Page 5 of 5 First 12345
  1. #41
    UpaLumpa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Descending into absurdity
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington
    I certainly like the fact that their fighters are salaried rather than purse-chasers.
    Based on conversations with some of the IFL guys last night, they're off salary and negotiate fights according to the more conventional model now.

    However, it sounds like they'll be getting paid more overall. One of the guys was also under the impression that it would be an almost squad (e.g. 10 guys per camp) level matchup situation.
    Last edited by UpaLumpa; 1/03/2008 12:08pm at .

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    g. barra (blue belt), fma
    i mostly like IFL because it comes on broadcast and i don't have cable or satellite so i miss most of the PPV and spiketv events. one thing i don't like about it is the 4 minutes rounds. it keeps the action going but i think it rushes the fighters too much. and i'd personally like to see more time so there'd be more grappling (yes i'm biased). i'm more interested in seeing positions, sweeps and escapes rather than knockouts. the other problem i have with the IFL is the same that i have with TUF, is that you have fighters with less than a year or two of training fighting professionally (i'm generalizing here). i can't stand hearing announcers saying things like such and such fighter has only been working on his striking or his grappling for the last couple of months. you should be proficient in both before you even start amateur fighing IMO. that's also why i hate UCE, which is just toughman with mma rules.

Page 5 of 5 First 12345


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in