MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[joeodd2]

Originally Posted by The Return Of......

honestly, not co promoting in no way takes away from the legitimacy of the sport.

very good article outside of that one point that just sticks out like a sore thumb. it is obvious you are pro co-promotion however to say that hurts MMA as a legit sport baffles me.

how does it hurt?? if anything it helps IMO. look at boxing. they co promote in boxing on a regular basis and has become a cluster fuck and the rankings seemingly just as random if not more so than.

the only way Co promotion really works is if its 2 companys bringing the same thing to the table. if another Pride emerges over sea's then yes, co promote with them. if there were 2 big dominating companies in the states then co promotion could work......although i dont think 2 dominating promotions in 1 country is a good thing as it splits talent. and if wouldn't last forever anyway (think nfl - afl)

furthermore, i think MMA already is a legit sport. it even has some main stream exposure. its just not that popular compared to the big 3. co promoting would do nothing to change this. now with the current promotions out there.

i dont see how the whole late hit thing comes into play either. you fight till the ref stops you. its rare that you see someone going off on something who is KOed. sure you can site bisping hendo but hendo cracked bisping and followed up with a punch. how many times have seen someone KO another guy and its obvious they are out and they dont follow up with another punch. think about shogun machida. shogun was getting off machida before the ref even got there. i just cant really see that being a major issue or problem

Late shots happen alot in MMA, especially after the guy goes down stiff, I've seen guys bend down and give 2 or 3 licks for good measure. That needs to be stopped. Bas Rutten happens to agree btw, he said's it's a lack of self control.

[Mac]

Originally Posted by kickass32

But Buffalo lost 4 straight Super Bowls and the first was close.........

Exactly my point. I was actually going to use this comparison but didn't want to overdue it with the NFL. But we are talking legitimacy of a sport and this is hoe it's done. The NFL didn't say, hey, sorry Buffalo but we already know how this ends for you so we aren't going to let you play in the Super Bowl until a few more teams that haven't been there play first.

[McTee]

Originally Posted by Mac

Exactly my point. I was actually going to use this comparison but didn't want to overdue it with the NFL. But we are talking legitimacy of a sport and this is hoe it's done. The NFL didn't say, hey, sorry Buffalo but we already know how this ends for you so we aren't going to let you play in the Super Bowl until a few more teams that haven't been there play first.

The thing to keep in mind when making this comparison is, IMO, the most important factor. In the NFL, you earn a shot at the Super Bowl based on your record in the 16 reg season games and performance in the single-elimation, tournament style playoffs. This only happens once per year.

The regular season schedule is based on your performance from the previous year, so in Buffalo's case they got back to the SB with the tougher schedule.

So, I put this question out to everyone, because we all bitch about how the title shots get determined. What is your black-and-white, definitive system that will work for MMA?

[Mac]

Originally Posted by McTee

The thing to keep in mind when making this comparison is, IMO, the most important factor. In the NFL, you earn a shot at the Super Bowl based on your record in the 16 reg season games and performance in the single-elimation, tournament style playoffs.

The regular season schedule is based on your performance from the previous year, so in Buffalo's case they got back to the SB with the tougher schedule.

So, I put this question out to everyone, because we all bitch about how the title shots get determined. What is your black-and-white, definitive system that will work?

You are correct about the system being different and there prolly isn't a real black and white. I like the Bellator style tourney but at the same time I think the way it is would be OK if they would follow through with what they say. Dana will say this fight is to determine the next title fight and then change his mind if it doesn't go the way he wants it to. Hard to be legit when you go back and forth.

[McTee]

Originally Posted by Mac

You are correct about the system being different and there prolly isn't a real black and white. I like the Bellator style tourney but at the same time I think the way it is would be OK if they would follow through with what they say. Dana will say this fight is to determine the next title fight and then change his mind if it doesn't go the way he wants it to. Hard to be legit when you go back and forth.

I agree that a problem is the follow-through, but Dana needs to stop indulging the media by labelling fights as being next up for a title shot. It's a lot easier to keep your promises if you don't make as many.

As for the issue of who gets the title shot, I think it is reasonable for any fighter in the top 5 of his division to get the title shot.

The WW division seems to have the biggest debate because we have a longtime champion and a firmly entrenched No. 2 fighter. People seem to have a problem with anyone getting a title shot if they haven't beaten Fitch yet or something. GSP fought Fitch, then BJ in a champ vs. champ superfight, then Alves (no. 3 welterweight). No one thinks Hardy should have had a shot, but there was no clear-cut no. 4 or 5 guy, so stringing a few wins together puts you close to that spot, which Hardy did. If that isn't OK with anyone, who should have gotten the shot instead?

As well, I think that DW hasn't been very hot on Fitch getting a rematch because of the AKA connection as much as anything else. If Fitch was the champ, who can he fight if he just beat Alves and won't fight Koscheck or Swick? For now, Kampmann-Shields winner makes sense, but after that?