Extra UFC70 on sale today

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 19 Apr 2007, 08:15

Is this not a Boxing Website.

Take your Pikey fighting off it.

Wales · Post by **Wales** » 19 Apr 2007, 08:19

"anyone can have a tatoo on their head and get into a street fight" - Mayweather 2007

Is UFC 70 going to be televised?

cage rage is live on Saturday night...

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 19 Apr 2007, 08:42

UFC 70 is on Setanta PPV.

What channel is showing Cage Rage?

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 19 Apr 2007, 09:10

boxingchat wrote:Is this not a Boxing Website.

Take your Pikey fighting off it.

Ant is making a few quid writing for ufc.com so you cant blame him for posting the info.

Why doesnt fw.tv pay a few decent journalists to write for them?

The likes of Gerbasi and others woukd help raise the company profile, but then again UFC is leading the way in innovative self promotion; Something you boys could learn from - I am sure you will have 'spies' at 'the pikey fights' this wkend...

I am a boxing fan foremost but have forgone the opportunity to go to the laughable cardiff 'super bill' recently and instead have spent my hard earned on tickets for a real show, with real even fights - UFC 70.

Instead of belittling the opposition learn from them and offer a better product

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 19 Apr 2007, 09:11

nickd wrote:UFC 70 is on Setanta PPV.

What channel is showing Cage Rage?

Sky Sports - their first live offering of cage rage.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 19 Apr 2007, 11:19

TerribleTerry wrote:
nickd wrote:UFC 70 is on Setanta PPV.

What channel is showing Cage Rage?
Sky Sports - their first live offering of cage rage.

Its not listed on my Sky + planner. Sky sports have been showing Cage Rage on a delayed basis usually about 2 weeks after the event. Nothing there for Saturday night though.

Where did you get the info from?

DavidPayne · Post by **DavidPayne** » 19 Apr 2007, 11:47

I hate the arrogance of boxing, despite my own dislike for the UFC offering, it is too easy to stick your head in the sand and assume or hope that UFC goes away.

Wales · Post by **Wales** » 19 Apr 2007, 11:54

nickd wrote:
TerribleTerry wrote:
nickd wrote:UFC 70 is on Setanta PPV.

What channel is showing Cage Rage?
Sky Sports - their first live offering of cage rage.
Its not listed on my Sky + planner. Sky sports have been showing Cage Rage on a delayed basis usually about 2 weeks after the event. Nothing there for Saturday night though.

Where did you get the info from?

they're advertising it as Live this saturday night 9pm - loads of adverts inbetween skysports programmes. think they had ad's before during the ad break and after 24/7 last night.

boxingchat · Post by **boxingchat** » 19 Apr 2007, 12:35

I don't hope it goes away and if they want to spend fortunes promoting it I wish them well, but it is not Boxing, or competition, just 'Pikey-Fighting' dangerous brawls with little or no skill involved. Why pay to watch this shit when you could see it for free on Deansgate every Saturday night?

As for decent Journalists, please, please, don't ever put Ant Evans in this bracket he is just a busy fool who knows nothing factual about Boxing as sport or a business and as a result he causes more problems that you would ever believe. If he was that good why is he working for websites for little or no money?

No problem with UFC but let them discuss it on a UFC website.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 19 Apr 2007, 13:29

boxingchat wrote:I don't hope it goes away and if they want to spend fortunes promoting it I wish them well, but it is not Boxing, or competition, just 'Pikey-Fighting' dangerous brawls with little or no skill involved. Why pay to watch this shit when you could see it for free on Deansgate every Saturday night?

As for decent Journalists, please, please, don't ever put Ant Evans in this bracket he is just a busy fool who knows nothing factual about Boxing as sport or a business and as a result he causes more problems that you would ever believe. If he was that good why is he working for websites for little or no money?

No problem with UFC but let them discuss it on a UFC website.

Little or no skill involved? You have no idea what you are talking about on this subject clearly. Boxing it is not, but these guys train multiple disciplines for years to get where they are. Ignorance is bliss eh?

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 19 Apr 2007, 13:29

Wales wrote:
nickd wrote:
TerribleTerry wrote: Sky Sports - their first live offering of cage rage.
Its not listed on my Sky + planner. Sky sports have been showing Cage Rage on a delayed basis usually about 2 weeks after the event. Nothing there for Saturday night though.

Where did you get the info from?
they're advertising it as Live this saturday night 9pm - loads of adverts inbetween skysports programmes. think they had ad's before during the ad break and after 24/7 last night.

It's appeared on my planner since I posted that. Get that on record.

nickd · Post by **nickd** » 19 Apr 2007, 13:56

Terry D wrote:These guys do train for years and I think boxing and UFC can live side-by-side, MMA has been around for years.

My only gripe is when boxing fans cross to UFC and insist that the rest of us are sticking our heads in the sand. One pal of mine tried legitimising it by saying it incorporates Greco-Roman wrestling (and therefore its history and heritage) when clearly it does not.

Why not just admit it is a bastardised MA fought under unified rules and does not tell us whether a Karate expert can, definitively, beat a Judo expert? It is MMA and the thing it excels in, as far as I can see, is that it makes good matches.

I took part in MA (Karate, Muay Thai) and MMA and then boxing and for my money boxing is the truer sport.

Boxing can learn from its marketing though.

The early UFC's did pit different styles against each other. Now you have guys who are true mixed martial artists who have cross trained disciplines for years.

ebeneezer · Post by **ebeneezer** » 19 Apr 2007, 14:32

Terry D wrote:One pal of mine tried legitimising it by saying it incorporates Greco-Roman wrestling (and therefore its history and heritage) when clearly it does not.

Former UFC middleweight Matt Linland was a silver medalist in Greco Roman wrestling at the 2000 games in Sydney and he incorporated it fairly well into his fights.
Ditto for other Greco Roman wrestlers who switched over to mma like Randy Couture, Darrell Gohler and Tom Erikson.

Some people have also tried to legitimize mma by linking it to pankration ( a boxing/wrestling hybrid that appeared in the first Olympics).

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 19 Apr 2007, 16:03

Terry D wrote:
ebeneezer wrote:
Terry D wrote:One pal of mine tried legitimising it by saying it incorporates Greco-Roman wrestling (and therefore its history and heritage) when clearly it does not.
Former UFC middleweight Matt Linland was a silver medalist in Greco Roman wrestling at the 2000 games in Sydney and he incorporated it fairly well into his fights.
Ditto for other Greco Roman wrestlers who switched over to mma like Randy Couture, Darrell Gohler and Tom Erikson.

Some people have also tried to legitimize mma by linking it to pankration ( a boxing/wrestling hybrid that appeared in the first Olympics).
As soon as they go below waist it becomes a hybrid though and is not G-R, the key being adaption. I hear what you are saying. I did Pankration as part of my diss and it is staged in a similar way. Funnily enough boxing/wrestling snobs back then described it as a new and terrible twist on the traidtional sports.

One odd thing about MMA fans is that they try to give it a heritage instead of accepting it for what it is.

MMA is what it is - a modern hybrid sport. Many of its elements DO have long storied histories though. Muay Thai and wrestling were around before James Fig started teaching gentlemen 'the noble art of self defence', for example.

For my money boxing is the best combat sport there is - bar none. A fist fight, in my eyes, is the most exciting and aesthetically pleasing form of combat.

UFC is undoubtedly giving the dusty old sport of boxing a long over due shake up though.

Exclusive TV deals, cautious managers and fighters, along with the alphabet soup have dragged this once great sport into the dole drums; UFC/Pride etc have highlighted what boxing needs to do to regain lost fans and re-invigorate the loyal, jaded few.

TerribleTerry · Post by **TerribleTerry** » 19 Apr 2007, 16:09

boxingchat wrote:I don't hope it goes away and if they want to spend fortunes promoting it I wish them well, but it is not Boxing, or competition, just 'Pikey-Fighting' dangerous brawls with little or no skill involved. Why pay to watch this shit when you could see it for free on Deansgate every Saturday night?

As for decent Journalists, please, please, don't ever put Ant Evans in this bracket he is just a busy fool who knows nothing factual about Boxing as sport or a business and as a result he causes more problems that you would ever believe. If he was that good why is he working for websites for little or no money?

No problem with UFC but let them discuss it on a UFC website.

This is a British Boxing forum, yet there are many threads about US fights. Why? Because on here I know there will be a sensible flow of debate - on the current scene there are too many 16yr olds who have just seen 'Tyson's Greatest Hits' and know suddenly consider themselves Nat Fleischer. I will pass thanks.

Same goes for MMA theads - there is only one of any real length/substance in this forum and with the threat that MMA poses to boxing RE: audience share/TV money, I think discussing it is both relevant and important.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 19 Apr 2007, 17:13

boxingchat wrote:Is this not a Boxing Website.

Take your Pikey fighting off it.

Id rather see Pikey fighting than the shite that was on at Cardiff the other week. At least both guys usually throw punches at each other.
And didnt your boss start out with pikey fighting on the unlicensed circuit?

stujones · Post by **stujones** » 19 Apr 2007, 18:12

Even though its not my thing, I don't deny that UFC/MMA and Boxing can live side by side.

However, what I don't agree with is that Boxing can learn from MMA/UFC in terms of marketing etc. Sure, UFC is expanding and the marketing strategies is impressive (although while easy on the eye, I don't think the advert for "Judgement day" is particularly effective - I'd rather just subcribe to a porn channel for the night).

What Boxing needs to learn from is Boxing. We USED to get the dream matches, they used to be on terrestial television, they used to be advertised well in advanced and extensively (Leonard vs Hagler was front page TV times) and they used to be for meaningful titles.

Fights involving Leonard/Hagler/Hearns/Duran.... The heavyweight unification "tournament" of the 1980's (basically Tyson)... were massive occasions and I for one don't think the UFC will EVER get to that size... In the UK Benn/Eubank/Watson etc were occasions talked about for weeks before hand and weeks after. The fighters meant something, the titles meant something and the hype was geniune.

Can boxing ever recover... yes... if we do go back. The TV bosses who say that the public don't want boxing are so wrong, as viewing figures for Harrison vs Williams 1 would indicate. What we need though is geniune fights for geniune titles (or non titles for example had Hamed fought Brodie immediately after Barrera).

I'll ask the geniune UFC fans this.

What event are you most looking forward too. The most recent big UFC PPV, or Mayweather vs De La Hoya. What about a big UFC event or Hatton vs Tszyu.

Its a crying shame that neither of these fights were on terrestial TV - but still the Hatton event got more hype and interest than this Judgement day with the papers.

What we need is promoters working TOGETHER for the right fight for the right title at the right venue and on Terrestial TV. This USED to happen. Now, I am all for maximising potential (hence my stance on Haye vs Enzo Mac - which I still maintain)... but all these worries over options never really used to happen. Arum and King despise each other but still had enough balls and faith in their fighter to stage massive fights for years (not always with options involved).

DG. · Post by **DG.** » 19 Apr 2007, 18:23

stujones wrote:Even though its not my thing, I don't deny that UFC/MMA and Boxing can live side by side.

However, what I don't agree with is that Boxing can learn from MMA/UFC in terms of marketing etc. Sure, UFC is expanding and the marketing strategies is impressive (although while easy on the eye, I don't think the advert for "Judgement day" is particularly effective - I'd rather just subcribe to a porn channel for the night).

What Boxing needs to learn from is Boxing. We USED to get the dream matches, they used to be on terrestial television, they used to be advertised well in advanced and extensively (Leonard vs Hagler was front page TV times) and they used to be for meaningful titles.

Fights involving Leonard/Hagler/Hearns/Duran.... The heavyweight unification "tournament" of the 1980's (basically Tyson)... were massive occasions and I for one don't think the UFC will EVER get to that size... In the UK Benn/Eubank/Watson etc were occasions talked about for weeks before hand and weeks after. The fighters meant something, the titles meant something and the hype was geniune.

Can boxing ever recover... yes... if we do go back. The TV bosses who say that the public don't want boxing are so wrong, as viewing figures for Harrison vs Williams 1 would indicate. What we need though is geniune fights for geniune titles (or non titles for example had Hamed fought Brodie immediately after Barrera).

I'll ask the geniune UFC fans this.

What event are you most looking forward too. The most recent big UFC PPV, or Mayweather vs De La Hoya. What about a big UFC event or Hatton vs Tszyu.

Its a crying shame that neither of these fights were on terrestial TV - but still the Hatton event got more hype and interest than this Judgement day with the papers.

What we need is promoters working TOGETHER for the right fight for the right title at the right venue and on Terrestial TV. This USED to happen. Now, I am all for maximising potential (hence my stance on Haye vs Enzo Mac - which I still maintain)... but all these worries over options never really used to happen. Arum and King despise each other but still had enough balls and faith in their fighter to stage massive fights for years (not always with options involved).

All Boxing has to do is put on decent fights everytime, not SPORTS NETWORKS bullshit.

DG. · Post by **DG.** » 19 Apr 2007, 18:30

boxingchat wrote:I don't hope it goes away and if they want to spend fortunes promoting it I wish them well, but it is not Boxing, or competition, just 'Pikey-Fighting' dangerous brawls with little or no skill involved. Why pay to watch this shit when you could see it for free on Deansgate every Saturday night?

As for decent Journalists, please, please, don't ever put Ant Evans in this bracket he is just a busy fool who knows nothing factual about Boxing as sport or a business and as a result he causes more problems that you would ever believe. If he was that good why is he working for websites for little or no money?

No problem with UFC but let them discuss it on a UFC website.

SPORTS NETWORK SERVING UP CRAP NATIONALLY AND ROUTINELY IS THE MAIN REASON WHY UFC WILL FLOURISH ON THE UK.

TOP RANK ETC are the reaosn in the states.

BOXING IS SUFFERUNG ANYWAY, NOW THE UFC IS HERE, IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE UNLESS FWANK WARREN PUTS ON ECEMNT SHOWS.

HENNESSY MATCHROOM USUALLY PUT ON DECENT EVEN FIGHTS.

Now, run along and tell your boss to stop talking shit and put on some decent motherfukkin fights.

Comprende?