With Tate and Diaz winning did the UFC lose money? The anyone can win any fight is good for big fights, but it's hard to build big names if they lose too often.
Yes and no to the money question. Conner was one of their few male draws and he got cocky then lost. Diaz might be the Eric Bischoff equivalent of controversy creates cash, but not if it leads to him being suspended for drugs somewhere down the line. Til, then he can maybe be a draw, but I sorta doubt it.
Holmes is now in the Buster Douglas category of possible flukes. She beat the unbeatable then the next time lost. Granted, it went five rounds, she still tapped. The big money match with a shit ton of trash talking will be Rousey/Tate III. A match Dana didn't want, but now I am sure he is happy to have in a bizarre way. Rhonda and Meisha can be his Ali/Frazier. I think if he sits down he will realize his men's division is in worse shape than the women's division. A women's division, he didn't want in the first place maybe the only interesting thing in his company, right now.
The anyone can beat anyone any given night is true. Its also is a giant excuse when a fighter wins in a fluke way or was not as good as originally thought.
Come on now, Dana is drooling. Rousey v Holm II for a chance to fight Tate for the belt? If Holm wins, its the rematch. If Rousey wins, it's the former champ coming to take her belt back from her most hated rival. It's a license to print money. And give Holm credit. She didn't tap, she fought till she was asleep.
I've always hated Diaz. But he choked McGregor out like he wasn't even in the same talent level.
I was really sorry to hear about this, as Weber and Earl Anthony built the PBA and were responsible for bowling's huge popularity in the fifties and sixties. I was a league bowler in high school (pretty lousy, but enjoyed the hell out of it)
Thread rated: 3.18
#
