Tag: sports illustrated

Sports Illustrated Attempts to Defend the Roundtable that Asked if UFC 162 Was Fixed, Fails Miserably


(SPOILER: No apology is made at any point in the video, which is actually worse than you’re assuming it is.)

In yesterday’s link dump, we shared a video of Dana White’s appearance on ESPN2’s “Highly Questionable” on Wednesday, where he had some harsh things to say about Sports Illustrated. To refresh your memory: Following UFC 162, SI.com published a roundtable discussion that implied that the main event may have been fixed. Watching legitimate, informed journalists debate whether or not a fight was fixed simply because the underdog won would have been cringe-worthy enough, but they took things to a whole new extreme by making it painfully obvious that two out of the three participants in the discussion didn’t even watch the fight. Needless to say, Dana White was not amused, and it showed during his segment on “Highly Questionable.”

There was absolutely no way that Sports Illustrated was going to let one of their biggest rivals trash them like that, so they immediately set out to create the perfect rebuttal. What they came up with was a phone conversation between Maggie Gray and Dana White, and words cannot describe how awkward it was to listen to.

You really have to feel bad for Maggie here. She was asked to defend what was arguably the worst piece of mainstream sports journalism this side of “The Patriots should have known Aaron Hernandez would turn out to be a murderer,” despite the fact that she wasn’t even involved in the discussion. It’s not exactly an enviable position to be in, especially when you’re against one of the most outspoken men in sports.

A quick apology and follow-up interview about the rematch between Weidman and Silva would have been a safe play, but don’t worry, that doesn’t even come close to happening. Instead, Maggie uses the most condescending tone possible while discussing the roundtable that was totally just about combat sports in general (it wasn’t), yet somehow managed to offend Dana White (maybe all that fight fixing stuff). Any remaining doubts that the upcoming interview would be a total clusterfuck are erased when Maggie concludes her opening statement with the MMA-ish non-sequitur “After sparring a few rounds – no one tapped out! -we moved on discussing the rematch between Weidman and Silva.”

Yeah, we’ll be offering play-by play for this one after the jump…


(SPOILER: No apology is made at any point in the video, which is actually worse than you’re assuming it is.)

In yesterday’s link dump, we shared a video of Dana White’s appearance on ESPN2′s “Highly Questionable” on Wednesday, where he had some harsh things to say about Sports Illustrated. To refresh your memory: Following UFC 162, SI.com published a roundtable discussion that implied that the main event may have been fixed. Watching legitimate, informed journalists debate whether or not a fight was fixed simply because the underdog won would have been cringe-worthy enough, but they took things to a whole new extreme by making it painfully obvious that two out of the three participants in the discussion didn’t even watch the fight. Needless to say, Dana White was not amused, and it showed during his segment on “Highly Questionable.”

There was absolutely no way that Sports Illustrated was going to let one of their biggest rivals trash them like that, so they immediately set out to create the perfect rebuttal. What they came up with was a phone conversation between Maggie Gray and Dana White, and words cannot describe how awkward it was to listen to.

You really have to feel bad for Maggie here. She was asked to defend what was arguably the worst piece of mainstream sports journalism this side of “The Patriots should have known Aaron Hernandez would turn out to be a murderer,” despite the fact that she wasn’t even involved in the discussion. It’s not exactly an enviable position to be in, especially when you’re against one of the most outspoken men in sports.

A quick apology and follow-up interview about the rematch between Weidman and Silva would have been a safe play, but don’t worry, that doesn’t even come close to happening. Instead, Maggie uses the most condescending tone possible while discussing the roundtable that was totally just about combat sports in general (it wasn’t), yet somehow managed to offend Dana White (maybe all that fight fixing stuff). Any remaining doubts that the upcoming interview would be a total clusterfuck are erased when Maggie concludes her opening statement with the MMA-ish non-sequitur “After sparring a few rounds – no one tapped out! -we moved on discussing the rematch between Weidman and Silva.”

Yeah, we’ll be offering play-by play for this one after the jump…

MG: *Long-winded opening rant that I won’t even try to type out that tries to justify why Weidman vs. Silva could have been fixed* …Can you explain why so many people – not just us – had these questions about that specific fight [being fixed]?

Right off the bat we’re given a question worthy of being included in our “Questions You Should Never Ask in an MMA Interview” list. Starting an interview off with such a defensive, passive-aggressive question is pretty much guaranteed to produce a hostile response from the person you’re talking to. Dana doesn’t disappoint.

DW: Not just you guys? First of all, you guys are Sports Illustrated, number one, okay? I want to know did anyone on that panel even watch that fight?

Huh, turns out that Dana White doesn’t accept “Trolls on the Internet thought the fight was fixed, so why should a legitimate news website be held to higher standards?” as a valid argument. *Writes this down for future reference*

Your move, Maggie.

MG: After hearing what you said on ESPN yesterday I have to ask you, did you watch our segment? Did you actually see what kind of conversation we had?

DW: Oh yeah, well how about this: “My first thought when I read the results on Sunday morning, yeah, that made me nervous, but I would have thought they would have fixed the Anderson Silva fight for Silva. If they fixed the fight, I thought they would have fixed it for Silva. UFC – and correct me if I”m wrong – is even less regulated than boxing, right?” WRONG! You guys are talking about a sport that you know nothing about. We’re regulated by the same exact people who regulate boxing.

Well, that backfired tremendously. Turns out that Dana White actually watched the segment he’s commenting on, so wherever you were going with the “Did you even watch our show?” question is now off the table.

But even the best interviewers make mistakes, so let’s see how she rebounds from this.

MG: We weren’t the only people who were asking you about this. After the fight the people who were in Vegas covering the fight were asking you about this.

DW: No no no no no. The guy who asked me the question, that was covering the fight, said “people on Twitter are saying” and “people on the Internet.” There’s a big difference between people on the Internet and Sports Illustrated. I would hope so at least.

MG: Well our show’s on the Internet, so we consider ourselves all part of one brand.

Honey, forget the ballpark. You’re not even in the same fucking city by addressing his comment about how there should be a difference between random people on Twitter and Sports Illustrated’s trusted analysts by saying “Sports Illustrated’s website is considered the same brand as the actual magazine.” You could have asked 1,000 different contestants from 1,000 different beauty pageants to respond to Dana’s statement, and none of them would have come up with something this tragically hilarious.

There’s blood in the water. Your move, Dana White.

DW: You know what? I was hoping you were calling to apologize, that’s what I was hoping you were calling me for.

MG: We were having a general conversation and the likelihood in combat sports…

DW: About something you know nothing about! If you don’t know anything about what you’re talking about you probably shouldn’t talk about it. That sounds like a really good idea. That’s why you’ve been getting smashed by fans and why I smacked you yesterday on ESPN. Because if you’re going to talk about something you might want to do your homework and know what you’re talking about. Or at least you might want to have at least seen the fight, so somebody on that panel would have had half a brain to say “You know what, I saw that fight. The guy was viciously knocked out. How could that be fixed?”

The conclusion of your roundtable should be that you guys should do your homework and understand exactly what it is you’re talking about. And if nobody watched the fight that day, then you should at least know the sport is regulated, at least know some general things about the sport. At least do your homework. I honestly thought you were calling to apologize because you guys were so embarrassed by how ridiculous your show was. Now as I sit here and talk to you, you’re even more ridiculous and I’ll bet you this whole interview doesn’t see the light of day.

Checkmate.

MG: Unfortunately that’s not up to me it’ll be up to our producers...

DW: Yeah, well if he’s smart he’ll take this tape out and throw it right in the garbage, so that the world can’t hear what I’m saying to you right now.

The day that we got the cover of Sports Illustrated I walked around with it for two days to show you I was so pumped to be on the cover of Sports Illustrated. What happened the other day, when you guys did that piece… I’m saying Sports Illustrated, you guys did not represent what Sports Illustrated is supposed to be about.

MG: We did not have an MMA expert on our panel that day, which is why we tried to take the conversation into a general space and make it something about the likelihood of fight fixing, and the panel came to the conclusion at the end that it was unlikely, that this did not happen, we do not think that there was anything happening in that fight. And that’s where we left it.

Translation: “We did not have an MMA expert on our panel that day, which is why we sent out a few clueless reporters to argue that the fight they didn’t watch was fixed. Why is this so upsetting to you?”

DW: My point is that some of the things that were said were totally incorrect and you don’t have to be an MMA expert to do some homework.

It’s at this point where Maggie Gray finally recognizes that the interview is going absolutely nowhere, and actually asks Dana White some questions about Weidman vs. Silva II. It’s also at this point where the interview becomes a total waste of time, since Dana already answered all of her questions on “Highly Questionable.”

But at least Sports Illustrated got to attempt to defend their honor, so…mission accomplished?

@SethFalvo

Sports Illustrated Asks If UFC 162 Was Fixed, Didn’t Actually Watch UFC 162

(SI debuts its new show, “Internet Commenters: Live!”)

By George Shunick

It was bad enough when conspiracies theories begin to pop up about Chris Weidman’s triumph over Anderson Silva this past weekend at UFC 162. Somehow, some people can’t seem to comprehend that Silva isn’t the reincarnation of some Byzantine deity of violence and as such is susceptible to being knocked out, and they’ll engage in whatever mental gymnastics it takes to absolve their hero of the errors that led to his demise. Still, this is the Internet — a place which was the inspiration for Godwin’s law, which holds that “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.” Point being, stupidity is an unfortunate but invariable norm of the Internet.

However, when Sports Illustrated begins parroting these allegations, something, somewhere has gone terribly wrong.

It’s pointless to bother debunking these conspiracy theories. Sane, rational people will be able to conclude that fighters who throw fights don’t allow themselves to be fully knocked unconscious, that fighters who do stoop to such are desperate for cash as a result of not making an exorbitant amount of money quantified by their own name, and that if Silva did intend to throw the fight, he would have just been submitted by the kneebar/heel-hook attempt Weidman attempted in the first round. If that train of thought doesn’t make sense to you, nothing will.

But surprisingly, none of the participants in this discussion for SI felt the need to bring up any of these points. Contestant number one, senior writer Chris Mannix, defended the allegations by asserting that he’s heard rumors of fight-fixing happening in boxing, but “maybe not at the highest level” though. It’s probably worthwhile to point out that it does not appear Mannix has watched the fight in question, or for that matter is familiar with the UFC or MMA in general. Much like a high school student who is asked to offer an analysis of a book he was supposed to read but clearly hasn’t, Mannix grasped for whatever tangential information he can muster in an effort to sound informed and insightful.

He wasn’t successful. His counter-argument to his own non-existent argument was “why would the UFC want Anderson Silva to lose when the potential for a superfight is right around the corner?” That would be solid logic if he’s referring to a fight with Jon Jones or even Georges St. Pierre, but Mannix was actually referring to a bout with Roy Jones Jr. That bout – despite Dana White’s pre-fight bluster – was unlikely to happen in the first place, would not have happened before a real superfight, and probably would not have drawn as much as a real superfight between UFC champions. To his credit, he seems to conclude Silva did not throw the fight. To his lack of credit, he doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about.


(SI debuts its new show, “Internet Commenters: Live!”)

By George Shunick

It was bad enough when conspiracies theories begin to pop up about Chris Weidman’s triumph over Anderson Silva this past weekend at UFC 162. Somehow, some people can’t seem to comprehend that Silva isn’t the reincarnation of some Byzantine deity of violence and as such is susceptible to being knocked out, and they’ll engage in whatever mental gymnastics it takes to absolve their hero of the errors that led to his demise. Still, this is the Internet — a place which was the inspiration for Godwin’s law, which holds that “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.” Point being, stupidity is an unfortunate but invariable norm of the Internet.

However, when Sports Illustrated begins parroting these allegations, something, somewhere has gone terribly wrong.

It’s pointless to bother debunking these conspiracy theories. Sane, rational people will be able to conclude that fighters who throw fights don’t allow themselves to be fully knocked unconscious, that fighters who do stoop to such are desperate for cash as a result of not making an exorbitant amount of money quantified by their own name, and that if Silva did intend to throw the fight, he would have just been submitted by the kneebar/heel-hook attempt Weidman attempted in the first round. If that train of thought doesn’t make sense to you, nothing will.

But surprisingly, none of the participants in this discussion for SI felt the need to bring up any of these points. Contestant number one, senior writer Chris Mannix, defended the allegations by asserting that he’s heard rumors of fight-fixing happening in boxing, but “maybe not at the highest level” though. It’s probably worthwhile to point out that it does not appear Mannix has watched the fight in question, or for that matter is familiar with the UFC or MMA in general. Much like a high school student who is asked to offer an analysis of a book he was supposed to read but clearly hasn’t, Mannix grasped for whatever tangential information he can muster in an effort to sound informed and insightful.

He wasn’t successful. His counter-argument to his own non-existent argument was “why would the UFC want Anderson Silva to lose when the potential for a superfight is right around the corner?” That would be solid logic if he’s referring to a fight with Jon Jones or even Georges St. Pierre, but Mannix was actually referring to a bout with Roy Jones Jr. That bout – despite Dana White’s pre-fight bluster – was unlikely to happen in the first place, would not have happened before a real superfight, and probably would not have drawn as much as a real superfight between UFC champions. To his credit, he seems to conclude Silva did not throw the fight. To his lack of credit, he doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about.

Contestant number two didn’t fare much better. Number two – presumably producer Ted Keith – responded that “when [he] read the results on Sunday morning,” he suspected the fix was in. Again, he didn’t watch the fight. He was just surprised by the result, and came to the conclusion that it was most likely fixed, before thinking that if it was fixed, Silva would have won. He went on to say that because the UFC is more loosely regulated than boxing – which is not true, if only because boxing is poorly regulated as well – it was entirely plausible for fights to be thrown as a means to build its brand.

Fortunately, contestant number three – presumably senior producer Andrew Perloff – astutely notes that if the UFC desired to build its brand, why would it jeopardize its momentum by fixing fights? The risk-reward ratio is far too imbalanced for a company still on the rise; any benefit from having the “right” guy win would be vastly overshadowed by the potential pitfalls if the entire legitimacy of the organization came into question. See, this is why Perloff is the senior producer – he actually has some semblance of a brain.

All in all, this is an extraordinarily disappointing segment from Sports Illustrated. For one of the major sports news organizations to lend credence to baseless conspiracy theories that do damage the brand of the UFC and the legitimacy of the sport of MMA is bad enough. But to debate these issues with a panel that hasn’t even watched the event in question and is barely familiar with the sport is not only insulting but poor journalism. As SI continues to cover the UFC going forward, hopefully it will do so with people who actually know what they’re talking about.

SI Writer & CBS Analyst Seth Davis Hates MMA, Loves Homophobia


(The douchebag in question. Photo via KJHK.org)

Sports Illustrated writer and CBS analyst Seth Davis may have gotten himself in a little hot water yesterday in a particularly 21st century way — being an idiot on twitter. Evidently Davis is not a fan of mixed martial arts and he used some good old-fashioned homophobia to make his point.

One tweet from Davis’ @SethDavisHoops account Sunday read (props to Stephen Douglas of TheBigLead);

Looking on news sites showing picture of two muscular bloody men in homoerotic fighting pose….Sorry, I’ll never get this UFC thing.

We can’t imagine what kind of trauma Davis may have sustained that makes the CBS personality have erotic thoughts while watching two men covered in blood hitting each other, but we are truly sorry for any pain that the writer has to live with.

Another similarly idiotic tweet of Davis’ read:


(The douchebag in question. Photo via KJHK.org)

Sports Illustrated writer and CBS analyst Seth Davis may have gotten himself in a little hot water yesterday in a particularly 21st century way — being an idiot on twitter. Evidently Davis is not a fan of mixed martial arts and he used some good old-fashioned homophobia to make his point.

One tweet from Davis’ @SethDavisHoops account Sunday read (props to Stephen Douglas of TheBigLead);

Looking on news sites showing picture of two muscular bloody men in homoerotic fighting pose….Sorry, I’ll never get this UFC thing.

We can’t imagine what kind of trauma Davis may have sustained that makes the CBS personality have erotic thoughts while watching two men covered in blood hitting each other, but we are truly sorry for any pain that the writer has to live with.

Another similarly idiotic tweet of Davis’ read:

Maybe I’m a prude on this but I’m also a dad. I don’t mind my sons watching boxing, but I wouldn’t want them watching a UFC bout. — Seth Davis (@SethDavisHoops) 

We have no idea if Davis is a prude but he is evidently scared of gay people. Let’s connect the dots. Davis watches two fighters compete and confuses it for gay sexual relations. So, the UFC is gay and because of this, he does not like the UFC.

Also, given that the UFC is so gay, he will not, can not, approve of his sons watching it. Let’s assume that Georges St. Pierre and Carlos Condit were, as Davis believes, getting erotic with one another Saturday night at UFC 154 instead of competing against one another in a sport. Seth, neither you nor your kids can catch gay by watching gay people. Your sons could, however, pick up some practical life skills from watching and practicing the martial arts and self-defense techniques on display at UFC events.

Like many cowardly morons before him, Davis has appeared to have deleted those tweets from his account. He may not want his sons watching MMA but he probably wants to still be able to make a living to support them.

No word yet on if CBS or SI has taken disciplinary action against Davis. If they do, we suggest some education and sensitivity training be a part of it. Perhaps a few hours locked in a room watching video of MMA fights while Georges St. Pierre and Roger Huerta sit on either side of him in nothing but their old-school tight fight shorts, painting each one another’s nails.

– Elias Cepeda