Id like to hear what dana or beth think of the article
When you only display the violent aspect of a sport the essence is lost. By only phrasing those words, though exciting to the fans displays a pure violent view and damages the sport to the common reader that knows nothing about MMA. It is a one-sided coin, you cannot change my mind on this.
I do however respect your opinion. I am suprised to see one defending it. :)
lol for trying KUNG Fu Crew
I respect the fact that you don't like the violent tone of the article, but look what you started....Kungfucrew and cagefighter going bezerk on an article that aint that bad. lol funny shit.
I think this article is almost as good as it gets for mma in the mainstream media right now. Yes it is somewhat negative, but have you read what else is out there in the press? At least he knew about the existing rules, at least he didn't say it was "human cockfighting", at least he knew some of the pros, at least he didn't call for its prohibition...I believe that he even made a reference to Art Jimmerson. I think mma fans need to pick their battles, and this isn't the best target.
They are ready to war arent they :). Well, at least we got each others back, I just really hope they ABC checked it before sending it LOL ......
Im Out, have a goodnight
Does anybody else remember the true dark days? This is a new time. We are not make or break anymore. We have risen from that.
All publicity is good at this point. People that may have never watched a fight will after reading this.
This was not a damaging article. At this point it will take a death and people cheering about it to kill this sport.
tuf is on in 30
I just wrote a well worded concise letter to the editor, hope some others do as well.
I remember the UFC1. I was like.....I can't believe this is legal, someones gonna die, .................This is great!!!!!!
The violence is what attracted me and I grew into it. I think its the same for most.
Lol at Kungfucrew!!!!
Apparition,
If your problem is the fact that the focus of the article was the violence of the sport, I think that your real beef is with UFC, not Time. That's exactly how UFC tries to market the events and this is how many people see them.
Didn't think it was that bad - glad I actually took the time to read it.
His credibility was shot as soon as he quoted Phil Mushnick.....
1 for 3
It wasn't a bad read. The first three paragraphs were a really good start, but when you throw in this line......
"A doctor was stationed at ringside to discourage death"
A tad on the overdramtic side.
I also don't understand how people can do an article on "Ultimate Fighting" and make no mention of how big it is overseas. No mention of Brazil(other than BJJ), Russia, or even Japan, where IMO it should have been mentioned as an option to make a lot of money in the sport.
As far as articles about MMA go, this one was not too far off on the facts and not too onesided. No reason to get all worked up.
Let's find this guy and beat him. I'm pretty sure if that kinda thing happened more often, most people would refrain from bad mouthing mma, out of fear alone.
There was nothing wrong w/ that article. Just because it wasn't totally glowing in its acceptance of MMA does not mean that we need to send hatemail.
That article COULD have been a LOT worse, and I think even though it may have been skewed slightly against MMA, it wasn't three pages of libel like I thought it'd be.
Anyway, look...someone is going to read this article and be like, "Hmm...an ultimate fighting reality show? I didn't even realize...well if its on free television I'll check it out." BAM, another fan who might start buying PPVs. This article is ultimately good for the sport.
Not a bad article at all. A little over-dramatic at times...but very good publicity from Time Magazine IMO.
I think you guys are just so used to seeing negative articles written by the mainstream media about MMA....that when someone writes a decent article...you guys don't know how to react