whaledog.com

One guy wrote in opposition to you: "The Zuffa myth? WHO CARES!!!! It makes a better story than the truth anyway. America loves success stories!"

This is Zuffa's fan base, people who cannot stand the truth. That is who they cater to, and that is also their own mindset. Keep up the great work!

I wouldn't say I was bashing your website. I would call it constructive criticism, and at worst, respectful bashing. If you would cover positive stories along with your negative stories, people would give you more credit. You also wouldn't come across like you have a vendetta with the current ownership of the UFC.

"It's the overall, constant negative bantering that gets old and tiresome...true or not."

Well, that's your problem. Instead of trying to write the "truth", you should try to be a little more positive. That's what journalists are supposed to do, right ? Not report facts, but make us feel good about the world...

God help you. The mouth breathers over at that forum are a sad lot.

Keep up the great work, Whaledog!

Honestly, I do think there is some truth is that accusation.
You do a good job here, but I find that I take it with a grain of salt because more time and energy seems to be spent criticizing Zuffa, than anything else.

It is a blog, and thus a forum for your own opinion. If it were a website, I would likely be more critical.

An example would be the Ivan interview you posted. Ivan mentioned a pretty big factual error when talking about the TUF contract. Even at the minimun, it is not one hundred thousand, but 166k. At the max, it is over three hundred thousand. I am sure you knew that, as it is common knowledge.

My own thought is that when commenting at the end of that post, pointing out this would have gone a long way towards making this blog more of a professional site. You have made a point of calling out Zuffa and journalists(an example is the artictle on Canada.com regarding headbutts. You made a post to comment on his getting it wrong. I think that is fairly minor.)but then Mr. Salaverry made his point against Zuffa by using numbers that were nowhere near being acurate and nothing was said. That certainly comes across as being a double standard.

But, as I said, it is a blog and thus a forum for your own views.

I hadn't read the Ivan Salaverry interview yet, but the winner's prize for TUF 4 is being advertised as a $100,000 cash prize (in addition to a title shot), so if he was referring specifically to TUF 4, then he was accurate.

In response to Ivan:
He was refering to TUF winners as being stuck in a ten fight contract that is worth $100,000. That is not acurate of the regular TUF contract, nor is it acurate of the TUF IV contract.

The point I meant to make was that some people hold Zuffa's feet to the fire over everything, which I have no problem with, but are more forgiving of others.

For example: I have read several very positve things about the WFA ppv. While the fights were entertaining, the production was awful. Fights were announced in the wrong weight classes, a graphic refered to "Don Fry". If these happned at a UFC show, we would be reading criticism of it. Not with the WFA. I have read very little, other than Dave Meltzer, comments about the problems the WFA had.

I am not a UFC fan with blinders on, I just think things should be even. This is simply not what usually happens.

Whaledog, I read your blog and do comment on occasion. I thing you do a pretty good job. Do I think there is a bias? Yes, I do. I am commenting on it because the subject has come up. The best sites, MMAweekly being one of them, does a very good job of being, or at least trying to be, unbiased.

Should Zuffa be held accountable? Yes. should other orgs? Yes, to the exact same standards. To do anything less, is to make yourself less credible.