Triple H: "UFC and the sport of MMA needs to evolve..."

[Kam 243]

From the Wrestling-Online Newsletter:

 

HHH SAYS WWE DOESN'T NEED TO EVOLVE, BUT UFC DOES

 

- Triple H must have missed all the big numbers and gate money that UFC is doing lately because in an interview with AOL's Moviefone to hype his movie "Inside Out," he said that UFC and the sport of MMA needs to evolve, and not the company he works for after the interviewer asked him if WWE needs to evolve as UFC. "I think if anybody needs to evolve, it's them," Triple H said. "Give more of an entertainment standpoint. Give more form; they just have fighters who walk in in T-shirts and shorts and just stand there and then they fight and then they win and then they go "thanks, I'd like to thank my sponsors" and then they leave." HHH pointed out that with WWE you don't get long, boring matches or five second matches. "We're never going to give you a crap game," he said. The on-screen WWE COO also talked about Brock, saying how MMA fans hated him for flipping the bird and trashing the beer sponsor one day, saying they all missed the point of how now everyone wanted to see people beat Lesnar up. "And then he did well, and he beat some guys and then people jump on his bandwagon going "Brock's the greatest."

[Guest John Hancock]

they just have fighters who walk in in T-shirts and shorts

 

HHH pointed out that with WWE you don't get long, boring matches or five second matches. "We're never going to give you a crap game,"

 

lolz

 

"Jealousy is dissatisfaction with the self"

 

Keep on talking Trips.

[Guest Jimmy Redman]

Yeah, I dont think his point about UFC being more entertaining is all that bad, that just comes from his perspective as a pro wrestler, but the line about how their fights can suck and ours wont is pretty freaking ridiculous. Like there's never been a bad pro wrestling match.

 

And speaking like that from his position, to UFC's position, in general, is going to make him come off as an idiot regardless.

[Guest John Hancock]

He should have just said, "It would be cool if fighters showed more personality and character, a la Sonnen (the cocky heel), Bisping (the Guy Ritchie British anti-hero), Rampage (the southern black trash talker), Lesnar (the giant Viking monster from the Rocky mountains), GSP (the clean cut Canadian good-guy), Fedor (the silent-but-violent, non-assuming 80's action movie super-Soviet), Overeem (the cool as f*ck, chilled out Dutchman), Evans (the anti-Uncle Tom, borderline Nation of Islam, educated, northern black stereotype". That's a fair point, but the way he put it is just ridiculous Edited September 16, 2011 by John Hancock

[Maxximus 353]

It seems like an attention grab. Stirring the pot to get WWE a little more exposure by bad mouthing their competition.

[DC 536]

I agree that UFC needs to evolve (but so does pretty much anything in the sports/entertainment mediums), but the wording of Triple H's statement is stupid at best.

[Guest Dusty Finish]

I got to thinking about this today. While it's come to be accepted that wrestling as a general entity tends to get, as a rule of thumb, over-defensive, Trips really comes off as bit silly & self-denialish here.

 

MMA has constantly evolved since it first slipped into anything resembling mainstream conciousness. Regarding the t-shirted, sponsor thanking brigade: how is this any different to Wade Barrett, Chris Masters, Randy Orton, Justin Gabriel etc etc (slim, well toned, tanned, short haired guys in trunks with two names- where are the Bossmen & Barbarians of today?). Amplified characters in the UFC are there, and as "volume turned up" as they ever can get in a sporting environment. Does any clued-up adult really think that Chael Sonnen thinks or believes half of the stuff he says? He's playing a character, and playing it to the hilt. The reason that they don't send a dozen guys a month out to do the same routine (and the like) is exactly the reason WWE has the problem of a lack of distinct characters: if too many guys are doing the same thing, it isn't special. If it isn't special, no-one doing it stands out and thus they all become part of the rank & file.

 

 

The WWF/E hasn't evolved a jot since 1997 and in many cases has actually regressed. Same set & presentation, television shows following the precise same format. While the business & market called for it in the late 90's/early 00's, what possible justification can there be for forcing your company to produce 5 hours of original free TV every week? No wonder there's over-exposure. If Zuffa were forced to do this, their business would be stone dead within a year. The current WWE model was right for it's time ie. 10-12 years ago, but it's woefully outdated, so this statement (if accurate & not misquoted or taken out of context, mind) is pure hypocisy.

 

MMA is flavour of the month with the main(ish)stream, and just like with wrestling twice and so many things before, since, and in-between, interest amongst the majority will fade and they'll move on to something else. There's every chance that thing could be wrestling.

 

Whatever the next short-term power player is, it's almost a cert that they will exert their presence using the channels most relevent in the decade of the teens- relatively recent phenomena like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube & iTunes, or whatever their cultural successors may have become by this hypothetical time... and it's highly unlikely based on innovation since the 80's that the "next big thing" will be spearheaded by Triple H or any McMahon not named Shane.

 

This is where the WWE stance becomes strangely ironic, as the WWF established itself aggressively ahead of potential competitors by being the forefront utilisers of new phenomena in national cable, closed circuit television & pay per view. If McMahon hadn't got there first, don't think for a second that Crockett or Gagne wouldn't have, sooner rather than later. Yet wrestling sat it's laurels during a rosy period, coasting along happily with cable TV and pay per view as their deity-outlets. Zuffa have taken to streaming the dark portions of their cards live on Facebook- free, up to the minute product for fans who are thus leaving themselves open to constant UFC info every time they come online (by way of "liking" the UFC page), and giving themselves a greater window to feature more fighters to an audience beyond the live crowd. Dana White actually pays bonuses to fighters based around Tweets.....

 

... yet throughout the late 90's and throughout a good early portion of the 00's, the entire wrestling business the world over elected to sneer down their noses at the internet "smarks". Well, guess what? Turns out that was a rather significant percentage of your attentive audience, and it looks like they've now gone elsewhere. "MMA needs to evolve, not us"? Laughable, given the source.

[Paul 584]

The WWF/E hasn't evolved a jot since 1997 and in many cases has actually regressed. Same set & presentation, television shows following the precise same format.

 

 

What? Sorry while I agree with your post in general this bit is totally untrue.

[Guest Dusty Finish]

What? Sorry while I agree with your post in general this bit is totally untrue.

 

How so?

[Paul 584]

Mostly by the way they have changed...

 

the shows have changed in content, moving from the more adult content to the more supposedly child friendly.

the sets have changed, seriously go and look.

the credits, intro and themes have all changed

[Guest Dusty Finish]

I disagree. Large arena, big video screen, rampway. Fundamentally, no different to 1997.

 

2 hours.

 

Mainly name or nameish stars in short-mid-length matches against each other, interspersed with in-ring interviews/segments & backstage segments often longer than the matches.

 

Programmes "ran" by authority figures, invariably of a heelish persuasion, and with a bias/vendetta against a (or several) babyface(s). Matches for that night made "on the fly" by virtue of the aforementioned segments & authority figures flexing their muscles.

 

The same blokes appearing week after week after week after week without respite.

 

 

Moving the commentary table about, airbrushing the logo occasionally, and swapping Drowning Pool & Alter Bridge (or whomever) over the intro are entirely inconsequential to the bones of the banquet, which has been the exact same serving for nigh on 15 years.

[Paul 584]

I disagree. Large arena, big video screen, rampway. Fundamentally, no different to 1997.

 

... Thats like saying of UFC '2 fighters, sports arena, octagon'.

 

And the rampway isnt always there anyway, that changes a lot. As for the rest of the set, the layout changes (its the shooting angle that rarely does), the physical set changes on PPVs.

 

 

PS: Love you. :wub

Edited September 20, 2011 by Paul

[Guest Jimmy Redman]

Yeah. I'm actually inclined to slightly agree with Dusty on his point, but using the simple fact that a wrestling show has a set with trons, and they have wrestlers go out there and talk and wrestle matches to prove it is pretty reaching. Thats...what a wrestling show is. They film promos and matches in an arena. If it evolved much more than that it would be a show about something else.

 

The show doesnt look anything like it did in 1997.

 

BUT, the point is there that the Raw/SD 'format' is stale. Not for that long, but certainly stale. Regardless of how good or bad the shows are, pretty much every Raw from the last...4 years looks the same. Open with a big talking segment. Maybe make a match or a main event. Girls work the first match for 2 minutes. Midcard whatever. Semi-main angle/longer match at the top of the first hour. Midcard whatever in the death spot. Then main event angle/match.

 

I think if you literally went back and tabulated the order in which the shows ran, you'd find mainly the exact same people doing the exact same thing in the exact same timeslot for most weeks.

[Guest Jack]

I think part of the problem the UFC will face the future is the fact it has evolved. I don't necessarily think the evolution of MMA has been a good thing for the long term future of the sport. Mixed Martial Arts should be exactly that - Mixed Martial Arts and yet it isn'r any more, which is a shame. Instead of being a clash of completely different styles in order to find the best competitors in a Mortal Kombat/Street Fighter style tournament, the product is now aimed at finding the best hybrid of boxing, wrestling and BJJ. I don't think that's anywhere near as entertaining and it wouldn't surprise me to see the UFC revert to something like they had in the past rather than going forwards with this hybrid style. I think it's too predictable from a stylistic and results viewpoint, and simply not entertaining enough.

 

MMA is still nowhere near being ingrained into culture like wrestling or other sports are, so there's still somewhat of a risk in going forward. It'll be interesting to see what changes they make.

[etz 78]

Also, Vince isn't the reason for 5 hours a week of TV. He's tried repeatedly to get SD! cut to a 1 hour show, but all the networks think wrestling needs to be 2 hours.

 

Also, the SD! GM has pretty consistently been a face for bloody ages, aside from Vickie.

Edited September 21, 2011 by etz

[Guest Jimmy Redman]

This is a minor, minor point, but its not 5 hours. Its 4 hours.

 

Or, if you want to include Superstars and NXT its 6 hours, but its either both or neither so it cant be 5 hours. Just sayin'.

[etz 78]

Well, you could include Superstars and not NXT, on the basis NXT isn't a wrestling show, as such.

 

And if you wanted to be a real pedant, you could argue that while RAW is 2 hours (it's live), SD! is only really 1.5 hours, with a half hour of adverts thrown in.

Edited September 21, 2011 by etz

[Maxximus 353]

That really changes nothing. Pedantry cannot resolve this discussion.

[dsrchris 190]

That really changes nothing. Pedantry cannot resolve this discussion.

 

Oh, okay *puts pistols away*

 

:(

[DC 536]

Well, you could include Superstars and not NXT, on the basis NXT isn't a wrestling show, as such.

 

And if you wanted to be a real pedant, you could argue that while RAW is 2 hours (it's live), SD! is only really 1.5 hours, with a half hour of adverts thrown in.

RAW has adverts too.

[etz 78]

RAW has adverts too.

 

RAW is a live event, the show is still going on while the ads are showing. SD! is prerecorded.

 

Plus, just check out the average lengths of RAW sans adverts versus SD! sans adverts. Raw is the longer show by anything from 10 to 25 minutes.

 

All of which really has nothing to do with the actual point I was making, which was that WWE would prefer to have less TV time.

[Maxximus 353]

Less tv time? Yeah, I guess that's why they want their own network. Less tv time. This makes perfect sense.

[etz 78]

1st run network programming like RAW and SD! isn't in the same ballpark as a specialist channel airing thousands of hours of old stock footage.

 

Besides, I'm just repeating what Vince has been quoted as saying a couple of times in the past, on this very forum. 2 hours per show is too long, it leads to everyone having faced everyone else in very short order.

[Guest Dusty Finish]

1st run network programming like RAW and SD! isn't in the same ballpark as a specialist channel airing thousands of hours of old stock footage.

 

Besides, I'm just repeating what Vince has been quoted as saying a couple of times in the past, on this very forum. 2 hours per show is too long, it leads to everyone having faced everyone else in very short order.

 

Nail, head, hit as to the point re. WWE's outdated production model, minus the pedantry over details that don't really affect the point at hand; although I'm not convinced about them seriously wanting less hours of original programming to fill- hasn't SD changed channels in recent years? Why not either relocate it to the Superstars 1 hour slot or drop it completely, if they're suddenly free of previous contractual obligations they "didn't like"? 2 flagship programmes, in my robustly held opinion, are absolutely not needed, and haven't been for at least 5 years now.

 

As you say, everyone faces everyone in short order, and match-ups are over exposed. How many times has Randy Orton faced Christian on PPV in 2011? Contrast this with how many times Georges St Pierre (UFC's top box-office babyface) has fought in total this annum. Perhaps I should've mentioned the volume of PPVs given the size of the roster of wrestlers as another reason their tactics, to quote HHH, need to "evolve". Whereas UFC run a comparable number of PPVs, they do have over 300 active fighters under some form of contract.

 

Yeah. I'm actually inclined to slightly agree with Dusty on his point, but using the simple fact that a wrestling show has a set with trons, and they have wrestlers go out there and talk and wrestle matches to prove it is pretty reaching. Thats...what a wrestling show is. They film promos and matches in an arena. If it evolved much more than that it would be a show about something else.

 

The show doesnt look anything like it did in 1997.

 

BUT, the point is there that the Raw/SD 'format' is stale. Not for that long, but certainly stale.

 

Fair comment, but just to elaborate a little (and keep the discussion going, hopefully), while fundamentally the same (promos & matches in arenas), the jobber shows like Superstars & Challenge with event centre vignettes to build PPVs with Sean Mooney & Todd Pettingill had become unbefitting of their time a year or two before the change to the current format, which was exactly that for the mid-late 90's.... current & invigorating. I remember the first time I saw a 2 hour Raw, and I was exhausted by the end, but spellbound none-the-less. I haven't watched Raw in years, because personally I find it has become unwatchable.

 

I'd say I was about 12 the first time I saw Vader in a handicap match on Worldwide, and the concept blew my mind. 2 against 1??! It was crazy, even though the 2 were vanilla jobbers. In recent years, I catch the recap shows if they're on when I'm channel surfing, and although I don't watch Raw per-se, I'm sick of seeing John Cena in a match where he's outnumbered to some degree... against either 7 or 8 guys on his own being the most ridiculous example. Given that the live audience didn't seem particularly captivated, it seemed to be standard fare, and that is my definition of a tired concept.

 

Additionally, while there may have little tweaks & nuances in the cosmetic presentation over the last 14 years that relative die-hards will notice immediately, to the (although I loathe the term, as it seems to be used as an excuse for everything these days) casual viewer, Raw especially looks pretty much the same as it has since they stopped using the three giant letter "RAW" sign... and this is the audience that is quickest to look elsewhere, and the audience that will be watching Bones & Rampage this weekend.

[Paul 584]

I cant, and wont, argue that the writing of the product is stale. Its horrible and when they do try new ideas they tend to screw them up, and as you and Jimmy both said the over exposure of people is horrible. What I was disagreeing with was the claim that it was the same as in 1997. The Attitude Era compared to the 'PG Era'? Very different content in the shows. Its the difference between UFC 1 and UFC 100, both WWE and MMA evolved in that time.