I'm back home after spending a week in Tampa covering the Super Bowl, and that means I was surrounded all week by hundreds of sports journalists representing newspapers, magazines and TV networks. I was there to cover football, but I also spent a little bit of time on the mixed martial arts beat, and I came away realizing how far MMA still has to go before it can really be considered a mainstream sport.
For starters, hardly any of the sports writers I met even knew about UFC 94. The vast majority of them wouldn't be able to pick Georges St. Pierre or B.J. Penn out of a lineup. I'm sure I wasn't the only sports writer in Tampa who watched the fight, but I was one of the few.
When I tried to broach the subject of MMA in conversations with other journalists, about the only positive thing I can say is that I never heard the phrase "human cockfighting." It was clear that the reporters in town to cover the Super Bowl didn't know anything about MMA. I'd get questions like, "Is it scripted like wrestling?" and "What's the difference between ultimate fighting and cage fighting?"
There are certainly some members of the mainstream sports media who get MMA. I had a nice chat with Jim Rome on radio row, and he was excited about UFC 94 and interested in hearing my opinions about it. Dan Wetzel and I talked both at media day and at the stadium on game day, and both times we were talking about MMA, not football. Fox NFL information man Jay Glazer actually left Tampa to see the fight in person in Las Vegas.
But those guys are exceptions. As big as MMA is right now, most people in sports media are barely even aware that it exists. That's a problem, but it also shows how much room MMA has to grow.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-03-2009 @ 12:09PM
peauxboy said...
It definitely shows the growth potential. Right now, viewership greatly surpasses media coverage. Compare it with sports where that ratio is completely opposite (hockey, boxing... makes me wonder about some type of statistical analysis on that... I'm sure some of the mainstream outlets would be blown away at the potential windfall they could have if they allocated more coverage to MMA) It makes the rise of MMA even more impressive, as its grown enormously without the mainstream hype. Once the media gets on board (and they will eventually, the sport is still in its infancy), skies the limit!
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 3:41PM
Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) said...
For MMA to reach the mainstream it's going to nee coverage on network television like CBS & ESPN. I think ESPN by itself could legitamize it by having a monthly MMA event televised Live and by having their MMA Live show on the air weekly. I think it's only a matter of time before it gets in the conscience of everyday folks that watch football.
In all honesty I think that the cage also hurts it's legitimacy. There is no good reason that the fights can't happen inside a regular boxing ring. This is one reason I prefer Affliction & Dream and preffered Pride to the UFC. It's better for viewing purposes and the cage itself really makes the sport feel like amateur hour. It was a great selling point at first but I think the UFC needs to move away from the cage.
So in my opinion to become truly mainstream it needs ...
1. get rid of the cage
2. get more national exposure (ESPn, CBS, ABC etc ..)
3. Have a weekly wrap up show on ESPN (so far HD NET has the only show I am aware of)
4. Public awareness campaign by the UFC
5. Acceptance of goWamma as the one governing body
6. The fighters need a "players association" and full benefits afforded to other athletes
If ESPN is going to show poker, bowling and pool as sports on the weekend and during the week there is no reason MMA shouldn't be featured as well. As of right now Dana is the one holding it back from happening.
Reply
2-03-2009 @ 5:25PM
Eric said...
I couldn't agree more about the cage ... but do you honestly see the UFC getting away from it?
Pride had the best MMA formula in my opinion.
1)Ring- Fighting in a cage? ... why not make it a ladder match!
2)No Elbows- Personally, I don't need a bloody spectacle to enjoy the fight. Having a fight stopped because of a cut when the fighter isn't hurt makes no sense.
3)Knees, kicks, stomps to a grounded fighter-When I see the fight stalled in the north-south or a fighter keeping his hand down to avoid knee strikes it frustrates me.
4)Scoring the fight on it's Entirety- Absolutely necessary, this isn't boxing!
2-04-2009 @ 7:24AM
bigdaddypsykes said...
The Cage Is a Must. It wasnt designed for looks. Ropes change the fight it gives something for the fighter to lean against fall threw crawl under and in general disrupt the flow of the fight. The cage was designed to keep the fight as realistic as possible how often in a brawl do you have the chance to crawl under a set of ropes .. you usually have walls the make you come to a complete stop when you hit them. UFC wasnt designed as a Sport but a test of skill in each style now they have altered it but the cage should alway be there. knees need to come back. Elbows need to stay.
Reply
2-04-2009 @ 3:40PM
Eric said...
"The cage was designed to keep the fight as realistic as possible how often in a brawl do you have the chance to crawl under a set of ropes"
Just as often as you find yourself magically trapped in a cage!
Reasoning like that is why MMA still isn't mainstream. An MMA fight isn't meant to be a street fight or a brawl ... it's a technical battle of skill, strength, determination, and conditioning.
The cage slows down the fight and it favors the wrestler/grappler. The ring is a much more professional, and yes, eye-appealing way to watch MMA.
2-05-2009 @ 11:21PM
Vince said...
I with daddy - the structure of the cage is what makes it unique. Boxing had ropes, sumo has an open ring and MMA has a cage.
I would take issue with the concept that the cage favors the grapplers - I have seen many a down fighter use the cage to support his body to control the bottom.
The image that UFC/WEC needs to use IMO is show the respect that these fighters have for one another rather than the trash talk, and also do more indepth work (can be web, not necessarily TV) because it seems to me that there are some damn nice guys with some amazing backstories to tell. Machida, Faber and GSP should be the faces of the sport.
2-06-2009 @ 10:01AM
Eric said...
The cage definitely favors grapplers ... there is really no debating that issue.
A fighter backed-up against the ropes is much harder to take down than a fighter backed-up against the cage. Also, when a wrestler pins his opponent against the cage - that too favors the grappler.
I can't wait to see the Dream Featherweight tournament. Dream has the best current rules, ring, judging, etc.