Why Is ESPN Already Calling UFC 100 "The Biggest Event in MMA History?"

[budva]

Originally Posted by steveflynn

There have been plenty of k-1 and pride shows that got ginormous ratings

Ten highest-rated Japanese MMA matches - Yahoo! Canada Sports

ya how long ago was that, its 2009 UFC is in its prime

[steveflynn]

Originally Posted by Iron Wolf

What the hell is significant about a freak show match between a 5th fight hill giant and a mediocre former title holder?

I would say there were a few Pride GPs that were far more significant than this.

Hell, even Noguirra vs. Sapp was more significant than this, at the time it happened. In front of 90,000 screaming Japanease. Now that shit was a spectacle. I was hopping around like a madman when Sapp tombstoned big Nog. I'd never seen anything like it. And then Nog to come back and win... man... that was a different era.

[Allegory]

While I cannot wait for UFC 100, its not even the biggest card this year. It looks good on paper. It may be a great event. It probably will not be the biggest or the best or the most significant event in MMA history.

[Iron Wolf]

Originally Posted by Jacare Jackson

Just about every Shockwave.

Man, that was a dumb question.

Exactly.

[Username1]

Originally Posted by 575

well, ufc 100 kinda is the biggest event in mma history.

your av is gay

(Rampage rules though)

[PantherFight]

Originally Posted by fakewobble

It easy to understand why the UFC is hyping it's own event with speculatory language prior to ticket sales, but I can't comprehend what John Anik and Franklin McNeil are doing already calling UFC 100 "the biggest event in MMA history" prior to a final tally on ticket sales or even 1 PPV buy.

This is biased reporting, and there is no other conclusion. Nobody knows at all whether this will be the biggest event in history at this point. The Pride stadiums had a far greater capacity, as they used the Coliseum, I believe, which has a 92000-seat capacity.

The UFC opted for the Mandalay Bay Events Center which only accommodates approximately 11,000 spectators instead of the venue's sister property, the 14,700-capacity MGM Grand Garden Arena, where UFC 98 was held.

Why would they do that if this is the biggest event in MMA history as ESPN is now declaring in the latest MMA Live?

Because "biggest" doesnt have to refer to ticket sales, but rather the grand size and scheme of the event.

[steveflynn]

Originally Posted by budva

ya how long ago was that, its 2009 UFC is in its prime

What are you talking about? The TS said it was the "biggest fight in mma history". I merely pointed out that there have been a lot of other fights that have garnered far greater ratings

[Iron Wolf]

Originally Posted by steveflynn

Hahahahaha.... amazing. Thanks man. That's exactly what I was talking about.

[joedogghaze]

Originally Posted by uppercuts21

If Mir/Lesnar is the headliner of the "biggest event in MMA history" than thats embarassing for a variety of reasons.

Who the fuck are you to say who is embarassing? SO he "fought" in the WWE, he is a monster that gets out there and puts it on the line for his fans.

Besides, you aren't even american, you aren't allowed to be ashamed of an event or fighter that doesn't represent you in the least.

[hj]

Originally Posted by epc1184

Name a bigger MMA event.

In terms of TV viewers, live attendance, and overall public awareness there's likely to be many Pride-related events that were bigger than anything the UFC will be capable of doing until they get a network TV deal signed.

In terms of card quality it's obviously subjective, but I don't think many people here would agree that it contains any of the most anticipated fights the UFC has ever done, much less in MMA history. It's neat that the UFC has reached the '100' milestone. Although to be quite honest, they've passed it a long time ago when you take into account some of the events that were not numbered plus all the cable tv events, etc.