D4L, losing sucks, makes us do weird things, chase loses, beat the dog, yell FIX (just kidding, I would never chase loses). I had money on Ronda and felt plenty certain to preordain her the winner.
The idea that you or I did not see it coming is not a reason for a fix. Calling this a fix is your attempt to remain infallible in your mind by transferring your failure to a phantom, likely unproveable conspiracy, and you did it here rather than a non-betting site because you know you are more likely to find a similar sentiment among other bettors.
Why would she have to create more interest to extend her career? She's already the biggest draw in the UFC, regardless of the talent of her opponent. There would still be more fights to make if she had won.
Quote Originally Posted by DRIBBLE4LIFE:
Before you ignorantly call me stoopid, think about this....a Rousey loss creates millions more buzz and hype for the mega-fight with Cyborg, which si coming right up.
Suddenly, Rousey is vulnerable--she has lost. How many more PPV buys do you think will be had due to Rousey's loss tonight? Not to mention the rematch with Holm which is a given.
So is this Ronda diving to extend her career, or is this the UFC instructing her to dive so they can profit? This isn't a rogue small-time promoter. It's a name brand that has it's reputation and thousands of future fights on the line, and it does not make sense to risk that for 200,000 extra buys every 6 months.
If you're talking strictly about Ronda, her invincibility was way more valuable long-term - to advertisers, movie studios, and to Ronda herself - compared to her future fight purses.
I can't even get into the logistics of throwing this fight, it's too asinine.
Quote Originally Posted by DRIBBLE4LIFE:
Alot of peopledon't understand that Rousey's success has actually hurt trhe UFC more than it has helped it. Just like Mayweather's fights hurt boxing, though they filled his pockets with cash. Floyd nut-huggers and fanboys will never admit it, but boxing will thrive much more once he is gone. Face it.
This may be true about Floyd, Klitschko, and other boring but dominant fighters, however, there are a myriad of other reasons that have contributed much more to boxing's decline. You can't point to one boxer's dominance and cry foul, that's myopic.
In addition, MMA is organizationally different and it could be argued that fighter dominance under one brand name garners more mainstream exposure and brings more fans to the sport.
I just got done listening to the ProMMARadio podcast. Larry Pepe is one of UFC's biggest critics, and he didn't mention 1 ounce of doubt to the validity of Holm's perfect performance, and I don't expect him to do so in the coming weeks. A favorable outcome for future match-making does not equate to a fix. PPV buys for a Holm main event without Ronda will be a gnat on Dana's behind next to a main event with Ronda.
There was a lot of BS surrounding Ronda before the fight, maybe sharps didn't like her act at weigh-ins and it all compounded at the end. Maybe sharps didn't like how much stronger Holm looked standing side-by-side. Who knows? Why don't you try asking some sharps rather than throwing a pity party?
The reason why you didn't see a fix before the fight is because there was nothing to see. Sleep on it and accept the lose.
and 3-2(+1.05) in O/U. I would tell everyone to relax I'm sit up money for the year and for my UFC career. Just a little speed bump or was that a truck, lol.
Hot Forum Topics
