The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I don't really mean your personal preference.

Football, baseball, and basketball are definites.

Hockey is a tough one.  It doesn't have coverage on ESPN and I don't see it on major networks.  They talk about it once in a while on shows like PTI, but only during a close-out game or when there's some kind of controversy...rarely related to the sport itself.  I know a few people who like hockey, but not nearly to the extent that they like football or basketball or what have you.

UFC is another one.  They don't get coverage on ESPN, either, but it has a large fanbase.  Every time there's a fight, you can go to one of several local places showing the fight and it will be packed to the gills.

I think that soccer only matters to the masses for 1-2 games every few years.  In other words, not enough to matter.

Golf is one that I think still matters to older people.

I don't know anyone who watches or cares about tennis.

We've had this discussion before.  I hope people can keep an open mind in this topic.

I agree with your "definites."

I think hockey, in some parts of the country, is another "definite" - ask Boston, Detroit, Philly, and Pittsburgh.  I happen to love hockey - I watched the NHL draft last Friday night.  I bet no one else even knew there was a draft.  I recognize its lack of popularity, but I think you're in a bad market and your perception might be skewed.

I think UFC is a niche market.  While it appears that it gets a lot of interest, places are only packed to the gills because its on Pay per view and people don't wanna buy it when they can go to the local bar to see it for free.  I think the majority of its popularity is in the 18-35 year old male demographic.  I don't think its even close to the level of the three "definites."

I know a lot of people that like soccer.  Its difficult to follow in the US, since most of the teams are in Europe and games are played in the morning (our time).  I think it has a lot to offer and is far more popular than your estimates.

I know a few people who sit at their computer and watch Wimbledon or follow every shot Tiger Woods takes.  Its out there but to a much lesser extent.

I think all sports are "relevant" to different people.

"The Olympics" - Summer or Winter, every 2 years, everyone comes out of the woodwork (e.g. jumps on the bandwagon) and "cares" (e.g. they fake care) about the 100m dash and 400m relay. We really don't give a shit, but it's a good reason to get behind the patriotic hymn of the USA national anthem, so it's OK.

Cycling - No one gives a shit, knows a shit, or watches a shit of cycling. They never have and they never will, and as soon as Lance Armstrong cracks (e.g. finally admits to what I've been saying for over 10 years that he's a doper), then he will be more hated than LeBron James in Cleveland.

Boxing - Irrelevant, but who does a better job than HBO in their "Behind the Scenes" segments when they following fighters training for a fight? It's extremely well done.

Horse Racing - See cycling. Everyone "fake" cares the week before the Kentucky Derby, and as soon as another horse wins the next leg of the Triple Crown, we don't hear about this until the following year.

Cricket - No US following but large in certain international countries, like India and Indonesia

Rugby - Same

NASCAR - This has to rank right up there with NFL, NBA, and MLB. Huge national following, weekly events, major network coverage and major ESPN / Sports news coverage, multi-billion dollar a year industry and advertising campaigns and sponsorships.

F1 Racing - Not so much.

Figure skating.

I bet if you asked everyone in the country their favorite sport that one would come out number one. Men would be split among baseball, basketball and football etc., but among the population that urinates sitting down it would be such an overwhelming favorite it would top the list.   

I forgot about Nascar.  That is popular, it gets coverage on ESPN, and it's on a major network.  That's gotta be a definite, too, I guess.

I don't hate hockey.  I kinda like it and stop to watch for a sec when I see it on.  I just think that it's really hard to follow it.  I'm in a bad market, yes.  I think it's bigger than that, though.  It's not on TV and it doesn't have recognizable stars.  Even though I don't watch a lick of tennis, I know who the major players are.  I can probably name 2 hockey guys, and their names escape me at the moment.

In my opinion, boxing is dead.

UFC is popular with the below 35 demographic, but I think it's growing.  They have a few things to work out, in terms of judging and stuff like that, but I think that the league itself is full of integrity.  I don't think they promote too much thuggery, like boxing did.  There are idiots, but for the most part, the athletes are respective of each other.  I think that UFC's reality show is also a pretty big deal.  It's a way to get to see the sport without having to wait for a big event.  I have some friends that hate it.

Massive thread drift....
They were talking on Major league baseball network,about MLS in Seattle Sounders and how popular they've become drawing just over 36,000 fans at their home games.Out drawing the Mariners...

end the drifting....

This thread is a about a whole bunch of sports I don't care squat about.... :-\

I feel like its always Dave vs me in the battle over NHL when these topics come up.

Hockey is not hard to follow, if you want to.  There is an NHL network on my cable box.  There is a Versus channel that I can watch a game almost every night.  Just because its not on ESPN doesn't mean its not on.  You have to know where to look for it.  It IS on TV.  All the time.  There ARE stars, but you don't know them because you don't follow it.  That doesn't make it irrelevant, it makes it irrelevant to YOU.

On the other hand, there's a UFC reality show?  I didn't know that (nor do I care).  Don't see how its a "pretty big deal" considering I didn't know it existed.  The only UFC star I know is Brock Lesnar, and that's only because I know him from WWE.  Couldn't name one other guy.

From my perspective, you appear to be applying your preferences and interests as the general rule for the massive population of 300 million plus people, and I think there's a flaw in that reasoning.

FWIW, I think adding NASCAR as a "definite" is almost laughable.  The same way people in the north view hockey as a definite, people in the south say that of NASCAR. 

Just try to consider more than just your point of view.

If it was relevant than Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS and ESPN would be fight over who gets to show it and it wouldn't be relegated to some minor network.  You can find chainsaw competitions on ESPN2 if you look hard enough, still doesn't make it a relevant sport.   

^^ I don't see any of those channels covering UFC events either.  But I do see NHL highlights on SportsCenter.

The Stanley Cup Finals were broadcast on NBC.  All 7 games.

If I got to ESPN.com, there's a menu bar across the top:

NFL
MLB
NBA
NHL
NCAA FB
NCAA BB
NASCAR
Soccer
"More sports" - includes boxing, tennis, rugby, MMA, Poker, golf, and horse racing.

I think that says alot about what's relevant and what's not.

I have never claimed UFC is relevant.  And Dave puts the two on about equal footing or maybe hockey a bit higher.

But you did claim figure skating was and it is probably the least televised and cared about in this thread.

This argument has come and gone more than I can imagine and it is always the same thread basically. Someone defending the sport they like against another sport that someone else likes. What is relevant is relative to each person.

Yeah, I definitely think that hockey is a bigger deal nationwide than UFC.  However, I think that one is on the way up, the other is on the way down.

I would agree with this assessment.  However, I don't know that UFC will ever enter the "mainstream" market, but I agree that it has replaced boxing in the fighting space.

Until we see Mayweather/Pacquiao, boxing will be an afterthought.

As long as ESPN9 carries the World Championships of Midget Tossing, my relevant sports are taken care of...

I do consider hockey to be one of the major (and relevant) sports though.

Re: Mayweather / Pacquiao

I think that this is part of the problem with boxing.  It is built around the one big fight.  Tyson/Holyfield, Mayweather/Pacquiao, whatever.  While UFC does have the prospect of dream fights, it's the undercards that are just as entertaining and interesting.  You can have a good card, without any big names.

Boxing is a sport of who is the best puncher.  MMA is punching and grappling.  Within that, there are many styles, so you have a paper/scissors/rock thing going on by the very nature of it.  I think that because of that, the ebb and flow of fights are more entertaining in MMA than in boxing.  It's not uncommon for a guy to win a fight that was losing.  I rarely see that in boxing.  (I also don't want to crap on boxing.  I do like watching it.)

The entire time I was in the military and while I continue to work for the military as a civilian, I can probably count hockey fans I knew/know on one hand.  I mention the military because there's people from all over the country.  NY, MIA (me), WA, CA, MD, AZ, WI, MI, AL, AK, MT, GA, MO...just to give you a handful of guys' states who I'm currently working with.  That's not counting while I was active duty.

MMA fans?  Too many to count. 

I'm not trying to hate on hockey but if you're going to call MMA a fringe/niche market (which I'm not arguing its possibility) then hockey should also be considered as such. 

MMA may not be a dominant sport in the US but I feel it's on an upswing like soccer is. 

In any event, UFC is not even 18 years old yet it's already rendered boxing almost irrelevant save for Pacquiao vs. Mayweather as Dave mentioned. 

Bottom line...

1) NFL

2) MLB

3) College Football

and from 4 on down its everything else trailing by a LARGE distance. YES, that means the NBA!! NBA has a terrible TV deal and a huge image problem. NHL is regional, NCAA B'ball is a 1 month season now with a meaningless regular season, NASCAR is big but not big enough to crack the Top 3 of this ranking. Boxing is dead. UFC is growing and well but hasn't seen the light of day of network TV. Golf without Tiger is nothing. Tennis has dropped.

You got your "BIG 3" and everything else.

Too funny... I know several hundred hockey fans (less than a year after watching my first hockey game), and just a handful of MMA fans. Actually, aside from people on this board, I know zero MMA fans.

Same here.

^^The only MMA fans I know are younger, in their 20's or early 30's. It's catching on, but I don't think it's to the level of hockey.

MMA is so far past hockey its not even funny.

MMA can get 750,000 to one million people a month to spend $59.95 to watch a 2 hour PPV that starts at 9pm on the east coast

the NHL can't get people to tune in for FREE on NBC at 7pm to watch a Stanley Cup game.


Debate over! MMA WINS

All reports say that the Stanley Cup Finals averaged 5.31 million viewers thru game 5 and game 7 had 8.56 million viewers.

You're right - no one watched it at all.

I'm confused, are we debating the popularity of the sport or the intelligence level of the fans? :)

I find it quite interesting that the NBA has "huge problems" but MLB is fine and dandy.

There ya go:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v693/lordthundergod/Random%20pics/9ad207c2b1664be319a6c3ec1b97f5fd.gif)

Ahem, back on topic. I agree with MikeO, relevant, NFL, MLB, NCAA FB

The NHL is a loser on cable tv when it comes to  ratings for the regular season while UFC is a cable TV ratings monster.

The NHL has a good week a year, the UFC draws big year round on PPV!

It's not even close that UFC is much bigger than the NHL. The NHL is a "niche" sport. That isn't a knock on it either. It has a couple pockets of the country where it is big and the vast majority of the USA could care less about the NHL. UFC is a huge hit from coast to coast and everywhere inbetween

Thanks, T-God...that video warms my heart.

MMA is huge in Tampa bay area.  I know a ton of MMA fans, but only a handful of Hockey fans.  I, personally, like both (especially with my TB Bolts back to form).

1.  NFL
2.  NCAA FB
3.  MLB
4.  NHL
4a. MMA
4b. March Madness
4d. NASCAR

I really think NHL, MMA, MM and NASCAR have about the same amount of viewership.  Believe it or not, NASCAR is on the decline.  MMA has huge upside and continues to grow.  NCAA BB will always be relevant in March.

In all fairness, boxing has done that pretty much on its own.

When comparing MMA to Hockey, it's not apples to apples.

MMA is a paid event, first off.  Hockey is not.
Also, we're comparing one MMA event (out of about 25 in a year) to the 7th game of the hockey finals.

Do we know the viewership for MMA?  Most of the people I know watch it in bars, unlike any other sports I know. (save for boxing, maybe)

Maybe it's just the circle you're in.  I know a bunch of MMA fans, from friends I grew up with, to people I meet in kickball now.  I think it's also easier to be a casual MMA fan.  You can go watch and enjoy a fight with 2 guys you've never heard of, but the casual hockey fan isn't likely going to watch 2 teams they don't follow.

Easy way to judge this.
MMA has shows on cable. NHL has shows on cable. (lets take the playoffs out of it, the regular season NHL from October-Apri)

And for those months MMA crushes NHL in cable ratings and its not even close.

Thats NOT counting MMA PPV's or NHL stanley cup games. If you want to start comparing that by all means lets do it. Fact is MMA makes more $$ on average per fan than the NHL could dream of.

NHL has 10-12 games every night of the week.  Are there 10-12 MMA events every night?  Or maybe 1 per week?

Not a fair comparison.

Seems to me that MMA is more of a niche sport than hockey.

Even folks who don't watch hockey checked the news to find out who won the cup.  Folks who don't watch MMA barely even knows it exists. 

I have no idea who won the Stanley cup.

This is sad.  I'm sorry but you don't even have to be an avid fan to see it plastered on SportsCenter.  And on your own message board...


Note the phrase YOU used in the discussion about winning the Stanley Cup - "4 major sports"

Are you just trying to incite something here?

MikeO, which of the following statements do you agree with?

1) In a given calendar year, all UFC events combined have more total TV viewers than all NHL games combined.
2) In a given calendar year, all UFC events combined have a higher attendance than all NHL games combined.

No, now that you mention it, I remember it.  But I didn't watch a single game or highlight from the series.  But I didn't even know it.

Of course, the answer is neither.  But this is a bad way to determine popularity.  Like I said before, it's apples and oranges.  The structure of the sports isn't the same. 

I do think that hockey is more popular, but not using this metric.  There are SO MANY more times to watch hockey in a year than with UFC.  There are like 50 hockey games a week.  There are only half that many UFC programs per year.

Couldn't be more wrong. A fraction of America can name 5 current NHL Hockey Players off the top of their head. The vast majority of America can name 5 current MMA stars. And EVERYONE knows of Brock Lesnar. Brock is a bigger world-wide star than any hockey player and it isn't even close!

Isn't that like saying that VH1 (home of Hogan Knows Best (http://www.vh1.com/shows/hogan_knows_best/season_1/series.jhtml)) must be one of the most popular television channels because everyone knows who Hulk Hogan is?

Brock Lesnar is one of the worst examples to pick if you want to prove that MMA is popular.  He was more well-known than any UFC fighter before he set foot in an octagon.

Doesn't matter how your well known.....YOU ARE KNOWN! You bring the masses to the sport. You bring the media attention. The NHL has nobody. UFC has Brock among many others but Brock is the biggeset.

Brock is the biggest star in MMA and a bigger star than any NHL player. That's a fact. Can't deny it

Randy Couture, Rampage Jackson, Chuck Lidell, Tito Ortiz, Matt Hughes, GSP...your average joe walking the street has at least heard of those people and know they are UFC/MMA guys. Start naming a bunch of Russians and Europeans in the NHL and the average guy walking the street wouldn't know if they are prime ministers or hockey players. They would have no friggin clue as to who your talking about.

I don't follow either of the sports so I'll try to name them.  I know Lidell, Ortiz and I know Brock from wrestling. Didn't a Gracie used to do this too?  From hockey I know Wayne Gretsky, Gordie Howe, Mario  Lemiex, Bobby Orr, Bobby Hull, Sidney Crosby and Jagr. I've seen several MMA matches and don't think I've watched 5 hockey games in my life ... outside of the Olympics.

Not that I didn't know it already but I would have to say hockey is certainly more popular than MMA.  It's a cult in the northjust like college football in the south. While I think MMA appeals to a select group and not neccesarily the same groups.

Hitching your wagon to a WWE property is not a long-term solution.  People who follow Brock don't care about when he's NOT fighting (which is not likely to happen again, given his medical problems).

They are no more famous than Sidney Crosby, Mike Modano, Brendan Shanahan, or Paul Kariya... and that's to say nothing of Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux.  I think you greatly overestimate the popularity of the UFC.

Furthermore, even if I accepted your premise of those individual fighters being more popular, what MMA fighter is as well known as the Detroit Red Wings?  Or the Pittsburgh Penguins?  You're comparing apples to minivans.

Worldwide, you have an argument (but worldwide, both the UFC and the NHL are statistical noise compared to soccer, MLB, or the NBA).  In North America, UFC is significantly less popular than the NHL.

I said "current NHL players"  Gretzkey and Mario jesus christ go back to Gordy Howe why don't ya lol.

And once again your "qualifying" the fame of Brock Lesnar. Who cares how he became famous. It's a stupid argument and is meaningless. He's famous!! That brings popularity to the sport he competes in. Michael Jordan became famous playing in the NBA, then he had a small army of media following him playing minor league baseball. That elevated minor league baseball ever so slightly as more people followed IT because of HIM!!! They spent more money on minor league baseball. Sold more merchandise in minor league baseball. More attention=more popular!! Simple Concept! BUT, unlike Jordan....BROCK CAN GO! The guy won the world title in like 3 or 4 fights and beat a who's who of guys.

And Brock is due to fight in Feb or March, so stop writing his obit.  BY THE NUMBERS (actual facts) Brock is only the 3rd biggest PPV draw in UFC history. Behind GSP and Chuck Lidell.  Once again FACTS saying nobody watches when he isn't fighting. In fact Brock's season of TUF was one of the lowest rated of all time. Seasons with Rampage, GSP, Evans, Forest drew much higher ratings. Once again thats a FACT!!

Top Ten UFC Draws of All-Time
 
(career PPV buyrate totals as one of the headliners of a card - all buyrates are estimates) *updated after UFC 124
 
Total
1 Georges St-Pierre 7790000
2 Chuck Liddell 6324000
3 Brock Lesnar 6045000
4 Matt Hughes 5899000
5 Forrest Griffin 5630000
6 BJ Penn 5525000
7 Tito Ortiz 5294000
8 Frank Mir 5209000
9 Randy Couture 4767000
10 Anderson Silva 4650000


In the USA outside of a couple cities in the northeast and 1 or 2 in the midwest, nobody cares about hockey. It's the one sport ESPN doesn't want, thats all you need to know!! On the other hand UFC is turning down ESPN in the US and only partners with them overseas. ESPN is the perfect example actually. It doesn't want hockey and its begging for UFC. Game over!

He is famous because of WWE.  All of those fans (whom you claim as proof of MMA's influence) were actually influenced by pro wrestling.

And what happened when Jordan left the minor leagues?

Seems like that would be a relevant detail.

I notice that you chose not to address the FACT that NHL has a much higher attendance and viewership than UFC.  Furthermore, I think we can both safely agree that the NHL OBLITERATES the UFC in merchandising sales, video game sales, endorsement deals, etc.

The 2010-11 NHL season ran from October 7, 2010 to April 12, 2011.  Here are the attendance figures for every U.S. UFC in that time frame (I am including only the main numbered UFC events, so as not to unfairly skew the UFC numbers on the low end):

UFC 121: 14,856
UFC 123: 16,404
UFC 125: 12,874
UFC 126: 10,893
UFC 128: 12,619
UFC 130: 12,753
average: 13,400

How many NHL teams do you think averaged more than 13,400 attendance for their FORTY-ONE regular season games?  Let me make this easy for you: all but two. (http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance) One was NY Islanders (who are in an area that you have already conceded as a hockey region, and share a city with another NHL team).  The other is the Phoenix Coyotes.

So, to clarify: hockey "hotbeds" such as San Jose, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, Anaheim, Raleigh, and Tampa ALL averaged a better draw (for regular season games!) than U.S. UFC events.  And of the bottom three NHL teams in attendance, one of them was moved and one of them is being subsidized by the local government.

In other words, an U.S. NHL team that was as poorly attended as an average U.S. UFC event would be in dire straits.

I think that says it all.

P.S. To be fair, you could cite the fact that 6 of the top 9 best-attended MMA events ever (including #1 by a mile) were in Canada, which has been excluded from this comparison.  However, citing Canada in a popularity contest of hockey vs. MMA is the joke that writes itself.

I agree with Dave about comparing MMA to NHL = Apples to Oranges.  Attendance figures aren't comparable when comparing the two.  When it comes to viewership, I believe the two are similar, but NHL still has the advantage due to number of games.  Even when boxing was at it's most popular, you couldn't compare it to NHL as a whole.  MMA has surpassed boxing.

If I were to compare sports viewership to sex:

NHL, MLB, NBA...they're all the steady 30 min - 1hr session

MMA / Boxing...the intense animalistic 5-10 minute session

MMA may have a larger draw for major events, but the NHL has longer staying power....some people would say that evens out.

Also, I have to say that MMA is shortening the distance between events.  They'll have a PPV, take a week off, have a free event on Spike or VS..take a week off...another PPV...then there is The Ultimate Fighter reality show....I'm sure before long they will have weekly events all year round.

Why is it unfair to compare average NHL attendance to average UFC attendance?  If anything, that's an unfair advantage for the UFC; the NHL had to fill seats for over nine hundred events in the same time frame that the UFC had to fill seats for six events.

Never heard of him. 

six events? Oh boy. ::)

Ya know Im gonna bow out of this right now cause if you think the UFC had 6 events in that time frame you clearly don't understand how the UFC operats, how many events they run, how their minor league operation which also ran on Versus drew higher ratings than the NHL on Versus, or anything of the sort. And you can't have a clear understanding of the debate. And I'm not going to go in circles with ya.

So as always, believe what ya want, live in your world/bubble! Good-Day!

I was only counting numbered UFC events because I was trying to be nice.  Did you really want me to include The Ultimate Fighter finales, with their massive attendance of nearly two thousand people?  Or maybe you are displeased that I excluded UFC Live, which almost reached 5-digit attendance?

I really don't think you want to bring up minor leagues as an argument in hockey vs. MMA.  Having not looked at minor league hockey statistics at all, I'd be willing to guess that ONE top-tier minor league hockey team outdraws (again, on average) the entirety of WEC or Strikeforce quite easily.

While it's unfortunate that, as usual, this thread has de-volved into just a hockey vs. MMA/UFC debate, after reading this last night but not getting a chance to post about it at the time, I had to at least throw in my two cents' regarding this one.  While others have commented regarding the fact that they can name at least 5 NHL players (like them--while not a big hockey fan--I can do likewise easily without Google/wiki/etc.), I just had to say something regarding MikeO's statement that the majority of America can name at least 5 current MMA stars...sorry, I think that is just WRONG.  While I don't know that we could find this out for sure (maybe we could submit this one to SportsNation for Cow"turd" and crew to discuss), I'm of the belief this is not accurate.  I have several friends (all under the age of 30) that enjoy UFC a lot so while I will give you that it's a popular sport and becoming more popular it seems by the months, it doesn't outhit hockey yet in my opinion...and I live in AL!  So, I'd say that hockey (NHL specifically) still has MMA beat, or at least is right there with it. 

But I really can't agree with you on the "naming 5 MMA stars" easily and the "majority of America" thing...when someone like me who pays a fair amount of attention to most sports thinks they would have a difficult time doing so without having to see the names listed first (I recognized more than 5 that you posted but believe I would have been hard-pressed to say that many had they not been listed...probably just Lesnar, GSP, and Liddell for me...maybe Ortiz), I think that says a lot.

I also agree that if not for WWF/WWE, Lesnar would not have been nearly as recognizable.  While he was a multiple time champion at the collegiate level of wrestling, that's truly a niche following so I don't think that would have carried that much weight for him (at least publicly) heading into UFC if he hadn't first been in the WWE.  Same thing with Kurt Angle...never heard of him before he went to the WWF, just found out he won gold medals in wrestling after the fact when they first introduced him.  Fake "wrestling" made him famous, not the real thing, and while I know that might not be exactly comparable with Lesnar, I think he wouldn't have been as big a deal had he not came from there first...take that for what it's worth.

Betcha a dollar I know at least 10 people that couldn't name a single MMA person and never heard of Brock. Now probably most of them couldn't name many hockey players either, but I bet you if I asked them who Mike Modano is, every last one of them would know.

Nope, never heard of a single one.

Brock Lesnar is NOT a bigger star than Sid the Kid Crosby, and probably not even as big as Alex Ovechkin.

Of all the UFC/MMA guys listed, the only one I'd heard of was Couture. I'd heard of Lesnar, but not because of his UFC or MMA career. I watched him wrestle in the Big 10, and then again when he made his cursory tryout for the Vikings.

^^ This is 1000% correct.

Just so we're all working with the same facts, this isn't true.  As part of marketing in general, sure, but individually, the UFC trounces the NHL in terms of video game sales.  It's like 6:1.

There are UFC video games?

Yeah, they sell really well.

On top of that, they are also really good games.  The NHL games for the last 2 years have been very good, as well.

I used to love NHL games.  I haven't had one since maybe 2002 because they got, in my opinion, too difficult to play.  At the same time, my roommates and I became obsessed with EA Sports NHL98 when I was in college and we had full seasons and tournaments, and I was unbeatable with John Vanbiesbrouck and the Florida Panthers.

If there's a good NHL game out, I wouldn't mind checking it out.

[/hijack]

You are correct that the UFC sells more games, but incorrect as to the scale.

UFC Undisputed 2010 sold 2.1m copies.
NHL 10 sold 1.12m copies.
NHL 2K10 sold 740k copies.

I was going off of the 2009 figures, as that's what I had.  Also, there is an EA MMA game that you're discounting, if you're going to count the 2010 figures.  Though not specifically UFC, I think it still applies.

EA MMA sold 390k copies.

I'm not sure what these numbers indicate... EA spews out a new NFL game every year (as does 2K) and unless you're a DIE HARD fan, you're not going to buy what's basically the same game EVERY year.

^ They don't prove anything.  It's just some info to add to the debate.

For what it's worth, I don't think the UFC games selling better means much of anything, except that it is more popular in the younger demographic.

Also, someone brought up an interesting point to me yesterday....what is the popularity of MMA vs. hockey in non-NHL areas?

I read recently that NYS Legislature, again, is not allowing MMA/UFC fights in the state, so I'm sure this has some effect on attendance since thay can't hold a fight in Madison Square Garden.  Not sure what other states don't allow it.  Also, MMA/UFC is really still in its infancy compared to NHL hockey that has been around for decades.

How many hockey movies have come out recently?  What was the last one anyway, The Mighty Ducks?

There have been some recent MMA movies.  Or even movies including MMA stars.  A-Team and Expendables come to mind.  You might have heard of those low-budget indy flicks.  ;)

Not that this point really settles anything, more like an example of popularity. 

I'd say Miracle is likely the most recent with any buzz.

Could someone please name a movie about MMA or UFC? Not a movie that has one of their athletes in it...but a movie whose subject is MMA or UFC.

I really can't think of a single one.

^^ Never Back Down. 

I actually saw this movie.  Not sure if its about MMA or about just fighting, but it seems like its about MMA-style fighting.

It was a terrible movie, and I'm ashamed that I know about it.

^^^ By title alone, I'd have guessed it was a Steven Seagal flick... ;)

Any MMA or UFC movies that someone who doesn't watch MMA or UFC may have heard of?

A few quality hockey movies off the top of my head:

* Miracle
* Slap Shot
* The Mighty Ducks
* Mystery, Alaska

There were a few MMA movies released in the last few years.  I remember seeing them advertised.  But, you can also go back and count stuff like Bloodsport or a few of the other Van Damme movies.

Yeah, and the Karate Kid.  That counts, too, right?

FWIW, Stroke, I don't watch MMA but I have heard of this movie, only because I watch a crap-ton of movies.

I've seen Bloodsport a couple of times a long time ago...but don't remember it being about MMA or UFC. Since the movie predates UFC by a good 4 or 5 years, I'm not sure it qualifies. Are you counting all martial arts movies as being about MMA/UFC?

Bloodsport isn't specifically about UFC, just like the Mighty Ducks isn't about the NHL.  However, it is about a mixed martial arts tournament.  I believe the very idea of the UFC came from the ideas put forth in bloodsport -- "can a karate guy beat a judo guy beat a wrestler, etc."

I can accept Bloodsport as being MMA-related, I guess, but I have to put my foot down on The Karate Kid. If that gets counted, hockey-related movies should be expanded to include every film that contains ice. ;)

* Youngblood wasn't too bad. I liked it.

Canadian currency has pictures of hockey players on it.

Which country's currency has pictures of MMA fighters on it?

Not particularly relevant to the question of "relevant in US"

question was not about world wide popularity or even north America, just US. 

Even as an MMA fan, I find it hard to say that it's more popular than hockey.  In some demographics, maybe, and in some areas, maybe....but country-wide, I don't think you can make that case yet.  However, that's not to say that it can't pass it in popularity.

Do you think that MMA can surpass hockey in popularity in the US?  And if so, how long will it take?  And will it last?

At the risk of getting flamed out of the building, I think MMA is a fad, to be honest.  Hockey has been around for decades.  I think MMA is probably at its peak now, or maybe a couple of years from now, but I think in 15 years, no one will care about it.

So, no, I don't think, on the large scale (nationwide) that MMA will ever surpass hockey.  I think hockey appeals to a much larger demographic in general.

I wonder how this thread will turn around if the Florida Panthers should ever enjoy sustained success (thus affecting the south Florida market and the perception thereof).

^ I disagree that UFC is a fad.

I think it's here to stay.  We have had boxing popular for a long, long time and even tied to history (civil rights, etc.)  I think that MMA is the logical progression of that.

Also, gladiator-type sports have been popular in almost every culture, forever.  This is another of those.

Do you think that people will be wearing Tapout and Affliction t-shirts in 15 years?

The biggest risk with MMA is the organization itself. Boxing has no credibility because of the shady structure of the organizations controlling it and that has played a large part in its decline. MMA clearly has an opportunity to fill much of the same space that boxing previously occupied.

I do think the structure of UMC is a huge issue, though, and I think it's a mistake to make it PPV -- that seems very short-sighted to me. At this stage, it's critical to grow the audience as much as possible. It's also too much like boxing and wrestling. At this point, UMC needs to be credible and to do that, they need to be the "anti-boxing".

Probably Tapout, but these are brands, anyway.  I bet that people will be wearing something related to the sport, still.   It's like asking if people will be wearing Puma in 15 years as to judge the state of the NFL.  It's not really relevant.

UFC marketing is going to be a lot closer to Nascar, Tennis, or WWE, over team sports, like hockey or football.  Brands and individual posters and endorsements are going to be the revenue model.

Tapout didn't exist before UFC, and its popularity is directly related to that of the sport.  Puma is a shoe company that happens to make stuff for NFL (or used to, anyway).  This is not really a comparison.

Here's another point to get your guys' eyes rolling at me. . .

Facebook "likes" ( lol )

--------------------------------------------

NHL - 1,733,556

UFC - 5,950,142


What does this mean?  Probably nothing but I think calling MMA a fad is a bit of an exaggeration. 

Btw, I want to get into hockey.  It's fast paced sport which requires hella skill and huge balls a small puck to play.

Oh, and Canadians LOVE them some MMA too.  I read somewhere they beat out the US per capita in regards to MMA fans.  Bad mouth GSP to one of them and see what happens.   :D

  Who would want to bad mouth GSP...dude is a beast!

Who the hell is GSP?

^^^ Thanks, Brian...I was about to ask the same thing.

Guru - If you want to get into hockey, get yourself some "good" seats and go to a game.  Watching it on TV won't "get you into it" because the commercials interrupt stuff too much and lose interest.  I recommend finding a local hockey team (NHL if possible) and just go to a game.  You'll be hooked...

^^^ Scratching my head over the "commercial interruption" reasoning. Hockey is the "best" sport when it comes to commercials, as they usually don't break for that sort of thing until the end of each period, and it's easy to flip to another channel for 15 minutes to skip past the long breaks between periods. I think hockey is a great sport to watch on TV.

^^ In a good game, yes. 

But, it seems that they go to commercial every time they get a chance, every penalty, timeout, offsides, icing, puck in the crowd - pretty much 75% of the faceoffs are coming back from commercial because they never know when they will get another stoppage.  There was a game in the finals where they didn't get a stoppage for like 18 minutes.  That's a rarity. 

In a regular game, there are a bunch of commercials, and at the stadium, there's stuff going on during that time to make if go by faster.  Not to mention the intermissions.  Its easy to lose attention through an intermission period if you have a remote control in your hand.

Hockey live rocks

As I said earlier, 6 of the top 9 MMA events of all-time (in attendance) were held in Canada.

That being said, I've been told that hockey is also reasonably popular there.

When Dana White recently said that GSP was "the most popular athlete in the history of Canada," Canadians were in an uproar.

IMHO, of all sports I feel hockey and soccer have the biggest improvement in seeing them live vs on TV.  Hockey I find almost unwatchable on TV but love it in person. 

Football can actually better on TV than live, although I do enjoy the game day experience every once in a while.   

Basketball is better live, but not by much.

Baseball I pretty much ignore the game either way, I have enjoyed going to many minor league games, but typically I am socializing and drinking and not watching the game, just like I would be doing if I was at a party or bar and the game was on TV.   

I find baseball on TV almost unwatchable.  But that's just me.  Its much better live, IMO.