|
|
*Note: the color scheme best works with Internet Explorer. Thanks to Pez for the banner. As you see, the kid has problems. Welcome to Part II of the UFC and WWE comparison. In case you didn't catch it before, here is Part I. Let's get back to business. 12.) What's the most confusing thing about UFC to you? Strike: This ties in to what I wrote above. I simply don't know why I should care about most of the fighters. lostchapter: The rules. For instance: 8. Small joint manipulation. Cruelty: Fighters will sometimes be knocked down want to kick the opponent while laying on their backs. I've seen fighters get warned for upkicks directed at the head, but I've also seen fighters use upkicks effectively. For example, Ivan Salaverry dropped Joe Riggs with one before finishing with a triangle choke. What the hell UFC? How could you lie to me? What did I do to deserve that? 13.) What's the most confusing thing about WWE to you? Strike: Why they don't reward the talented guys (in ring and promowise) continues to confuse me to this day... lostchapter: I've been railing on Vince and company all day...so why stop now. What confuses me is why they think they can go back in time for current success. Its one thing to redo an angle with a different twist and what not - that's been done by wrestling in the overall for forever - but it almost seems like the same shit, same laxative, same toilet. The McMahon's flexing their power, en masse, to take out JR. Who cares? Stephanie making her dick do tricep curls. Who cares? And heaven help us if they redo HHH and Stephanie again. BITCH IM RICK JAMES, SHOW ME YOUR TITTIES, DO SOMETHING. Uh..yeah, uh...new stuff please. Cruelty: How can they be so blind to their own bullshit? Problems with the product seem so obvious to us and Team McMahon seems blind to them. Oh, and where do they hide those blood capsules they use on their foreheads? 14.) What would it take for UFC to gain a large fan base? Strike: People would have to get to know the fighters. When boxing was popular it was because people wanted to see certain guys, like Tyson, go at it. Boxing is less popular nowbecause boxers seem to be less charismatic therefore nobody knows who they are. It would also help to have more free matches on tv. Nobody is going to buy a PPV in order to learn about the different fighters. You need to know who they are FIRST, then that will make people want to purchase a PPV. Again look at boxing, is it ever on tv for free? Not really. And if it is I sure as hell don't know where to find it. lostchapter: The company has to find a way to get access to the mainstream and push their fighters as stars. The fighters in turn need to go on every media outlet they can and pub themselves and the company. Boxing is in the toilet and its fanbase is ripe for the picking...take some chances. Try to get some spots on ESPN or work the Fox Sports angle like Pride did. Boxing sucks and its two biggest draws in recent memory - Roy Jones Jr. and Bernard Hopkins - are both on their way out. Talk up the fights - one of the best things they could have done is show the knockout special on Spike prior to TUF. Get some pub on why certain fights have the potential to be legendary and some fighters are can't miss prospects. Cruelty: The two major arguments against MMA seem to be "All that humping on the ground is gay and boring" and "It's brutal how can you watch that violence!" The ground game is not going to change. I always like to make a baseball analogy: Imagine the KO as a homerun, and a submission win asa strikeout. The duel between pitcher and batter is one that is not accessible to the uneducated. There is psychology and gamesmanship involved that is not visible on the surface. A strikeout can look fairly impressive, but to truly appreciate it the viewer needs to see HOW the pitcher dominated the exchange. Some people will never find that EXCITING but they can at least learn to appreicate the power of effective ground technique. Teaching the casual fans the basics is a good idea, and for awhile the UFC was running semi-instructional segments during their PPV. That will help those who are interested in learning, but won't make your 12 year old brother think it's cool because it requires some actual thought and maturity. Argument numba 2: The accusations of brutality in the sport are just bizarre and hypocritical. MMA is certainly less dangerous than motor sports, certainly less brutal than boxing, and certainly has fewer major injuries than other contact sports like football and hockey. Therefore, I don't think you can define "brutality" by its results, but rather it's intent. What's at the core of this argument is Western society's belief that a man on his back is helpless and it's dishonorable to hit him. That aspect of the game the only thing that sets MMA apart from other accepted sports. It's going to take time for a cultural change to take effect. You don't have to see very much MMA before you see someone win from his back, or get knocked-down and recover to fight on. Unfortunately, many people are so fixed on this misconception that they will never give MMA a fair viewing. Sooo the answer to this specific question is... time. It'll take a few years for the non-teenagers to grow up and start buying PPVs. Kids who enjoyed UFC on Spike, and kids who train martial arts in the modern era will grow up and spread the word. UFC will never have universal appeal, but as the sport gains exposure and young fans age... the sport will grow to the level of second-tier sport in the next few years. Prophesy: The first serious mention of UFC on Sportscenter will be summer of 2007. 15.) What would it take for the WWE to regain the fan base they once had? Strike: Well sustaining interesting television from week to week would be a start. If you give people an interesting storyline that will continue from week to week people will watch every week in order to see what happens next. If not that if people were guaranteed a few very good matches on each show then again people would watch. Right now neither is offered by the WWE so people aren't watching as often. 16.) What would it take for the UFC (and MMA in general) to pull fans away from the WWE? lostchapter: The "alternative" theory and what I said in question #13. WWE is ripe for the picking right now, kick them while their down. What both fanbases have in common is that they like action, and the UFC - match for match - can offer more of that right now. Cruelty: It's doing that right now isn't it? The UFC is picking up momentum, and all they need to do is continue to gain exposure and put together competetive cards. TUF3 is slated to feature Ken Shamrock and Tito Ortiz as rival coaches, and that is guaranteed TV magic. WWE better hope that show doesn't run against any of it's programming or the UFC will have all but the most hardcore fans switching back and forth. 17.) What would it take for the WWE to pull fans away from the UFC? Strike: A much stronger in-ring product would be my guess. lostchapter: While I'm not naive enough to think it’s impossible, the UFC fanbase is comprised of more (percentage wise) diehards than the WWE's fan base, so it will be harder to take them away. Factor in that most of them think of the WWE as "that fake shit" and it gets even more difficult. If they can get the right wrestlers in (like say...Shamrock vs. Angle about a 2-3 years ago) a submissions match or something of that ilk, they could snatch a few fans...albeit temporarily. UFC fans are trained to see action (and skilled action at that) in the ring (or least a guy sizing his opponent up before the action takes place) so I don't think the WWE could sustain their interest unless they were into it before hand. Cruelty: The UFC has a hardcore fanbase the same as the WWE does. The WWE won't touch those hardcore fans because they are conditioned to hate pro-wrestling. However, there is a new generation of fans produced by TUF1 and recent free televised fights. Those people are still up for grabs. The product will need to improve in terms of storyline, and style. I don't think the WWE is interested in trying to compete on athleticism. 18.) Given a choice between a good UFC PPV and a good wrestling PPV, which would you choose and why? Strike: I would still go for wrestling at this point simply because I'm more familiar with the wrestlers. I mean this ties in with question 7. Wrestling is on free tv twice (minimum) a week. So people can watch for free and if they see what they like, they'll buy a PPV. Few people will buy a PPV without knowing something about the product first. lostchapter: Wrestling. At the end of the day, I like nothing more than a good wrestling match. Put 5-6 great in-ring matchups on the card, and I'm there with a big ass smile. I'm not a fair-weather MMA fan, and I've followed it (albeit moderately until the last 8 months or so) for about 2-3 years, but I am a diehard wrestling fan. I've spent more time debating, dissecting, theorizing, plotting and learning about wrestling more than any other extracurricular over the last six years. I've missed some big UFC matches over the years, but I didn't miss a single Rock vs. Austin match, or Benoit vs. Angle/Guerrero/Jericho/teapot/lampshade/ceiling fan, or Styles vs. Daniels, or any other great matchup (by my own standards obviously) that I can get my hands on. I haven't grown in my like for UFC enough to be able to re-watch an entire PPV without skipping shit (except for the Pride PPV with Cro Cop vs. Fedor in the main event...what an AWESOME show) yet I've watched Wrestlemania 17 about 950 times. When the smoke clears, I'm still a wrestling mark at heart. Cruelty: I would watch a poor quality UFC PPV before I watched a good wrestling PPV. I still enjoy wresting but only in small doses. So what have we established with all of this? That while it is possible for the UFC to poach on the WWE's audience, they have ways to go in terms of relating the characters and personalities to the WWE's fans, which is what they are conditioned to focus on. We also determined that the WWE probably has a minimal chance of taking fans from the UFC (and MMA in general) because MMA's fans are conditioned to see action and skill - and results based on such. The novice probably will have irregular interest in the UFC, because if the quality of wrestling improves who knows how much interest will remain in MMA? The MMA die-hard is just that. While wrestling offers some intrigue in terms of just raw amusement, the bread is still buttered with the UFC and things of similar ilk. And myself? Somewhere in the middle. My initial dive into MMA was because it interested me, but that interest was cosmetic up until my primary love - the skill of a well-done wrestling match - went the way of the dodo for the most part. It was then, amidst searching for alternatives, that I fully immersed into MMA. And I like it...no, I love it. It's awesome - and I leave satisfied knowing the most skilled reach the top. I won't deny however, that it's overall "newness" is part of the appeal. I haven't learned enough about it (other than the UFC president, one Dana White, can be a little bitch sometimes) to discover the idiosyncrasies that would over time turn me off - like wrestling has. That isn't to say I've completely given up on it, and my answer to question #18 offers some affirmation in that regard, but perhaps I'll become one of the few hybrids; a diehard for both. I don't see myself giving up on wrestling, regardless of what they do. I don't see my interest waning in MMA either, even if wrestling picks up in the near future, and I'll continue to learn about it as much as I can. What the hell, a man can like chocolate and vanilla ice cream, can't he? lostchapter |