niremetal

Using a baseball term to praise a basketball decision. I suppose it's not a mixed metaphor per se...more a funny choice of metaphor. But "funny choice of metaphor for $500" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

I'll take mixed metaphors for $500, Alex.

Hindsight re: the Dwayne Casey hire. That was in 2010. Sund was hired in 2008. And other than blowing draft picks on big men, Sund hardly had a bad reputation coming in the gate. He was the guy who built the Mavs into a 50-win team in the West (and 1 win from the Finals) on a shoestring budget, rebuilt the Pistons into a 50-win team after the post-Bad Boys collapse, and stole Ray Allen from the Bucks in exchange for a declining and overpaid Gary Payton. I certainly don't recall reading anything saying that he was persona non grata after his tenure with the Sonics. That was a team going down a financial sinkhole that was hardly his doing...which is why it found itself halfway across the country a year later. I would love to see an article saying that.We found out in the summer of '10 that he wasn't the real power, but again I challenge you to find me anything saying that he was brought in as a "yes man" or that he didn't have real front office power before the Casey/Drew debacle.Even now, the fact that the Blazers were interested in him is a sign that he's well-respected around the league, the incompetence of the owners he's been stuck with notwithstanding.

I think we won't know what it means until at least the end of the summer. It might simply be that the owners saw a chance to hire probably the most coveted potential GM in the league, figuring that regardless of whether they end up "holding" or "selling," having perceived better management at the top will increase the team's value. Ferry doesn't seem to be the type you bring in just to be a rubber stamp.The problem is that I thought something similar when they brought in Sund, and he turned out to be just a yes-man. If Ferry is just looking to cash a few pay checks and hit the beach while Gearon runs the show, it'll be more of the same.

Tennis will be interesting. Olympic Gold is the only major title that Serena and Roger have yet to win in singles. It's probably the last real chance for both to complete the "Golden Slam." Nadal will be defending his gold medal and Djokovic will be looking to take his dominant play there.The Americans have a legit chance at the gold in men's doubles with the Bryans, who got the bronze in '08.

What evidence do you have that kids are learning MMA rather than learning (and become masters at) their local styles of martial arts and then bringing it to MMA competitions? Big difference. In the former case, MMA itself is the draw. In the latter, MMA is a step that some choose to take after getting a name for themselves in another sport.And what types of TV deals are there overseas for UFC (or any other MMA promotions)? The WNBA has a television deal in the US. That doesn't make it popular. I'll take that bet. Like I said - wake me up when any MMA fighter makes in a year what Pacquiao or Mayweather brings home in a single match, because that is a direct indication of how many people worldwide are willing to pay to see that fighter fight. If that ever happens, then I'll start taking seriously arguments about how MMA is overtaking boxing in popularity.And like I said - if boxing doesn't consolidate so that title belts actually mean something, then I agree boxing will slowly die. But that would be a death from self-inflicted wounds, not the popularity of MMA.

Oh come on, Dolfan. You know this discussion wasn't about where the fighters come from. Of course MMA fighters come from around the world. That's the only way you get the "mixed" in "mixed martial arts" - you have to have fighters trained in different disciplines to face each other. The question is where MMA has achieved significant commercial success. And the answer to that is: America. Everything you cited about the popularity of UFC (with which the Gracie family is closely associated, so that's hardly an unbiased source) can't change the fact that the UFC has held nearly all of its events in the United States. Boxing? Germany has hosted more heavyweight title bouts during the last decade than the US has. Mexico has hosted more flyweight and bantamweight title bouts than the US during the same period. Boxing is an Olympic sport. MMA isn't even legal in France, Thailand, New Zealand, Norway, and I'm sure several other countries. I'm sorry, but it's not close. Boxing is a well-established worldwide sport. The UFC and other MMA organizations have only been in existence for the past 20 years. I don't feel much of a burden to defend boxing's worldwide appeal considering that from Jack Johnson to Ali to Duran to Pacquiao, top fighters have gone overseas to fight their seminal bouts. The UFC? Of its 207 events, 172 have been held in the US and 23 of the remaining 35 have been held in other English-speaking countries. Las Vegas alone has hosted more MMA events than every non-American nation combined. I already showed you that most foreign sports websites don't even have a MMA section. I don't feel a burden to show more than that. And in any case, it's absurd to make it sound like I should have to "prove" something (MMA commercial success in other countries) that I'm claiming doesn't exist, because it's impossible to prove a negative. The one thing you showed me says that UFC is HOPING to establish a greater presence internationally, not that it already has "a ton of support outside the US," as you so boldly claimed. That actually hurts your argument, because it shows that even Dana White recognizes that the MMA is not as popular overseas as he wants it to be. You think MMA has overtaken (or is close to overtaking) boxing's longstanding place as the world's most popular combat sport? Show me something.

PRIDE is, as I mentioned before, defunct. Their assets were purchased by UFC. Go to Pride's website now and its "upcoming events" are all UFC. And what is your source for saying that the Gracies held MMA (as opposed to Brazilian jiu jitsu - remember it has to be mixed martial arts) competitions prior to UFC? I can't prove evidence of something that doesn't exist - my whole point was that MMA has not caught on even measurably internationally. You say that there is a ton of support of MMA internationally - my question is where you get THAT from. It appears that MMA competitions are illegal in many countries, including Thailand (the native country of Muay Thai) and Canada. Eurosport's MMA page has nothing but stories on UFC. BBC sports has pages for the various Olympic combat sports, including boxing and judo, but nothing for MMA. Reuters India doesn't have any combat sports pages (though it does have Olympics news - which again, includes boxing, judo, and taekwondo, but nothing for MMA). PRIDE was by far the largest Japanese MMA company, but it's gone now. So show me something showing that there is this "ton of support for MMA outside of the US." I can't prove the non-existence of something, but you certainly should be able to provide evidence if there truly is a "ton" of support for it. I'll make a counter-proposition, though, and maybe you'll admit that this is true - because most of the various martial arts disciplines practiced in MMA competitions originated outside the United States, you assumed that MMA itself was popularized outside the United States. In contrast, I would argue combat sports are often deeply imbedded in and tied to the cultures in which they originate. Consequently, the desire to see mixed combat sports competitions is likely to be stronger in diverse, multiethnic countries with significant populations of people practicing multiple styles of martial arts. Outside of the English-speaking world, there aren't a lot of countries that fit that description.

I never said "non-boxing styles of fighting" didn't exist outside the US, and its absurd to make it sound like I did. What I argued was that the idea to hold mixed martial arts tournaments - pitting practitioners of very different forms of martial arts (i.e. grappling vs striking, Asian vs European) - and commercializing it as a sport is American. And why are you focusing on the Gracies as if they are the sole root of MMA? The whole point of UFC was to see how the practitioners of various forms of weaponless combat forms stacked up against each other. Brazilian jiu jitsu was no more the "start" of MMA than Olympic Judo, American kickboxing tournaments, etc. The idea of seeing how these various forms of martial arts stack up against one another in UFC was brought to fruition in America. The fact that Royce Gracie won the first UFC doesn't mean that his family started MMA. Like I said - in terms of commercial appeal, which is what we're talking about here, I haven't seen much-to-any evidence that MMA has caught on outside the US. The UFC is a moneymaking machine, but it holds nearly all of its events in America. For right now, at least, MMA remains an American fascination. Most other countries seem to prefer watching the practitioners of their own, local forms of martial arts (be it judo, karate, taekwondo, wrestling, etc) to watching a sumo wrestler fight a kickboxer. The biggest exception remains boxing. MMA doesn't come close, at least as of right now.

I hope you're right, sultan, but I'm not so sure. The "benefit" of fragmentation is that everyone has their own little fief - just look at Bailey. You know about a dozen promoters see a golden opportunity for their boy to get an easy shot at a "major" belt. The current system suits the "elite" boxers (and their promoters, managers, trainers, etc) just fine - they can pick and choose who to fight and when, safe in the knowledge that their name ensures their payday. And it suits the "good" but not "great" boxers just fine - as long as the current system is in place, there's always a chance they can "pull a Bailey" and get a "major" belt...even though, in a world with only 8 divisions with 1 belt each, they never would have even have been given a title bout. Who loses? Boxing fans, who can only dream of a world where Mayweather and Pacquiao are essentially given a "fight each other or retire" ultimatum in the same way Liston was with Clay back in the 1960s. I worry that the only way that the only way we'll see consolidation is if one or more of the "major" sanctioning bodies goes bankrupt.

Fixed. Americans really do have an overly myopic view of the world. Take tennis - the only time you even hear a peep about tennis on ESPN is after highly-anticipated Grand Slam finals. But tennis is the most-watched individual sport worldwide. On virtually every European sports website, tennis is the second tab on the top, right next to football (soccer). Federer and Nadal are among the most widely-recognized athletes in the world, each with more Facebook fans than LeBron, and tennis players have won 6 of the last 8 Laureus World Sportsman of the Year awards. I always laugh when I hear people talk about tennis as if it's a dead sport, when in reality it's arguably the second most popular in the world. Boxing has become more popular than ever during the past decade in Eastern Europe, in no small part because many of the top fighters (Klitschkos, Valuev, Adamek, etc) have started coming from that part of the world. It's also seen a resurgence in interest in Latin America and the Phillipines. But it is losing popularity most everywhere else - it's still the most popular combat sport in the world by a huge margin, but it's beaten a slow retreat during the past 30 years. That won't stop until consolidation starts.

It is true that some specific constituent martial arts forms that have been incorporated into MMA originated in Asia and South America. But to say that "it got its start in Asia and South America" is just wrong. The UFC started in the United States. And modern MMA's roots as a "sport" lie as much as (and probably more than) in boxing, the underground brawling scene, and wrestling (both professional and "real") as in the forms of Asian martial arts that became incorporated into it. It's not as if karate and judo competitions "evolved" into UFC. On the contrary, UFC evolved in the United States as a commercialized product completely unattached to any specific form or forms of combat. Nearly all MMA revenues come from UFC. Rival MMA promotions are to UFC what rival wrestling promotions were to WWE after the demise of WCW. And nearly all UFC events have been held in the United States - 171 out of 207. The number in East Asia? Five, all in Japan. Latin America? Three, all in Brazil. The biggest MMA organization in Japan - PRIDE - went out of business in 2007 and sold its assets to UFC. I honestly can't find any evidence that MMA has caught on much outside the US and Canada. The very term "MMA" was popularized mainly because of a rebranding campaign by UFC. Boxing, on the other hand, has been a sport with global implications for the past century. Mexico has produced most of the champions in the welter-to-fly weight divisions in the past 30 years. Pancho Villa's funeral is still, I think, the largest public gathering in the Phillipines in history. Schmeling/Louis captured the attention of almost the entire world in 1938. Some of the biggest boxing fights in history took place in countries as widely dispersed as Cuba, Japan, Congo, the Phillipines, Britain, and Russia. Few in the United States may know who the heavyweight champ is, but the Klitschko/Haye fight was front page news in the UK (to say nothing of the Klitschkos idol status in Ukraine). And in the United States...I don't see how you can dismiss how much the boxers make. That's a sign of how much revenue their fights produce. The fact that no UFC fighter can dream of taking home in a year what Manny Pacquiao makes when fighting scrubs is a sign that the appeal of watching a top boxer remains far, far greater than watching a UFC event. People still tune in to watch top boxers. Consolidate the weight divisions and sanctioning divisions so that these fights between the true "best-of-the-best" are regular occurrences (as they were in the 60s and 70s) rather than "will-they-or-won't-they" waiting games, and it would go back to normal. If, on the other hand, boxing keeps fragmenting, it may well sink into irrelevance permanently. But right now, it's way too early to write its obituary.

I actually think that it's quite a stretch to say that MMA will continue to gain in popularity and that boxing's time has past. If anything, MMA's relatively recent vintage in terms of popularity means that it should be viewed with skepticism in terms of the "staying power" of its popularity. Even now, it's nowhere close to boxing in terms of international appeal or earnings - don't forget that the United States is no longer the end-all and be-all in terms of sports revenues. Boxing's appeal in Latin America, Europe, and East Asia absolutely crushes that of MMA. Seriously, I think that eventually, we'll see some consolidation in boxing. Once that happens, you'd never see the endless back-and-forth negotiations between top fighters and the uncertainty about whether they'd ever meet up - if there were only 1 welterweight belt, Mayweather would have had to fight Pacquiao two years ago. We would have had a Klitschko/Haye trilogy and Lewis would have actually had to face down the toughest contenders when they were in their prime rather than picking and choosing which belt's contender he would fight next. Wake me up when someone in MMA earns in a year anything close to the paydays Mayweather and Pacquiao they get every time they step into a ring, even against the paltry competition they've had to face during the past 2 years. Then I'll listen to an obituary for boxing.

The commentators got one other thing right - there are WAY too many divisions and WAY too many sanctioning bodies in boxing today. They need to turn back the clock to the Joe Louis/Sugar Ray Robinson era, when there were just 8 divisions and 1 champion in each. There are something like 40 boxers in the world today holding recognized belts. That's just absurd. No one cared about the supposed "title" fights that were on the undercard of the Mayweather and Pacquiao fights because they were phony title bouts. No one actually thinks Mike Jones and Randall Bailey are the two best welterweights in the world, but there they were Saturday night fighting for the IBF Welterweight Title.All the "super" and "junior" divisions are absurd. No way should you be able to move up two weight classes overnight by gorging on pasta and water, or drop two divisions by dropping an exceptionally large deuce.I know the promoters and fighters would hate it, but boxing will keep fading into irrelevance unless serious consolidation happens - make title bouts MEAN something, and make moving up or down a weight division require serious training. One belt each in 8 divisions: Fly, Bantam, Feather, Light, Welter, Middle, Light Heavy, and Heavy. That's it.

Huh?

I watched this one live. This fight was boring as hell for 9 rounds. Bailey's trainer gave up trying to motivate him, and before Round 10 sent his cutman up to shake Bailey to action. The cutman told Bailey "You've gotta whup his ass! NOW!" Boy, did he take that advice to heart.Nice knockdown at 0:40 in this video, then one of the most brutal one-punch knockouts you'll ever see at 1:59:[media=] Bailey was always a "good" fighter and a tough gatekeeper, kind of the Monte Barrett of welterweights. Even if he only holds it for a short while, it's nice to see him get a belt - especially in so dramatic a fashion.

Marquez/Pacquiao was a very close fight. Neither boxer really hurt the other badly during the match. Pacquiao landed more punches, Marquez landed more "good" punches. It was an "either way" fight, depending on what you value more when watching a match.Bradley/Pacquiao, on the other hand, was a completely one sided fight. Pacquiao knocked Bradley back several times with flush lefts, while Bradley didn't land a single power shots or combinations. Pacquiao landed more total punches and landed a higher percentage of the punches he threw. There wasn't a single significant aspect of the fight where Bradley was better than Pacquiao.Marquez/Pacquiao was a fight that pretty much everyone saw as close, so a MD in favor of Pacquiao is not an unexpected outcome. Bradley/Pacquiao was in a whole different ballpark. This was a Holyfield/Lewis level bad decision. Worse, because at least in THAT fight, the judges issued a draw rather than a decision in favor of the worse fighter.

Please, someone delete this thread before Michael Gearon sees it...

Well, I did drive by a nuclear power plant every time I went to visit my fiancee last year... Which once again proves my theory - Germans love David Hasselhoff.

I think the high number of transplants means there's less "peer pressure" to support the hometown teams, even for people who were born in ATL. Also, parents often pass their team loyalties onto children - one of my best friends never lived in Boston, but is a huge Celts fan because that was his dad's team growing up. I think the problem will diminish in a decade or two. But for right now, a majority of metro Atlanta's population was born outside the metro area, and it's been that way for awhile - you need only see that the city's population went from 1.31 million in 1960 to 2.96 million in 1990 to 5.73 million in 2010 to figure that one out. The population growth is undoubtedly going to slow immensely during the next decade because the Atlanta economy was among the country's hardest-hit by the recession. The silver lining to that may be that a more settled population might lead to more loyalty to local sports teams. Oh, and also don't forget that there's also a lot of people who emigrate from Atlanta - such as yours truly

Well, while we're playing "things that never had a chance of actually happening," imagine if I had been bitten by a radioactive spider and developed superpowers.Luring one of the top 2-3 players in the NBA is easier said than done, unless you stumble upon a #1 overall pick. And getting one of those is really dumb luck. And dumb luck is not a good selling point to use on smart businessmen.

Both, I'm sure. I think there was a brief "surge" (by Atlanta standards) in interest in '08-'09. Since then, the "novelty" of the Hawks making the playoffs wore off and Atlanta's economy got hit especially hard by the property bubble bursting. I heard on NPR the other day that Atlanta house prices are lower now than they were in 1999. That's insane. That cuts both ways. The variety of alternatives means that people have a lot more sports/entertainment options than they did in the past. The "rebirth" of downtown/midtown might make season ticket holders more likely to stay aboard, but it also means that people looking to have a fun night downtown every once in awhile have lots of options besides going to a Hawks game. Beyond that, even now, people in North Cobb, East Gwinnett, Cherokee, Forsyth, etc are unlikely to make the 2 hour (on a good day) round trip for a mid-week Hawks game. Atlanta's sprawl, congestion, and limited public transit system (what good is it to someone in Woodstock that there's a MARTA station right at Phillips when the nearest MARTA station to their own house is 40 minutes away?) make downtown trips a nightmare. Atlanta has the nation's longest average commute time. Maybe a city like LA - with a population 3 times bigger than ours - can sell out arenas in that environment. But Atlanta? Notsomuch.

The problem is that Ted Turner also failed to generate interest in this team. The Hawks have never - not once - cracked the top third in the NBA in attendance. All of our pro sports team have historically been poor draws, with attendance rankings lagging well behind their position in the standings. And considering that basketball is only the 3rd most popular sport in the area (behind football and baseball) and that college football sucks much of the remaining air in the sports chatter market, the Hawks are a tough sell.Prospective Hawks owners would have to be willing to face the likelihood that they'd lose a lot of money on the team from year-to-year, and probably wouldn't see the type of return when they sold the team that they might get from other investments. And people who are smart enough to get rich generally aren't dumb enough to invest their money in a product that is unlikely to make them much money. The market for Hawks owners therefore would mainly be guys who always dreamed of owning a pro sports team (as an end unto itself rather than as a business venture) and who have enough money lying around to buy out the current owners. That's not a very large market. It may well be a market of 0 people.

Pau Gasol remains one of the three best offensive big men in the NBA, along with Nowitzki and Bosh. There's a reason he made 3 straight All-NBA teams going into this year. There's a reason the Lakers made three straight Finals right after he arrived, after three straight years of failing to make it past the first round.Put Gasol on our team and you get someone who legitimately takes pressure off JJ on the offensive end. Oh, and you don't lose as much defense as you think because Gasol is a better on-ball defender than Smoove and because I have a feeling Al would relish taking on the role of being the lead help defender.That being said, never gonna happen. If Phil Jackson were still around, he'd be laughing his ass off that the trade was even being discussed.

Well, there's really no question that most head coaches watch tape to gameplan. And that they watch the games. With a better eye than casual fans. I don't think they forget all that when making picks.Your logic sounds a lot like "I disagree with them, therefore they must be doing something wrong." I think the presumption should run the other way when the it's the choices of fans stacked against the choices of people who are literally paid to assess opposing players' strengths and weaknesses. And from one lawyer to another, I think it's an irrebuttable presumption ;)