Another take on the Rogan vs Dibella arguement

[Lord Gaul]

If you need anymore proof that there is to sideds to every arguement look no further then right here. Here is a arguement about the Rogan/Dibella ESPN interview that represents how a boxing fan saw the arguement.

I got no opinions on who I think it right are wrong, because I hate the MMA vs boxing debate and think that they are different sports and shouldn't be worrying about whos beating who. But I do find it interesting that after all the Rogan aprietiation topics that poped up over the last few days, that boxing would have a different view of the account.
Note this is from a boxing site.

Enjoy the article
http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Dan/Horgan_052907.htm

[Striker & Grappler]

The writer referrs to Rogan's "becoming emotional, and taking it personal", using this to discredit what Rogan said. I think if he watched Rogan frequently (UFC commentating specifically), he would see that this is just how Rogan acts.

As far as Dibella making "several insightfull points", I missed those. Once Dibella called MMA "human cockfighting", he discredited himself by showing sheer ignorance of what MMA really is. To Rogan's credit, he was more knowledgeable about boxing (Roberto Duran, James Toney references) than Dibelle was about MMA (no references).

All this writer did was try to obscure the actual topic of debate: Which is the more exiting sport? To me, it depends on the match up and the fighters, not the sport itself.

[Charuto]

My take? Boxing will always be number one. In 2006, HBO put on eleven pay-per-view shows (as opposed to nine by the UFC) and still came only $46 million short in revenue (impressive considering most of boxing’s shows are free whereas over half of UFC shows are on pay-per-view).
Is this impressive? I'm not so knowledgable on the business side of things, but it seems like this is not a good point for him to argue.

[FieldingMellish]

Is this impressive? I'm not so knowledgable on the business side of things, but it seems like this is not a good point for him to argue.

No its not impressive at all. So HBO put on MORE pay-per-view shows and generated LESS revenue? That's not an argument in favour of boxing's superiority. Especially as I think boxing shows generally had a slightly higher price than UFC ones (though I'm not 100% on that point).

[Lord Gaul]

Fielding you are indeed correct. Boxing PPV's go for about 45.95 on average now. I can't think of two many that are below that.

I think my favorite part is still how both sides feel that there guy was the calm one that didn't take it personal.

[FieldingMellish]

I think my favorite part is still how both sides feel that there guy was the calm one that didn't take it personal.

Rogan WAS calm. By his own standards, lol.

[Lord Gaul]

Rogan WAS calm. By his own standards, lol.
lol, your probably right. But strangly enough that is about as calm as I have seen Lou as well.

[( o Y o )]

I don't get how boxing fans are now bitching when from what I have seen, it was the boxers in general bitching the UFC fighters couldn't hang with them, not the other way around.

In general, I like boxing when the fighters are there to fight. I fucking hate with a passion when they are there to drag the other the distance. The thing I love about K-1/MMA is there are 3 to 5 rounds and finishing bonuses so in general, even a sleeper is not too bad.

[timmothy84]

The writer referrs to Rogan's "becoming emotional, and taking it personal", using this to discredit what Rogan said. I think if he watched Rogan frequently (UFC commentating specifically), he would see that this is just how Rogan acts.

As far as Dibella making "several insightfull points", I missed those. Once Dibella called MMA "human cockfighting", he discredited himself by showing sheer ignorance of what MMA really is. To Rogan's credit, he was more knowledgeable about boxing (Roberto Duran, James Toney references) than Dibelle was about MMA (no references).

All this writer did was try to obscure the actual topic of debate: Which is the more exiting sport? To me, it depends on the match up and the fighters, not the sport itself.

Great point. If boxing made great match ups and didnt let promotors ruin the sport, it would still be as exciting as it was in the past. I like K-1 the best. It has so many great matches and super fights.

[majorcunningham]

im geting really bored of this pointless discussion, it's so unnecessary. mma is stealing boxing's fanbase because the fighters are making it more exciting. and more importantly the promotors are giving the fighters an incentive with win and ko bonuses...

i realise that the opinion posted at the top of thread is from a genuine boxing fan, however a lot of mma fans are converted boxing fans who genuniely are knowledgable about both sports. that in my opinion renders their opinion less worthy than ours :)

most boxing purists have not got clue about mma but the same is not true about mma fans and their boxing knowledge...

[kumikala]

But throughout this seemingly unsolvable debate, one thing has become clear: MMA fans are more paranoid that their sport will lose popularity than boxing fans.

Yes. That's all we MMA fans have been talking about for the last two years: losing all these fans to boxing.

[( o Y o )]

Yes. That's all we MMA fans have been talking about for the last two years: losing all these fans to boxing.

quoted for truth. lol