Brutal knockout on Bradley/Pacquiao undercard

[niremetal]

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. Edited June 12, 2012 by niremetal

[Admin]

Wow those were 2 exceptional punches! For guys who aren't heavyweights those are about as violent of a punch as you'll see.I love that line too, "win today, look good the next time"

[niremetal]

Wow those were 2 exceptional punches! For guys who aren't heavyweights those are about as violent of a punch as you'll see.I love that line too, "win today, look good the next time"

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. Edited June 13, 2012 by niremetal

[Admin]

I certainly agree with everything that you said there, but I really think it's too late for boxing. MMA is becoming far too popular and so many kids these days are being raised training in MMA that it's only going to continue to gain in popularity while boxing fades. The only shot they have that I can see would be to have some really dominating champions come along like back in the late 80s and early 90s AND have the fights be shown on HBO or Showtime as opposed to being PPV events. I mean who really wants to spend $50 watching one of the Klitchsko brothers spar with someone for 12 rounds? And outside of seeing Pacquiao fight, who else is interesting enough to pay to see now that Mayweather is in jail?

[niremetal]

I certainly agree with everything that you said there, but I really think it's too late for boxing. MMA is becoming far too popular and so many kids these days are being raised training in MMA that it's only going to continue to gain in popularity while boxing fades. The only shot they have that I can see would be to have some really dominating champions come along like back in the late 80s and early 90s AND have the fights be shown on HBO or Showtime as opposed to being PPV events. I mean who really wants to spend $50 watching one of the Klitchsko brothers spar with someone for 12 rounds? And outside of seeing Pacquiao fight, who else is interesting enough to pay to see now that Mayweather is in jail?

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.

Edited June 13, 2012 by niremetal

[Admin]

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.

What are you using as a metric to say which has more appeal? You may be right, I'm just curious. And I'm not even expecting that the US is the most popular place for MMA as it got its start in Asia and South America and I'd imagine is even more popular there than the US.

I don't really care about who makes more money in terms of boxing fighters vs mma fighters as I consider boxers to be grossly overpaid. What I do care about is that I rarely ever hear people talking about boxing anymore and the average person probably couldn't tell you who the heavyweight champion is. Granted that is probably true of UFC as well but I'd expect that since it's in its infancy, while professional boxing has been around for ages. And it's not going to get better for boxing because many of the young talented boxers are also cross training in wrestling, jiu jitsu, etc. in order to be more well rounded and become mma fighters so it's going to drain what used to be a decent pool of boxers.

While I don't give this any credence since it's an Bleacher Report "article", I do agree with it and it goes along with what you're saying.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/907867-has-mma-already-surpassed-boxing-in-popularity

Ali vs. Frazier, Leonard vs. Haggler, Tyson vs. Holyfield—these are some of the most iconic fights that boxing fans can easily pull from their memory. Nowadays, though, you would be hard-pressed to find a boxing match that fight fans can really get excited about.

Outside of a fight involving Floyd Mayweather or Manny Pacquiao (preferably they should be fighting each other), the sport of boxing is on its last legs when it comes to its standing as the dominant combat sport in the United States.

Over the past five years mixed martial arts has exploded in popularity due to the following advantages which it currently has over boxing:

[*]Bouts are fought at a faster pace

[*]Wider methods of achieving victory—i.e., knockout, submission, decision

[*]Shorter fight length

Most importantly beyond the items listed above, one of the most important factors regarding the success of MMA is that it is fan-centered and web-focused.

Simply put, boxing is a sport for middle-aged to elderly men who have worked the same job most of their lives, marry only once and either don't like Facebook or cannot understand it. In MMA you have a sport dedicated to the exuberance of youth. The sport is all about instantaneous reaction and an allegiance to the fringe.

The sport of mixed martial arts also has something which boxing severely lacks: structure.

Can you name the true heavyweight champion in boxing? Why won't "Pac-Man" and "Money Mayweather" just come to an understanding and sign that deal to fight each other? Within MMA you have one major promotion which sets the trend for the sport—the UFC.

Within the UFC, you have a president in Dana White who has been a fan of boxing for a long time and has managed to capitalize on its failures to evolve. He is fan-oriented, and the fans love him for it. Couple that with the mastermind matchmaking of Joe Silva, and fans generally always get a matchup that they can be excited for.

In the digital age, MMA is the combat sport of the future. From streaming fights on Facebook to offering bonuses to fighters with the most Twitter followers, the UFC has paved the way for other competing promotions to follow.

As much as boxing promoters like Bob Arum would like to lament over the dominance that MMA—particularly the UFC—has, they need to accept that in our sensationalistic and ADD-afflicted society, MMA serves the needs of today's combat consumer.

[niremetal]

What are you using as a metric to say which has more appeal? You may be right, I'm just curious. And I'm not even expecting that the US is the most popular place for MMA as it got its start in Asia and South America and I'd imagine is even more popular there than the US.

I don't really care about who makes more money in terms of boxing fighters vs mma fighters as I consider boxers to be grossly overpaid. What I do care about is that I rarely ever hear people talking about boxing anymore and the average person probably couldn't tell you who the heavyweight champion is. Granted that is probably true of UFC as well but I'd expect that since it's in its infancy, while professional boxing has been around for ages. And it's not going to get better for boxing because many of the young talented boxers are also cross training in wrestling, jiu jitsu, etc. in order to be more well rounded and become mma fighters so it's going to drain what used to be a decent pool of boxers.

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.

Edited June 13, 2012 by niremetal

[AHF]

Too early to declare that boxing needs an obit. Not too late to declare it is becoming irrelevant to a lot of maintstream sports fans. The heavyweight division has been basically a total lack of interest since the days of Tyson/Holyfield (from a non-boxing centric sports fan's perspective) and the other top fighters frequently don't even fight eachother in their prime. The discussion of consolidation on this thread seems 100% on point because for someone like me who reads a bit about almost every single sport out there but is not focused on either MMA or boxing, the only time I seem to read about boxing is to read about a fight that isn't happening or an example of big corruption. Certainly nothing to generate interest in the sport.

[niremetal]

Too early to declare that boxing needs an obit. Not too late to declare it is becoming irrelevant to a lot of maintstream American sports fans.

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.

[HawkItus]

That fight was boring Nire. The knockout saved it. I think boxing will be fine once some of these old heads drop off. The younger guys will elevate the sport(boxers and promoters).

[niremetal]

That fight was boring Nire. The knockout saved it. I think boxing will be fine once some of these old heads drop off. The younger guys will elevate the sport(boxers and promoters).

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.

Edited June 16, 2012 by niremetal

[Admin]

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.

Just curious but where are you getting your numbers from?

[Admin]

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.

Sorry I missed this before. Modern Jiu Jitsu actually got it's start in Japan and wrestling is also very popular in other parts of Asia and throughout Europe as well. In fact various forms of non-boxing styles of fighting have been around for hundreds of years. The most famous form of Jiu Jitsu now is of course the Brazilian / Gracie form and that was taught to them by fighters in Japan. The modern MMA tournaments got their start in Brazil from the Gracie's, who started tournaments against fighters from around the world while challenging that nobody could beat their style of fighting. It didn't come to America until I believe 93 for the first Ultimate Fighting Championship and then years later it really gained in popularity.

I will agree that boxing isn't dead, but it's definitely on shaky ground and that's not just in the US either. In the US boxing isn't even close to as popular as it was back in the 80's and early 90's and I don't care to use the payday for the fighter argument to prove or disprove that. I'm just going off of the fact that there used to be fights where people were hyped up about seeing on a fairly regular basis and now you've got it where arguably the 2 best boxers in the world will probably never fight each other.

And then there's the subtle fact that people are barbarians by nature and are always going to lean towards the fighting style that yields the more dangerous fighter and that's without question mixed martial artists. Granted James Toney isn't the best example of a boxer as he was well past his prime, but he got demolished by Randy Couture when he was well past his time as well.

[niremetal]

Sorry I missed this before. Modern Jiu Jitsu actually got it's start in Japan and wrestling is also very popular in other parts of Asia and throughout Europe as well. In fact various forms of non-boxing styles of fighting have been around for hundreds of years. The most famous form of Jiu Jitsu now is of course the Brazilian / Gracie form and that was taught to them by fighters in Japan. The modern MMA tournaments got their start in Brazil from the Gracie's, who started tournaments against fighters from around the world while challenging that nobody could beat their style of fighting. It didn't come to America until I believe 93 for the first Ultimate Fighting Championship and then years later it really gained in popularity.

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.

Edited June 18, 2012 by niremetal

[Admin]

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.

My intention wasn't to try and make it sound like you claimed non-boxing sporting events didn't exist outside of the US... but you did make it sound like it was pretty scarce and nowhere near on the level of boxing.

I brought up the Gracies to point out that UFC style tournaments didn't originate in the US, they were only popularized there. And Again I'm not saying that the Gracies started MMA, what I said was that they started the 1st tournaments back in Brazil that are the basis for the US today. The 1st Ultimate Fighting Championship in the US, in Denver I believe, was pretty much put together in conjunction with the Gracie family and the entire family was there to cheer him on.

There is a ton of support for MMA outside of the US, the problem is that outside of Pride there aren't many organizations left to support them in different parts of the world so most of the worlds best fighters have to come to the US to fight.

And again I'd like to see where you're getting your numbers are far as viewership is concerned.

[niremetal]

There is a ton of support for MMA outside of the US, the problem is that outside of Pride there aren't many organizations left to support them in different parts of the world so most of the worlds best fighters have to come to the US to fight.

And again I'd like to see where you're getting your numbers are far as viewership is concerned.

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.

Edited June 18, 2012 by niremetal

[Admin]

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.

Pride still exists, it's just owned by Dana White now.

How can you say that boxing is so much more popular worldwide without being able to provide evidence?

I can say for certain that MMA is popular worldwide just by the sheer fact that there are guys in the UFC from all different styles and various parts of the world. Do you think they just randomly stumbled into MMA? But if you need "proof" then how about this?

http://ufc.wiki.usfca.edu/UFC%27s+Global+Reach

The UFC has tremendous global reach and potential for growth that is rooted in the wide range of nationalities of its fighters. The UFC's make up is very international and this diversity continues to grow with the sport. There are a total of 324 fighters in the UFC and 55.5% of them are American nationals.^[1] Other countries which have a strong influence in the UFC are Brazil with 47 fighters, Canada with 19 fighters, the United Kingdom 18 fighters, Japan 11 fighters and Sweden 5 fighters.^[2] Aside from these countries the UFC has fighters representing a multitude of countries such as,China, Afghanistan, Cuba, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Vietnam, Iran and many others.^[3] Fighting is a part of every culture in some form and the UFC stable of fighters represents this. Often fighters such as Welter Weight Champion George St. Pierre of Canada and Middleweight Champion Anderson Silva of Brazil carry their respective nations on their backs.^[4] This is not lost on the UFC and over the years they have made a number of strategic moves to capitalize on these factors and market their version of the sport to the world.

As early as 2006 the UFC moved to capitalize on its global reach with a focus on European expansion. They hired Marshall Zelaznik as president of their UK division.^[5] The goal of this position was to export and manage the UFC brand overseas in the UK and other parts of the World, both English speaking and non-English speaking regions.^[6] They since held a number of hyped and sellout fight cards in Germany, Australia, the United Arab Emirates and regularly hold events in the MMA hot beds of Canada and the UK^[7] .

Upon the completion of UFC 112 in Abu Dhabi, UAE, UFC President Dana White explained how the UFC is looking to stage more events internationally, more specifically in non-traditional global markets.^[8] The events he was mentioning were a card in Afghanistan to benefit US troops and move to setup a first ever card in China.^[9] In regards to China there was a precursor which helped lay the groundwork for the event and the subsequent expansion into the huge market that would follow. In 2011 the UFC sold a ten percent stake to a company called Flash Entertainment.^[10] The sale was a strategic move by the UFC and not an attempt to raise capital as Flash entertainment is a subsidiary of the government of Abu Dhabi, which proved to be a key player in helping the UFC secure a good television deal in China but will also be helping develop the first fight event in China.^[11] For the UFC like many other professional sport leagues, China is a relatively untouched market that demands attention based on its potential as the prospects for expansion and growth are immense.

The television deal signed by the UFC in China with the help of Flash also coincided with its first TV distribution deal in Mexico during the year of 2009. Together this deal pushed the UFC's into 295 million households, an increase of approximately 40% since 2008.^[12] The outlets that will have aired the UFC showed a mix of live and taped events under licensing deals because these markets at the time lack the pay-per view infrastructure to justify according to Lorenzo Fertitta, UFC Chairman and CEO.^[13] Instead deals like this are seen as brand building to expose the product to as many people as possible so when the pay-per view platform is ready they can seamlessly and profitably air live UFC events.^[14] Soon after the China & Mexico deals were signed in 2009 the UFC added or expanded TV deals in Brazil, Germany, Portugal, Switzerland and Denmark, helping them reach an additional 130 million households.^[15] Deals such as these are understandably very important for the long term international growth of the UFC. So much so in 2008 Lorenzo Fertitta, stepped back from a leadership role in his families casino business to focus on growing the UFC internationally.^[16]

My "proof" comes directly from the mouth of one of the greatest fighters ever, Rickson Gracie, as I've met him on several occassions at my brother in laws gym where he teaches MMA. Rickson tells the story of how they believed that their fighting style was so dominant that they'd put up $100,000 against any fighter who puts up $10,000 and it didn't matter what their fighting style was. That ended up leading to the first UFC in 93 in the US and Royce was their family representative.

[niremetal]

Pride still exists, it's just owned by Dana White now.

How can you say that boxing is so much more popular worldwide without being able to provide evidence?

I can say for certain that MMA is popular worldwide just by the sheer fact that there are guys in the UFC from all different styles and various parts of the world. Do you think they just randomly stumbled into MMA? But if you need "proof" then how about this?

My "proof" comes directly from the mouth of one of the greatest fighters ever, Rickson Gracie, as I've met him on several occassions at my brother in laws gym where he teaches MMA. Rickson tells the story of how they believed that their fighting style was so dominant that they'd put up $100,000 against any fighter who puts up $10,000 and it didn't matter what their fighting style was. That ended up leading to the first UFC in 93 in the US and Royce was their family representative.

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.

Edited June 22, 2012 by niremetal

[Admin]

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.

You say it's not popular around the world, I say that if it weren't then you wouldn't have kids all over the world trying to learn it and you wouldn't have countries agreeing to television deals to display it.

And no they could easily have mixed martial arts simply from fighters in the US. Hell they could get that just from the multitude of fighting styles here in Houston alone. Granted you won't get the best of the best that way, but the point is the same.

I never said that MMA has gained commercial success or is overtaking boxing... although looking at the television deals that Dana White has gotten for the UFC it's hard to argue that it's not gaining quite a bit of commercial success.

You're missing the whole point of my argument though as you want to keep talking about what's happened over the last decade or 20 years or so on and that's the UFC is quickly gaining popularity worldwide while boxing is losing popularity. And no I'm not going to go and look up stats to prove that, I can only go off of what I see and hear and boxing is nothing like it used to be 10-20 years ago when there were many great fighters. I can't tell you the last time I went to a sports bar and it was standing room only to see a heavyweight fight, but I can tell you that damn near EVERY SINGLE UFC PPV that they have is that way at the bars that I go to.

The bottom line is that the UFC has boxing on the ropes and while it may not overtake boxing for another 10 years, I guarantee you that day is coming. Feel free to bookmark this post and we'll look back on this in 5-10 years and see where things stand. I'm confident that once all of these old timers in boxing have moved on that the overwhelming majority of fans aren't going to give a damn about a sport that is frankly boring compared to a UFC fight which caters far more towards our human nature of short attention spans and thirst for blood.

[niremetal]

You say it's not popular around the world, I say that if it weren't then you wouldn't have kids all over the world trying to learn it and you wouldn't have countries agreeing to television deals to display it.

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.

The bottom line is that the UFC has boxing on the ropes and while it may not overtake boxing for another 10 years, I guarantee you that day is coming. Feel free to bookmark this post and we'll look back on this in 5-10 years and see where things stand. I'm confident that once all of these old timers in boxing have moved on that the overwhelming majority of fans aren't going to give a damn about a sport that is frankly boring compared to a UFC fight which caters far more towards our human nature of short attention spans and thirst for blood.

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. Edited June 22, 2012 by niremetal