Commentary: Both professional and non-professional / forums

[K++s]

Since the issue with Mauro's commentary seems to be flying pretty good these days, i figured i throw this out for discussion:

I think the issue that MMA is having with its commentary (by professional as well as the fans on forums) is that people are not differentiating between being critical and being negative.

I think the problem was exemplified in Mauro's commentary. He was trying to be critical (i.e. approach it from an analytical and realistic approach) but instead came off as being negative ("the fighters aren't doing anything. This is boring. What the hell is going on?"). I agree that for the sport to grow you can't just "shill" and pull the party line (one of the most embarrassing recent examples is Rogan's "the Shamrock of today would be the Shamrock of 10 years ago"...) but at the same time, you can't take the approach of an uneducated person and just downplay the action involved in a ground fight because you don't understand it (which he really did in the Lister/ Arona fight, IMO) or consider the fighters involved (what in god's name would suggest to you that Arona is anything but a fairly conservative fighter on the ground?).

You need to be realistic about the fight (yes, Nak vs. Randleman was not an exciting fight) but also know enough to try and educate the fans through your commentary about what is going on ("why isn't arona just GnP-ing lister?" Ummmm... because he's trying to 1) avoid a leglock; and 2) set up a submission of his own).

I think you also have the same problem on many of the forums. People do love the sport and are trying to make it better but the way it comes out, it isn't constructive criticism but whining and bitching without any rationale explanation. I'd provide a specific example but just swing by SD and pick any thread that has Pride in the title...

In the words of Shooto Panama:

Discuss.

[Shooto Panama]

Thief!!!!! that`s my line.

This is what happen when you have people who never roll in their life and never step into a gym to do anything related to the sport like commentators

[K++s]

Thief!!!!! that`s my line.

This is what happen when you have people who never roll in their life and never step into a gym to do anything related to the sport like commentators

I think that's the fundamental issue.

The lead commentatory has to know the sport that they're talking about. If you don't, you have the side show antics going on like you do in Pride and UFC.

[K++s]

I think that's the fundamental issue.

The lead commentatory has to know the sport that they're talking about. If you don't, you have the side show antics going on like you do in Pride and UFC.

Oh and:

Discuss.

[( o Y o )]

I must say after all the drama recently, I am very glad to have only the Japanese ppv.

for teams though, I think one hard facts stats type man, paired with a colourful guy is a nice balance. PRIDE`s problem now seems to be their colour and facts guy is the same man.....leaving the seat next to him rather hard to meaningfully fill.

[Shinobu]

Yeah it was pretty annoying. Not Mauro's constant downplay of the matches but also the fact that most of the people simply adopt Mauro's and Bas' point of view-hence bit*ing and moaning about how boring this opening round was. And I still don't really see that, if you have such a deep pool of competitors you're bound to have some "not so exciting" matches. The first to make a major mistake is the one going home-I mean before people were complaining about obvious missmatches (often providing a brutal KO or submission). I rather see evenly matched fights that go to the judge than short missmatched beatdowns.
So bottom line is that Mauro chose the wrong approach. I wasn't a fan of the "fight professor" either but he is definetly worse.

[-= ISO =-]

I have to go to school, so this will be a one liner. Just one question for you to think about: Why did all of the sudden a vast number of the 'American' audience (especially those who have never seen Pride before/new to MMA) decided that Pride "sucks" , and is "boring".

[K++s]

Yeah it was pretty annoying. Not Mauro's constant downplay of the matches but also the fact that most of the people simply adopt Mauro's and Bas' point of view-hence bit*ing and moaning about how boring this opening round was. And I still don't really see that, if you have such a deep pool of competitors you're bound to have some "not so exciting" matches. The first to make a major mistake is the one going home-I mean before people were complaining about obvious missmatches (often providing a brutal KO or submission). I rather see evenly matched fights that go to the judge than short missmatched beatdowns.
So bottom line is that Mauro chose the wrong approach. I wasn't a fan of the "fight professor" either but he is definetly worse.

Exactly.

Perfect example: When Fedor takes on Cro Cop, he's going to be a lot more cautious (i.e. potentially more boring) than if he was fighting Giant Silva.

SHOCKING!!!

[K++s]

I have to go to school, so this will be a one liner. Just one question for you to think about: Why did all of the sudden a vast number of the 'American' audience (especially those who have never seen Pride before/new to MMA) decided that Pride "sucks" , and is "boring".

Because there was unrealistic expectations of the first round of the GP and now pride is feeling the backlash.

Because you had the deepest talent pool for any talent everyone expected amazing matches. But a lot of people overlooked the fact that because you have such good fighters, everyone is going to be cautious because one mistake and you're done.

[( o Y o )]

But a lot of people overlooked the fact that because you have such good fighters, everyone is going to be cautious because one mistake and you're done.

Added to the fact there were no huge weight differences and all the fighters were pretty evenly matched.

The people that found it boring were those that get the most entertainment out of the beat down-type of match making PRIDE often uses, and not so much from the "competative matches" many actually say they really love.

[K++s]

Added to the fact there were no huge weight differences and all the fighters were pretty evenly matched.

The people that found it boring were those that get the most entertainment out of the beat down-type of match making PRIDE often uses, and not so much from the "competative matches" many actually say they really love.

Also, (and feel free to flame but don't ban me), the so called exciting matches in the UFC tend to be mismatches as well but when you're having a 4 skill level person take on a 6 skill level person (like in the UFC most of the times), it's not as obvious as when you have a 4 skill level person take on a 10 skill level person (like you have in the pride mismatches).

[( o Y o )]

LOL.....no need to flame or ban, because I tend to agree. To some extent it is due to UFC having most of their new guys fight with a positive record in smaller events, so the gap between them and their opponent isn`t as big as say, a judoka in his first ever MMA fight and someone with several years history.

[Grant Ellis]

Start a petition.

Get Grant on the Pride commentary team.

[-= ISO =-]

Because there was unrealistic expectations of the first round of the GP and now pride is feeling the backlash.

Because you had the deepest talent pool for any talent everyone expected amazing matches. But a lot of people overlooked the fact that because you have such good fighters, everyone is going to be cautious because one mistake and you're done.
There may have been unrealistic expectations for some people, yet not many who haven't seen the American PPV have developed the opinion that it was bad. So what made all these who watched it in English so obsessed with it's "quality"? Simple, the power of suggestion. Had I heard someone talk it down during the entire time I may have "acquired" such opinion as well. The job of a comentator is to spice things up, provide feedback, enhance the viewers experience. Complaining is NOT what I want to hear (not that I have seen it in English-I knew better). Even if it totally blows he gets payed to promote and raise the quality, not to stink up the whole place and throw tantrums. With the use of contrast our perceptions get distorted.

Simple analogy I can give is turning your TV screen/computer monitor off. Does it appear black? No, it's kind of grayish. How do we see the black colors on the screen? Can the monitor radiate the abscence of light? No, we see black because of the contrasting areas around the dark ones. This is what a good comentator is/should be all about, enhancing this contrast in a manner that allows us to adequately perceive and enjoy what we see. Mauro didn't! I am turly glad I watched the entire event in Japanese, although couldn't understand a single word of it, because they unlike him provided that contrast which, made me appreciate and believe that THIS was arguably THE BEST PRIDE EVER.

and let me end it with a quote:

"...in fact, to tell you the truth after talking to Bas and after looking at the message boards, they've lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. I know there is lot we call MMA purist and they will defend the sport to the nth degree, but they have to also wakeup and see what the reality really was. I'm not going to defend myself. We called exactly what we saw. We promoted it as the greatest MMA Middleweight tournament in history, featuring the deepest talent pool in history and frankly a lot of guys showed up not really ready to showcase their skills." - Mauro Ranallo

[K++s]

There may have been unrealistic expectations for some people, yet not many who haven't seen the American PPV have developed the opinion that it was bad. So what made all these who watched it in English so obsessed with it's "quality"? Simple, the power of suggestion. Had I heard someone talk it down during the entire time I may have "acquired" such opinion as well. The job of a comentator is to spice things up, provide feedback, enhance the viewers experience. Complaining is NOT what I want to hear (not that I have seen it in English-I knew better). Even if it totally blows he gets payed to promote and raise the quality, not to stink up the whole place and throw tantrums. With the use of contrast our perceptions get distorted.

Simple analogy I can give is turning your TV screen/computer monitor off. Does it appear black? No, it's kind of grayish. How do we see the black colors on the screen? Can the monitor radiate the abscence of light? No, we see black because of the contrasting areas around the dark ones. This is what a good comentator is/should be all about, enhancing this contrast in a manner that allows us to adequately perceive and enjoy what we see. Mauro didn't! I am turly glad I watched the entire event in Japanese, although couldn't understand a single word of it, because they unlike him provided that contrast which, made me appreciate and believe that THIS was arguably THE BEST PRIDE EVER.

and let me end it with a quote:

"...in fact, to tell you the truth after talking to Bas and after looking at the message boards, they've lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. I know there is lot we call MMA purist and they will defend the sport to the nth degree, but they have to also wakeup and see what the reality really was. I'm not going to defend myself. We called exactly what we saw. We promoted it as the greatest MMA Middleweight tournament in history, featuring the deepest talent pool in history and frankly a lot of guys showed up not really ready to showcase their skills." - Mauro Ranallo

I completely agree with you.

That's something that Mauro should learn from WWE. The commentators can make or break an event or a wrestler. They start talking the event / performer up and all of a sudden the events seems a whole lot better/ the wrestler seems a lot more exciting...

Hell, think of any other sport... You never hear the commentators on Monday night football talking about how much a game sucks even if it does... You never hear on Hockey night in Canada "wow, this really sucks ass. They should go back to old school hockey"...

[Amron]

the funny thing is, that those fighters are equaly so good, that even all fights may/could have ended with a quick KO or a Sub (as for example Overeem-Belfort).

Would that have been fun??

Shit happens. Overeem as an example is good, on the ground, too, so there was a chance of him putting a quick sub on Belfort. Was this a bad fight because of this? Did Belfort not meet expectations? - No, in my opinion, just the guy that had the better night won.