The Agenda

[White Shogun]

I definitely think there is an agenda, as Col Callen puts it. There is no doubt that the UFC wants to bring in more minority fighters and put them on TV. Dana White as much as said so. They are trying to prove that they aren't racist, as they have been accused of being. Obviously, even if these black fighters are good, they're going to displace equally deserving whites, no matter what. Every black face is a white face that won't get an opportunity. It is quite telling though that they are having to recycle old black fighters like Shonie Carter and Marvin Eastman and Din Thomas and put them on television instead of bringing up new fighters. I believe there are way more white fighters in the pipeline, but the UFC is set on making the UFC a 'diverse' sport. I'll watch until I get the feeling they are setting up white fighters to lose to blacks.

However, I don't believe the matches in UFC 71 were 'set ups' for the blacks to win. Chuck was the favorite and rightly so, although I think it was a closer call than some thought. I also think Jardine should have beaten Houston Alexander, and Din Thomas almost lost to a much less experienced white fighter in Jeremy Stephens. Salaverry just quit and I'm not sure what to make of that, but he is capable of beating Terry Martin so as far as match making is concerned, I don't see it as a mismatch. So for now, I don't think they are giving the black fighters easy guys to beat (except for Rashad) anymore than they give their favored white fighters cans. But unfortunately I think it's just a matter of time.

 

[jared]

Good post, agree 100%

 

[Triad]

Unless the trend continues, IMO, these UFC conspiracy theories are a reach. The UFC, and MMA in general, don't need minority participation. It's the fastest growing sport in the world for a reason now. There have been several former UFC cards where the white fighters won all the interracial matches. We were due one.

Cheer up, the MMA sky is not falling.

 

[White Shogun]

Triad,
I think there is a difference between a conspiracy and an agenda. A conspiracy would imply that they are fixing fights, whereas there is an open agenda by the UFC to attract more Hispanic and 'urban' viewers. They will deliberately bring in black and Hispanic fighters to accomplish this goal. The UFC may not 'need' minority participation per se, but if they want to attract minority viewers, they do.

As an example of how they do things for ratings, look at the TUF series. It is wsll known that the best fighters are not always selected for the show, they are chosen based on what kind of drama they will create. Why do you think a guy like Danny Abadi and Rory Singer were selected for the show? Hey, let's throw a Jew and a Muslim in a house together in a reality show about fighting! Or the guy who was a hard luck story out of New Orleans after Katrina? There are way more talented fighters on the smaller shows but they are passed over for the drama needed to garner television ratings. The UFC will do the same thing with minority fighters towards the goal of boosting their fan base among minorities.

 

[DixieDestroyer]

WS, great points. I think it's a marketing based agenda right now (not institutionalized like "mainstream" sports), but an agenda none the less.

 

[JD074]

Every black face is a white face that won't get an opportunity.

Ain't that the truth.

So for now, I don't think they are giving the black fighters easy guys to beat (except for Rashad) anymore than they give their favored white fighters cans.

And that's probably more of a reflection of what Rashad wanted, rather than Dana White. As we both know, Rashad wanted to take his time in terms of stepping up in competition. Forest Griffin, another UF darling, was thrown in with Tito Ortiz, so I think that Rashad would've fought somebody tough already if he wanted it.

 

[Triad]

I don't want to debate the semantics of conspiracy/agenda. I was referring not only to this thread but also to the other threads that have blown up since the fight. Posters have implied or flat out said that the UFC wants black/Latino champions. So far I haven't seen any evidence of this. Most if not all of the black victors in UFC 71 were underdogs. They were actually brought in to lose but it didn't happen this time.

Other than Anderson Silva, last Saturday night was one of the few times I've seen a black fighter have success in MMA. It's silly for us to want to see black and white fights and then condemn the organization when they don't turn out like we want.

Dana White is Lidell's good friend and former manager. Jackson was brought in (per Chuck's request) to lose. Chuck was supposed to avenge his loss and set up some super fights with Henderson, Rua, or even Silva. Problem is Jackson's style gives Liddell fits. It's also been rumored (with pics) on several MMA sites that Liddell was partying it up the week before the fight.

Jardine was the other disappointing fight. Jardine was either highly overrated or overconfident coming in. His original opponent was injured so the UFC went out and got a 36 year old to fill in. He was suposed to be another brutal Jardine KO victim as he got into title contention but he chose to not use his leg kicks and brawl with a brawler.

IMO, ESPN's coverage of this particular UFC card has everyone in an uproar. I enjoy the interracial matchups; however, this time the white fighters didn't deliver. Anderson Silva has Marquardt and then probably Franklin in his future and Jackson starts with Henderson and then in all likelihood Rua next. So if the white fighters take care of business there will be no black champs by summer's end and ESPN will be back to debating if the UFC is racist.


Does anyone think the UFC agenda was for Cro Cop or GSP or even Jens Pulver to lose to Joe Lauzon?
It's MMA, it's hard to predict/control what will happen.

 

[White Shogun]

Does anyone think the UFC agenda was for Cro Cop or GSP or even Jens Pulver to lose to Joe Lauzon?

I'm not sure if you're responding to my opening post or to others who have posted here, or just commenting in general, but to me it seems like we are saying the same thing. I don't think any of those guys were meant to lose. That was basically the point of the thread. The only difference I see between our views is that I do believe the UFC wants to bring in and market more minority fighters, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are (right now) setting up fights they are supposed to win.

For what it's worth, I didn't want Rampage to win because of the effect it would have on the caste system, but he is definitely much more marketable than Chuck. I find him funny at times, and during his post-fight interviews he has been very respectful toward Liddell, among others.

 

[Colonel Callan]

It's all chance that most of the line-up was white vs black? I'm not so
sure.

I don't think the blacks were necessarily the underdogs in the fights
Saturday. I think that a couple of the fights were set up to give them a
better than even chance. Salaverry either hurt (dislocated?) his shoulder
when he landed on it or he just plain gave up. Why? Din Thomas was
handed a relatively inexperienced fighter and almost coughed it up
anyway - although it was amazing the way his opponent set himself up
for the bar. Chuck? Hey, like I posted in the other thread, he's old, and go
to the link I posted or hit Google and look at his prep going into the fight.
How about a lot less clubbing and some serious training? I don't care
what anyone says to me, he looked soft and out of shape because he was
soft and out of shape. Supposedly Chuck asked for Rampage to be
brought in but some say it was the public. And it's possible Rampage just
has Chuck's number, which would be fine with those who'd like to see
some "changes". Jardine was flat out caught cold, but he has also has a
rep as being slow starting.

On to a possible agenda; one of the reasons "they" would want to change
the face of the sport is because it's growing so quickly. They don't
want things to get too out of hand. Take some focus off boxing and look
what happened; those darn white guys came in and ruined the show. I'm
barely joking. Take a look at NASCAR. They are forcing less skilled
black drivers on to the track, experience and talent be damned. You don't
think the same thing could happen in MMA or other sports? They aren't
jamming baseball with latinos on purpose? ESPN ran highlights of Chuck
being dropped on his ass over and over. Have they ever shown any UFC
highlights before - beyond hit pieces on how brutal the sport is or on the
lack of dark complected champs? No. And if blacks and browns continue
the usual trend of being on the losing end in MMA and especially NHB
events you won't see much on ESPN. However, State Approved footage
like Chuck getting clocked is great for the masses.

What's funny is the term conspiracy being bandied about. You don't need
a conspiracy when you are able to do things out in the open. When you
have a small group of people dedicated to getting something
accomplished and at the same time working to make sure others do not
get organized. At the same time, the American public has been
brainwashed by the media into rolling their eyes and making fun of the
very word "conspiracy"? Why? Because the folks that run our media and
government for that matter, have been involved in and been caught red-
handed in so many conspiracies. So they resort to one of their favorite
tactics; take something they don't like and repeatedly associate it with
negative words and situations. Having worked in the media I can tell you
it is very controlled and the people who run things are literally paranoid
about their house of cards tumbling down. They look at EVERYTHING as
having the potential to topple things but also having the potential to
maintain the status quo, to keep the relentless anti-white brainwashing
going.

Could the UFC be controlled by newcomers or outsiders? Well, how
immune to pressure are White and the rest? How immune to negative
press are they? They don't want to be tarred as racists, do they? How
immune to financial promises and pressure are they? How immune are
some of the fighters to the promise of a nice payday for taking it on the
chin and losing, for not trying as hard? Happened in boxing, could
happen in MMA. These are all things to consider. We'll have to watch and
see I guess.

I'm going to watch and see how many shows go by before we have
another minority fest. Then if they become more and more frequent it
might be best to devote more attention to Pride or whatever is out there.
The UFC caught on big time and attracted some big attention, hence the
hit pieces from rags like my local birdliner, the LA Times.

Strong confident whites, you know, the way we used to be 'til the
bolshevists finalized their complete takeover of media, academia and
government in the 60's, are the last thing any of the elite want. They want
us cowed and sports are one element of the propaganda. If it weren't, this
site wouldn't be here. So, is there an agenda in sports? Well, which NFL
QB gets the most endorsements and attention? How are talented whites
treated by the NFL, NBA, MLB?

 

[Guest]

WS and CC are making me crack up. I never get tired of hearing what noobs think about MMA. Any long time fan knows that absolutely nothing groundbreaking happened saturday night as far as the fights went.

Only people like WS and CC, who have no perspective on the sport, and only know what Dana White wants them to know, think some huge, seismic shift in the universe occured at UFC 71.

Maybe if you guys had followed the sport for 10 years, and had not just tuned in recently because of a reality show, you'd realize how ridiculous you sound. CC in particular has no idea what he's talking about, and his take is exactly backwards from reality. Dana White has spent millions of dollars to promote particular champions, most of them white, and has done a lot to make sure they win, even going as far as to get rid of other fighters who he thought would beat them.

 

[JD074]

Dana White has spent millions of dollars to promote particular champions, most of them white, and has done a lot to make sure they win, even going as far as to get rid of other fighters who he thought would beat them.

Well, he didn't do a very good job of protecting Chuck this time around!

 

[White Shogun]

nevada,
It is obvious to me that you suffer from a reading comprehension disability. You need to re-read what I have written in this thread, and elsewhere in this particular forum. If you actually paid attention to what was written, instead of being distracted by buzzwords like 'agenda,' and 'conspiracy,' you'd see that I personally do not believe that blacks have been brought in to 'win'(yet); however, there is no doubt the UFC wants to increase minority viewership and participation in the sport, which obviously means (duh) that they will sign, and televise, more fights with minorities. If YOU weren't such a noob, you might have noticed this trend in the UFC the past couple of years.

I have already provided the link to the Dana White interview in which he speaks to the question of minority interest in the UFC. If you think he is just blowing smoke, you are mistaken. MMA in this country has -never- garnered as much favorable attention from the mainstream media as it has in the past year. This attention is going to have an effect on the sport, just as it does in all other areas of life.

For the record, I do not think that some 'huge, seismic shift in the universe' occurred at UFC 71. If you read more of the threads in this forum, you might have noticed that I said from the beginning that Rampage winning this fight was not going to be the end of the world for whites in MMA, although his victory has certainly given the MSM something to crow about, of that there is no doubt.

You are quite the 'noob' if you believe that Dana did not realize there was a good chance that Rampage would beat Chuck Liddell. As I have already spoken of in this thread and elsewhere on this forum, Rampage will be more marketable both in the MSM and among the casual fan base. He is funnier than Chuck and gives a great interview, and he doesn't look like a redneck. All three are positives for the MSM.

Furthermore, you know nothing about me, you know nothing about how long I have been a fan of MMA, or of my level of my interest. For you to categorize me (or Col Callan, for that matter) as noobs because of your lack of fundamental reading comprehension is laughable. The hubris you display in your post is obnoxious and makes you seem ignorant. Edited by: White Shogun

 

[White Shogun]

A couple of more points that I want to make re: nevada's last post:

You seem to think that Col Callan and I are in agreement re: the agenda or conspiracy to recruit minority fighters in the UFC. However, I perceived his last post as somewhat of a rebuttal of my own thoughts on this subject, so I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that we are in agreement. Obviously, one of the three of us is wrong in his assessment of what is written, and based on what you have said I conclude that it is you that is mistaken, nevada.

Furthermore, I have been a fan of the UFC from the very first show, when it was still a tournament and truly pitted different styles against each other. Before there was an 'MMA.' Yes, I know, lots of people say that but in my case at least it is true. I watched every show until our local cable company decided not to broadcast the UFC anymore. Once that happened I rented them at the local video store when I could find them. I attended local shows, so long ago in fact that it was back in the day when closed-fist strikes were not allowed (at least in Texas.) I have an autograph from one of today's major superstars back when he used to appear as a celebrity ref just to help publicize the sport, back when it was close to being banned and needed all the favorable publicity it could get. There is more I could tell, but in all likelihood you will ignore what I am saying, just like you did my other posts.

Nevertheless, although I may not be an 'expert' in MMA, I am definitely -not- a 'noob.'

 

[Colonel Callan]

No, I wasn't really arguing with WS, but Nevada is indeed an example of
the dumbed down school systems we endure in Today's US. He needs to
re-read the posts in the thread. Since some of us have been following the
UFC for more than 10 years, since the days of Gracie majority holdings,
we actually do have an idea of who and what are in the sport. Try again.
Like WS (in the other thread) I said Rampage is more marketable,
especially today. But if you're trying to tell us that he's the top LH in MMA
then please do some research. Also, spending bucks on promotions is par
for the course in every sport. It's getting OTHERS to spend the
money that is the trick. If the real powers that be want to weigh in they
can flash more money than White has ever personally seen. And if they
want things to go a certain way after gaining some financial leverage,
they will. So we'll see what happens over the next 12-18 months as I said
earlier.

BTW, Liddell is admitting to late nights, but insisting no drinking etc. took
place. Who knows? At least he's insisting it had nothing to do with getting
clocked. He says he made a mistake and that's it: http://
www.latimes.com/sports/la-spw-ufc31may31,1,6627085.story?col l=la-
headlines-sports

Edited by: Colonel Callan

 

[JD074]

One more thing about Dana White: does anybody else find it interesting that he picked Nate Diaz and Corey Hill to fight each other next week on the Ultimate Fighter show? I was a little surprised by that. He easily could've had them fight other fighters in the hopes that they would both make it through to the next round.