Triple H: "UFC and the sport of MMA needs to evolve..."

[Guest Jimmy Redman]

This is a minor, minor point, but its not 5 hours. Its 4 hours.

 

Or, if you want to include Superstars and NXT its 6 hours, but its either both or neither so it cant be 5 hours. Just sayin'.

[etz 78]

Well, you could include Superstars and not NXT, on the basis NXT isn't a wrestling show, as such.

 

And if you wanted to be a real pedant, you could argue that while RAW is 2 hours (it's live), SD! is only really 1.5 hours, with a half hour of adverts thrown in.

Edited September 21, 2011 by etz

[Maxximus 353]

That really changes nothing. Pedantry cannot resolve this discussion.

[dsrchris 190]

That really changes nothing. Pedantry cannot resolve this discussion.

 

Oh, okay *puts pistols away*

 

:(

[DC 536]

Well, you could include Superstars and not NXT, on the basis NXT isn't a wrestling show, as such.

 

And if you wanted to be a real pedant, you could argue that while RAW is 2 hours (it's live), SD! is only really 1.5 hours, with a half hour of adverts thrown in.

RAW has adverts too.

[etz 78]

RAW has adverts too.

 

RAW is a live event, the show is still going on while the ads are showing. SD! is prerecorded.

 

Plus, just check out the average lengths of RAW sans adverts versus SD! sans adverts. Raw is the longer show by anything from 10 to 25 minutes.

 

All of which really has nothing to do with the actual point I was making, which was that WWE would prefer to have less TV time.

[Maxximus 353]

Less tv time? Yeah, I guess that's why they want their own network. Less tv time. This makes perfect sense.

[etz 78]

1st run network programming like RAW and SD! isn't in the same ballpark as a specialist channel airing thousands of hours of old stock footage.

 

Besides, I'm just repeating what Vince has been quoted as saying a couple of times in the past, on this very forum. 2 hours per show is too long, it leads to everyone having faced everyone else in very short order.

[Guest Dusty Finish]

1st run network programming like RAW and SD! isn't in the same ballpark as a specialist channel airing thousands of hours of old stock footage.

 

Besides, I'm just repeating what Vince has been quoted as saying a couple of times in the past, on this very forum. 2 hours per show is too long, it leads to everyone having faced everyone else in very short order.

 

Nail, head, hit as to the point re. WWE's outdated production model, minus the pedantry over details that don't really affect the point at hand; although I'm not convinced about them seriously wanting less hours of original programming to fill- hasn't SD changed channels in recent years? Why not either relocate it to the Superstars 1 hour slot or drop it completely, if they're suddenly free of previous contractual obligations they "didn't like"? 2 flagship programmes, in my robustly held opinion, are absolutely not needed, and haven't been for at least 5 years now.

 

As you say, everyone faces everyone in short order, and match-ups are over exposed. How many times has Randy Orton faced Christian on PPV in 2011? Contrast this with how many times Georges St Pierre (UFC's top box-office babyface) has fought in total this annum. Perhaps I should've mentioned the volume of PPVs given the size of the roster of wrestlers as another reason their tactics, to quote HHH, need to "evolve". Whereas UFC run a comparable number of PPVs, they do have over 300 active fighters under some form of contract.

 

Yeah. I'm actually inclined to slightly agree with Dusty on his point, but using the simple fact that a wrestling show has a set with trons, and they have wrestlers go out there and talk and wrestle matches to prove it is pretty reaching. Thats...what a wrestling show is. They film promos and matches in an arena. If it evolved much more than that it would be a show about something else.

 

The show doesnt look anything like it did in 1997.

 

BUT, the point is there that the Raw/SD 'format' is stale. Not for that long, but certainly stale.

 

Fair comment, but just to elaborate a little (and keep the discussion going, hopefully), while fundamentally the same (promos & matches in arenas), the jobber shows like Superstars & Challenge with event centre vignettes to build PPVs with Sean Mooney & Todd Pettingill had become unbefitting of their time a year or two before the change to the current format, which was exactly that for the mid-late 90's.... current & invigorating. I remember the first time I saw a 2 hour Raw, and I was exhausted by the end, but spellbound none-the-less. I haven't watched Raw in years, because personally I find it has become unwatchable.

 

I'd say I was about 12 the first time I saw Vader in a handicap match on Worldwide, and the concept blew my mind. 2 against 1??! It was crazy, even though the 2 were vanilla jobbers. In recent years, I catch the recap shows if they're on when I'm channel surfing, and although I don't watch Raw per-se, I'm sick of seeing John Cena in a match where he's outnumbered to some degree... against either 7 or 8 guys on his own being the most ridiculous example. Given that the live audience didn't seem particularly captivated, it seemed to be standard fare, and that is my definition of a tired concept.

 

Additionally, while there may have little tweaks & nuances in the cosmetic presentation over the last 14 years that relative die-hards will notice immediately, to the (although I loathe the term, as it seems to be used as an excuse for everything these days) casual viewer, Raw especially looks pretty much the same as it has since they stopped using the three giant letter "RAW" sign... and this is the audience that is quickest to look elsewhere, and the audience that will be watching Bones & Rampage this weekend.

[Paul 584]

I cant, and wont, argue that the writing of the product is stale. Its horrible and when they do try new ideas they tend to screw them up, and as you and Jimmy both said the over exposure of people is horrible. What I was disagreeing with was the claim that it was the same as in 1997. The Attitude Era compared to the 'PG Era'? Very different content in the shows. Its the difference between UFC 1 and UFC 100, both WWE and MMA evolved in that time.

[Guest Dusty Finish]

I think part of the problem the UFC will face the future is the fact it has evolved. I don't necessarily think the evolution of MMA has been a good thing for the long term future of the sport. Mixed Martial Arts should be exactly that - Mixed Martial Arts and yet it isn'r any more, which is a shame. Instead of being a clash of completely different styles in order to find the best competitors in a Mortal Kombat/Street Fighter style tournament, the product is now aimed at finding the best hybrid of boxing, wrestling and BJJ. I don't think that's anywhere near as entertaining and it wouldn't surprise me to see the UFC revert to something like they had in the past rather than going forwards with this hybrid style. I think it's too predictable from a stylistic and results viewpoint, and simply not entertaining enough.

 

Apologies for the consecutive posts, I've been scanning the thread & picking up interesting points.

 

I know that many people feel or felt the same way about Judoka vs Kickboxer etc, but in reality it had a short shelf life, mainly due to the complete early dominance of styles (namely BJJ & Greco) and the later innovation of Don Frye & Mark Coleman. Whereas the style vs style element does exist today to a lesser degree (Overeem vs Lesnar will be a stark example of this), MMA is now a game of which practicioner can impose his will on the other, rather than a fight to define which discipline is the outright superior, and there's no going back.

 

There are still fighters, however, who are incorporating previously unutilised elements of fighting diciplines into MMA, and that is keeping things ticking over to an extent in this regard. Jack may find this interesting given previous posts: several months ago, I undertook a bit of boxing training in order to improve my stand-up, and it took me about half an hour to understand why the level of technical boxing is as it is in MMA- I was completely uncomfortable with the way I was told to distibute my weight to obtain the optimum position for punching & defending, but when I got used to it, noticed a quick improvement in my ability to throw. However, trying the same form of weight distibution in a freestyle spar, it became evident in about 10 seconds that, best case scenario, I was going to get the living s*** kicked out of my front leg & not be able to do anything about it, and that my sprawl was absolutely knackered, in that I couldn't get my hips parallel to the ground quickly enough to be effective.... basically, a squirrell could've taken me down at will.

 

But.... eventually, the pugilists answer to Lyoto Machida will enter MMA: he'll figure out how to incorporate the elements of boxing that can effectively translate to competition, and it'll throw everyone for a while. Everyone thought Shotokan was absolutely useless in a freestyle environment for over a decade, and for the most part it is, but elements aren't, which I'd conclude is pretty much true of any discipline you'd care to name .

 

Still... in the eternal question as to why MMA fighters stand-up skills appear to less than a pro boxers and why they don't seem to polish up that aspect... I think I'm starting to understand.

[Guest Jimmy Redman]

NAs you say, everyone faces everyone in short order, and match-ups are over exposed. How many times has Randy Orton faced Christian on PPV in 2011? Contrast this with how many times Georges St Pierre (UFC's top box-office babyface) has fought in total this annum. Perhaps I should've mentioned the volume of PPVs given the size of the roster of wrestlers as another reason their tactics, to quote HHH, need to "evolve". Whereas UFC run a comparable number of PPVs, they do have over 300 active fighters under some form of contract.

 

Once again, I find myself agreeing with you in general, but finding one glaring point to argue with anyway.

 

Comparing the frequency of wrestlers wrestling and MMA fighters fighting is ridiculous. Fighting is a sport, MMA fighters only fight a couple of times a year, because they need weeks of training just to get ready for one fight. Wrestlers dont, they can and do work more than a couple of times a week.

 

Now, dont get me wrong, I'm NOT, in any way, arguing that they dont over expose guys and run matches too many times. They absolutely do. But you cant compare it to MMA as if to say that their relative frequencies have anything to do with each other; that UFC are doing this through better booking, or that WWE should follow their example. One is about sport and training for an athletic peak, the other is entertainment and goes on a daily basis in general and a weekly basis on television. You cant have John Cena wrestling three times a year.

 

Again, I agree with your point in general, about overexposure, but your reasoning is flawed.

[Guest John Hancock]

- UFC held a press conference this afternoon to promote Saturday’s UFC 135 pay-per-view. During the media event, Triple H’s recent comments were brought up, where Triple H said that UFC needs to adapt to keep pace with WWE. After UFC’s Light Heavyweight Champion Jon Jones called HHH’s comments, “ridiculous,” UFC president Dana White then chimed in. While said that Vince McMahon is finally letting Triple H talk, and once he gets some more experience in his new role , Triple H “will learn soon not to say stupid things.”

 

~ Sports Entertainment Scoops

[Guest Dusty Finish]

Once again, I find myself agreeing with you in general, but finding one glaring point to argue with anyway.

 

Comparing the frequency of wrestlers wrestling and MMA fighters fighting is ridiculous. Fighting is a sport, MMA fighters only fight a couple of times a year, because they need weeks of training just to get ready for one fight. Wrestlers dont, they can and do work more than a couple of times a week.

 

Now, dont get me wrong, I'm NOT, in any way, arguing that they dont over expose guys and run matches too many times. They absolutely do. But you cant compare it to MMA as if to say that their relative frequencies have anything to do with each other; that UFC are doing this through better booking, or that WWE should follow their example. One is about sport and training for an athletic peak, the other is entertainment and goes on a daily basis in general and a weekly basis on television. You cant have John Cena wrestling three times a year.

 

Again, I agree with your point in general, about overexposure, but your reasoning is flawed.

 

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I agree 100%, and think we're edging toward very common ground. Didn't mean the comparison to be taken absolutely literally, however in the context of "evolution" (quote Triple H and no pun intended there), I do believe it's integral to the point. Let me elaborate....

 

Hogan would wrestle something like 8-10 matches a year that everybody saw ie. the 4 annual PPVs and SNME. It fit the business and it's requirements at the time (and, in fairness, Hogan got immense longevity out of it that he wouldn't have otherwise enjoyed). Then popular culture changed, WCW forced the industry to change, first by pushing the numbers of PPV up, then by launching Nitro. By the time the second boom hit, Austin was working upwards of 50 matches a year that everybody saw, and that too fit the business & it's requirements at the time....

 

Yet now, Cena & Orton are continuing to work the Austin/Rock schedule of matches everyone sees... the television model doesn't require them to do it and the declining PPV numbers show that a different approach is surely worth a stab. I'm not saying that Cena should be making even a Hogan in the 80's number of TV appearances, but a happy medium for he (and everyone else, in truth) is certainly in order. That would mean WWE evolving from what made perfect sense for them to do in the late 90's but, as is this thread's raison d'etre, evolving is what Tripper seems to think Zuffa need to do, not his outfit. Which is stupid.

 

Point in focus, again using GSP: he fights Carlos Condit next month. I think 90-10 is a fair reflection on GSP retaining, so not exactly a pick 'em fight, and Condit is no-one's idea of a marquee name. Nonetheless, I'd stick a hefty wager on that PPV massively eclipsing the buyrate of any this year that has featured Orton vs Christian- a rivalry during which it was perfectly conceivable on each occasion that either man might win... but also conceivable that they'd be rematching again a month or two on. GSP-Condit will sell because a) GSP is defending his title, which doesn't happen with alarming frequency, and b) if, on the off chance he loses, it'll be a massive deal, and people will want to have seen it if it comes to pass. Orton and Christian? Meh, playing hot potato with a belt.