The Soapbox - Latest Edition By Steve Kim, MaxBoxing (Sept 29, 2012) Doghouse Boxing
- Tweet
OK,
it’s time for another edition of “The Soapbox” and today’s submission
came from a reader who just had to comment on an article (maxboxing.com/guess-what-i-liked-it)
I wrote over the summer after watching a UFC card that was televised by
FOX (Hey, there was no major boxing on that weekend - or during the
whole month of August for that matter). The premise of my article was
that there were certain elements of UFC/MMA that boxing should perhaps
replicate. This particular reader seems to be well-versed in both the
“Sweet Science” and mixed martial arts and he brought up some very
salient points while bursting the bubble on some common myths that exist
between the fan-bases...
Hi, Steve. I know it’s been a week but I still feel the need to comment on yourUFC article.
And I am DEFINITELY a paying boxing fan. I live in NorCal and I’ve been
to [Marco Antonio] Barrera-[Erik] Morales I, Barrera-Junior Jones II,
[David] Tua-[Ike] Ibeabuchi, [Evander] Holyfield-[John] Ruiz II, [Floyd]
Mayweather-Jesus Chavez (got there early to see [Manny]
Pacquiao-[Agapito] Sanchez on the undercard), Pacquiao-Morales,
Barrera-[Juan Manuel] Marquez II, [Miguel] Cotto-[Antonio] Margarito,
[Andre] Ward-[Mikkel] Kessler, Ward-[Allan] Green, [James]
Kirkland-[Joel] Julio and more. I was at [Robert] Guerrero-[Selcuk]
Aydin; I will be at Ward-[Chad] Dawson even though I’m almost positive
it will be a lousy fight and the following weekend, I’ll be at [Julio
Cesar] Chavez [Jr.]-[Sergio] Martinez. I paid for each and every one of
my tickets (where do all those comps come from anyway?). Okay, maybe
that list was unnecessary but I had to establish my street cred.
I’m
also an MMA fan and have followed the UFC since the first one in ’93. I
used to buy UFC PPVs on a regular basis but after a long string of
disappointments (not to mention all the trash-talking Dana White does
about boxing), I refuse to give any more money to the UFC. I still
follow it and I’d like to dispute some of the memes that UFC/MMA fans
have established that unfortunately boxing fans are starting to believe.
1. In the UFC, the Best Always Fight the Best.
This
is the biggest and most egregious myth of the UFC. What the UFC is
great at is making you THINK that every fighter on their roster is great
and exciting. In boxing, if a match-up is considered non-competitive by
fans and media, it generally gets less hype. Whatever network airs it
will treat it as a “showcase” for one particular fighter. In the UFC, if
a fight is considered non-competitive, the hype machine goes into
overdrive. One glaring example was a fight a year or two ago between
Georges St. Pierre and a challenger named Dan Hardy. When the fight was
signed, everyone who followed MMA knew that Hardy had no chance.
However, the UFC produced a three-part “24/7”-style countdown show
called “UFC Primetime” to promote the fight (it was comparable to HBO
doing a “24/7” for Martinez-[Matthew] Macklin). They constantly showed
clips of Hardy knocking out his opponents (which turned out to be the
SAME opponent shown from different angles), showed him going to Asia to
train with Shaolin monks, showed him training with the last guy to beat
GSP and showed him talking A LOT of trash. They ALMOST got me to order
it. The result? GSP completely dominated Hardy, holding him on the mat
for five rounds in a dull fight that featured no significant damage to
either guy. In other words, just what the knowledgeable were expecting. I
could name many other examples but that leads to the next myth...
2. UFC PPV Cards are Always Loaded
The
UFC has more absolutely awful cards than good ones but no one ever
seems to blame the organization because the UFC hypes EVERY PPV like
it’s the FREAKING MOON LANDING. Every PPV gets a countdown show (some
get “UFC Primetime”) and every countdown show features that no-talent
d-bag Joe Rogan screaming at the top of his lungs about what a “sick”
card it is and how EVERY fight is going to be spectacular. Seriously,
totally predictable stinkers like [Randy] Couture-[Mark] Coleman,
[Frank] Mir-[Mirko] “Cro Cop” [Filipovic] and [B.J.] Penn-[Jon] Fitch
were given countdown shows. And no matter how putrid the PPVs turn out,
the commentators will NEVER admit it. Just last night, after the boring
[Benson] Henderson-[Frankie] Edgar main event slap-and-grab-fest was
over, Rogan was gushing about what a “great, great fight” it was.
Unfortunately, this kind of talk sinks in to the brains of that 18-25
[year-old] demographic that they covet so much. If a fight or card is
TRULY atrocious, Dana White will admit it afterward but there is no
Larry Merchant in the UFC to voice what the viewers are thinking when a
show sucks. In the UFC, just like WWE, it’s the job of the commentators
to convince you what you’re seeing - or going to see - is fantastic.
3. In the UFC, There is Only One Champion/Belt per Weight Class
There
are currently eight weight classes in the UFC. Two of them are headed
by “interim” champions: Carlos Condit and Renan Barao. When the “real”
champions fight them, they will be promoted as “unification” fights.
Fight posters will be printed with both combatants holding belts. They
did it with [Brock] Lesnar-Mir II and Lesnar-[Shane] Carwin.
4. Records Don’t Matter in the UFC
This
is where you’re mistaken, Steve. In the UFC, records only don’t matter
when they happen to be terrible or unimpressive. It won’t get emphasized
or even mentioned. If a man has an impressive record, you’d better
believe they’ll mention it - CONSTANTLY. A few weeks ago, they went on
and on about how Barao was undefeated in 30 fights. One of those fights
was a draw but they didn’t note that because - guess what - being
undefeated MATTERS. Frankie Edgar was hyped as being undefeated in four
years. If it didn’t matter, why mention it at all? When a guy’s record
is ugly, as so many of them are, the UFC and its fans just downplay it
by saying it’s because “In the UFC, the Best Always Fight the Best.” You
see - one myth feeds another.
I’m
sorry, I know this was long, but it NEEDED to be said. I’m seeing more
boxing fans and writers buying into this crap and I don’t want to see
you do it too. You could probably do a whole new article on this. Thanks
for reading.
Jim
Jim,
thank you for writing in; this was certainly eye-opening in many ways.
Consider me educated. Perhaps I bought into a lot of the narratives that
are now routinely thrown out by the casual fans and the general media.
But the point you bring up really shows that the UFC does a much better
job in terms of marketing its product than boxing (I don’t think you’d
argue that, right?) and it’s the advantage of having one autonomous
body/organization basically run the sport. Also, a major difference that
has been pointed out to me by people in the boxing business is that
much more of the money goes to the performers, which is in contrast to
the UFC (which again is an company that basically has a monopoly over
the MMA business and pays its combatants much less than boxing at the
world-class level) so the organizers have much more in terms of
resources to actually market and promote their product.
As
for how the media covers the two sports, yeah, no argument here. You
have a dictator in Dana White, who absolutely bullies the media and
those who don’t comply, gets their credentials lifted and ripped away
from them. There isn’t much respect for the First Amendment over there
(and let’s be honest; that isn’t just exclusive to MMA as our own Gabe
Montoya can attest, as he’s been banned by Golden Boy Promotions). But
Jim, you are absolutely right; a provocateur like Merchant simply would
not be tolerated by the UFC.
But
the general point is that the business of boxing and the fans need to
move on from the fixation of win-loss records and mythical
pound-for-pound lists and really shift the focus to making the best
fights. And by “best fights,” I don’t mean pitting two guys who are both
undefeated in 50 combined fights or are ranked as the best two fighters
in a given division. Honestly, that doesn’t always equate to the best
fight. Just think about it; were Arturo Gatti and Micky Ward the two
best junior welterweights when they waged their classic rivalry? No, but
their respective styles and temperaments made for the best bouts. I see
way too many times where TV executives and fans believe that because
two fighters have unbeaten marks and are ranked as the top two boxers by The Ring magazine (or some other publication), it’s
automatically assumed that this formula makes for a great fight or an
anticipated event.
There
was a rather infamous promotion at the Silverdome not too long ago that
disproves that notion. Records and ratings don’t make memorable fights.
Fighters who are willing to take risks and are matched correctly do.
Sorry, I’m not of that philosophy that says after a stinker of a fight,
“Well, that was boring but golly gee, The Ring magazine had
both of these guys in their top three, so it had to happen.” Eh, as a
boxing fan, I watch fights for the entertainment value. If that doesn’t
make me a purist, well, I can live with that.
Honestly,
Jim, I still stand by my belief that the MMA/UFC is much less reliant
on creating built-up and undefeated records (although you pointed out
that they certainly care also about a glossy ledger) than the boxing
industry. And I think UFC fans are much more forgiving of losses and
putting past fights behind them than boxing fans and media (who have
been conditioned to think a certain way). I read all the time about
boxers supposedly not deserving of a particular fight because of some
knockout loss they suffered years ago (by the way, what is the statue of
limitations on that?). Or how about the fact some fighter lost as a
six-round prelim boxer and suffered early defeats before he was even
eligible to buy malt liquor at the corner store?
I
remember the uproar when Orlando Salido beat Juan Manuel Lopez the
first time because Bob Arum had supposedly ruined “JuanMa’s” showdown
with Yuriorkis Gamboa. Yeah, so instead of celebrating what was a great
fight (and eventually a solid rivalry that delivered a memorable rematch
about a year later), we had fans lamenting the fact that Lopez had
suffered his first loss - thus taking the shine off that hypothetical
fight with Gamboa. Excuse me but why would a single loss ruin your
appetite for any particular fight, other than the fact someone lost?
(And by the way, if Lopez was the fighter you thought he was, he
should’ve defeated Salido - but he didn’t) Did the fact that Ray Leonard
lost before his historic bout with Thomas Hearns in 1981 take away from
that clash? And to me, the reaction to “JuanMa’s” loss showed that
there is an overemphasis on undefeated records in boxing and what
constituted a big fight to too many followers of this sport is having a
pair of fighters with a “0” on the right-hand side of their records.
And
not for nothing but for all the talent of Gamboa, has he actually ever
really been in a truly memorable and/or exciting fight? And going by the
recent track record, are we sure that he would even reach an agreement
that could satisfy his financial demands? Personally, I’m glad I got to
see Salido (who, by the way, has a whopping 11 career losses) and Lopez
swap leather and give everyone two great nights of boxing that won’t
soon be forgotten.
But Jim, many of the things you pointed out were illuminating. Thanks for reading and writing in.
More of Steve's recent work below his contact info...
