UFC coming to Vancouver. Many opposed.

[burnin_vernon]

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/2009/..._sparks_d.html

You know, I hate poker on TV. I despise it. But if someone brought the World Series Of Poker here, I wouldn't go around making a lot of noise opposing it. I just wouldn't have anything to do with it.

This does not seem to apply to the UFC. People are downright adamant that it shouldn't come here.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. What gives everyone the right to tell me what I should like or dislike?

[BlackArcher101]

I really don't get their point of view... while I'm not entirely a fan (just haven't had time to watch it), I wouldn't go out of my way to denounce it and/or sabotage it. I mean, why? There's no reason to. There's really nothing wrong with UFC. These aren't cockfights here.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I really don't get their point of view... while I'm not entirely a fan (just haven't had time to watch it), I wouldn't go out of my way to denounce it and/or sabotage it. I mean, why? There's no reason to. There's really nothing wrong with UFC. These aren't cockfights here.

It's B.C. Unless it's an event where people can get together in tie dye shirts and stick needles in their arms, people are going to be opposed.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by burnin_vernon

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/2009/..._sparks_d.html

You know, I hate poker on TV. I despise it. But if someone brought the World Series Of Poker here, I wouldn't go around making a lot of noise opposing it. I just wouldn't have anything to do with it.

This does not seem to apply to the UFC. People are downright adamant that it shouldn't come here.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. What gives everyone the right to tell me what I should like or dislike?

Just because I want to watch it doesn't mean I don't think that all the proper measures should be taken that ensures profitability to the area as well as safety of the performers.

I think he raises a great point about the Bisping fight. The integrity of the sport depends on not having things like that happen, no matter the 'fan appeal'. I don't think Dana White understands this.

[Cowboy89]

If you want to know why residents in BC oppose it, then wait out in the parking lot at a well attended bar that plays the UFC pay per views after the event. Then multiply the ######baggery that ensues with 50 people by 400 and you get the security concerns that would be needed to host an event at GM Place.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

If you want to know why residents in BC oppose it, then wait out in the parking lot at a well attended bar that plays the UFC pay per views after the event. Then multiply the ######baggery that ensues with 50 people by 400 and you get the security concerns that would be needed to host an event at GM Place.

Isn't that any UFC event, especially in Alberta? Affliction t-shirts ftw? I think not.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Isn't that any UFC event, especially in Alberta? Affliction t-shirts ftw? I think not.

AFflIcTion T-shirts! Sooooooo rad! Reminds me of what hammer pants with the US flag motif were to the 90's.

On a related note, was there some mullet concert in Vancouver last night? There seemed to be a disproportionate amount of Affliction T-shirts walking around downtown last evening.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's B.C. Unless it's an event where people can get together in tie dye shirts and stick needles in their arms, people are going to be opposed.

*laugh* Please...

There are very real concerns about sanctioning a blood sport. Boxing was able to do it by implementing rules and regulations designed to insure the relative health of their performers.

Whether you agree with their methods or decisions is another topic, but they represent themselves as professional organization.

UFC and Dana White are trying, but continue to suffer setbacks, and continue to suffer as a result of it.

Personally, I feel the upper tier brands of mixed martial arts are less barbaric than your typical boxing match, but watching an obviously unconscious man get pummeled does nothing to legitimize or professionalize your operation, nor does it give that antiseptic splash that you need to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I really don't get their point of view... while I'm not entirely a fan (just haven't had time to watch it), I wouldn't go out of my way to denounce it and/or sabotage it. I mean, why? There's no reason to. There's really nothing wrong with UFC. These aren't cockfights here.

Most of the time they aren't, but sometimes, they are. I am not trying to get preachy, and I hope this doesn't sound patronizing, but maybe your lack of viewership is what has given you that opinion?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Isn't that any UFC event, especially in Alberta? Affliction t-shirts ftw? I think not.

Lol, I have a buddy who seems convinced that the 'Affliction t-shirt' wearers are the non-######bags and the 'Tapout' t-shirt wearers are the real problem.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

*laugh* Please...

There are very real concerns about sanctioning a blood sport. Boxing was able to do it by implementing rules and regulations designed to insure the relative health of their performers.

Whether you agree with their methods or decisions is another topic, but they represent themselves as professional organization.

UFC and Dana White are trying, but continue to suffer setbacks, and continue to suffer as a result of it.

Personally, I feel the upper tier brands of mixed martial arts are less barbaric than your typical boxing match, but watching an obviously unconscious man get pummeled does nothing to legitimize or professionalize your operation, nor does it give that antiseptic splash that you need to be taken seriously.

There are very strict rules and regulations designed to insure the relative health of the performers. MMA has evolved a long way from when the only rules were no eye gouging and no biting. All fights are now sanctioned by the proper commission, usually the same local board that sanctions boxing matches.

[burnin_vernon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think he raises a great point about the Bisping fight. The integrity of the sport depends on not having things like that happen, no matter the 'fan appeal'. I don't think Dana White understands this.

This is the exception and not the norm. Afterward, Hendo said he was joking about intentionally throwing the second punch (ya right) and Lesnar apologized for his post-fight comments as well. I'm pretty sure these were both of a result of Dana getting after them, so I think he knows what's at risk when his fighters act stupidly. Those are the exact things that take the sport back another 10 years. Just more ammo for the people who are anti UFC.

[burnin_vernon]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

If you want to know why residents in BC oppose it, then wait out in the parking lot at a well attended bar that plays the UFC pay per views after the event. Then multiply the ######baggery that ensues with 50 people by 400 and you get the security concerns that would be needed to host an event at GM Place.

But theres always a few ######bags at any concert, hockey game, or protest that ruin things for everyone.

Sigh, I guess it is the "No Fun" city, so we may as well just ban all public events

[Resolute 14]

As already noted, BC has a higher than average population of whiny bitches who oppose everything.

[Regulator75]

F Vancouver, bring the UFC to the Saddledome.

[Pastiche]

I would oppose any event that concentrates thousands of ######bags together under one venue.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

I would oppose any event that concentrates thousands of ######bags together under one venue.

Do you ever express your opposition by protesting Toronto Maple Leaf games?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's B.C. Unless it's an event where people can get together in tie dye shirts and stick needles in their arms, people are going to be opposed.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burnin_vernon

Sigh, I guess it is the "No Fun" city, so we may as well just ban all public events

I thought that was us (Stampede notwithstanding)?

Originally Posted by Pastiche

I would oppose any event that concentrates thousands of ######bags together under one venue.

Why? You can avoid that venue, and then there are less ######bags everywhere else!

[dustyanddaflames]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Just because I want to watch it doesn't mean I don't think that all the proper measures should be taken that ensures profitability to the area as well as safety of the performers.

I think he raises a great point about the Bisping fight. The integrity of the sport depends on not having things like that happen, no matter the 'fan appeal'. I don't think Dana White understands this.

You are absolutely right when talking about the safety of these fighters. These fighters are providing a service (as all employees do) to their contractor, and as a contractor there should always be rules and regulations in place to ensure their safety. It's no different than boxing, hockey, oilfield personal, health care, etc.
But if you look hard enough, you are always going to find cracks in the sidewalk that are bound to carry more media attention then the previous 100 fights that went fluently. It's life. It's the media looking for these stories that will draw ire from its listeners/readers as it seems society is always looking something to jump onto and support that has a negative spin to it. Heck, we are still battling on whether or not fighting should be permitted in hockey, why shouldn't the UFC be under scrutiny too?
Yet the UFC has come along way since its first fight. From marketing, to fighting quality to the commissioning board that come along with it. I have no problems with what they are providing as far as a viewership package goes. UFC sells to its followers and there is no denying it. People are for it, people are against it. There isn't one instance I can think of that isn't like that in the public eye. The Henderson/Bisping incident was a black eye for the UFC, and rightfully so. But so was Marty McSorley, Donald Brashier, Chris Pronger's "foot gate". Boxers in the ring have died post-fight.
I hear what you are saying Flash, but I just think that if you look hard enough in any facet of pro sports or the working industry, there are black eyes to be found. And while the integrity of the sport does depend on situations such as these, the show will go on as we all know.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

*laugh* Please...

There are very real concerns about sanctioning a blood sport. Boxing was able to do it by implementing rules and regulations designed to insure the relative health of their performers.

Whether you agree with their methods or decisions is another topic, but they represent themselves as professional organization.

UFC and Dana White are trying, but continue to suffer setbacks, and continue to suffer as a result of it.

Yet despite all of boxing's rules deaths in a boxing ring far exceed deaths in sanctioned MMA events. As for professionalism, I don't think anybody involved with professional boxing is more reputable than those at the UFC. They're both fight sports, and both filled with a decent amount of shady characters.

I'm not sure how the UFC is suffering setbacks and suffering as a result, unless you consider record PPV sales and massive earnings in a down market to be setbacks. The only setback the UFC has suffered recently is the inability to be sanctioned in NY and MA.