UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> NY Times: UFC vs. Viacom


2/18/13 1:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dana Stern
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/6/09
Posts: 1428
Byork wants to be Dana so bad it's not even funny. I don't get why nobody points out how terrible Bellator really is. Just because it's different and another option other then UFC doesn't make it good. There is a few really good fighters but for the most part they suck and the tournament format is a joke it doesn't make sense from a business stand point or anything. I really enjoyed Strikeforce and WEC but Bellator is no good, of course my opinion. Viacom will get tired of dumping money into them eventually and they will fold. Just a matter of time. Phone Post
2/18/13 1:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HandsomeTopTeam
36 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/3/03
Posts: 2811
Good article. Lots of bad reading comprehension on this thread.
2/18/13 2:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Macbody
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/6/07
Posts: 167
3 strikes -
I don't know what you guys are bitching about. You must be fucking retarded or something.

It was an article on the rise of Bellator (and its association with Viacom) and the amazing growth and profitability of MMA.

It was an even-handed article. The UFC was not slighted: their decisions aren't criticized or portrayed negatively.

Rebney talked about how they're hitting the super-demographic and most of their crowd is affluent. The reporter commented that the crowd didn't seem affluent. That's actually a hit to Rebney if you guys bothered to read it.

The article obviously wasn't written for a bunch of hardcore nerds hanging out on an internet website. It was written for the broad subscriber base of the New York Times whose familiarity with MMA would be no greater than that of the writer and, therefore, would most likely connect with this article more than one written by some MMA dinks on the internet.

Lots of fucking idiots complaining on this thread. It's a solid article.


Exactly!
This! Phone Post
2/18/13 2:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Macbody
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/6/07
Posts: 168
newbornbabynoob -
well rounded poster -  Very poetic and all but wtf does "inside a steel cage built for maximum pain" mean?

If that's your lead, you're struggling. The cage is there for the safety of the competitors. Phone Post

Idiot. The cage is there to hold fighters who are trying to knock each other unconscious or inflict pain and/or damage until someone submits.

Someone with a clear head looks at he sport and sees two people trying to damage each other.

Some douche on the internet who's super touchy and gets bitchy when someone looks down on MMA is... going to write what you wrote.

An article written for non-MMA-nerds by a non-MMA-nerd. Of course MMA-nerds are going to feel jilted... if they can't pull their head out of their ass and remember the perspective of the average person.
Ask Rorion Gracie why there is a cage. And please remember we were so close to having the octagon surrounded by flames and alligators.

Noob! Phone Post
2/18/13 2:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Anthraxxx
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/28/12
Posts: 76
When I read it, the article came off as just simply an outsiders point of view on MMA. I am glad to see it in the paper and get some mainstream attention.

As "bad" as the article may seem to portray the sport it really is just looking at it through the lens of a complete outsider, nothing genuinely dishonest was really written in this piece.

Many hardcore fans live in the bubble of MMA and accept the violence as a norm. To a new york times reader, this article portrayed the sport exactly as they would see it if they turned on spike.

My only gripe with the article was that while a good amount of time and effort was devoted to describing what she witnessed at the event, and not the "battle" between Zuffa and Viacom as was portrayed on the outset. Most of the quotes from Dana came from past interviews, press conferences and media scrums. The article was Bellator heavy in my opinion.

All in all I was happy to see an MMA story in the Sunday NYT but I was not impressed by your performance.
2/18/13 2:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
darwinsmunky
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/14/11
Posts: 23
newbornbabynoob - 
darwinsmunky - There was an obvious viacom bias here, but it was by far overshadowed by the total lack of respect and education of the sport in general by the author herself. I can understand there being a lack of general knowledge regarding mma considering its fairly recent mainstream birth, but if your not "a bunch of hardcore nerds hanging out on an internet website" than i would expect a much broader view than what was given. I scoff at the idea of this being an educational piece, making a pop reference claiming bruce lee to be the father of mma, whilst neglecting to name the "prominent brazilian family who helped found the UFC" as the Gracies.

"Once almost a free-form bloodfest, M.M.A., as the sport is known, now comes with a strict set of rules enforced on a state-by-state basis (no hair-pulling, kicks “to the kidney with a heel” or “twisting the flesh”)"

Of course! Without groin strikes, eye gouging and biting what fun would it be???!!!!

This shit and more is all on page 1. I would continue to take quotes but im not writing a paper and need another beer so i will end on this...

This is borderline fluff. It pollutes the minds of every reader not familiar with the sport and is an example of poor writing. This is reminiscent of someone trying to work their way up the ladder of significance, begrudgingly attending an event that they deem insignificant, attempting to reach some state of idealism, yet never learning what writing is all about.

The tone of the author is apparent from the very beginning. She failed to remain objective, instead falling upon the observations of a simpleton. It seems that fighting as a sport in general is lost upon her, but she had to come up with something to meet the deadline. She describes the ambiance of the casino better than she does the ambiance of the event. She is obviously totally disinterested in this piece. Ridiculous.

I want to tear into this more, but at this point its not even worth it.

Congratulations. You just figured out how journalism works.

A reporter is tasked with writing on literally thousands of topics and she can't be an expert on all of them. She spends a few days researching it and presents something to the general public.

If she wrote an article on the legal system some internet douchebag would write, "This is borderline fluff! It pollutes the minds of every reader not familiar with the law and is an example of poor writing!" Would they expect an article written like it was intended for the Harvard Law Review? There's a reason the general public reads the New York Times and not the Harvard Law Review.

But... but... why don't they just pay an expert to write their article for them, an idiot might wail. Well, look at this forum. A significant number of people here could write a damn good article for them... and a significant number of people here would pillory them for it, because that's what happens when knowledgeable people post their opinions here.

This article is actually receiving less scorn and bile here than if an MMA expert had written it.

You seem determined to play the role of the apologist so in the spirit of copping out please accept this soapbox so you can stand on the moral high ground. Last time i checked this was still an mma forum and putting up an article that was at best mediocre deserves some criticism. We're not talking about someone just offering their opinion, we're talking about a supposed professional in the field of writing. Your trying to defend the process and field itself and not what was actually written. The article sucked, plain and simple.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.