WWE exec says UFC has no real stars

[Kaedon]

Yes, the people who chart video game sales just happen to be two weeks behind. Yeah. And The Scorpion King 2, gee who was the STAR of that movie? Who was that movie franchise built around? Was it an MMA guy? Fuck no. It was a PRO WRESTLER.

I can't believe nobody commented on this. This statement absolutely screams fail. Tiger Woods is talked about because he is such a good golfer. His charisma or lack there of, has absolutely nothing to do with why he is such an enormous star.

Then why is Tiger talked about even when he loses? Why is the dumb white guy who is beating his ass all over the course just get passed over by mainstream sports guys and instead of saying "Hey this dude is kicking ass" they say "whoa what happened to Tiger?"

 

[Nation]

Well the Scorpion King is a prequel to the Mummy. Yes The Rock was obviously the star of the first Scorpion King but the franchise was built around Brendan Frasier. Also VGChartz is frequently behind in sales and it's one week it's behind.

 

[MikeRaw]

Yes, the people who chart video game sales just happen to be two weeks behind. Yeah. And The Scorpion King 2, gee who was the STAR of that movie? Who was that movie franchise built around? Was it an MMA guy? Fuck no. It was a PRO WRESTLER.

Fucking cop-out Kaedon, and you know it. You keep making up rules of what should be considered mainstream as you go along. You used to be such a good debator, but everyone in a while, you have a shit thing like this, and it makes me shake my head. So now him starring in that movie isn't good enough for you? Didn't you JUST say a few posts ago how no UFC guys were in movies? Now it's proven to you, and you change it and say it doesn't count cause he wasn't in the first one. Man, that's sad.

 

[Kaedon]

Well the Scorpion King is a prequel to the Mummy. Yes The Rock was obviously the star of the first Scorpion King but the franchise was built around Brendan Frasier.

The Scorpion King franchise not the Mummy. They are two different movies.

 

[MikeRaw]

Then why is Tiger talked about even when he loses? Why is the dumb white guy who is beating his ass all over the course just get passed over by mainstream sports guys and instead of saying "Hey this dude is kicking ass" they say "whoa what happened to Tiger?"

I seem to recall Chuck Liddel and Wanderlei Silva being plenty talked about when they lose. Silva ia like 1-6 in UFC, and is still talked about huge by both UFC media, as well as others sports radio and TV shows.

 

[Kaedon]

Fucking cop-out Kaedon, and you know it. You keep making up rules of what should be considered mainstream as you go along. You used to be such a good debator, but everyone in a while, you have a shit thing like this, and it makes me shake my head. So now him starring in that movie isn't good enough for you? Didn't you JUST say a few posts ago how no UFC guys were in movies? Now it's proven to you, and you change it and say it doesn't count cause he wasn't in the first one. Man, that's sad.

HES NOT STARRING IN THE MOVIE!!!! Did Earnest Miller "star" in The Wrestler? Did George Carlin "star" in Dogma? Hell no. Were they part of a movie? Yeah, but thats NOT having a movie built FOR YOU.

I seem to recall Chuck Liddel and Wanderlei Silva being plenty talked about when they lose. Silva ia like 1-6 in UFC, and is still talked about huge by both UFC media, as well as others sports radio and TV shows.

Way to completely miss the point. And, since you seem to want to take it there. Who is talked about more? Tiger or Chuck? Tiger or Silva? Yeah exactly.

 

[MikeRaw]

I should also note... You talked about TV ratings. As I already said, UFC PPV buys far surpass WWE Pay Per View buys, but not only that.. Episodes of the Ultimate Fighter are equal to ECW, and sometimes Smackdown, ratings. If WWE were to air Tough Enough on TV, it wouldn't get near as much. if a UFC tv show that doesn't even feature UFC fighters (it just features guys who want to become UFC fighters), gets just as much of a rating as the B and C shows of WWE, imagine if they had a weekly show of their actual stars? It'd surpass Raw for sure.

Way to completely miss the point. And, since you seem to want to take it there. Who is talked about more? Tiger or Chuck? Tiger or Silva? Yeah exactly.

Where I live (Canada)? UFC (Chuck, Silva, GSP, Brock) are talked about a ton, almost equal to hockey, and golf is talked about almost zero.

 

[Kaedon]

I should also note... You talked about TV ratings. As I already said, UFC PPV buys far surpass WWE Pay Per View buys, but not only that.. Episodes of the Ultimate Fighter are equal to ECW, and sometimes Smackdown, ratings. If WWE were to air Tough Enough on TV, it wouldn't get near as much. if a UFC tv show that doesn't even feature UFC fighters (it just features guys who want to become UFC fighters), gets just as much of a rating as the B and C shows of WWE, imagine if they had a weekly show of their actual stars? It'd surpass Raw for sure.

So your A show is better than my C show all the time. Wow, thats something to hang your hat on.

Where I live (Canada)? UFC (Chuck, Silva, GSP, Brock) are talked about a ton, almost equal to hockey, and golf is talked about almost zero.

And where I live, competitive darts and pro bowling is talked about more than the UFC.

 

[MikeRaw]

So your A show is better than my C show all the time. Wow, thats something to hang your hat on.

No, because the UFC doesn't have an A show. (By the way.. "My" a show? I'm just as big a wrestling fan as you...)
If a show that is MMA, and doesn't really even have anything to do with UFC, but is just promoted by them, does better than a show featuring WWE's real talent (SD and ECW), again, imagien what a show with UFC's A stars would do.

And where I live, competitive darts and pro bowling is talked about more than the UFC.

So according to your logic, that makes pro bowling mainstream, right?

 

[Next Big Thing]

Then why is Tiger talked about even when he loses? Why is the dumb white guy who is beating his ass all over the course just get passed over by mainstream sports guys and instead of saying "Hey this dude is kicking ass" they say "whoa what happened to Tiger?"

lol I almost don't even want to respond to this because of how ridiculous it is.

Like I said in my last post, they talk about Tiger because of how good he is. Tiger Woods is the star that he is because he is such a dominant golfer. Many people watch golf for the sole purpose of seeing perhaps the greatest golfer of all time play. They talk about Tiger Woods when he is defeated and not about the other guy because Tiger is the man that majority of people want to hear about and want to see play, because of how good he is. Not because of his personality.

Another example would be Roger Federer. He's not very exciting in interviews, and on the court he shows next to no emotion except for when he wins. Yet people tune in to watch him play because of his amazing play and the fact that they might be watching the greatest tennis player of all time.

 

[Kaedon]

No, because the UFC doesn't have an A show. (By the way.. "My" a show? I'm just as big a wrestling fan as you...)
If a show that is MMA, and doesn't really even have anything to do with UFC, but is just promoted by them, does better than a show featuring WWE's real talent (SD and ECW), again, imagien what a show with UFC's A stars would do.


So according to your logic, that makes pro bowling mainstream, right?

it SOMETIMES does better than SD and does better than ECW. It is "their show" because it IS a UFC show, and its their only one, therefore, their A show.


You are basing this "They are more popular" off of ONE stat, PPV buyrates. I have countered that with numerous things, but you are just ignoring them. once again, if UFC or MMA is THAT popular, why cant they sell out any of their venues without giving away a few thousand tickets? Why dont they regularly sell out 25k to at their best 60k arenas? Why arent UFC stars having movie parts written for them? Why arent they hosting SNL? Why arent they regularly on late night shows? Why arent they on TV Shows? What does the "Superbowl" of MMA do for buyrates? Does it even have one, or do they consistnatly draw the same numbers month after month?

Like I said in my last post, they talk about Tiger because of how good he is. Tiger Woods is the star that he is because he is such a dominant golfer. Many people watch golf for the sole purpose of seeing perhaps the greatest golfer of all time play. They talk about Tiger Woods when he is defeated and not about the other guy because Tiger is the man that majority of people want to hear about and want to see play, because of how good he is. Not because of his personality.

Did you ever hear me say hes not good? Of course he's good, but there have been other guys who make just as spectacular shots and who are currently even MORE dominant. So using your "winning is all that matters" logic, they SHOULD be talking about the next guy, and not Tiger.

Another example would be Roger Federer. He's not very exciting in interviews, and on the court he shows next to no emotion except for when he wins. Yet people tune in to watch him play because of his amazing play and the fact that they might be watching the greatest tennis player of all time.

And there are tons of other tennis players (the female ones especially) who get talked about more. Why? Because they have tits and sex sells.

 

[MikeRaw]

it SOMETIMES does better than SD and does better than ECW. It is "their show" because it IS a UFC show, and its their only one, therefore, their A show.

Thats because the UFC doesn't really need a "show". They're not wrestling. It's a sport.

You are basing this "They are more popular" off of ONE stat, PPV buyrates. I have countered that with numerous things, but you are just ignoring them. once again, if UFC or MMA is THAT popular, why cant they sell out any of their venues without giving away a few thousand tickets? Why dont they regularly sell out 25k to at their best 60k arenas? Why arent UFC stars having movie parts written for them? Why arent they hosting SNL? Why arent they regularly on late night shows? Why arent they on TV Shows? What does the "Superbowl" of MMA do for buyrates? Does it even have one, or do they consistnatly draw the same numbers month after month?

Because they're athletes. I don't see your precious Tiger Woods or any other athlete from the NBA, NFL, or NHL in a movie. You keep comparing the uFC to the WWE, but you can't. WWE is entertainment, which is why the guys get in movies and SNL. They're entertainers, just like movies and TV shows. The reason UFC fighters don't is because they're athletes, and for th e most part, athletes don't do movies and TV shows. You keep thinking mainstream means you have to be a movie or tv show. But sports is the most mainstream thing in North America, and almost no athletes star in movies. You would consider Koobe Bryant, Eli Manning, Sidney Crosby, A-Rod, Lebron James, etc, wouldn't you? They're not in movies. They're still mainstream though. Same as UFC fighters. As a sport.

And there are tons of other tennis players (the female ones especially) who get talked about more. Why? Because they have tits and sex sells.

But wait, according to your logic, they can't possibly be mainstream. I mean, where are their CD's, and Movies, and appearances on David Letterman? [/sarcasm]

 

[Kaedon]

Thats because the UFC doesn't really need a "show". They're not wrestling. It's a sport.

You are basing this "They are more popular" off of ONE stat, PPV buyrates. I have countered that with numerous things, but you are just ignoring them. once again, if UFC or MMA is THAT popular, why cant they sell out any of their venues without giving away a few thousand tickets? Why dont they regularly sell out 25k to at their best 60k arenas? Why arent UFC stars having movie parts written for them? Why arent they hosting SNL? Why arent they regularly on late night shows? Why arent they on TV Shows? What does the "Superbowl" of MMA do for buyrates? Does it even have one, or do they consistnatly draw the same numbers month after month?

Because they're athletes. I don't see your precious Tiger Woods or any other athlete from the NBA, NFL, or NHL in a movie. You keep comparing the uFC to the WWE, but you can't. WWE is entertainment, which is why the guys get in movies and SNL. They're entertainers, just like movies and TV shows. The reason UFC fighters don't is because they're athletes, and for th e most part, athletes don't do movies and TV shows. You keep thinking mainstream means you have to be a movie or tv show. But sports is the most mainstream thing in North America, and almost no athletes star in movies. You would consider Koobe Bryant, Eli Manning, Sidney Crosby, A-Rod, Lebron James, etc, wouldn't you? They're not in movies. They're still mainstream though. Same as UFC fighters. As a sport.[/QUOTE]


Athletes dont star in movies? Are you f*cking kidding me?


Kazam, Space Jam, Blue Chips, He Got Game and thats just the basketall ones. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO ON!?

But wait, according to your logic, they can't possibly be mainstream. I mean, where are their CD's, and Movies, and appearances on David Letterman? [/sarcasm]

Tennis players appear on late night TV a lot, especially for the female ones because of how they look.

 

[MikeRaw]

Athletes dont star in movies? Are you f*cking kidding me?


Kazam, Space Jam, Blue Chips, He Got Game and thats just the basketall ones. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO ON!?

But what about the ones who dont? You keep making it seem like people are onyl mainstream if they star in movies, and again, I'd say Lebron James is as mainstreak as it comes, and I don't see him in movies.

Tennis players appear on late night TV a lot, especially for the female ones because of how they look.

But what about the movies? I don't see them in the movies? Oh, and for the record, UFC fighters are on talk shows quite frequently.

 

[Next Big Thing]

I'm sure MikeRaw will also reply to this, but I just thought I would add a few things as well.

why cant they sell out any of their venues without giving away a few thousand tickets? Why dont they regularly sell out 25k to at their best 60k arenas?

While I'm not to sure about how much they draw in terms of attendance, I have heard that being at a live UFC event isn't that great unless you are really close up because of the cage.

What does the "Superbowl" of MMA do for buyrates? Does it even have one, or do they consistnatly draw the same numbers month after month?

While I don't exactly see the relevance of this, or see a problem with them drawing the same thing every month, the UFC did have a bit of a "superbowl" type event in December. They were promoting it as their most stacked card of the year, with 3 big main event fights. The buyrate for that event was a little over 1 million, which is a bit better than what Wrestlemania did this year. The WWE doesn't have an event that even comes close to Wrestlemania. Yet the UFC's ppv in November with Lesnar/Couture had a buyrate of a little over 900,000. Also in January the GSP/BJ PPV had about 800,000 buys. So this proves that the UFC does have a "superbowl" (again I don't even see why this matters), but unlike the WWE other ppvs can actually come close to matching it.