The SI cover is exactly the kind of coverage I DIDN'T want for MMA..

[Nedders]

1) The cover conveys nothing of the greatness and legitimacy of the sport (ie the ESPN cover featuring Chuck) and instead shows a no-name (to non-MMA fans anyway) competitor viciously striking at his foe with his crotch thrusting outward. The least flattering image you could have potrayed outside of perhaps CC getting HK'ed and buckling over on his leg or Mark Kerr roided and high in The Smashing Machine.

2) They call it "Ultimate Fighting" instead of MMA. Truly indicative of an ignorance regarding the sport and its perception. So many people outside of the those who understand MMA cling to the term as evidence of its barbarism and savagery. The term forces them to look at MMA as somehow degrading and less sophisticated or regulated than other, equally brutal and dangerous sports (suck as boxing, football, and hockey).

3) The discussion is about a) Whether its the future (which it already is), and b) If its too brutal (when it has long been established as one of the safest combat sports ever)..




Basically the discussion is framed from the perspective of an extremely dated set of viewpoints regarding the sport. MMA IS legit..the pay-per-view numbers, worldwide fan support, and rapid grassroots growth and acceptance of the sport on every level have already proven so. These questions only linger in the minds of the dinosaurs who set the table for sports discussion at the higher levels of big-time media outlets like SI. They haven't followed the sport in the least, have been blindsided by its popularity, and have been slow, if not completely oblivious as to the development of an educated set of opinions regarding the sport as competition, business, and entertainment in the US and overseas.

These are the same people who still think its debatable that hip-hop is a form of music, that climate change is a reality, and that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Their opinions are simply so factually misinformed as to be irrelevant to the discussion. They would presume that an article covering the fastest growing sport, perhaps in the world (and certainly in the US), would be fairly portrayed by a cover and a headline as this. They literally think it's a good question if its too brutal or not, instead of embracing the fact that said discussion has long since been answered.


It's simply a step backwards in the portrayal of MMA and the great debate surrounding its emergence. Having been treated to increasingly legitimate media coverage in recent months, the combination of the backlash preceding the DLH/Mayweather contest and this recent debacle by SI, the low-brow seem to be attempting to take the high-ground in the discussion, and I don't like it. MMA will always have its scary moments, as does every season of the NFL, every big-time boxing event (well, when they actually fight each other..Corey Spinks), every Stanley Cup playoff series..and every Nascar race. Yet we're not debating their safety or legitimacy. Hell it took some high profile DEATHS in Nascar to even begin a serious discussion about safety in the media. You haven't heard of a high profile INJURY in MMA...no paralysis, no brain damage, certainly no deaths. So why is the discussion still so focused on alleged brutality and savagery. Where's the even handed, realistic portrayal. Sensationalism wins again, and though few may remember the article, most will remember the cover..an unfortunate landmark in the history of MMA.

[Gai Jin]

Man, cry me a river. I'm tired of you MMA elitists who think this is YOUR sport. Quit being such childish snobs and enjoy the ride.

[ebin]

Originally Posted by Gai Jin

Man, cry me a river. I'm tired of you MMA elitists who think this is YOUR sport. Quit being such childish snobs and enjoy the ride.

*starts the slow clap*

Seriously, who cares what coverage YOU wanted for mma. Do you like mma? I do. Why care what someone else thinks of it? Why does it matter what anyone else thinks of it? Watch it on tv, enjoy it, get over yourself.

[Kid Kronik]

Try reading the article too. The cover is just to get people to buy.

ps. special message for OP....
blah blah blah blah bleh

[Nedders]

Originally Posted by Gai Jin

Man, cry me a river. I'm tired of you MMA elitists who think this is YOUR sport. Quit being such childish snobs and enjoy the ride.

I'm not being an MMA elist to say that a discussion as to whether the sport is "Too Brutal" has long since passed for worthwhile criticism or discussion. Not to mention using a photo potraying an MMA fighter as a savage as your representative first image regarding major coverage of MMA in your publication. We don't talk of the NFL being too violent, when players have ligaments shredded, bones fractured, and concussion-inducing hits delivered every weekend. We don't talk about Nascar being goreish theater as guys hit the wall at 200mph, flip into the infield and catch fire. It's simply beyond relevant in the mainstream media.

Yet somehow MMA, safer than your average sport, is somehow some kind of Gladiatorial freak show because guys who fight each other are allowed to do so on the ground. THATS ELITIST SNOBBERY.

[Demosthenes]

Originally Posted by Gai Jin

Man, cry me a river. I'm tired of you MMA elitists who think this is YOUR sport. Quit being such childish snobs and enjoy the ride.

I really don't think that was the thread starter's point. Did you actually read the thread, or base your opinion solely on the title?

For the record, I agree with the thread starter. However, I think MMA is on such a tear lately that not even sloppy, biased coverage will make much of a dent in its popularity.

[Kid Kronik]

man you bitch more th an my wife

[LiverShot2]

You hit the nail on the head buddy. I haven't read SI for a long time because they're always way late on stories. You see it and hear it through ESPN long before SI comes out. They've turned into another shit media source that prints 95 percent garbage. They have to get people to buy their product by getting controvesial.

[Nedders]

Originally Posted by ebin

*starts the slow clap*

Seriously, who cares what coverage YOU wanted for mma. Do you like mma? I do. Why care what someone else thinks of it? Why does it matter what anyone else thinks of it? Watch it on tv, enjoy it, get over yourself.

Because its potrayal in the media is crucial to its future success?? Remember that little thing called THE 90's??? Where MMA almost recieved a Congressional ban, the UFC nearly folded, and many of the countries best fighters defected to Japan? As an MMA fan, I don't want to succumb to the fear-mongering and mis-information of a biased, uneducated media. I want MMA to be debated with the same legitimacy as other sports that are as regulated, safe and popular as MMA. We all know that the for certain events, UFC has outdrawn baseball, the NFL, and Nascar in the states, yet somehow fans (hardcore and otherwise) are still subjected to baseless terms like "cockfighting" and "bar-room brawlers" at the highest levels of the sports coverage. It's unfair and I'll not go without voicing my opinion on the matter. If you were truly a fan, it should bother you too.

[Kid Kronik]

This cover is going to get a lot more people to buy it than if you have some goofy fucker smiling and holding a belt or some shit. The most important thing is getting people to buy it -- because the article itself is very positive for the sport.