The discussion continues as to whether Ronda Rousey's loss to Holly Holm was a good thing for UFC. ESPN's Bomani Jones said it is the "best thing to ever happen" to the MMA promotion, as Rousey's fights "just got interesting again." Jones: "We never entertained the possibility she could lose, so watching her win did to an extent get boring.” ESPN's Dan Le Batard said a Holm-Rousey rematch, which has been rumored for UFC 200 next July, would be "good for the sport," but Rousey losing again "becomes a problem." Le Batard said there will "not be another star" like Rousey in UFC. He said, "Once you take away her invincibility, it only becomes interesting if she can come back and get her title” (“Highly Questionable,” ESPN, 11/16). FS1's Peter Schrager said, "If there’s a rematch, now I care. I didn’t care to watch this, to be honest. I thought all I get from the UFC is that Ronda Rousey beats everyone in 10 seconds. I don’t really need to pay for the fight. I’ll hear about it in the morning." But FS1's Petros Papadakis said Rousey is the "only recognizable fighter they have," and the loss "cripples the entire sport.” Papadakis: “They have so much into her -- the movies, every picture up here in our lot, everything about UFC is all centered around Ronda Rousey. That is a bad look to have your great bloodied and bludgeoned. ... I hope their sport recovers, but that’s like Tyson going down to Buster Douglas" ("Fox Sports Live: Countdown," FS1, 11/16).
AURA OF INVINCIBILITY GONE: Dallas Morning News columnist Tim Cowlishaw called Rousey's loss a blow to UFC, saying, "I can’t think of any of the male stars of this sport who have become as big a name as Ronda Rousey, and it was all based around her being just invincible” (“Around The Horn,” ESPN, 11/16). In N.Y., Victor Mather writes Rousey "will win again, and may even be the best again." But she "will never again be invincible" (N.Y. TIMES, 11/17). ESPN's Jemele Hill said Rousey’s loss helps the UFC, because it now can "sell a rematch." She added, "I think to some degree people like it when they see the vulnerabilities of world-class athletes.” But ESPN’s Michael Smith said Rousey "transcended this particular sport because she was so head-and-shoulders above all the competition.” UFC officials now have to wonder if Holm can “bring the same type of energy and personality to the sport as the champion” like Rousey did. Smith: “I wonder if this will actually hurt UFC despite the calls for a rematch immediately” (“His & Hers,” ESPN2, 11/16).
REASON TO WORRY: The GLOBE & MAIL's Cathal Kelly writes Rousey is "more than UFC’s biggest star," as over the last 18 "remarkable months, she'd become its raison d’être." Rousey "gave UFC its dignity" and "cleansed the sport of its tawdriness." She was the first "major star who both penetrated the wider sports consciousness and did so without seeming like a sociopath." UFC "won’t lose its core audience" if Rousey fails to return to a championship level, but the core fan "isn’t enough." To stretch "beyond the backward-ball-cap crowd, it needs a crossover star," and Rousey "was all they had." If she is done, UFC "isn’t just damaged." Kelly: "It may be gut shot" (GLOBE & MAIL, 11/17).
