gunnar hendershow Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Torn ACL too I read, that's a horrible injury and one that's very hard to come back from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mr. potato head Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 I know it's not nearly as big a draw, but I'm much more interested in Diaz/Condit as a fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieG Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 For MMA fans, of course, Diaz / Condit is a great fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Miguel Torres has been released by the UFC following his tweet about rape vans. Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnar hendershow Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 It was an "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" quote too. Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriel Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Wow, I get that this is a public company and they have an image to uphold, but this is the kind of stuff that a person who watches that show would post. In context, it's hilarious, and I get it. There needs to be a line drawn here. Do they want these guys to have social networking pages and be themselves on them? Or do they want them to keep quiet and tow the company line? You really can't ask someone to ride the middle on that, because the whole point of social networking is so that you have a place to be yourself on the internet, and for people and fans to get to know who you are. Bad move by the UFC, especially in light of the recent, similar, issues with Forrest Griffin and Rashad Evans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-MIL Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Oh, the three rape related messages, Torres' was easily the least offensive. Probably the most stupid though. Wonderful example of different rules for different people though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnar hendershow Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 If Rashad still has a job after what he said then there's no reason Torres should have been fired. Torres took a TV show quote, and while it's foolish to ever tweet something like that he did the least fireable thing of all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-MIL Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 But he was the most fireable guy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 What were the three quotes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieG Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Torres said if "rape vans were called surprise vans, girls wouldn't mind as much because everybody likes a surprise" Rashad Evans told Phil Davis "I guarantee you'll be the first one to take a shot cause I'm going to put my hands on you worse than that dude did them other kids at Penn State." Can't remember what Griffin said. EDIT: Apparently Griffin said "rape is the new missionary" in reference to how mainstream news outlets are reporting on rapes a lot more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mr. potato head Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Wow, I get that this is a public company and they have an image to uphold, but this is the kind of stuff that a person who watches that show would post. In context, it's hilarious, and I get it. There needs to be a line drawn here. Do they want these guys to have social networking pages and be themselves on them? Or do they want them to keep quiet and tow the company line? You really can't ask someone to ride the middle on that, because the whole point of social networking is so that you have a place to be yourself on the internet, and for people and fans to get to know who you are. Bad move by the UFC, especially in light of the recent, similar, issues with Forrest Griffin and Rashad Evans. UFC isn't a public company. Though they are extremely sensitive to public perception because of the FOX deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quom Posted December 9, 2011 Report Share Posted December 9, 2011 Social media is either a vehicle for self expression or a vehicle for self promotion, the two should rarely coincide. If people are adding me because of my job and I'm allowing that then the tool becomes about self-promotion and extrinsically related to my work. I can set up a Twitter today and start rambling about child protection laws, the people who add me don't want or need to know what I did today in my personal life. Meanwhile my family and friends likely don't really give a shit about my views on child protection (well in truth nobody likely does). That to me is the issue and surely it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out? Surely they could use some of their pay cheque to hire someone to run the PR side of promotion and get them to do it all on their behalf. It was a stupid mistake, especially given the crap already flying around about rape being tweeted about by Griffin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 I feel Torres has unfortunately been a victim of the straw that broke the camels back, Zuffa have had a few incidents like this and Torres tweeted the wrong thing at the wrong time. As a top level mixed martial artist you have a duty to act as a role model for the fans, it is getting to the stage where mixed martial artists are going for shock factor sound bites, and they can't do that anymore as the media microscope is watching, and rape and child molestation are not jokes that people in the public eye should be making in a public forum, be it facebook, twitter or press conferences. Also MPH, it is not a public company in the sense of it being listed company, traded openly on a stock exchange, but it is a company in the public eye, much like UPS, Chrysler, the accountants Price Waterhouse Coopers, Mars (confectioners), Toys 'r' Us and Enterprise Rent A Car, if things go well or badly with these companies it is covered by the press, you do not often hear of their employees joking about rape, and these companies are larger than the UFC and Zuffa, its because the employees know what to say and what not to say publicly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asuka's Gonna Kill You Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 Spot on. Anyway, actually pumped for the show tonight. Maybe I'm getting my hopes up, but I still believe too many people have counted out Machida and made it out like it's a foregone conclusion that Jones wins this fight. It's tough to bet against Jones, but I most certainly think this is his toughest fight to date and that Machida could just pull of the 'upset'. May even have a little cheeky punt on Machida at the odds that he's been put at. Though if I do that it'll likely result in Jones once again dismantling his opponent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mr. potato head Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 (edited) Also MPH, it is not a public company in the sense of it being listed company, traded openly on a stock exchange, but it is a company in the public eye, much like UPS, Chrysler, the accountants Price Waterhouse Coopers, Mars (confectioners), Toys 'r' Us and Enterprise Rent A Car, if things go well or badly with these companies it is covered by the press, you do not often hear of their employees joking about rape, and these companies are larger than the UFC and Zuffa, its because the employees know what to say and what not to say publicly. Gabriel said UFC was a public company. 99% of all people who have an ounce of business knowledge and aren't looking for an excuse to piss on MPH would take "public company" to mean the same thing Google and Wikipedia do up there. Beyond that, I said in the same post that they're sensitive to public perception because of their recently enhanced public profile, so I don't get why you're feeling the need to explain the drawbacks to being in the public eye to me. Also, when you're a UFC fighter, everything you say on Twitter or whatnot is representative of UFC because everyone identifies you as a representative of UFC (and often you do yourself as well). When you're John working in the Toys 'R Us stockroom, you can get away with saying more on Twitter because you probably don't mention your employer anywhere and nobody follows you because of their love of Toys 'R Us. Edited December 10, 2011 by mr. potato head 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-MIL Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 Play nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 Also MPH, it is not a public company in the sense of it being listed company, traded openly on a stock exchange, but it is a company in the public eye, much like UPS, Chrysler, the accountants Price Waterhouse Coopers, Mars (confectioners), Toys 'r' Us and Enterprise Rent A Car, if things go well or badly with these companies it is covered by the press, you do not often hear of their employees joking about rape, and these companies are larger than the UFC and Zuffa, its because the employees know what to say and what not to say publicly. Gabriel said UFC was a public company. 99% of all people who have an ounce of business knowledge and aren't looking for an excuse to piss on MPH would take "public company" to mean the same thing Google and Wikipedia do up there. Beyond that, I said in the same post that they're sensitive to public perception because of their recently enhanced public profile, so I don't get why you're feeling the need to explain the drawbacks to being in the public eye to me. Also, when you're a UFC fighter, everything you say on Twitter or whatnot is representative of UFC because everyone identifies you as a representative of UFC (and often you do yourself as well). When you're John working in the Toys 'R Us stockroom, you can get away with saying more on Twitter because you probably don't mention your employer anywhere and nobody follows you because of their love of Toys 'R Us. At the same time you picked on the most insignificant thing of what Gabriel said, his reasoning and meaning was clear even if his use of terminology was not. 99% of an all people who are decent would not point that out in an effort to look like you know something and have something on them, which is the way your response came across to me. Maybe is you focused on the topic rather than inflating your ego you wouldn't get in to these problems. I am however glad that we agree that fighters do need to be more cautious with the greater media attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mr. potato head Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 I apologize for thinking that when Gabriel said UFC is a public company, he meant that UFC is a public company. Clearly that was stupid of me. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanDMan Posted December 10, 2011 Report Share Posted December 10, 2011 Well at least you can admit that you're wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.