...OH, ONE MORE THING - PLEASE BOOKMARK US & VISIT DAILY!
By Wade Keller, MMATorch editor Updated May 26, 2007 - 7:33 p.m.
Just watched Joe Rogan interviewed on ESPN News previewing tonight's event. Here are a few thoughts:
-UFC is fortunate to have Rogan as an articulate, enthusiastic spokesperson for the sport and organization. It was so frustrating in the late-'90s listen to people involved with UFC do more damage than good when trying to defend the sport. Rogan took on every question asked by the anchor and answered them well. He didn't seem like a huckster who was trying to shill and lie for the sport.
-The anchor on ESPN knew almost nothing, and that's embarrassing. His job is to host a sports show and interview people. He knows UFC is exploding in the mainstream media and ESPN is getting on board with coverage, yet he couldn't find time in his schedule the past two weeks to watch some UFC fights so he had a semblance of an idea what the sport is like? He admitted he had never seen a fight and wanted to know what the Octagon was like, how many rounds fights go, and how long they last. He said Chuck Liddell tapped out to Quinton Jackson in their first fight. The sports establishment is not happy about having to learn about something new. it doesn't help that they know that they're jumping on board late and look bad as a result. It's time for a lot of mainstream reporters to do some catch-up and stop asking the same dumb questions I was asked by various newspaper reporters back in the early years of UFC when it was facing bannings by athletic commissions. The ignorance still existing ten years later is astounding. In the early days of UFC, I could understand reporters needing to ask me basic questions to understand the sport, but to be a full time sports reporter or anchor asking those same questions in 2007 is really sad.
-Rogan did a great job explaining why UFC is safer than boxing. The ESPN anchor responded as if Rogan had just told him ESPN stands for Every Sport Punts Nutrition. It's amazing how reporters are so uneducated as to not even fathom that getting systematically hit in the head over and over for 12 rounds with gloves that are basically designed to knock your brain around inside your head without knocking you out cold is worse than getting hit a few times and having the fight end suddenly. That's not to say UFC isn't dangerous and fighters won't suffer ill effects over the long run, especially concussion issues, but compared to boxing, it's safe.
-A 30 second highlight reel from UFC fights might set some casual new fans up for disappointment. Those 30 seconds are a compilation of six hours of fight highlights, essentially.
-If there was something I wish Rogan did explain better is the science and strategy that exists in UFC, and how fighters have to decide whether to stand up and take the action to the mat (or at least try). He did a great job, though, explaining that UFC is a much closer reflection of what fighting techniques would work in the real world. Of course, if you're fighting for your life, you're not going to rule out eye gouges or groin kicks or elbows to the back of your opponent's head. UFC, though, has been such a fascinating sport to watch evolve because it took in some cases centuries-old fighting techniques and tested them against one another for the first time on a large, organized scale. What's great about what UFC has taught us is that so many fighting disciplines have valuable techniques, that neither stand up nor mat fighting are dominant in a fight between two fighters adept at both. Rogan explained that boxers would get taken down in a real fight and if they're not trained in submission defense, they'd be done for right away. The fact that Rogan is a boxing fan and knows it's history lends him extra credibility when debating boxing-defenders who clearly haven't watched anything but highlight clips (if that) of UFC.
Updated April 25, 2007 - 12:51 p.m.
In yesterday's MMATorch Poll, we asked which fighter you'd like to see Mirko Cro Cop fight next. More than half of the voters agreed with my suggestion in my UFC 70 report last Saturday night - Andre Arlovski (53%).
The no. 2 choice was Tim Silvia (27%) followed by Gabriel Gonzaga in a rematch (8%) and Chuck Liddell (6%).
I'd like to see any of those four fights. All are "dream matches," and despite Cro Cop's loss on Saturday, they're all still intriguing - perhaps more so knowing Cro Cop would go into the match with a lot more to prove than had he not lost on Saturday.
Arlovski is intriguing because it would be the best test of Arlovski, whom the jury is still out on regarding whether he's a true top tier MMA heavyweight or if his success has been largely due to a relatively weak UFC heavyweight division. Tim Silvia would be an interesting fight for the same reasons. How good is Silvia, really? It'd be tough to pick winners in either of those match-ups, but I'd go with Cro Cop despite his loss on Saturday.
Obviously, a Gonzaga rematch would be a huge attraction. Was it a fluke? Would Cro Cop be more prepared and take Gonzaga more seriously? Or would Gonzaga prove to be one of the big stories of 2007 and score a second win over the highly credentialed and accomplished Cro Cop?
The Liddell vs. Cro Cop dream match was tarnished by Gonzaga beating Cro Cop first, because Liddell would enter this match with more to lose than gain. After all, if he KO's Cro Cop, that's something the relatively unknown Gonzaga already did. This fight would be better saved until after Cro Cop has another big win or two under his belt.
Check out today's poll regarding Chuck Liddell. It's in the upper right corner of the Main Listing page.
Updated April 24, 2007 - 1:13 p.m.
In yesterday's MMATorch Poll, we asked you which fight at UFC 70 was best. Michael Bisping's victory over Elvis Sinosic edged Mirko Cro Cop's loss to Gabriel Gonzaga by a 50 to 45 percent margin. Terry Etim vs. Matt Grice received 5 percent of the votes.
I ranked both Cro Cop-Gonzaga and Sinosic-Bisping at ***+, the highest rankings of the night, and it appears the readers at least agreed those two were close to each other in quality. They appealled to different tastes.
Bisping's fight was exciting in part because of Sinosic's comeback in round two after a dominating performance by Bisping (10-8?) in the opening round. The Cro Cop loss was exciting because of the takedown by Gonzaga early and the highlight-reel KO later. The fight otherwise didn't have a lot going for it. But the historic significance of Gonzaga's win compared to the expected win of Bisping is what evened the fight in terms of my grade.
Neither will hold up as well over time when viewers know the finish ahead of time since the drama comes from not knowing if Sinosic might come back or the shock value of seeing Cro Cop go down like that.
Be sure to vote in today's poll asking who you'd like to see Cro Cop fight next. If you have an idea for a poll you'd like to see us run, send it to me.
Also, be sure to visit and register at our MMATorch Forum (your email will remain private; MMATorch will not release it to any third parties ever) as there are some good discussions going there already. Finally, be sure to send any newstips our way. We also welcome Guest Editorials, so if you have a subject about MMA you'd like to write about and perhaps get published, send it to us. Finally, after each edition of The Ultimate Fighter, feel free to send along a 0-10 score ranking your enjoyment level for the show and any thoughts on what happene, how the show was produced, and the fight itself. If we get some responses, we'll put them up in the Torch Feedback section.
Thanks to everyone for visiting MMATorch! Keep coming back every day for new articles from our great staff of writers and any breaking news. Check in later for our Bodog coverage.
Updated April 23, 2007 - 5:05 p.m.
I rewatched the Gonzaga-Cro Cop fight again last night. The way Gonzaga caught Cro Cop's leg for the takedown was incredible. He was just so fast and instinctive. I would bet he practiced catching leg kicks 100,000 times leading into this fight with Cro Cop stand-ins.
Part of what's great about the evolution of MMA is that fighters are getting so smart that tendencies of fighters are now really being exploited so that nobody can enter a fight confident that what's won fights for them before will in the future.
Fighters have to change constantly and not be predictable or else they're vulnerable. It's like a great NHL coach scrambling his lines and changing strategy during a Best of Seven series and really helping his team, or halftime adjustments by a great NFL or NBA coach.
Fighters are now studying and adjusting and planning more effectively than in the past, which may explain the upsets recently.
Combined with a greater roster depth and talent acquisitions, UFC main eventers who were counting their main event PPV payoffs before they hatched may have to reconsider some big ticket items until they actually win their fights.
Be sure to join our new MMATorch Forum and interact with other MMA Torch readers and the MMATorch staff: Click Here.
DON'T GO YET... WE SUGGEST THESE MMATORCH ARTICLES, TOO!
Jamie Penick, editor-in-chief
(mmatorcheditor@gmail.com)
STAFF COLUMNISTS: Shawn Ennis - Jason Amadi
Frank Hyden - Rich Hansen
Chris Park - Matt Pelkey
Interested in joining MMATorch's writing team? Send idea for a theme to your column (for Specialist section) or area of interest (i.e. TV Reporter) along with a sample of writing to mmatorch@gmail.com.
