MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[Hypergit]

Originally Posted by Palma Wrestler

I was sticking up for Dana and you made it a UFC Pride thing.

You, sir, have made it a Pride UFC thing. All that was said was that Dana's excuse is/was clearly a lie. Not might have been, but was demonstrably a lie. So why stick up for him and start Pride bashing etc?

The original excuse Dana gave before the Crocop fight, was that Pride are being 'hard to negotiate with'. Now, personally I don't believe this either (with good reason). However, if it was indeed Pride that were being unreasonable in the negotiations, the very kindest thing I could say about Dana using that as an excuse would involve pots and kettles.

Nevermind, I'm done discussing this with you, I don't believe for one second you are 30 like you say. Bye bye.

PS. lol at those of you still bringing up the Crocop fight in this thread despite being given the facts.

git.

[b0sH]

These "facts" are simply statements by other people they are in no way a proven fact.

As for Dana making this hard I dont see what on earth he would gain from doing so.

1) He has already sent his fighter to Pride, it's now his turn to reap the reward from having a Pride fighter

2) The buy rates for a Chuck vs Wandy PPV would be monstrous and would make the man a lot of money, something that every1 will agree he is very fond of. There may also be some Far Eastern attention, something I think he would like a little of as well.

3) It's not like the fight is shaping up to be a one sided masacre of a UFC fighter, even the biggest of Wandy fans gives Chuck a good chance and most of the fans in the know consider it to be one of the closest possible fights available in MMA today. I doubt either fighter would be able to prove conclusively better than the other no matter who won.

I'm failing to see what Dana as a bussinessman would gain by making this difficult and so common sense would tell me that there are many other factors involved than the retards here who just Dana bash at the first mention of his name.

[Hypergit]

Originally Posted by b0sH

These "facts" are simply statements by other people they are in no way a proven fact.

No. These facts are, erm..., facts.

Time line:...

Horses mouth: "This fight probably won't be happening because Pride are being hard to negotiate with"
.
.
.
Crocop fight
.
Horses mouth: "This fight won't be happening because Crocop murdered Silva over 3 rounds"

Because you keep ignoring this fact (basically calling us liars), I don't think it is worth me going over your other points. Rest assured, however, that they are pretty weak.

git.

[b0sH]

Sorry i'll have to check this "Horse's Mouths" credentials. No official statement has been released by either party so your evidence is coming from interviews from either side and radio babble. Of course either side is gona protect their interests to try and prevent themselves from losing face, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, I work in Sports Marketing and Marketing communications and so deal with "facts" from 2 sides of the same story every day of the week.

There are two main issues that stopped the fight from happening :-

1) Which came first was Pride's refusal to allow Silva and/or other fighters to be signed to more than a single fight deal, as Dana wanted 3 out of it apparantly.

2) The straw that broke the camels back and gave Dana a nicely packaged excuse was Cro Cop demolishing Wandy, gave him a chance to go oh look he lost he hasnt earnt the right to fight. If you actually believe thats what he thinks uve got some serious screws lose, there's always a difference between what is said and public and what the truth is.

[Hypergit]

Originally Posted by b0sH

the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle

There are two main issues that stopped the fight from happening :-

1) Which came first was Pride's refusal to allow Silva and/or other fighters to be signed to more than a single fight deal, as Dana wanted 3 out of it apparantly.

2) The straw that broke the camels back and gave Dana a nicely packaged excuse was Cro Cop demolishing Wandy, gave him a chance to go oh look he lost he hasnt earnt the right to fight. If you actually believe thats what he thinks uve got some serious screws lose, there's always a difference between what is said and public and what the truth is.

I'd agree that the truth lies -somewhere- in the middle generally. I have not heard Prides side of the story, but I know that Dana is a liar and has lied in this case as usual.

Your confidence in these two issues being the main ones surprises me. I'll briefly respond to them (I have already debated this at length some time ago, and I really don't want to get dragged into it again).

1) Your assertion that Pride's refusal to contract three fights was the first (or any) deal breaker is baseless because:

- We don't know what happened in the negotiations.

- Dana had no right to expect a three fight contract.

- Pride stood to gain more from this matchup than they could lose with regards to the American market they desired. For UFC it was exactly vice versa. This suggests that UFC would be far more likely to break the deal (in fact they would have to have been nuts to consider it in the first place).

2) Although you are spot on in pointing out that the Crocop fight gave Dana a nicely packaged excuse, this was not the 'straw that broke the camel's back' because:

- The camel's back was already broken as Dana himself stated more than once.

As for the statement that I must have a screw loose if I believe Dana's bs, well that is true, hence my repeated assertions that I don't believe Dana's bs lol

git.

[b0sH]

Of course Dana talks bullshit, but so does every single leader of any organisation in the world, I issue public statements on behalf of some of them that they openly tell me and that I know are 100% 24 carat gold bullshit.

As for the 3 fight deal, that was what the american representitive for Pride said was the main sticking point of the negotiations during a radio interview. According to him Dana claimed that Chuck had signed a deal to potentially fight 3 fights because of the tournament aspect of the PPV he was fighting in Pride and Dana wanted the same deal, even though its obvious the circumstances are vastly different. Again though this is a Pride representitive so its probably not the whole truth.

As for UFC having more to lose I agree with your points about the American market but lets say for arguments sake Chuck KO'd Wandy and Dana being the cocky bastard he is, would be betting on this happening, then it would put the UFC in a strong position to put claim to housing the worlds best fighters, however untrue this may be for certain divisions.

[Hypergit]

Originally Posted by b0sH

As for UFC having more to lose I agree with your points about the American market but lets say for arguments sake Chuck KO'd Wandy and Dana being the cocky bastard he is, would be betting on this happening, then it would put the UFC in a strong position to put claim to housing the worlds best fighters, however untrue this may be for certain divisions.

I agree that there would be some benefit for UFC if Chuck won. However, the vast majority of US fans don't even know Pride and are already fully convinced of UFC's superiority. Even if Chuck won, Pride may make a net gain in that at least the casual fans would know them and, presumably, would see a good show from Wand in defeat. Really, Pride have very little to lose even if it is a 10 second KO.

Put the scenario the other way round, Wand wins (let's call it 50% chance) and UFC are in deep shit.

Dana and his board would have thought this through, which is why I believe they would have been very hard nosed in the negotiations and far more likely to ask too much of Pride than Vise versa.

Anyways, that's it from me in this thread; I've had enough of thinking about this shit - it makes me sad lol

git.

[Palma]

Originally Posted by Hypergit

You, sir, have made it a Pride UFC thing. All that was said was that Dana's excuse is/was clearly a lie. Not might have been, but was demonstrably a lie. So why stick up for him and start Pride bashing etc?

The original excuse Dana gave before the Crocop fight, was that Pride are being 'hard to negotiate with'. Now, personally I don't believe this either (with good reason). However, if it was indeed Pride that were being unreasonable in the negotiations, the very kindest thing I could say about Dana using that as an excuse would involve pots and kettles.

Nevermind, I'm done discussing this with you, I don't believe for one second you are 30 like you say. Bye bye.

PS. lol at those of you still bringing up the Crocop fight in this thread despite being given the facts.

git.

If you read back to my orignal post ( you can read, can't you?) I gave respect to the fighters in Pride I just don't like the format and everything else that has to do with the hoopla that is Pride and has nothing to do with the fighters. And not that it really makes a difference but yes DOB: 10/14/76 I was born, the same year the Raiders won the SuperBowl and Starwars came out. The truth is you don't know why the fight hasn't happened yet, all you can do is speculate and bitch and cry about how it's the UFCs fault. Eat a dick.