Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: UFC 61 was a Failure Not WFA

Your Message

Click here to log in

What Is The Last Name Of UFC's Iceman?

 
 

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

HTML

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 07-25-2006, 12:04 AM
    kickass32
    I gotta agree with Clint.............On paper the past 3 UFC's were pretty solid, unfortunatley, the fights themselves weren't too hot, but that wasn't the fault of the UFC.
  • 07-24-2006, 11:43 PM
    WandAXE
    61 like the past 5 was boring , the only thing that made it good was the anouncement. WFA wasnt that good , but I didnt think it was going to be good . Strikeforce is the future.
  • 07-24-2006, 11:37 PM
    MMAKIng
    i just judge the fights not the production of the show. if you judge production than pride is light years ahead of ufc every event everytime. they sell out stadiums ufc is still working on arenas.
  • 07-24-2006, 11:24 PM
    Matt Boone
    61 wasn't just another show either, it was the last big fight the Heavyweight division has to offer in the near future mixed with the best money-grudge match in company history (aside from Ortiz-Liddell II if that ever happens). So I see your point, and I agree like I said WFA had the better fights but as far as success, it's measured on more than just exciting fights - so UFC 61 was the bigger success. But again part of success/failure means how did this event effect the company going forward. In both cases, failure. I doubt people who bought UFC 61 as their first ever time watching a UFC event....I doubt many of those people re-buy. WFA the same thing.
  • 07-24-2006, 11:20 PM
    Deadboy
    UFC 61 made money, WFA lost money. Both shows were a disappointment. But i see 'failure' more for the WFA. Money wise and image wise. This was the WFA's breakout show, 61 was just one of many to come.
  • 07-24-2006, 07:53 PM
    BPARKER72
    wfa needs to get on directtv so i can judge myself.until then ill have to go with ufc all the way.
  • 07-24-2006, 07:27 PM
    Matt Boone
    WFA's fights were better, UFC 61's event was better.
  • 07-24-2006, 07:25 PM
    TapThatMat

    ?????????

    Your insane for even suggesting something so lame. Your comparing how a Pinto runs compared to the way a Bentley runs. The WFA event was a piece of crap. Now I know the UFC 61 event was not a signature event for the UFC but still, you cant even be serious when compairing the two. Imagine if Bas Rutten had not been part of that card. Do you think anybody would have seriously watched it? NO! I would be surpised if the WFA makes it for a full year.
  • 07-24-2006, 05:31 PM
    Clint
    UFC 61 was a fine card on paper, the fights just turned out to not be exciting. You can't blame the UFC for that, they did all they could do. Many of the WFA fights that looked good on paper ended up blowing. In my opinion what really hurt the WFA was the amatuerish production. In order to compete with the top orgs, you have to look like you are a top org and the WFA didn't.
  • 07-24-2006, 05:22 PM
    tapper
    agreed ufc 61 was a bust.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •