Author: James MacDonald

UFC vs. Bellator: Sorting out Who’s Really Winning the Television Ratings Battle

From the moment Viacom purchased Bellator MMA, comparisons to the late 1990s promotional war between WWE and WCW have rarely been in short supply. At the risk of drawing the ire of B/R MMA’s readership by mentioning pro wrestling, the parallels b…

From the moment Viacom purchased Bellator MMA, comparisons to the late 1990s promotional war between WWE and WCW have rarely been in short supply. At the risk of drawing the ire of B/R MMA’s readership by mentioning pro wrestling, the parallels between UFC/Bellator and WWE/WCW are obvious.

A billion dollar company buys a majority stake in a small promotion with the aim of eventually challenging the industry leader. Said promotion gradually builds a fanbase by showcasing a mixture of homegrown talent and ageing stars.

That being said, the similarities have always seemed superficial. After all, MMA is a distinctly less pliable business than pro wrestling. Bringing in recognizable names is one thing, but controlling their in-cage destinies is another.

However, Bellator’s success in the ratings since moving to Spike TV in 2013 raises the question of whether the comparisons are more substantive than first thought. Indeed, the California-based promotion has bested the UFC’s Fox Sports ratings on more than one occasion.

This indisputable fact must mean that a genuine, highly competitive rivalry between the promotions is underway, right? Let’s take a closer look.

Intuitively, one would think that comparing television ratings is a simple exercise. Which number is bigger: x or y? There’s a little more to it than you might think, though. To contradict a popular expression, the numbers do occasionally lie.

Since moving to the fledgling Fox Sports channels in mid-2013, the UFC has struggled to match the ratings it achieved on Spike and FX.

From 2009-2011, UFC Fight Nights on Spike would regularly attract almost 2 million viewers for events that were often short on star power. In contrast, the organization’s best effort since moving to Fox Sports 1 is 1.7 million viewers, which was achieved with a star-studded event headlined by Chael Sonnen and Mauricio “Shogun” Rua on the channel’s launch.

Since then, ratings have fluctuated dramatically, even dropping as low as 122,000 for UFC Fight Night 30 on Fox Sports 2. Meanwhile, Bellator hasn’t dropped below 400,000 viewers since debuting on Spike.

Has Bellator really gained so much ground on the UFC within the past year? One can never really say for certain, but there are more plausible explanations for this illusion of promotional parity.

As I pointed out late last year, it takes time for a new channel to establish itself in the general consciousness. Just because Fox Sports and Spike are in a comparable number of homes, it does not mean that the channels provide comparable exposure.

Spike is an established television network with a built-in MMA audience as a result of its previous partnership with the UFC. Fox Sports, on the other hand, is still building its audience. The media-led notion that the channel would compete with ESPN was, and continues to be, a complete fantasy.

At its worst, ESPN’s SportsCenter quadruples the audience of the similarly themed Fox Sports Live. Is that because the latter is an inferior show or because SportsCenter is an established part of the average sports fan’s diet?

When Bellator CEO Bjorn Rebney claims to be winning the ratings war with the UFC, he is savvy enough to know better. It is exactly the kind of posturing one would expect from a fight promoter—“Rampage” Jackson might actually believe it when he says it, however.

What is surprising is that some of the media have been taken in by the idea that recent television ratings paint an accurate picture of Bellator’s standing in relation to the UFC.

Numbers are important, but they are occasionally trumped by common sense. When Bellator 105 attracted four times as many viewers as UFC Fight Night 30 on the same weekend last year, what conclusion should we have drawn?

Either Bellator has discovered a way to overcome the UFC’s prohibitive brand recognition and its superior product almost overnight or it can be explained with reference to the vagaries of television ratings.

The growth of Bellator is extremely important for the future of mixed martial arts. Currently, the sport’s success is defined by the UFC’s success. Given the uncertain nature of the market, that isn’t a comfortable place for the sport to be.

Unfortunately, that is the situation no matter what the television ratings might suggest. Both a quantitative and qualitative gulf exists between the UFC and Bellator, and obfuscating that fact isn’t going to alter the reality.

James MacDonald is a freelance writer and featured columnist for Bleacher Report. Follow James on Twitter.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com

No Cheering in the Press Room: Examining the MMA Media’s Culture of Disinterest

The decision to pursue a career as a member of the sports media requires certain sacrifices—your heart bleeds, I’m sure. Depending on the role one occupies within the space, there are a number of rules, both written and unwritten, that one …

The decision to pursue a career as a member of the sports media requires certain sacrifices—your heart bleeds, I’m sure. Depending on the role one occupies within the space, there are a number of rules, both written and unwritten, that one is expected to follow in order to be taken seriously.

For example, taking selfies with your favourite athletes and wandering around with your autograph book open is unlikely to endear you to your peers. But perhaps more than any other rule, “no cheering in the press box” is considered sacrosanct. If you don’t believe me, I’ll allow Yahoo! Sports’ Chris Jones to explain on his blog:

Cheering in a press box is the moral equivalent of s—ting on the floor beside a delicious Chinese buffet that’s hosting a children’s birthday party and then going outside and killing a kindly, mystical hobo and using his stiffened corpse to derail a speeding locomotive, spilling a tanker filled with toxic chemicals into the world’s last pristine river and killing all the fish, including the aged and orphans among them.

Too over-the-top? Maybe just a touch. However, sports reporters are expected to maintain a professional distance between themselves and the athletes they cover, and cheering for specific individuals is a clear violation of this code.

I have long subscribed to these rules, and continue to do so, but an incident during the UFC’s most recent trip to London caused me to question the prevailing culture of media disinterest.

Picture the scene, if you will.

The dust has settled on UFC Fight Night 37 and the post-fight press conference is underway. An emotional Cyrille Diabate, having just called time on a career that spanned over 20 years, takes the microphone and delivers a wonderfully eloquent goodbye. Applause breaks out amongst both fighters and media members, paying tribute to the Frenchman’s contribution to combat sports.

What’s wrong with this picture? Well, that depends on whom you ask.

Initially, few seemed to take issue with the press momentarily breaking character. Having now watched Diabate’s short speech several times, the thought of it being accompanied by the sound of crickets seems no more fitting than it did on first viewing.

It wasn’t until Sports Illustrated’s Jeff Wagenheim approvingly tweeted about the issue of breaching convention that anyone objected to this rare show of humanity. MMA Fighting’s Ariel Helwani responded to the tweet, stating that the applause “felt weird.” ESPN.com’s Brett Okamoto joined the conversation shortly thereafter, backing up the views expressed by The MMA Hour host.

Having witnessed reporters publicly thanking fighters for knocking out individuals they didn’t particularly care for, I sympathise with the belief that media members should refrain from betraying their neutrality.

Indeed, in some sense sports reporters give up the right to be a fan. It is the somewhat depressing price of covering the sport we love. USA Today’s Nate Ryan summed up this counterintuitive mindset:

Think about how you define ‘fan.’ I assume you would say it’s someone who goes to an event or watches on TV and cheers. That is not what we do. I haven’t attended a race as ‘a fan’ in more than 10 years (and then only once) and nor would I in my current job. … Writing/reporting is what we do for a living, and hopefully we love it. Getting to do what we do is enjoying the moment…not taking joy in what those we are observing are doing.”

However, is quelling one’s passion with a disposition of cold indifference the only alternative? While the goal should always be to report the facts, the notion of total objectivity is really an illusion.

Every time we voice an opinion, we fail to live up to such an impossible standard. In persisting with this pantomime, we also risk failing to communicate our passion for the sport and its fighters. That any reporter should feel shame for expressing his or her appreciation for a fighter’s career strikes me as needlessly clinical.

There is a reason why we choose to cover MMA, and it certainly isn’t the money. It’s because we love the sport. When we chastise reporters for the slightest hint of enthusiasm, it feels as though we have lost sight of that fact.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com

UFC 171: Examining the Future of Diego Sanchez and the Issue of Fighter Safety

Having lost comfortably to Myles Jury at UFC 171, the question facing Diego Sanchez is where should he go next?
Stick around in any sport for long enough and the competition will eventually surpass you. This fact is so well established that one might a…

Having lost comfortably to Myles Jury at UFC 171, the question facing Diego Sanchez is where should he go next?

Stick around in any sport for long enough and the competition will eventually surpass you. This fact is so well established that one might as well categorize it as law.

Has Sanchez really reached that point in his career? It’s difficult to say.

Unlike many fighters who compete past their primes, the original winner of The Ultimate Fighter remains somewhat competitive. His chin appears no less robust, his passion remains undiminished and his body continues to serve him relatively well.

However, it would be delusional to think that Sanchez can still challenge the sport’s elite. Should he be content to function as a gatekeeper for the younger generation?

The fan in me would love nothing more than to watch the former “Nightmare” compete in a series of barnburners for the next several years, yet my conscience leads me elsewhere. I have no desire to see any fighter reduced to a figurative punching bag for my entertainment.

I have no doubt some will argue that Sanchez is still good enough to hang around just outside of the lightweight division’s top 10, and I’m inclined to agree with them.

But how long do we expect that to last? One or two more years? It’s impossible to say, but I’m not entirely sure that it actually matters.

Must a fighter’s decline become glaringly obvious before our thoughts turn towards retirement? It has always struck me as odd that the cumulative effects of repeated concussions must manifest as an unconscious heap in the middle of the cage before health becomes our primary concern.

We know enough about brain injury to realise that its deficits may go unseen for years, remaining latent while damage continues to accumulate. If you haven’t already, I would recommend setting aside half an hour to read Scott Harris’ piece on the subject.

Even as I write this, it’s hard not to experience a certain amount of discomfort when speculating about the health of a fighter who isn’t in the midst of a serious career decline. That’s part of the problem, though.

It is taboo to even hint at retirement unless the fighter in question has been knocked out repeatedly in recent fights. Preventing the fighter from actually deteriorating to that point should be our priority.

In the case of Diego Sanchez, we must also consider his style of fighting. Throughout his career, the 32-year-old has habitually engaged in precisely the kind of career-shortening contests that lead to serious conditions like chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

It would be easy to brush off such concerns, particularly with Sanchez blaming a bout of food poisoning for his performance at UFC 171.

However, I saw no real indication that he was struggling physically against Jury. What I saw was a fighter past his prime being outclassed by a talented young prospect.

Ultimately, the question of when to retire lies with the fighter. We can respect that while discussing the issue of fighter safety honestly.

Sanchez may very well be able to compete safely and justify his spot on the roster, but that shouldn’t prevent us from questioning the wisdom of that choice.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com

UFC 171 Results: Ranking the 5 Most Impressive Performances

UFC 171 promised much and arguably exceeded all of our expectations. From top to bottom, the card delivered like few do.
We are still in the first quarter of 2014, but it would be a surprise if Saturday night’s event from the American Airlines Center i…

UFC 171 promised much and arguably exceeded all of our expectations. From top to bottom, the card delivered like few do.

We are still in the first quarter of 2014, but it would be a surprise if Saturday night’s event from the American Airlines Center in Dallas, Texas, failed to make the shortlist for card of the year.

There is no shortage of outstanding displays to choose from, but who stood out the most?

Read on for a rundown of the five most impressive performances from UFC 171.

Begin Slideshow

UFC 171: Did Hector Lombard Do Enough to Earn a Title Shot?

With Johny Hendricks vs. Robbie Lawler and Carlos Condit vs. Tyron Woodley gobbling up most of the column inches post UFC 171, Hector Lombard’s dominant win over Jake Shields has seemingly flown under the radar.
The Cuban imposed his will on…

With Johny Hendricks vs. Robbie Lawler and Carlos Condit vs. Tyron Woodley gobbling up most of the column inches post UFC 171, Hector Lombard’s dominant win over Jake Shields has seemingly flown under the radar.

The Cuban imposed his will on the former Strikeforce middleweight champion from start to finish, at times tossing him around like a blow-up doll. For a contest that looked competitive on paper, it was shockingly one-sided.

Despite him thoroughly outclassing one of the welterweight division’s top contenders, we were still left wondering whether Lombard had earned the first shot at Hendricks’ title.

The former Olympic judoka is something of an enigma. He at times looks unstoppable, comfortably living up to his Tyson-esque reputation. Other times, he appears listless, plodding forward aimlessly with inexplicable periods of inactivity.

Lombard is a walking contradiction, whose style is equal parts infuriating and exhilarating. His UFC 171 performance was a perfect demonstration of both extremes.

Throughout the bout, Joe Rogan took pains to point out that fatigue was likely responsible for Lombard’s occasional placidity. However, there was little evidence to suggest that the Cuban was struggling physically.

Rather, he appeared overly cautious, perhaps eager to protect the lead he had built up on the scorecards. Whenever the fight hit the ground, he willingly surrendered dominant positions in order to rest in Shields’ closed guard.

On the feet, he was either mauling his foe or engaging him in a staring contest. It was a strange performance all round.

Lombard’s lack of urgency against an outmatched opponent is unlikely to endear him to UFC president Dana White. With the 170-pound division wide open since Georges St-Pierre’s departure, we were looking for a contender to emerge from the pack.

Woodley looked impressive in his win over Condit, but the result was arguably marred by the fact that the bout ended due to injury in the second round.

Additionally, with Woodley having recently lost to Shields, Lombard’s victory at UFC 171 may function as something of a tiebreaker between the pair.

Strangely, Nick Diaz’s name has been thrown into the mix by some. Stockton’s favourite son has been unusually media-friendly over the past couple of days, making clear to anyone who will listen that he’s ready to fight.

However, it’s hard to imagine even the UFC promoting a title fight with someone who is on a two-fight losing streak and hasn’t competed in more than a year.

So despite an uneven performance, Lombard would appear to be the logical choice for Hendricks’ first title defence. Then again, I gave up on trying to second-guess the UFC matchmakers a long time ago.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com

Tyron Woodley vs. Carlos Condit: Does an Injury Undermine a Win’s Legitimacy?

The unpredictable nature of mixed martial arts is part of the sport’s appeal, yet the abrupt end to UFC 171’s simmering co-main event between Tyron Woodley and Carlos Condit almost makes one wish we could occasionally exert some control ove…

The unpredictable nature of mixed martial arts is part of the sport’s appeal, yet the abrupt end to UFC 171’s simmering co-main event between Tyron Woodley and Carlos Condit almost makes one wish we could occasionally exert some control over the chaos.

Few things are more frustrating in MMA than a freak injury in the middle of an absorbing fight. It leaves everyone in attendance feeling unfulfilled, including the fighters.

This lack of closure breeds a sense of uncertainty. What if the bout had continued? Would Woodley have faded down the stretch? Would he have been able to knock Condit out and emerge as the clear No. 1 contender at 170 pounds?

Would Condit have come on strong in the third, as he so often does?

How fair is it to question the legitimacy of such wins?

Those who view Woodley’s victory as decisive have argued that he induced the injury, and they may have a point. Indeed, his takedown caused Condit to land awkwardly on his right leg, which led to a torn meniscus and a potential ACL tear, according to Mike Winklejohn, who spoke to MMA Junkie.

At the post-fight press conference, Woodley claimed that his win is no different to securing a limb-snapping submission: “I think if you break someone’s arm in an armbar, if you choke them out and they don’t tap…You know, it wasn’t like it came from a pre-existing injury. It came from a double-leg takedown. I saw that he was hurt and I went for the finish.”

However, the reason we feel inclined to pencil in an asterisk next to the win is because there appears to be an element of luck to winning via injury. Tearing an opponent’s meniscus off a takedown is seen as a less deliberate act than targeting a specific limb and cranking it to its breaking point.

The same logic can be applied to fights that end on cuts. Depending on the damage inflicted by a strike, our perception may shift dramatically. Understandably, we tend to emphasise the role of intent in the outcome of a fight.

While knockouts and submissions are viewed as intentional acts, we perceive cuts and injuries as incidental and orthogonal to the fighter’s primary goal.

Consider how different the reaction might have been had Condit dominated the fight up until the injury. Would we view the outcome in a similar light to Anderson Silva vs. Chael Sonnen at UFC 117, or would our focus instead shift to Condit’s misfortune?

I’ll let the readers determine the legitimacy of Woodley’s win and his place within the welterweight division. Cast your vote in the poll and offer your thoughts in the comment section.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com