Talk:UFC 100

A small mistake in the payouts: it says "Dan Henderson: $250,00 ($150,000 win bonus)" ...it's missing a zero (in case you didn't notice ;-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tma99 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is UFC 100 going to be called anything? Or is it going to just be UFC 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestdfuller (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The UFC hasn't called it anything yet... maybe they can't decide on a cool sounding name for 100. Maybe they don't think "Lesnar vs. Mir 2" isn't special enough. Who knows.  :) --Drr-darkomen (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's necessary to mention who GSP, Dan Henderson and Thiago Alves are and what they accomplished. They have their own pages for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.46.132 (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as the user who has been adding this information, I feel it would be proper for me to share my rationale. I have added that information to ensure that this article reaches out to the broadest of audiences possible. You and I are both MMA fans, so we are aware of who GSP, Hendo, and Alves are. For a reader who might not know anything about MMA, and have stumbled upon this article, I think the tid bits about each fighter serves as a handy tool to establish context. A single line or two about each fighter also ensures that there is still plenty of info available to read on their individual pages.

This is all just my opinion though, and if the consensus is that it's unnecessary, I will have no problems with that. Bad intentionz (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop swaping Hendo-Bipsing with Ficth-Paul, Hendo-Bipsing is the second co-main event —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.56.107 (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, it has always been the case that if there are three advertised "main events", the third one is the second fight on the card. I assume it's because they want to make sure they have enough time to get these three advertised fights in. The actual third bout on the card (Fight-Thiago) might end up being shown at the very end of the night if the first two fights go for too long. Some notable examples are UFC 92 and UFC 73. At 92, Silva-Jackson was the second fight of the night, and Sherk-Franca was also the second fight of the night at Stacked. Here at Wikipedia, we are following the order of the bouts at UFC.com, which have always been consistent with the order they will be shown during the telecast. If you're concerned with Henderson-Bisping not receiving due recognition, don't be. It is pretty clear on the poster which three fights are the featured attractions.Bad intentionz (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

broadcast

UFC 100 was originally to be shown on setanta in the uk. Now that setanta is in administration, they will not be showing the event. All I could find on the the subject was that the UFC have stated that they will broadcast in the uk, but haven't decided where. Does anyone know where ufc 100 will be broadcast? Should this go in to the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.119.233 (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the fights will be broadcast on the Super Action channel in South Korea. There is considerable hype here due to Kim Dong Hyun fighting in one of the matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.34.146.150 (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding "interim champion" to title unification matches

It doesn't make sense to me why this is necessary. I know in some articles they're used like so, but WP works on consensus, not precedence. Adding the interim champion and champion titles in bold (like it's really more important than the actual names of the fighters) sticks out like a sore thumb, and quite awkward when on normal championship bouts the champion and challenger are not so delineated. hateless 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem getting rid of the tags. However with the tags in place there has been less vandalism / edit warring involved in that match. Without the tags there are constant edits to refer to the bout as a "Undisputed Heavyweight Title Unification bout", which to me is more undesirable than the tags themselves because that's really not the name of the title up for grabs. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree "undisputed" is not an appropriate word to use. I have no problem however using the word "unification", as in "Heavyweight Championship unification bout", would this working keep the edit warring down to a minimum? hateless 21:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Such as "Heavyweight Championship unification bout: Brock Lesnar vs. Frank Mir" ? I could get behind that. It *should* keep the edit warring down. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea --Tuoppi gm (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is the same situation at Strikeforce: Carano vs. Cyborg with Melendez—Thompson. I support the above and could also get behind a simple "(c)" and "(ic)" or something like that behind the names. --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that by not listing who the current champion is (as seems to be the current practice), we exclude the casual fan who regularly check out the site. For example, a casual fan checking out Strikeforce: Carano vs. Cyborg most likely would not know if Alistair Overeem or Fabricio Werdum was Strikerforce's Heavyweight Champion. (Justinsane15 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

It is standard practice to bill the champion before the challenger, in MMA and Boxing alike. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then it can be assumed that Gina Carano and Nick Diaz are the current champions of their respective divisions. (Justinsane15 (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

True, but if you click through to Gina Carano or Nick Diaz, you can clearly see that they are not. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] Really there should be something in the Background section of the article to explain such things. "Gina Carano will face/faced Cristiane Santos to become the first ever Strikeforce Women's Champion at 145 lbs." or something similar. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you click on Gina Carano or Nick Diaz you would have to read through the entire article before coming to such a conclusion, which is something a casual fan is unlikely to do. Same with Alistair Overeem, you have to go through most of his wikipedia page before you realize that he's the Strikeforce Heavyweight Champion. Thus, I would argue that indicating who the champion is before a fight would be extremely helpful in these cases. A Background section of the article to explain such things would also be highly benefical. (Justinsane15 (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

If we indicate the champion (ether with a Champion tag or with a (c) following their name), we will most definitely need to indicate interim champions as well (ether with a Interim Champion tag or a (ic) following their name). MMA acticles have used both (c) and the bold tags in the past. I personally haven't seen a (ic) yet. To a casual fan a (c) and (ic) might not be very intuitive either. As a side note... and to open yet another can of worms... I think it would be beneficial to modify Template:MMAstatsbox to indicate which (if any) title(s) that mixed martial artist currently holds. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

UFC 100: Making History

Is the event called "UFC 100: Making History" or simply "UFC 100"? UFC.com says just 100: UFC® 100 However if you look at this screenshot from UFC 100 and compare it to this screenshot from UFC 99 it looks to me like it was indeed named Making History. Thoughts? --Drr-darkomen (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Locked with Error

Could someone with the power fix Henderson's payout. It needs an extra zero. Its listed as $250,00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.150.192 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)