How good was yesterday's FOX event in promoting MMA to mainstream audience?

najma

How good was yesterday's FOX event in promoting MMA and explaining its beauty to the mainstream audience and explaining its beauty to the?

I think it was excellent.

Lamas vs. Koch - action, action, action, nice karate kicks by Lamas, some grappling
Pettis vs. Cerrone - spectacular striking, plenty of kicks, great finish
Texeira vs. Jackson - action packed boxing match, totally opposite to a pure boxing 12 round boredom, some grappling: just enough to see its importance, not as much as to become tedious
Johnson vs. Dodson - full on MMA thriller, a bit of explosive grappling for people to see its importance.

Discuss.

zaksame

It doesn't matter about action,it is ALWAYS about the big name.Example Tiger Woods made golf what it is,you think when Tiger played like crap it mattered?It matters for that venue ,however a big name draws them out for the next venue,sooner or later he will perform to the crowd..Once you establish big names that is what the average or below average fan recognizes.
Rampage was that big name and he stunk the joint out,got taken down several times and looked awful on the ground,not that anyone doubted that.I think Rampage needed those old Pride rings,so he could stick his leg out the ring and get a stoppage so they could start the fight again in the center.The problem with Rampage is he has stunk the joint out for several fights now,he is washed up.

Jbrahams

I think it was very good, and all the FOX cards are nowadays, ever since FOX 2 they've realised what fights they need to put on the FOX cards to be both exciting and enticing to the new viewers, and relevant in terms of division rankings.

And with the looks of UFC on FOX 7, I think the exciting FOX cards are going to continue

JohnnyZadar

Jbrahams said:

I think it was very good, and all the FOX cards are nowadays, ever since FOX 2 they've realised what fights they need to put on the FOX cards to be both exciting and enticing to the new viewers, and relevant in terms of division rankings.

And with the looks of UFC on FOX 7, I think the exciting FOX cards are going to continue

B-)

Za1994

That card would've been a phenomenal card for ANY new fan. Or people who has never seen the sport before. I'm pretty sure the UFC made a lot of new fans and caught a lot of new eyeballs.

Muzzle_rousey_please

Great event a bit for everyone........... Had a The best and the worst case scenarios on one event, from the worst in clay guida game plan, to the best in baders submission,lamas k.o,the main event war, a fighter tapping to strikes, and not to mention watching rampage and Globum stand and trade....all in all.... A good event.........but I can't wait for the Japan card......I think that will have fireworks.

classicboxer

zaksame said:

It doesn't matter about action,it is ALWAYS about the big name.Example Tiger Woods made golf what it is,you think when Tiger played like crap it mattered?It matters for that venue ,however a big name draws them out for the next venue,sooner or later he will perform to the crowd..Once you establish big names that is what the average or below average fan recognizes.
Rampage was that big name and he stunk the joint out,got taken down several times and looked awful on the ground,not that anyone doubted that.I think Rampage needed those old Pride rings,so he could stick his leg out the ring and get a stoppage so they could start the fight again in the center.The problem with Rampage is he has stunk the joint out for several fights now,he is washed up.

I agree. They need to create superstars, not just good fighters.

najma

zaksame said:

It doesn't matter about action, it is ALWAYS about the big names.

That comment is useless - it has no relevance on my question. Because it has no relevance on a NEW SPORT.

Because: there were NO "BIG NAMES" on that card. There were none, because there are none. New sports don't have big names because they are new. Duh!
NONE of the fighters on that card has a big name, as in "he's big in the mainstream". They are only known to the mma fans.

So, having taken into account that none of those MMA fighters were known to the general public that watched the event - How good of a job did they do in presenting the sport as exciting to watch?

Before there are stars/big names to speak of, a NEW sport has to grab people's attention by being exciting to them. If they keep following the sport because of this, then stars will rise when people start recalling names.

Nobody in Europe will ever care for american baseball league (what is it called? MLB?), because that thing is uber boring, and nobody would wanna sit in front of a tv even once to watch a game through. Baseball became popular in the US in an era when it was one of very few things to watch, because there was not much else. Today it has tradition and history AND BIG NAMES because of it, so it's still alive, despite being boring.

But when talking about a NEW sport that wants to get popular, the first thing to do for it is to be exciting to watch. You either want to tune in again and tell your friend who hasn't yet seen it it's worth watching or you don't.

classicboxer

najma said:

zaksame said:

It doesn't matter about action, it is ALWAYS about the big names.

That comment is useless - it has no relevance on my question. Because it has no relevance on a NEW SPORT.

Because: there were NO "BIG NAMES" on that card. There were none, because there are none. New sports don't have big names because they are new. Duh!
NONE of the fighters on that card has a big name, as in "he's big in the mainstream". They are only known to the mma fans.

So, having taken into account that none of those MMA fighters were known to the general public that watched the event - How good of a job did they do in presenting the sport as exciting to watch?

Before there are stars/big names to speak of, a NEW sport has to grab people's attention by being exciting to them. If they keep following the sport because of this, then stars will rise when people start recalling names.

Nobody in Europe will ever care for american baseball league (what is it called? MLB?), because that thing is uber boring, and nobody would wanna sit in front of a tv even once to watch a game through. Baseball became popular in the US in an era when it was one of very few things to watch, because there was not much else. Today it has tradition and history AND BIG NAMES because of it, so it's still alive, despite being boring.

But when talking about a NEW sport that wants to get popular, the first thing to do for it is to be exciting to watch. You either want to tune in again and tell your friend who hasn't yet seen it it's worth watching or you don't.

A 20 year old sport should have every champion as a "big name." I guess they don't want that because it would be too expensive for Zuffa.

najma

classicboxer said:

najma said:

zaksame said:

It doesn't matter about action, it is ALWAYS about the big names.

That comment is useless - it has no relevance on my question. Because it has no relevance on a NEW SPORT.

Because: there were NO "BIG NAMES" on that card. There were none, because there are none. New sports don't have big names because they are new. Duh!
NONE of the fighters on that card has a big name, as in "he's big in the mainstream". They are only known to the mma fans.

So, having taken into account that none of those MMA fighters were known to the general public that watched the event - How good of a job did they do in presenting the sport as exciting to watch?

Before there are stars/big names to speak of, a NEW sport has to grab people's attention by being exciting to them. If they keep following the sport because of this, then stars will rise when people start recalling names.

Nobody in Europe will ever care for american baseball league (what is it called? MLB?), because that thing is uber boring, and nobody would wanna sit in front of a tv even once to watch a game through. Baseball became popular in the US in an era when it was one of very few things to watch, because there was not much else. Today it has tradition and history AND BIG NAMES because of it, so it's still alive, despite being boring.

But when talking about a NEW sport that wants to get popular, the first thing to do for it is to be exciting to watch. You either want to tune in again and tell your friend who hasn't yet seen it it's worth watching or you don't.

A 20 year old sport should have every champion as a "big name." I guess they don't want that because it would be too expensive for Zuffa.

1. Show me examples of sports that after only 20 years of existence had mainstream stars.
2. How having stars would be expensive for Zuffa rather than producing huge profit?

classicboxer

1. Pro football had big stars after 20 years. In the age of television, there haven't been many new sports.
2. If MMA fighters made boxers' money, it would cost Zuffa. If Jones got as big as Tyson, or even Mayweather, it would cost Zuffa.

chanman20

classicboxer said:

1. Pro football had big stars after 20 years. In the age of television, there haven't been many new sports.
2. If MMA fighters made boxers' money, it would cost Zuffa. If Jones got as big as Tyson, or even Mayweather, it would cost Zuffa.

1)boxing has been around a lot longer and when they started they paid them around the same as UFC fighters...

2)only the top guys make a lot of money in boxing... the lower guys make less then the lower guys in the UFC most of the time...

3)GTFO and go talk about boxing vs mma pay some where else no one gives a **** here

classicboxer

chanman20 said:

classicboxer said:

1. Pro football had big stars after 20 years. In the age of television, there haven't been many new sports.
2. If MMA fighters made boxers' money, it would cost Zuffa. If Jones got as big as Tyson, or even Mayweather, it would cost Zuffa.

1)boxing has been around a lot longer and when they started they paid them around the same as UFC fighters...

2)only the top guys make a lot of money in boxing... the lower guys make less then the lower guys in the UFC most of the time...

3)GTFO and go talk about boxing vs mma pay some where else no one gives a **** here

I think that everyone who answers "give's a ****." Why did you answer in such an angry way? Does it really hurt that much?

Sisti

zaksame said:

It doesn't matter about action,it is ALWAYS about the big name.Example Tiger Woods made golf what it is,you think when Tiger played like crap it mattered?It matters for that venue ,however a big name draws them out for the next venue,sooner or later he will perform to the crowd..Once you establish big names that is what the average or below average fan recognizes.

That's where UFC blew it's chance. It finally had it's dominant star and amazing story in Jones...a guy who is only 25 that has dominated everyone, won the belt at the youngest age ever, and already accomplished insane things by the age of 25! Dana didn't realize how much of a breakout star jones could have been and threw him under the bus with the fans and didn't capitalize on the guy who could have finally broke MMA into the mainstream

sobercuban

classicboxer said:

chanman20 said:

classicboxer said:

1. Pro football had big stars after 20 years. In the age of television, there haven't been many new sports.
2. If MMA fighters made boxers' money, it would cost Zuffa. If Jones got as big as Tyson, or even Mayweather, it would cost Zuffa.

1)boxing has been around a lot longer and when they started they paid them around the same as UFC fighters...

2)only the top guys make a lot of money in boxing... the lower guys make less then the lower guys in the UFC most of the time...

3)GTFO and go talk about boxing vs mma pay some where else no one gives a **** here

I think that everyone who answers "give's a ****." Why did you answer in such an angry way? Does it really hurt that much?

this

Omoplataypus

It was going great until Clay N Pray Guida came on.