Elite XC on CBS card

Underground
41

Tomato Can - "I thought it was a tape delayed fight they chose to show because it was completely fucking awesome."

- Exactly my point.

And WHY was it "completely fucking awesome"?

Because of the cerebral, patient, technical ground battle it entailed - or the way it demonstrated the multi-dimensional aspects of truly mixed martial arts?

Or because it was an exciting, explosive stand-up throwdown.

Hmmm - so WHY again did the UFC CHOOSE to make Lawler-Riley their main TV-exposed fight to represent MMA to the widest U.S. audience yet?

Tomato Can - "Besides, Lawler and Riley are a FAR, FAR cry from Kimbo and Thompson. Don't even try to make that comparison."

- No, they weren't "a FAR, FAR cry."

Lawler and Riley were most certainly not even close to being established top fighters at the time - where Lawler had been a touted but completely unproven prospect and Riley had mostly proven to be a journeyman (but an exciting one).

Hmmm - sounds a bit like Kimbo-Thompson, doesn't it.

Tomato Can - "I don't hate Kimbo, he simply doesn't deserve to be headlining one of the most important MMA cards of all time."

- Again, neither did Lawler or Riley.

But the UFC still obviously chose that FIGHT for a reason, didn't they. Wonder what it was.

And again, probably the single most important fight in U.S. MMA history is Forrest-Bonnar - and it certainly wasn't because of their status as top fighters or their strictly sport-based accomplishments to that point - but rather because of how that fight actually played out.

EXC is going for the exact same thing here.

They want their own version of Forrest-Bonnar or Lawler-Riley (i.e., a spectacular brawl to appeal to the masses and hopefully bring them back for more) - and they've purposely loaded this card up with potential candidates.

42

I'm very excited about the Lawler - Smith fight. Looks to be fireworks for as long as it lasts.

I hope Lawler keeps his win streak alive.

43

Btw, does anyone think that if the UFC could, they would go back in time and replace Forrest-Bonnar or Lawler-Riley with a fight like Sherk-Franca?

Why not?

After all, Sherk and Franca were unquestionably far more established fighters than those other guys were at the time of their fights.

And Sherk-Franca was also much more of a clinic on truly MIXED martial arts, and especially the grappling elements, than Forrest-Bonnar or Lawler-Riley ever was.

An example like Sherk-Franca would have certainly allowed for more applicable opportunities to educate a new audience on the intricacies of positional dominance, guard-passing, and multi-dimensional scoring in an MMA fight than a stand-up-only kickboxing brawl would have.

But then, which fight would have blown more new fans' minds and created far more of a buzz - to ultimately bring more of that mass new audience back for more?

An all-out brawl like Forrest-Bonnar is what ended up saving the TUF finale, and may have ultimately saved the UFC - and in turn, the whole sport of MMA in this country.

But if it had been Sherk-Franca (or any other technical grappling-based battle) instead - even despite the fact that Sherk and Franca were far more accomplished MMA fighters than Forrest and Bonnar were - millions may have turned off their TV sets during the fight - instead of tuned in, as they did.

And most importantly, the millions may not have come back for more.

44

Dude. I don't care how much of a dissertation you write, you are just flat out WRONG in comparing Lawler/Riley to Kimbo/Thompson. First of all, Thompson is a proven no-talent. He is clumsy, oafish, chinny, and just generally a poor fighter. Neither Lawler nor Riley is remotely comparable to him. Second of all, Lawler/Riley wasn't even the main event of its card, nor was it televised live. The first 2 UFNs were headlined by Marquardt/Salaverry and Tanner/Loiseau, which were fights between talented, high-level fighters, not fights just designed to be ridiculous stand-up brawls.

45

but the MAINSTREAM fans will eat up kimbo knocking out thompson like gabe eats cake. isnt that what everyone in here wants, to make the MAINSTREAM people happy? i mean thats why we have these shitty rules, or so i've been told, so might as well make fights that match the rule set. gary shaw is finally taking us to the MAINSTREAM, yay!

ttt for the all important MAINSTREAM.

46

Fights like Lawler/Riley and Bonnar/Griffin impressed because they were drawn-out, dramatic wars of attrition. That's the sort of fight that captures people's imaginations. I really don't see how Kimbo blasting out a big clumsy goofball in 60 seconds is going to achieve the same effect.

47

sure it will. kimbo will be the new tyson after this show.

48

but the MAINSTREAM doesnt like grappling.

49

I would think it'd make sense to have kimbo and rogers seeing as though rogers just beat thompson. aside from that, the card might not be too bad.

50

Kimbo is only 2 - 0, Thompson is perfect for Kimbo's 3rd fight; I think Rogers would be too much for Slice at this point.

Those of you who are ripping on the Slice/Thompson matchup, who would you like him to face? Keeping in mind Kimbo is Gary Shaw's Meal Ticket. Not an easy decision.

51

 Lawler/Riley had everything: Punches, kicks, knees, elbows, ground and pound, attempted choke. All at a high pace with a high level of cardio and two sick chins.

Most of these fights will be nothing but punches (Ninja is probably the only one who might try anything else) and given the chins involved will probably be one-and-done, leaving a bad taste in the mouth of viewers who are used to boxing where a fight doesn't end the instant one guy stumbles.

52

"Those of you who are ripping on the Slice/Thompson matchup, who would you like him to face?"

How about the guy who just beat Thompson?

It's not an experience issue, because Thoompson has more fights then Rogers. Rogers first fight was only in 2006.

53

Maybe Kimbo beats Thompson as impressively as Rogers beat James then hopefully we get Kimbo vs Rogers next..

54

Tomato Can - "The first 2 UFNs were headlined by Marquardt/Salaverry and Tanner/Loiseau, which were fights between talented, high-level fighters, not fights just designed to be ridiculous stand-up brawls."

- So glad you brought up Marquardt-Salaverry. That fight is actually a perfect example of my point.

Marquardt-Salaverry was a matchup between two top-level, ranked MW's - and just a highly relevant fight to the division (where Salaverry was #2 in line behind Lindland for a title shot, while Marquardt had been brought in as the reigning MW KoP).

So I don't think anyone can question the fact that this matchup was far, far more meaningful and relevant from a pure sport perspective than Bonnar-Griffin was.

And yet which fight had far more both immediate impact and lasting consequence? Which remains the far more historically significant fight?

Which one was far, far more successful in drawing new viewers to the UFC?

Was it the boring fight between truly two of the top MW's in the world - or the slugfest between two unranked newcomers who went all-out in an exciting stand-up brawl?

And why did the UFC also immediately reward the loser of Bonnar-Griffin with a "six-figure contract" as well - while immediately punishing Salaverry (for losing to another top MW, btw) by terminating the multi-fight contract he had just signed?

Who was still the more sport-relevant, and ranked, fighter in his division - Salaverry or Bonnar?

And yet who had given the far more exciting, memorable, and effectively TV-friendly performance?

So was it not HOW the fights themselves actually played out that was the far more important, overriding factor to the UFC - than WHO actually fought in them?

This bottom line applies equally to EXC in their debut on CBS, which is the widest audience pool for MMA yet.

A technical battle between two top-ranked fighters that will come off as being a tedious and esoteric introduction to millions of new viewers will be worth a lot less than a bomb-throwing barnburner between two non-contenders will - just exactly as it was for the UFC.

If they could go back, there is no way the UFC would have switched Marquardt-Salaverry for Griffin-Bonnar - even though Marquardt-Salaverry was a far more relevant matchup from a pure sport perspective.

The pure sport perspective appeases the hardcore fans, who already watch no matter what.

The spectacular bomb-filled slobberknocker is what brings in, and keeps, the new viewer - again, just as it did for the UFC.

55

MAINSTREAM, BITCHES! crap fights and crap rules? dont mean a thing cause we're going MAINSTREAM!

56

Not much to get excited about besides Lawler/Smith but it's free so I will watch.

57

Is the Shields vs Fickett fight going on that card or will it be in June?

58

"I mean its a fine rumbler, dont get me wrong, but as a representation of MMA on network tv it totally sucks."

True.

59

 lol @ comparing Lawler vs. Riley to Kimbo vs. Fragile Face -

Crap -

60

KC: It's not so much the matchup I'm complaining about. Thompson is a fine opponent for a 2-0 HW. It's the fact that this is the main event of one of the most important MMA cards ever that irks me. They're marketing it like it's some sort of high-level MMA matchup when it is the farthest thing from it.

WB: My point is in the attempt. In its attempts to bring MMA to a wider audience, the UFC has attempted to showcase well-rounded, skilled fighters. Of course they want fast paced, action-packed fights as well, but they also want them to educate the audience on what MMA is all about. Are you honestly telling me the UFC would book a guy like James Thompson in the main event of their most viewed card ever? No, of course they wouldn't.