Both took company's there were pretty much dead and brought them to levels no one could have forseen. Both are known ass holes and are not people to be fucked with. Both have shown there powers many times and are not afraid to do what it takes to stay on top. Which one would you say is the better business man. I'd easily, EASILY go with Dana White.
Dana White vs Vince McMahon.
- Thread starter J...
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
Vince, quite easily. One's just a promoter, the other is a bonafide business man that literally changed the landscape of one industry. Dana is damn good at what he does and has done more for MMA than any other person. But Vince has made cultural icons out of Hogan, Andre, Rock and Austin. UFC fighters don't have that longevity. Chuck Lidell was on top of the world four years ago and now no one cares about the guy. Tito Ortiz was recognizable and now is washed up. Matt Hughes is done. UFC has too many variables for a fighter to become a mainstay cultural phenomenon. Wrestling has always been that, but Vince found a way to make his guys stick in peoples minds. Plus, the E runs 400 or so profitable shows in an industry that has been over exposed for over 20 years and the UFC runs what? 30 shows a year during their first boom period. Vince has longevity, and his product has spawned into movie production and has made national celebrities out of the Rock and Hogan. The E's global presence is larger too. Dana is just ridding a high right now and doesn't have 1/10th the business portfolio that Vince has.
From a non bias, purely objective standpoint, the only answer is Vince. He did it with his own money, stomped out all competition and has done it wayyyy longer than Dana and through three very different decades. More tv product, a 50,000+ crowd at least once a year, more merchandise sales, more DVD sales. It's not really debatable. One guy in a really small pond during a fad boom or a guy who changed the landcape amongst many, many competitors and differing regional tastes? From a business standpoint, Vince by a mile.
From a non bias, purely objective standpoint, the only answer is Vince. He did it with his own money, stomped out all competition and has done it wayyyy longer than Dana and through three very different decades. More tv product, a 50,000+ crowd at least once a year, more merchandise sales, more DVD sales. It's not really debatable. One guy in a really small pond during a fad boom or a guy who changed the landcape amongst many, many competitors and differing regional tastes? From a business standpoint, Vince by a mile.
Way to narrow sided my friend. The NBA has lost 1/4th of it's audience since Jordan hung 'em up. Baseball has barely recovered 30% of the viewers it lost during the lock out of 94. Every sport that is old will always face down times. Wrestling is old, Vince has been doing this for almost 30 years and UFC is just in it's infancy because what it used to be and what it is now are two different products. It's a boom period, but eventually the bubble bursts on everything. If UFC were doing what they are doing now during the Attitude Era, what would you say then?
^^I think most of us had still went with UFC. UFC at its best > WWE at its best. I mean not trying to piss hardcore wrestling fans off people fake beating the crap out of each other or people boxing the fuck out each other?
You would rather see a remedial, droning on UFC fight or a WWF match where they tell a story in the ring?
Dana... To understand this you have to realize, wrestling was not a production that no one liked or understood. UFC was. Nobody wanted to watch UFC. People thought it was the equivalent to human cock fighting. Wrestling, on the other hand, was entertainment. Now UFC is what everyone wants to watch. My step dad, who is a hard nosed person, who also believes UFC is shit, was watching and enjoying fights from UFC just a few days ago. Dana had it a lot harder than Vince and he made it and he has no surpass Vince. Dana hands down... By a landslide...
It doesn't matter what the product is. Real or fake doesn't matter when you are negating the question you asked. You asked who is the better business man. Vince, it's his company. Dana is an employee of the UFC. Plus, not to piss off UFC fans, but how many fights that go beyond one round are exciting? Not many. I'd rather watch fake wrestling than boring ass mat and ground stuff. 7 out of 10 UFC fights are boring as fuck. Boxing KILLS UFC in excitement and toughness. But again, that has nothing to do with the product or personal tastes. Dana just simply hasn't done half the business that Vince has. Not. Even. Close. And if you are going to let personal bias get in the way, why answer the question. Why even ask it?
Pick your favorite match ever and pit it against UFCs best match ever Stephan Bonnar vs Forrest Griffin on the season 1 finale of the ultimate fighter and UFC will win by a land slide.
The first Forrest Griffin vs. Tito Ortiz was pretty awesome too...
But yeah, watch the Ultimate fighter 1 finale Forrest Griffin vs. Stephan Bonnar and compare the rush and adrenaline to that of your favorite WWE/WWF match. UFC wins...
But yeah, watch the Ultimate fighter 1 finale Forrest Griffin vs. Stephan Bonnar and compare the rush and adrenaline to that of your favorite WWE/WWF match. UFC wins...
The first three TLC matches kill Bonnar/Griffin. And what does that say about the average fight in the UFC when some think that the company's best offering came from a TV show with two unproven amateurs?
Yes, because I really want to see the same boring takedowns, kicks, and punches. HBK vs Jericho at WM owns this anyday.
Does it really matter that Griffin and Bonnar were unproven? No... If you think yes than you're telling me that if Darren Young and Michael Tarver have the best match in WWE, that it would ruin the credibility of normal matches?
So you're telling us UFC is repetitive? Seriously?
So you're telling us UFC is repetitive? Seriously?
And also Haggler/Hearns KILLLLSSSSSS EVERYTHING every presented in any MMA promotion, including Wandi killing Rampage with the knees in Pride.
I believe that's the point I'am trying to get across. If the UFC wasn't so repetitive then people would actually remember Stephen Bonnar.