[Zeke's Chaingun]

Originally Posted by ganderson

of course it was - it was its own self promoted no rules blood sport approach to publicity WTF

What do you mean WTF? It wasn't the publicity that got it banned, it was the rules. The reason UFC stayed alive was that through its publicity of being a bloodsport, it generated die hard fans and created a market for it. Once it was banned it stayed around and survived because of the fans it created. Once new rules were impliemented it came back because the demand was still there. Money was still to be made. McCain was against the UFC not because they said they were a bloodsport, because it was.

[mannywankenobi]

Originally Posted by unlimited

That is not true

I am a hardcore fan since U.F.C. 1 but I am so mad at Dana for dropping great talent so I have quit buying their payperveiws. It all started with Yens Pulver, then B.J., and Bustamante, Tito, Salavery, Trigg, Lindland and more. They were let go for who to replace them Sanchez, Griffin, and Bonner?

I guess it doesn't matter to Dana if he loses one fan and replaces him with two new fans. But if I were him I'd try to find a way to bring the old fans back to the U.F.C. again also.

On a side note I think it would be funny if Dana does groom one of the T.U.F. guys into a great fighter and then when they become one they leave for Pride where the money is really at.

All that is beside the point. Despite all the things that disappoint you about Dana, TUF, and the UFC in general, do you still watch? I bet you do. And if you don't, you're only the exception, not the rule. I couldn't imagine a hardcore MMA fan not watching the UFC events. I would think a hardcore fan would still be interested in the fights and fighters involved in the UFC no matter how much they dislike Dana or a reality show. There are things I don't like about PRIDE at times (Giant Silva, freakshows, cans, mismatches, ruining Sakuraba) yet that doesn't stop me from watching PRIDE.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Zeke's Chaingun

What do you mean WTF? It wasn't the publicity that got it banned, it was the rules. The reason UFC stayed alive was that through its publicity of being a bloodsport, it generated die hard fans and created a market for it. Once it was banned it stayed around and survived because of the fans it created. Once new rules were impliemented it came back because the demand was still there. Money was still to be made. McCain was against the UFC not because they said they were a bloodsport, because it was.

Whether it was truth or not is irrelevant - it was still bad publicity

The UFC remains banned in many liberal states - why? because of its reputation as a blood sport that lingers on today - the UFC blood sport days were a mixed blessing - yes it created fans but it also created a very bad image. That is called publicity. Whether it is based on truth or not - that truth led to bad publicity in the eyes of politicians - so WTF are we arguing about?


There is a difference between having a battle of the martial arts and starting every PPV with the slogan "and once again there are no rules".

The UFC always had some rules and progressively added them after every show becuase of the bad Press they were getting. But the no rules were emphasized in their marketing hence Publicity - which led to political repercussions, hence bad Publicity.

I get the point that all publicity is good in that it acts as an advertisement - but it is not 100% true, negative reports on the sport make it harder to get it sanctioned and accepted as a legitmate sport.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by mannywankenobi

All that is beside the point. Despite all the things that disappoint you about Dana, TUF, and the UFC in general, do you still watch? I bet you do. And if you don't, you're only the exception, not the rule. I couldn't imagine a hardcore MMA fan not watching the UFC events. I would think a hardcore fan would still be interested in the fights and fighters involved in the UFC no matter how much they dislike Dana or a reality show. There are things I don't like about PRIDE at times (Giant Silva, freakshows, cans, mismatches, ruining Sakuraba) yet that doesn't stop me from watching PRIDE.

agreed

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Originally Posted by ganderson

Whether it was truth or not is irrelevant - it was still bad publicity

The UFC remains banned in many liberal states - why? because of its reputation as a blood sport that lingers on today - the UFC blood sport days were a mixed blessing - yes it created fans but it also created a very bad image. That is called publicity. Whether it is based on truth or not - that truth led to bad publicity in the eyes of politicians - so WTF are we arguing about?


There is a difference between having a battle of the martial arts and starting every PPV with the slogan "and once again there are no rules".

The UFC always had some rules and progressively added them after every show becuase of the bad Press they were getting. But the no rules were emphasized in their marketing hence Publicity - which led to political repercussions, hence bad Publicity.

I get the point that all publicity is good in that it acts as an advertisement - but it is not 100% true, negative reports on the sport make it harder to get it sanctioned and accepted as a legitmate sport.

BS. It's just the same as all of those groups talking about how Eminem is bad for kids and the gay rights groups talking about how Eminem was a homophobe, yet all it did was put his name in the news and more people bought the album, despite the parental advisory label they put on the record. Same crap. Any publicity that puts the UFC in the news only works to make more people aware that it exists. Especially since the UFC is not banned off cable anymore.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Zeke's Chaingun

BS. It's just the same as all of those groups talking about how Eminem is bad for kids and the gay rights groups talking about how Eminem was a homophobe, yet all it did was put his name in the news and more people bought the album, despite the parental advisory label they put on the record. Same crap. Any publicity that puts the UFC in the news only works to make more people aware that it exists. Especially since the UFC is not banned off cable anymore.

Please explain why the UFC was banned in the first place, if not for bad publicity. If there was no publicity, no one would have bother banning them in the first place, because no one would have known they existed. Yes the PR helped, I agree, but it also was a hindrance, what was the net result is another debate.

If you think that press trashing the sport as a dangerous blood sport that should be continued to be banned in liberal states, if helpful, well you are entitled to that opinion, but I would guess that you are in the extreme minority.

Think of the phrase "read my lips in politics" or Cathy Lee's "sweat shops" or OJ Simpson’s murder trial. All examples of BAD PUBLICITY. Yea OJ has done a lot of work since the trial.

The expression there is no such thing as bad publicity refers to the tendency of bad publicity to help something along - like the “Passion of the Christ” or Eminem, I am not disputing the logic - but if to think that it is an iron clad rule is very naive.

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Originally Posted by ganderson

Please explain why the UFC was banned in the first place, if not for bad publicity. If there was no publicity, no one would have bother banning them in the first place, because no one would have known they existed.

After reading that I stopped reading your post and am done debating with you. Either you really are clueless or are simply trying to argue for the sake of arguing. That has got to be one of the most retarded things I have ever heard.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Zeke's Chaingun

After reading that I stopped reading your post and am done debating with you. Either you really are clueless or are simply trying to argue for the sake of arguing. That has got to be one of the most retarded things I have ever heard.

In other words you have no answer.

Funny I was thinking the exact same thing about you and your arguments but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. So don’t bother to finish reading, I doubt you would have got it anyway.

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Originally Posted by ganderson

In other words you have no answer.

Funny I was thinking the exact same thing about you and your arguments but decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. So don’t bother to finish reading, I doubt you would have got it anyway.

Having no answer and choosing not to argue against someone who is not making any sense are two different things. That quote of yours makes zero sense at all, so instead of getting into it with you over something that IMO is ridiculous, I am choosing to leave the conversation. Saying that the UFC would have never been banned for its bloodsport rules if it didn't become mainstream is just silly. There are a lot of smaller shows all over the country that are getting banned and they have zero publicity. But no more, I am not the type that likes to sit here and talk to a brick wall all day long like Evil Eye Gouger just for the sake of arguing. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Zeke's Chaingun

Saying that the UFC would have never been banned for its bloodsport rules if it didn't become mainstream is just silly.

I never said that,...

With out getting into a he said she said, my point, so we are clear, was that if no one had heard of the UFC it would not have been banned from PPV.

Hence the impact of bad publicity. Most people accept that the "there are no rules" concept of the UFC had a negative impact on the sport. You don't, that is fine, and we can respectfully, as you said, agree to disagree.

Your ability not to let this degenerate into a mud slinging contest is admirable, although your tendency to call my views retarded is less so. I will try not to cry

Peace out