and you mean to tell me that they didn't show the undercards or make any mention of them again? Even ESPN2 gives undercard results. Then the UFC does a crappy job of covering these undercards in the media. If they are going to ban the media, at least do a complete job covering the show.
Goulette V. Heiron, and Fisher V. Alvez were two of the best matches of the night. What a shame that real fight fans are kept in limbo in regards to details of these fights!!
"Goulette V. Heiron, and Fisher V. Alvez were two of the best matches of the night. What a shame that real fight fans are kept in limbo in regards to details of these fights!!"
I think they save these fights for later to broadcast them with new events. But I agree, they should at least mention the fights.
UFN 2 was a joke IMO.
apparently the heiron fight was too bloody to be shown. ever.
"UFN 2 was a joke IMO."
The main event wasn't too bad. But other than that I agree. It also makes TUF feel extra pointless to know that half of the guys who lost will end up in the UFC anyway.
"It also makes TUF feel extra pointless to know that half of the guys who lost will end up in the UFC anyway."
Highly doubt that will be the case this time. TUF1 just had good characters that people wanted to see more of. Not really the case this time, and I'm sure Zuffa knows this.
Watching the Koscheck fight made up for the rest of the night imo...
Bloody Fight!
It may be indeed. But it was a great show of heart and character by both guys. But your right. It may be too bloody for TV, if there are standards set.
I thought UFN 2 was a very good show.
I would've liked to see the prelims too, but I expected more dark matches once the UFC became more mainstream, so I wasn't surprised.
UFN2 was an excellent card for free TV. Tanner/Loiseau was great and the other fights were decent. Plus it was FUCKING LIVE MMA ON CABLE TV.
Also many of you are spoiled about the prelims. You act like it's unprofessional not to mention them when that's the way it's done on 95% of boxing cards. Pride has also cut fights out of their US broadcasts without mentioning it, in case you forgot.
I thought it was a good show as well.
Tomato Can is correct
Tomato Can - I do agree that Tanner/Loiseau carried the card, and the rest was just fine for TV. However that 95% number is a huge stretch. Even if that were true, should we settle for poor or mediocrity just because its the standard? UFC had a chance to show that it could sustain UFC news without internet media and they dropped the ball. Now there are two great fights that could potentially be lost or forgot about (although two fighters and their camps may want that).
No way Hieron-Goulet ever sees the light of day on television. That was just nastiness.
And didn't everyone bitch during the last UFC PPV that Joe mentioned the results of the prelims and spoiled them? Can't have it both ways guys.
"And didn't everyone bitch during the last UFC PPV that Joe mentioned the results of the prelims and spoiled them? Can't have it both ways guys."
Like the results aren't going to be posted all over the place after the fight is over. It isn't like a Pride pay per view!!! And I doubt that was even a factor for a half a second. Bottom line. They dropped the ball. The traditional sites would have least written a quick play by play, pics, maybe even an interview. I know they tons of material to do so. They just didn't.
"However that 95% number is a huge stretch. Even if that were true, should we settle for poor or mediocrity just because its the standard? UFC had a chance to show that it could sustain UFC news without internet media and they dropped the ball. Now there are two great fights that could potentially be lost or forgot about (although two fighters and their camps may want that). "
Firstly, it's not a stretch. A huge majority of boxing cards on HBO, Showtime, and regular cable don't even mention the fact that there were untelevised undercard bouts.
If you think there should be a new standard, that's fine. I personally would agree with you. However, the UFC usually makes a point to at least show highlights of every match on their PPVs so I'm not too angry that they didn't do it this time.
Was all that blood on the mat from one fight??!?? Holy SHIT! How can we see it?
"However that 95% number is a huge stretch. Even if that were true, should we settle for poor or mediocrity just because its the standard?"
I agree with your rhetorical question. Also, you're right 95% is a HUGE stretch. He should've said 99.9%. There was an HBO PPV as well as a Showtime Championship Boxing telecast last Saturday night. Do you have any idea who even fought in the prelims on both cards? Because I don't. I'd have to check boxrec.com to find out.
We aren't talking about PPV cards here. HBO and Showtime only make up a small percentage of fights shown on TV if your a true boxing fan.
Secondly, when there is an undercard that is a great fight on it, boxing often does an "Earlier tonight" segment of highlights, when there is extra airtime. Heck sometimes they even show the entire fight.
You never catch me bashing the UFC and I dont feel like I am now. I just think they should have been better prepared to cover their fights completely and publicize it if they were going to ban media. Before I could have went several places and got details about his card. If the UFC is so concerned with Spike TV like they act, they must be concerned with ratings. It would make sense to show the best fights of the night at some point soon if thats the case.
What do you know... Fightnews.com, gives a little bit of detail about a UFC undercard that was not shown on TV from last night. That's it. Dont make me go cold turkey on the info. Give me a little bit. "what about just one rib!!!"