The success of the UFC is fascinating to me. I really disliked the culture of MMA back in the early 2000s, but nowadays I love the sport. The technical skill of these guys fighting is amazing, and the near monopoly of the UFC has actually created a situation where big fights are constantly happening, rather then the years of negotiation that some boxing matches have required.
As ownership now diversifies among several groups, so will the focus of the UFC, and I'm curious how that will affect things going forward.
I'm glad I grew up in the age of Karate Kid movies, when having a black belt was enough to scare kids from beating me up in school. I remember how the first UFCs utterly demolished the movie-mythos of Kung fu/karate, as Royce Gracie and other grapplers made strikers look rather impotent. I kind of missed the early days of UFC, when things were much more no-holds-barred. There weren't rounds or time limits or weight classes (for the most part), which meant that Royce had to beat an opponent 80 pounds heavier for the championship (Dan Severin, but I swear I thought Gracie had to beat even heavier opponents [0]). The flip side was that watching 20 minutes of one guy sitting atop another was not very compelling, and probably unfeasible as pay per view TV.
The Karate guys in the UFC and cleaning up these days like Stephen 'Wonderboy' Thompson.
Early MMA/UFC until recently was battle of the PEDs Royce was juiced to the gills in those marathon early matches.
Selling UFC right now was a good exit, the barrier to entry has fallen where competitor promotions can easily move in now since early UFC did all the arduous regulatory lobbying to legalize these matches and create a PPV market.
Haha. I'm not sure when Royce started using and he may have been on it from the start but 'juiced to the gills' is a joke of a description when he was regularly facing much larger opponents.
I disliked UFC until I watched it. At that time, I was very much into going to the gym and working out and that seemed to bring out some aggression that the UFC absorbed. Lately, I just can't see it as anything more than brutality. I guess I realize we live in such violent times and we are surrounded by it. The last thing I can do now is kick back and watch a violent sport to decompress from it all.
I don't find the UFC brutal at all. Even when the fights get bloody.
I don't wince when someone is getting punched the UFC. But watching an innocent man be killed in cold blood? That's brutality.
The fights usually end with a hug or a handshake, there is a mutual respect for the sport, and for each other, that lessens the impact of the "violence" IMO.
The long-term effects on UFC athletes (most of whom are throw-away, and will never be known) is going to make boxing look like handbags at twenty paces.
Admitting the technical and athletic virtuosity of many of the participants, and the honorable nature of many of the fights, it is a disgustingly violent sport.
I'm not a fan of either boxing or UFC, but from what I can tell, boxers take far more headshots, while UFC fighters are hit elsewhere more, and can get other injuries -- e.g., armbars can break arms and tear ligaments (http://www.mma-training.com/arm-bar/). While I'd rather not get any longterm injuries, CTE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...) is far scarier to me than most longterm effects I can think of UFC fighters getting.
Hellll no. The addition of grappling / submission as a way to end a fight actually makes mma much safer on the whole than boxing. Striking takes less precedence in mma and becomes more situational. Many fights are won with armbars or similar submissions, which are much, much less traumatic long-term than sustaining nothing but blows to the head in every fight. Additionally i'd argue mma referees are more conservative than boxing refs, stopping fights earlier and being quicker to prevent injury. I can't overstate how fucking brutal boxing is, how many fights i've seen where the ref takes far too long to end the fight. When you talk about people like george foreman, or even a newer boxer like gennady golovkin, these are much more powerful strikers than anyone in mma. George foreman, despite being a good person, probably gave several people brain damage throughout his career. Boxing might not look as flashily violent but it's MUCH worse for the athletes long-term.
I disagree. I can't think of a single sport where the athletes aren't throw-away. That's what sports do. They suck the livelyhood out of their competitors for the pleasure of spectators.
American Football leaves people broken physically and mentally. Boxing causes a slow-building brain damage that leaves legends like Ali a shaking, stuttering mess until their dying day. You're only wanted in Basketball until your knee gives out.
Injuries are career-ending for any athlete, in any sport. I personally find Hockey more "disgustingly violent" than the UFC.
Do you see a moral difference between violence-as-a-byproduct of a goal and violence-as-the-goal? If not, do you see how someone else might? Are you familiar with the tu quoque fallacy?
I will of course not convince you of much via a HN comment thread, this is for the others.
>Do you see a moral difference between violence-as-a-byproduct of a goal and violence-as-the-goal
Yes. I just don't think it applies to the UFC. Violence is not the goal of the UFC. It isn't a bloodsport, it isn't cockfighting. Moral arguments hold no water with me in regards to the UFC.
If you tune in to the UFC just to watch someone get the shit kicked out of them, you're missing the point entirely.
Personally, I watch the UFC to see two athletes of equal skill compete in what I consider a sport. Many fights end with zero blood. Some fights end in seconds. Blood is a very much a by-product IMO, not the end goal.
I think its disingenuous at best to say this is the reason most people watch NASCAR... I only know a few die hard NASCAR fans myself, but they are far more interested in the technical skills of the drivers than seeing someone potentially harmed for a little fireworks show.
Actually, I disagree with this statement, because it conflates UFC and MMA incorrectly.
Unified MMA rules make MMA much safer than boxing. In Boxing, there is a mandatory-8 count rule, which can allow boxer to regain their composure post knockout, which is more dangerous than in MMA, where the ref will stop the fight as soon as the fighter can no longer intelligently defend themselves.
My understanding about CTE, is it's the repeated blows to the head, post concussion that causes brain damage. In the UFC, refs will stop the fight to prevent further trauma. In Boxing, fighters will continue to fight, despite suffering a knock-down.
re: UFC vs MMA:
For the UFC's part, once a fighter has amassed a few knock-out losses, they typically are removed from the promotion.
Outside of the US, the rules and safety for fighters is far more suspect (like classif Saku fights where he is nearly knocked unconscious and is allowed to regain his composure and win.
I totally disagree. Most boxing orgs have a 3 knockdown rule. You can be knocked down twice in each round and still continue. That means, you could get 2 concussions per round, until the end of the fight.
The UFC stops the fight when you are unable to defend yourself. That usually means you can only get one concussion per fight. They are much more rare, however, than that.
Also, you can look at the number of deaths per year in each sport. Boxing has around 10 per year. The UFC has never had a death, but MMA has had a few, over the last few years.
The quick stoppages are key to the UFC being less damaging to the athletes than boxing.
> The UFC stops the fight when you are unable to defend yourself.
Don't boxing refs stop the fight when they think the fighter can't continue (e.g. can't answer/focus)? I'm pretty sure I've seen that.
> Also, you can look at the number of deaths per year in each sport. Boxing has around 10 per year. The UFC has never had a death, but MMA has had a few, over the last few years.
Boxing is equivalent to MMA, not the UFC. I think people on both sides of this particular point aren't being very clear on the distinctions unless it's beneficial to their specific point.
> Don't boxing refs stop the fight when they think the fighter can't continue (e.g. can't answer/focus)? I'm pretty sure I've seen that.
Yes they do. However the important difference is that they allow you 10 seconds to recover. In MMA when you get dazed the fight is usually over because you don't get a chance to recover. IIRC your brain is more vulnerable directly after a concussion.
I'm pretty sure that depends on what organization they are fighting with and the specific rules. It's not hard to find articles about controversy when a referee stops a fight[1]. In the linked case, there was no count, nor even a knockdown. Obviously there are cases, at least in some boxing organizations, in which a ref can stop a fight without a full count.
Boxing is much more dangerous, you have to beat your opponent senseless for 12 rounds in the UFC there is a submission option to win the match instead of only strikes. Just check CompuBox stats for a 12 round match with hundreds of "power" strikes landed VS stats for a UFC 5 or 3 round match.
Do you have any evidence for that? Many MMA proponents claim that the long term effects should be less severe than boxing, because their fights generally involve less repeated head trauma.
I don't know enough about the issue to argue one way or another, but I find it a plausible argument.
Perhaps that's true in the ring and on the screen, but the incidence rate of domestic violence involving MMA fighters outside of the ring is several orders of magnitude higher than in other sports. Between the performance enhancing drugs used to train, the head injuries sustained, and SOME of the people drawn to the sport in the first place, I can't watch the sport without feeling somewhat repulsed.
That's not a fair comparison at all. That's an actual bloodsport, which the UFC is not.
A fight wasn't stopped when a gladiator couldn't defend himself. In a Roman arena, you fought to the fucking death. Maybe against an opponent 3 times your size. Maybe against a den of lions. People held and watched these events with the explicit purpose of watching other people die.
In the UFC, once you are unable to defend yourself the fight is over. In the UFC, you can submit an opponent. Sometimes that means a fight lasts 10 seconds, with not a drop of blood spilled.
That's as apples and oranges as a comparison gets.
There are two components to UFC: the violence and the skill. You don't sound like you're comfortable with the level of violence displayed (completely understandable). As others have pointed out, the combatants are willing participants and not victims, so I don't share the same issue.
What I get out of UFC matches (when I watch, I actually stopped because it was hard to find good matches) is the tactical chess-like maneuvering these guys go through in order to defeat an opponent that effectively knows everything they know. There's a level of calculating brilliance at play for the good fighters that I get a lot out of.
I totally get it and I think you are right in your analysis. What hooked me was the tactics of the sport. I enjoy watching someone at the top of their game, but I can't take the violence. As a result, I'm hooked on cooking competition shows.
if you like the mental side of it but dislike the striking violence you should check out the brazilian jiu jitsu scene. there's a lot of overlap with none of the blood.
The visceral nature of MMA and the blood makes many people dislike it, but compared to the long, slowly developing brain damage induced by boxing, MMA is a far more humane sport.
Funny thing, I never thought about this, but compared to Football and Boxing, UFC is unlikely to cause debilitating long-term damage.
As you are alluding to, what we are now becoming aware of as a society is that by padding our combative athletes we've shifted the trauma from the exterior to the interior and thus made it more severe.
Thankfully, this isn't an either or situation. Boxing's popularity was significantly diminished for years before UFC brought fighting sports back to a forefront.
Considering that the majority of humanity does not have to worry about being attacked by wild animals or leave old/sick relatives behind on the march to the next food source, I would say we are hardly living in times as violent as you might think.
>I'm curious how that will affect things going forward.
The most interesting thing to me will be fighter pay/unionization. It's happened in every sport, and I believe all the chatter about the subject for the past year or so is a big reason why Zuffa sold out. People are smartening up when it comes to not being well compensated for exposure to potential brain damage, all for entertainment.
Conor McGregor has, sort of, set the stage for the "it's about the fighters, not the organization" mentality. It's been reported that he made ~$20 million in 2015, which is about as much as Georges St. Pierre-- a popular, long-time champion-- made in his whole fighting career, including endoresements. Times are changing, quickly.
Which circuits were you watching back then? I enjoyed the asian stuff (pride/rings/k1/dream) substantially more than early NA/UK promotions. The late 2000s early 2010s it became obvious the NA (and ufc/strikeforce) was the dominant market.
I havent really paid attention the last couple years myself. The focus on short term hype and serialization (ultimate fighter) over sport became a bit much for me.
I only watched it casually at the bars back then, but it was really that I found I couldn't identify with the "Tapout" culture of MMA then. You can say I was being a snob, but it didn't appeal to me. Nowadays I just feel like things are operating at a higher caliber, the commentators, the post fight analysis, the fighters themselves, and I'm way more engaged now.
Either the UFC $4B valuation is way too high, or Disney stole the Star Wars franchise from Lucas films. The disparity in revenue on a historical or annualized basis is huge.
Sports assets costs huge amounts of money and their value will only continue to increase as sports becomes the only real televised media that requires live viewing. In team sports, the top teams are generally valued in the $2-3 billion dollar range. This deal basically equates all of UFC to the cost of two middle of the road NFL teams or two of the more valuable NBA/MLB teams.
The only difference between UFC and other leagues is that UFC only has 100 million per year guaranteed income from TV rights. Most of of their revenue (600 million last year) is based on gate and pay per views which can fluctuate based headlines and injuries etc.
Star Wars is very valuable, but I think you overestimate -- $4bil does not factor in the cost of making new movies, which is in the hundreds of millions.
Consider another way: had Disney not bought Star Wars, do you believe they could have built a franchise or franchises of a similar money-printing status for that $4bil? Pirates of the Caribbean have earned close to $4bil:
UFC is a running institution that other parties work to endure and build. Gyms find and train fighters (UFC does not need to participate in this). Those Gyms hype fighters and build fanbases that feed back in as a tributary to UFC. 8x rev for a quickly growing sport franchise that essentially 'owns' fighting outside of Boxing is not terribly high a valuation.
Since Disney bought Pixar and John Lasseter took on a stack of top Disney roles, I assume that Lucas felt this was the closet he could get to handing Star Wars on to his old Lucasfilm colleagues.
The linked article treats revenue as value, which is obvious BS.
The value of Lucas to Disney is much higher than the $4B price tag either Lucas or UFC yielded, but a lot of that stems from Disney's amazing ability to execute on it. UFC seems more capable of standing alone as a business.
I can't speak for the GP, but it's (apparent) popularity worries me. It is a brutal sport, with some of the dregs of society participating at the highest levels (here's an interview between two competitors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTzhVVIjLCE). I don't think I would have an issue with UFC etc. if the fighters could show a little class and some respect for each other. As it stands I think it supplies very bad role-models for teenage and 20 year old males it is surely popular with.
Are you kidding? It's a social activity, just like NFL in the days of yore, that people partake in.
Discussions about who's in the next big fight are what's on people's minds, not their criminal background. Sure, issues like domestic abuse and drug consumption will come up in conversations, but I think you're overestimating how many people look up to these guys and gals.
It's funny you mention class and respect considering that aside from promoting events you'll never see a higher level of sportsmanship outside the UFC. "In Octagon" behavior really doesn't even compare. (Watch Conor McGregor immediately after he lost to Diaz)
There is no reason why their behavior while promoting events should be excluded when considering their character. I don't believe I have ever seen another sportsman threaten to kill a competitor, or gloat about having inflicted a career-ending injury. Not to say that it doesn't happen, but it's more visible in UFC.
How do you feel about the gladiators fighting? They were slaves who risked life and limb for the entertainment of others. While UFC fighters get paid, others have pointed out here that it often isn't much.
Correct. I have no problem with voluntary violence. To many in the sport becoming a great fighter is no different than aspirations in this community to start a great startup. The only difference is people on HN wouldn't do what they do at their salary. Value is relative.
You're obviously implying something here, make it explicit. Explain how the military is "voluntary". Explain "how it plays out in reality". Your implied arguments are a waste of space.
How many scion of old money families participate in UFC? In the US military? How many children of the nouveau upper middle class do?
How it plays out in reality is that the money involved looks better to people who have fewer choices. Of course, there will be exceptions. But in a meritocratic society, status is not as derived from violent activity as was true of societies with an honor culture.
I know for a fact that it's possible to develop a deep and abiding love of American football as a player. I presume the same is true of UFC. But the risks will dictate whether or not the money is worth it depending on a persons status.
No, other than teaching them the importance of voluntary associations. Why is it a default that these fighters have to be good role models for children?
"Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids." -Charles Barkley
It's rare for anyone to die fighting in the UFC, that makes it at least somewhat different than gladiatorial combat. It is also an incredibly technical sport, it has come a long way from the brawls of its early years.
No one has died fighting in the UFC, although it has happened (only 4 times to date in the US) in other organizations[0]. I'm sure one day it will happen in the UFC and there will be a lot of hand-wringing, but the injury rate is comparable to any high-impact sport like boxing or football. The risk of head injury might even be less than boxing because there's no standing 8 count and there are more ways to win without the head being attacked. Referees are generally very well-trained and the overriding imperative is fighter safety. Not to whitewash or anything; it's a bloody and violent sport to be sure. But I think that it's much more civilized than non-fans tend to realize.
>Referees are generally very well-trained and the overriding imperative is fighter safety.
I don't know if I'd agree with either of these statements, as we saw this weekend.
First, UFC events seem inundated with horrible stoppages. Early stoppages are annoying, but at least they're safe. Late stoppages still abound, though. Lauzon vs Sanchez was a good example of this. But these guys were put on the card to smash, so the ref made sure the fans got their money worth. We got to watch Sanchez stumble around on his feet in a daze.
For the second, the referees seem to be most concerned about the entertainment of the fans, first and foremost. Forcing Cormier and Silva into a stand-up on multiple occasions Saturday night is an example here. The refs are more than happy to force people to go toe-to-toe.
UFC is more than an art, it is a competition backed by an organization with opinionated rules and a huge marketing budget. It'd be like asking, "Why is Coca Cola such a big deal when we've had sweetened caffeinated drinks for centuries?"
That is such a strange question. Vale Tudo is synonymous with MMA. UFC is a brand of MMA events, products, etc. UFC is currently the most recognizable and successful MMA promotion in the world. I guess to answer your question, the UFC is a big deal because they were the first promotion to bring MMA to the global audience and have been 1000x more successful doing so than anyone else before their existence. This is little different than asking why the NBA is a big deal, why the NHL is a big deal, etc when basketball, hockey, etc existed for many years before those leagues formed.
I think the athletes in the UFC are kind of getting screwed. Floyd Mayweather made more money in one fight than every UFC athlete has made combined since the UFC started.
The thing is Floyd Mayweather is practically the only fighter in that position. He had a contract where he made 40 Million on each of his last 6 fights but for a "normal" fighter a pay of just 2M - 5M is considered an excellent deal.
Still, I think it's fair point that fighters in boxing capture more of a revenue than fighters in UFC. UFC is very young though, unionization and revenue % negotiations are bound to happen as they did in any other popular professional sport.
Floyd was his own promoter and put up the insurance and paid his opponents. It could happen that a very popular fighter in the UFC decides to branch and hold his/her own PPVs if they have the capital to insure it, cover security, advertise ect.
They bought it for $2 million. And then poured time and money into getting it considered a legitimate sport, spun off a reality show, promoted it's stars, and cranked out the merchandise. Branding 101, etc.
They brought it to this point but my hope is now the new owners can turn it into a more legitimate sport. As an example right now the UFC is setting up a fighter named Dan Henderson to fight for the middle weight title just because its a rematch with the current champ Michael Bisping and is a big money making opportunity for the company. If you look at his record[0] though he's 3-3 in his last 6 fights and is passing people much more deserving of a title shot[1] if the new owners have a more defined system for championship fights it will eliminate the biggest issue I think the UFC currently has.
These new owners are in a position to make buckets of money. There online subscription service FightPass is apparently super popular and I could see a new tier being added they would include the PPV cards for $30 or $40 a month. I hope Joe Rogan stays as a commentator even though he has said he will leave if the company sell's.
This is why currently the UFC is more like WWE in that respect. They care more about the marketing then about the sport. No big league team sport would do this in a championship. The pairing of contestants has to happen in a predictable system that rewards skills within the sport itself.
Unfortunately whenever this is mentioned, fanboys like to argue that it comes down to selling tickets etc., which is true unless you care about the sport and its integrity. As a martial artist I would much rather have an unpopular tournament that stays true to its core values for the sake of promoting the sport as an art form, even if this means that the champion will have the most boring style of fighting (in fact, if there ever is a champion that has a boring style that would indeed be interesting).
Yeah I'm a Hendo fan but his title shot is pretty ridiculous. It's a great storyline and a great last hurrah (and who knows, he may beat Bisping as he did a few years ago). But there are so many others who should be ahead in line. Henderson isn't even the Sherdog top 15 at MW...
I'm an MMA fan who grew up watching Pride (Fedor, Shogun, etc.).
I never became a fan of the UFC. Little things like the lack of production value for the graphics, the commentators (Mike Goldberg makes me cringe), to the need to use ring girls bothered me. I couldn't get over how low class and over commercialized it felt.
I didn't know what UFC is, so looking it up I saw that there's a European version which has teams competing. I can't tell how legitimate it is, since it also has teams comprised of seemingly football(soccer) hooligans. If so, it sounds like a better stress relief than engaging at a football(soccer) match.
UFC is a bit like NFL except instead of just a 3-4 month season, it has a 12 month season and it has international appeal.
However, unlike NFL it doesn't have a league that can control expansion or prevent others to compete in its market. In other words, UFC is a brand and it's a brand that is not fully understood and it's hard to predict what the loyalty to this brand is. So the buyers are taking a big risk. They're buying into UFCs reach via FOX, etc. But the market is prime from other players to take away market share.
UFC has worked hard to scoop up the competition like strike force and others. They also have strict contracts with their fighters to keep them from competing in other leagues. There's been several anti-trust lawsuits already.
At this point, however, they have built an interesting business beyond their own league and live events.
They have a subscription service - $10 a month - that has both the biggest library of important MMA fights and acts as the streaming platform and distributor for dozens of smaller leagues.
The UFC is even branching out to stream more niche combat sports that aren't MMA.
Because they were banned from television for so long, they were forced to focus on the digital side of the business, and it is now paying big dividends.
As ownership now diversifies among several groups, so will the focus of the UFC, and I'm curious how that will affect things going forward.