and Sonnen was alright but Sonnen was gassed wayyyy too early, I guess the weight cut was bad. I thought that Bisping and Sonnen should have been main event anyway because Davis probably shouldn't have been main eventing yet. I have no problem with him fighting Evans because it was time for him to challenge a top tier guy, but yeah, he showed he's not that close yet. At least it will shut up the Shertards who thought Davis' wrestling would be enough for him to beat Jon Jones.

    Speaking of Jones, love watching him fight, but not as an analyst or whatever you would call his role tonight. Big fat "meh" for the whole thing last night, I don't say that very often with the UFC.

    Also have to disagree with guy who said to promote the individuals more than the brand. I think they were going that way with Liddell and some of the other guys 4 or 5 years ago, but they just can't do it because of how often they get injured and the fact that if you do that, and the fighter loses, then it kind of takes the air out of that balloon. They are pretty much stuck marketing the brand and not the fighters IMO.

    If I liked to type this is what I'd say. Agree with everything said here
     1
  14. Sonnen looked terrible and baaaaaarely won imo. Davis was horribad and the slipping was weird/annoying

    And props to winner in first fight for short notice but maia was garbage too

    I feel bad for ufc bc on paper these should havebeen good fights
    Edited By: norcaljeff Jan 30th, 2012 at 03:59 AM
  15. They were painting the ring mat between rounds, to keep blood off the mat for fox broadcast.

    I love Chael Sonnen but he lost that fight.

    I hate Bisping and have to give him props he impressed me.

    Anyone who did not watch the Fueltv broadcast missed out the undercard was awesome.
    Thread Starter
  16.  
    Originally Posted by perma_tilt View Post

    They were painting the ring mat between rounds, to keep blood off the mat for fox broadcast.

    I love Chael Sonnen but he lost that fight.

    I hate Bisping and have to give him props he impressed me.

    Anyone who did not watch the Fueltv broadcast missed out the undercard was awesome.



    Well I'm going to assume that you think Bisping took the first 2 rounds since he clearly lost the last one. So this means you think that the fighter that got taken down and controlled or controlled against the fence for the vast majority of each round actually won it because he slightly got the better of it n 3 or 4 brief striking exchanges adding up to ~ 1 minute or so for each round, correct? I hate mma judging too bro but that's not how it works. Barely getting the edge in the striking department that makes up for sub 25% of the round doesn't >>> you getting controlled and beaten the other 75% of the round.

    There's this too:

    http://blog.fightmetric.com/2012/01/...icial-ufc.html

    It was a very close fight and I actually think that, if anything, Bisping's stock went up after last night. Even the haters gotta admit that he's a pretty damn good fighter. Hope they give him another top 10 in his next fight.
    Edited By: voorh33s Jan 30th, 2012 at 05:47 AM
  17. I had it 30-28 chael. Won 1 &3, 10-10 second round. I can see a one round swing for bisping, but chael won. Agree though, chael didn't look like a silva beater
  18. Just my observation from seeing the fight live.. Bisping looked like a much better technical fighter. Much more in control of his punches and kicks. That being said I think he lost the fight and wasnt as active as Sonnen.

    Those of you saying you promote the brand and not the individual are completely wrong. The brand doesnt work without individuals and thats just a fact. The UFCs most noticeable guy right now is not a fighter but instead its Dana White. That is an issue. The casual fan (myself) doesnt pay money to see Dana White sitting ring side. All major sports promote their brand obviously, but they really promote the individuals. Look at the team sports in this country and who is promoted, NFL Brady, Manning, Rogers. Brees - NHL Ovechkin, Crosby, Toews - MLB Puljos - Jeter - Fielder. And those are TEAM sports. When your sport is based entirely on individuals you had better be promoting them and hard. Most of you in this forum are already a fan of the sport and will remain a fan no matter what. The UFC is not going to survive off you guys alone. They need to attract the casual fan and imo they are doing a horrible job of it right now. They are extremely lucky Boxing is in such a disarray there is really no other competition against the UFC.
     
  19.  
    Originally Posted by satchmo View Post

    I had it 30-28 chael. Won 1 &3, 10-10 second round. I can see a one round swing for bisping, but chael won. Agree though, chael didn't look like a silva beater


    Bisping had the 2nd imo and the first could of gone either way but Sonnen probably got it. Think 29-28 is right
  20. Davis looked bad because he hasn't fought since Spring of last year and got in the ring with a guy that has only lost one time in 24 fights. As far as the foot slipping goes I noticed it too but I don't think it effected the fight in any way.

    Chael looked pretty bad and if it would have gone the 5 rounds that it should have Bisping would have come out on top.

    I can't wait to see Diaz beat Conditt, and then GSP in the Spring, to face off with Kos in the Fall. The shit talking for the fight will be awesome.
  21. how can you say that when the 3rd was the most clear cut round in chaels favor? I agree he didn't look as good as we've seen him before but he still won every round.
  22. I definitely think this is one of those losses that's a "win" for Bisping. No one gave the guy a shot, seeing as how he's always been blown out vs. top contenders previously. He took the fight on short notice, vs. a guy with a completely different fight style than the one he was originally training for, and arguably beat him. I personally agree that Sonnen won the fight barely, but there's no way that fight should have been close on paper. Sonnen is supposed to be the Silva destroyer, yet Bisping won the damage war? If this were Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat/etc, Bisping would have won when time ran out. That's not a knock on Sonnen, that's props to Bisping for apparently taking things more seriously now.
    Edited By: TClermont Jan 30th, 2012 at 09:18 PM
  23. Anderson is going to DESTROY Sonnen.

  24. I just hope it doesnt go to decision, because then Sonnen has about as much of a chance as Roy Jones Jr. did in Korea.
  25.  
    Originally Posted by voorh33s View Post

    how can you say that when the 3rd was the most clear cut round in chaels favor? I agree he didn't look as good as we've seen him before but he still won every round.

    He did technically win the rounds but he did it like GSP. He got the point for the takedown but did absolutely nothing with it. In my opinion if you score a takedown but don't do any damage it shouldn't count towards how the round is decided.
  26.  
    Originally Posted by Geoff Moore View Post

    He did technically win the rounds but he did it like GSP. He got the point for the takedown but did absolutely nothing with it. In my opinion if you score a takedown but don't do any damage it shouldn't count towards how the round is decided.

    This . . . 29-28 Bisping on my card.
  27.  
    Originally Posted by Geoff Moore View Post

    He did technically win the rounds but he did it like GSP. He got the point for the takedown but did absolutely nothing with it. In my opinion if you score a takedown but don't do any damage it shouldn't count towards how the round is decided.

     
    Originally Posted by Milo View Post

    This . . . 29-28 Bisping on my card.

    Did you guys look at the Fightmetric report at all? Or are you just choosing to ignore it?

    In the first round, they have Chael outstriking Bisping 43-23 in total strikes and 24-13 in significant strikes. Add in the 2 takedowns and that seems like a pretty clear round for Chael.
  28. it's a mixed martial arts competition, not a street fight, if you get taken down, you're losing the competition, if you're in a vulnerable position (on your back, back against the cage) you're LOSING the competition and thats what happened to bisping for 12/15 minutes of this fight.
  29. Do the Judges at Cageside utilize Fightmetric on their cards? Because I don't . . . Also, how does fightmetric achieve those numbers? If it is doen the way Olympic boxing is scored, then it is just as subjective as my own two eyes.
  30. If you want to boost your case by using the cageside judges as a comparison be my guest, but given the past record of terrible decisions in the UFC I certainly wouldn't.
Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 41 2 3 4

Similar Threads