Kimbo Slice, the UFC, and boxing - where they all meet

Kimbo Slice. That’s the name I hear all the time. It doesn’t matter that he is in the EliteXC, and that the UFC is an entirely different division. Mixed Martial Arts for many means Kimbo as many do not know the difference.

I mention this because I wonder how much of an effect has the recent loss by Kimbo done to the UFC and MMA in general?

Kimbo had perhaps the biggest media behind his success. Much of that press is due to the deal with CBS, and their desperate desire to make their investment profitable. As such, Kimbo had to be like Mike Tyson in his matches, lest the hype would be lost. But in fact it could be said that he was exactly like Tyson, versus Buster Douglas.

But this black eye to CBS and EliteXC seems to have invaded the whole industry. And many long-time boxing fans are even further put off by MMA. Of course there is no loss in enthusiasts of all types, like this woman.



So MMA has decided to mix boxing into the event. Matches between a fighter and boxer are set for January 2009. And the question is will that hype lead up to an interesting event that can draw boxing fans?

I think not. Boxing fans that don’t like MMA won’t be pleased with a loss to a non-boxer. The fact that the disciplines are so different insists that whatever style is favored will lead to a win. Thus in a 3 match event, with it being broken down to 2 of one style and a 3rd of another, the winner is most probably the style with the most matches. Which says nothing of the abilities or worthiness of the opponents.

This is exactly the reason why Roy Jones Jr. won’t fight Anderson Silva. If it’s 2 MMA fights, Jones will be embarrassed in front of his fans. If it’s 2 boxing matches then boxing fans will conclude that the MMA is a waste of time. And if a fighter of either discipline wins at the opposite style, fans of there’s will scream that the match was fixed - just like many of the fights of Kimbo Slice are accused. And then everyone loses.

The UFC needs the big money that boxing holds. They need to get the media attention that Spike Television just can’t provide (though it is considerable exposure). And they must avoid the media-driven black eye that CBS gave the industry with Kimbo Slice. In fact they must surmount the profit motivated exploitation that is the EliteXC on CBS.

But pitting boxers versus MMA fighters is not the way to go. Nor is baseless hype. Perhaps there just needs to be a fighter that is Herculean in style and presentation, again like a Mike Tyson. Someone the general public can cheer to lose as he wins repeatedly with style and speed – against obviously qualified opponents.

Is there another choice? Am I wrong about boxing vs. MMA? You tell me.

The Hillary Clinton boxing connection - repost

**Repost from VASS, my political blog. But it has multiple boxing and movie references.**

So was it just me or did anyone else find humor in the comments of Senator Hillary Clinton yesterday? If you don’t recall the comment it was

“Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people.”

Now as I recall, wasn’t the first Rocky movie that she references (about running up the stairs in center city Philadelphia) the first time that Rocky loses to Apollo Creed the champion that was Black? Are we to take it that she too is in a battle that she won’t win? [And in the real world Sylvester Stallone is a Republican that backs Senator John McCain]

In fact, Rocky lost multiple times to better stronger Black men. Actually Rocky was constantly losing and getting his head beat in. I recall a Rocky movie (just before the most recent, I think it was 5) where the pugilist lost everything and was back in the poverty he started from due to the fact he wasn’t smart enough to manage his finances and make a proper plan for the future.

So if Senator Clinton is just like Rocky, as she says, then she is a loser without the sense to know when to stop fighting, can’t manage money, and willing to risk the livelihood of family and friends just to prove a point. Not the inspiring image that she intended, perhaps a Freudian slip on her part?

But I won’t beat up on her about this. I’ll just highlight the similarities. Senator Clinton has lost the popular vote, trails virtually 2-1 on state victories (27 – 14) and is losing on the delegate count. There is almost no way that she can avoid a decision and the odds are decidedly against her as her own supporters are acknowledging Senator Obama will win the Democratic nomination.

And she has thrown more low blows than Gerry Cooney, hitting below the belt with a campaign staff that has either been following instructions or is so without supervision they have been caught repeatedly using race as a means of personal attack. Spreading emails that claim Senator Obama is a secret Muslim, highlighting his middle name to draw on the Muslim fears/prejudice of America, alleging that Senator Obama was a drug dealer, insulting African Americans that voted for him by dismissing his victory in South Carolina, attempting to circumvent every rule and plan that she agreed to back when she thought she would win easily in 2007, and the list goes on.

That says nothing of her Leon Spinks-esque brown bag equivalent of trying to ignore the fact that one of her larger fund raisers was known, wanted fugitive Norman Hsu, who happened to give her $1 million that he stole and she did not want to return.

If anything, I would equate Senator Clinton with James ‘Buster’ Douglas. Like the little boxer that could she won a Senate seat in New York State, and has gone up against a heavyweight she was not prepared for. She was under prepared and got knocked on her butt in the early rounds. But she made a comeback, and thought she was stronger than she in fact was. She’s been knocked back and down repeatedly and too many want her to throw in the towel. She’s even taking late hits (from herself) with the truth of her own actions hitting her as hard as the fact that she has no experience has. [Bosnia and Ireland if I was too obscure]

So let me ask this. If you had a choice, and you do, why would you want to back a fighter that loses repeatedly, trips over their own legs, is overconfident to the point of embarrassment, and seems more than a bit punch-drunk?