MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[SASK_MMA]

Chuck vs babalu is a legit for a main event butt hey have to spend money on the other fights in the main card otherwize it's not worth buying...

[Kewl144]

Originally Posted by SASK_MMA

Chuck vs babalu is a legit for a main event butt hey have to spend money on the other fights in the main card otherwize it's not worth buying...

So dont buy it. Honestly, is anyone else getting sick of people complaining about cards because either they dont know the fighters who are fighting or they havent appeared on TUF? Many dont seem to realize that the UFC is a business with more fighters than those that make the weekly rounds of some kid's wet dreams. They dont have weekly shows for fighters to climb the ranks. They have ppvs and recently specials on spike for their fighters to prove (and improve) themselves. How long would the UFC last and how long would their top fighters last (before either being seriously injured or forced into retirement) if the UFC adopted an insane schedule like the some of the schedules proposed? These are real people, who really fight and not some "actor" who grunts and blades for the kids.

[Mastiff_owner]

About fucking time the voice of reason got through all the bitching and whining. Kewl144- I was reading the thread getting increasingly pissed off and then i read your post. Awesome post and I couldn't agree more. fact of the matter is noone knows how any card is going to turn out until the fighters actually fight. Whether its pride, ufc, wfa, ifl or whatever. Good on paper doesn't always translate into good fights and shit on paper may turn out to be the best card of the year. Noone knows and that is why I buy all of them. (that i can reasonably afford and talk the wife into).

Good job Kewl

[SASK_MMA]

I wasn't the one going on and on...I know lots about MMA and the FIGHTERS, i know a good card when i see one too...don't be mad that ppl are voicing their opinions!!!

[Mastiff_owner]

Originally Posted by SASK_MMA

I wasn't the one going on and on...I know lots about MMA and the FIGHTERS, i know a good card when i see one too...don't be mad that ppl are voicing their opinions!!!

So i am going to assume that through some sense or ability to see the future you can predetermine which are and which are not going to be good fights. If that's the case then you can save us all a lot of time and money by letting us know in advance.

voicing opinions is one thing but droning on about a shitty card is another. It's not a shitty card until after it is over. That is the only time you make an accurate judgement. If AA V Sylvia would have been a great fight that ppv would have been awesome because there were some really good fights that night. Three bad fights mir's fat dance, tito's one minute tko, and sylvia's two step. If one or both of the last two fights had gone differently and been as exciting as everyone anticipated no one would be complaining now.

point is you can't judge a book by its cover and you never know how a ppv will turn out until its over.

[dagreat1]

Originally Posted by killerinstinct

How the hell can you say that 61 looked better on paper than 62?61 was headlined by Tito/Shamock(a fight everyone knows that Tito is going to win) and AA/Sylvia.Mir's return was an added bonus.How the hell is that better than the rematch of what many people consider one of the best fights in history(Griffin/bonnar),Chuck Liddell vs. Babalu,andNeer,Kongo,Franca in action?The UFC couldn't help it that Fisher got injured,Terrell got "sick",and Kenflo needed more time.This was going to be an extremely stacked card ,but right now it's still a good card way better than 61.That's obvious.

Because other than Chuck and Babalu (forrest and bonnar I need not mention as 99% of all MMA fans would agree, niether one of them are main event material right now and chances are, never will be).

Neer, Franca and Kongo all fought in UFC 61 so what you are claiming is that Chuck, Babalu, Forrest and Bonnar are bigger names than Tito, Shamrock, AA, Sylvia, Monson and Mir. Apparently Dana White dissagrees with you as the fighter salaries from UFC 61 trump the salaries of UFC 62.

Chuck is payed $250,000 and the next highest payed fighter is Babalu at maybe $60,000-$70,000, then Griffin and Bonnar at $32,000.

Tito $200,000 Shamrock $100,000, Sylvia $90,000-$110,000, AA $90,000, Monson and Mir $36,000 (somewhere around there).

I am not sure how to spell it out for you, I have given you all of the facts, Alvin has as well, I really don' know what else to say as the facts are there and you still don' get it.

The arguement has been regarding which event looked better on paper not which event will be better as Giant Silva and James Thomson could have one of the best fights ever seen in MMA but will I put money on it and claim it looks good on paper.... ummmm, NO.

UFC 62 will likely be better than UFC 61 because there is not much to beat, UFC 61 sucked but the entire claim made by you was that UFC 61 looked like shit on paper and UFC 62 looks better and your claim was backed by Neer, Franca and Kongo and they were in UFC 61 and were at the bottom of the food chain in UFC 61 whereas you have them near the top in UFC 62.

[dagreat1]

Originally Posted by Mastiff_owner

So i am going to assume that through some sense or ability to see the future you can predetermine which are and which are not going to be good fights. If that's the case then you can save us all a lot of time and money by letting us know in advance.

voicing opinions is one thing but droning on about a shitty card is another. It's not a shitty card until after it is over. That is the only time you make an accurate judgement. If AA V Sylvia would have been a great fight that ppv would have been awesome because there were some really good fights that night. Three bad fights mir's fat dance, tito's one minute tko, and sylvia's two step. If one or both of the last two fights had gone differently and been as exciting as everyone anticipated no one would be complaining now.

point is you can't judge a book by its cover and you never know how a ppv will turn out until its over.

it's called a "debate" and if you really read the posts las you claimed, you would've noticed the key ingredient which was "ON PAPER" not "this event is going to suck because of these reasons", obviously not always the case as we saw with UFC 61 and anyone with a the slightest sign of intelligence could figure this out. Point was someone claiming UFC 62 looked better "ON PAPER" than UFC 61, sorry you were unable to grasp that.

[Mastiff_owner]

And i am sorry you are unable to grasp that no matter how many times shamrock and ortiz fight it is not a good matchup. one sided beat down the last two times and probably the third as well. imo the only fight that looked good "ON PAPER" was sylvia v arlovski that based on their last two fights.

and the whole point you and alvin were "debating" is the shitty cards the ufc puts out because they don't look good "ON PAPER" so how do you know if it is going to be a shitty PPV. Fact is you don't. you just keep rambling and making shit up.

I never said anything about who is a bigger name or fighter paydays. In fact i don't think anyone did. The matchups "ON PAPER" are good matchups for 62. Let me explain since you can't grasp simple concepts.

Chuck great striker v babalu great submissions
forrest good striker exciting fighter to watch v. bonnar decent striker likes to slug
Franca v Fischer (original card) two good strikers that like to mix it up.

If you would like i can go through the entire card for 62 and 61 and show you what i am talking about with matchups and what i think killerinstinct was alluding to as well. Personally i think the MATCHUPS are better for 62 for the fighters i am familiar with. 61 was a ppv based on names (shamrock/ortiz) 62 looks to be a card based on fights imo. simple enough for you?

[killerinstinct]

Originally Posted by dagreat1

Because other than Chuck and Babalu (forrest and bonnar I need not mention as 99% of all MMA fans would agree, niether one of them are main event material right now and chances are, never will be).

Neer, Franca and Kongo all fought in UFC 61 so what you are claiming is that Chuck, Babalu, Forrest and Bonnar are bigger names than Tito, Shamrock, AA, Sylvia, Monson and Mir. Apparently Dana White dissagrees with you as the fighter salaries from UFC 61 trump the salaries of UFC 62.

Chuck is payed $250,000 and the next highest payed fighter is Babalu at maybe $60,000-$70,000, then Griffin and Bonnar at $32,000.

Tito $200,000 Shamrock $100,000, Sylvia $90,000-$110,000, AA $90,000, Monson and Mir $36,000 (somewhere around there).

I am not sure how to spell it out for you, I have given you all of the facts, Alvin has as well, I really don' know what else to say as the facts are there and you still don' get it.

The arguement has been regarding which event looked better on paper not which event will be better as Giant Silva and James Thomson could have one of the best fights ever seen in MMA but will I put money on it and claim it looks good on paper.... ummmm, NO.

UFC 62 will likely be better than UFC 61 because there is not much to beat, UFC 61 sucked but the entire claim made by you was that UFC 61 looked like shit on paper and UFC 62 looks better and your claim was backed by Neer, Franca and Kongo and they were in UFC 61 and were at the bottom of the food chain in UFC 61 whereas you have them near the top in UFC 62.

61 may have some bigger names ,but that's not what we're arguing styles make fights.Bonnar/Griffin may not be top guys ,but they're exciting to watch.I'd much rather watch Bonnar and Griffin fight their hearts out than watch Tito Ortiz and ken"has been"Slamcock.I'd much rather watch Chuck knock babalu the fuck out than watch AA vs. Sylvia.It's not about which card had bigger names or whatever it's about which card has better fights.Would you rather watch Fedor vs. Thacker than Spencer Fisher vs. Sam Stout again just b/c Fedor is a bigger name even though Fisher/Stout would be very exciting and Fedor/Thacker would just be a one sided beat down?

[SASK_MMA]

Originally Posted by Mastiff_owner

So i am going to assume that through some sense or ability to see the future you can predetermine which are and which are not going to be good fights. If that's the case then you can save us all a lot of time and money by letting us know in advance.

voicing opinions is one thing but droning on about a shitty card is another. It's not a shitty card until after it is over. That is the only time you make an accurate judgement. If AA V Sylvia would have been a great fight that ppv would have been awesome because there were some really good fights that night. Three bad fights mir's fat dance, tito's one minute tko, and sylvia's two step. If one or both of the last two fights had gone differently and been as exciting as everyone anticipated no one would be complaining now.

point is you can't judge a book by its cover and you never know how a ppv will turn out until its over.

I wanna see the best fighters compete on the main card, i dont care much for the undercard, i mean have a whole bunch of shitty glass jaw fighters in the undercard and watch the fights for free on Unleashed but the main card should be the best guys period!!!