Both are niche sports.
But the battle rages on about which is more popular and why.
@The Infamous and
@Master Teacher
Continue the debate in this dedicated thread.
Thanks!
All others feel free to jump in.
MMA is popular only the aspect in how it's being marketed by Zuffa.
Boxing isn't operated like that. Ricky Hatton had a way bigger fanbase in England than Conor does in Ireland, but he was never advertised as a brand here because that's not what the boxing business is.
UFC operates like WWE, and they brand their fighters like WWE does wrestlers, which is why Anderson Silva wasn't even allowed to change his music.
You don't have to accomplish anything when Zuffa can spend marketing dollars to make you visible.
Just look at Ronda, it was a serious effort to make her big, none of that effort is being applied to the other women.
Coker is a real promoter if you haven't notice.
All the UFC's top talent came from strikeforce to be honest, which is way a better ran promotion, if he had zuffa's money behind him, MMA would be big because he actually knows how to promote the right way.
He made that Kimbo fight pop, when Dana tried to ride the kimbo train in UFC it was a flop.
And Coker did it long after Kimbo's hype was dead.
It's like this before Floyd even fought on PPV he was making twice or maybe three times as much as Conor Mcgregor is making now, yet they want to compare him o money mayweather who built a career over a decade not a few years.
Mayweather didn't need ESPN to talk about his fights, they did anyway, because they have to cover it for ratings. That's why all the pundits were so salty because they didn't understand why this shyt was so popular when nobody talks about boxing on ESPN. It's because the boxing world is huge on it's own, they wanted in for their own benefit not the other way around.