Main Event Madness

Main Event Madness
Posted by: Marcus

You've been following the rumours of a big MMA bout for a month. You try and do the math in your head of who has what advantages where. You wonder who has the better ground game, stand up, chin, heart, and so forth. You compare credentials of NCAA accolades or belt ranks in martial arts. The excitement for the coming title fight couldn't be higher in your mind, and then you wake up the next day to find out that someone is out with an injury. It's an instantaneous buzzkill. However, after the initial frustration, most fans are able to deal with it and look forward to whatever new main event is set up. However, sometimes it's difficult to understand exactly how an MMA promotion figures out exactly what matchup should take the place of the original main event.

Truth be told, one can't get too upset over the injury of a top fighter. More often than not, a fighter who comes into a fight that isn't in top health pays the price more often than not. For example, Minotauro Nogeuira coming off of a rough staph infection before his bout with Frank Mir, an opponent that proved to Minotauro that he shouldn't be taken lightly. Other fights have been put on hold as of late, such as Anderson Silva vs Vitor Belfort, and Machida vs Shogun 2. In these circumstances, someone can understand why they do not fight with nagging injuries. However, there are times when the UFC doesn't seem to be able to follow up with a substitue main event that has a similar impact.

The most glaring exampe of this is the main event of UFC 106, Forrest Griffin's rematch with Tito Ortiz. Though many people see that fight as Forrest's first foray into the top of his division, the issue remained that the fight did not serve as a good main event. Neither fighter, at that point, was in line for a title shot, and both were on losing streaks. Also, Ortiz's recent eighteen month layoff didn't help matters either. Though the "hardcore" fan may be drawn to a main event like this, many of the new fans that had been drawn in since UFC 100 may have been put off by such a main event.

However, another part of the problem may simply be in the match that is being substituted. The original main event of UFC 106 was the highly anticipated return of Brock Lesnar to face off against rising heavyweight knockout artist Shane Carwin. Both men came from similar wrestling backgrounds, and were known for their immense size and brutal strength. However, Lesnar's current condition put this match on an indefinite hold, and an interim bout between Frank Mir and Shane Carwin may be in the works. From the standpoint of someone on the outside looking in, a fight between Griffin and Ortiz makes a good co-main event, but not many people truly want to pay good money to watch it as the main event. The difference here is that neither fighter has much of a legend behind them, neither of them is at the top of the division, and for either fighter, a victory does not mean a title shot. Truthfully, it has no real consequences, and MMA fans don't seem to enjoy fan service as a main event, unless you're seeing two legendary fighters face one another, a la Couture vs Nogeiura.

So, what does it seem best for the UFC to do in these scenarios? One would think that they should structure a card according to a model of what would work best were the main event to fall through. For example, having a number one contender bout in the Lightweight division as the co-main event for UFC 106 may have been a bettter choice. It may be a better idea to keep fan service bouts to the cable TV events, like UFC 105 was. UFC 105 and UFC 106 seemed to be structured similarly, in which the cards themselves were better suited for cable viewing rather than a fourty five dollar price point. Hopefully the UFC will find more efficient ways to structure the fight cards to bring in a better revenue despite injuries suffered by champions. Only time will tell.

The Lesnar Discussion

The Lesnar Discussion
Posted by: Marcus

My first foray into Youtube videos met with mixed reception, partially due to the choice of discussion in a video version of my previous article, entitled The Fedor Discussion. Part of the reason I think the article and accompanying video have been received this way is that the audience seems to think that it's not fair for me to be so analytical of one side of Mixed Martial Arts without being observant of the goings-on in the UFC. To counter that train of thought, I decided to write an article about the career of Brock Lesnar, who has become one of the biggest topics of controversy in MMA since he first arrived in the sport.

First off, a little background. Brock began his athletic career in Webster, South Dakota, wrestling in High School, where he compiled an undefeated record of 33-0 in his senior year, fetching him a scholarship to the University of Minnesota. From there, he placed second in the NCAA in 1999, placed first in 2000, and in four years of college, compiled a record of 106-5 in his collegiate career, and was one of the most impressive athletes in the Big Ten at the time.

From then on, he went the path of professional wrestling, becoming a part of the WWE for a few years, which is where he made a name for himself as an entertainer, participating in many exciting matches for the promotion. After his stint there, and ensuing lawsuit with Vince McMahon, Brock tried his hand at playing for the Minnesota Vikings, where he was a late cut, and then as a professional wrestler for New Japan Pro Wrestling. After the lawsuit finally died, Brock decided that he wanted to try his hand at MMA.

Here is where things became controversial. For a long time, MMA fans have been hostile toward professional wrestlers in "their sport" because they do not want MMA to become a freak show like professional wrestling is. Professional wrestlers like Giant Silva, Yoshihiro Takiyama, and others fail to make waves in MMA, and thus are seen as wastes of space, seemingly in the ring because of an accused Japanese fascination with gigantic people. Because of Brock's past in the WWE, people allowed that to overshadow the fact that he was such an accomplished amateur wrestler, which was evidenced in his first MMA fight, which was a first round stoppage over Min Soo-Kim.

After his initial foray into MMA, Brock spoke to Dana White about entering the UFC to fight in America, and was granted his first shot against Frank Mir at UFC 81. Lesnar seemed to be doing very well against Mir in the opening of the bout, but referee Steve Mazagatti stopped the bout to stand both fighters up after an unintentional fist to the back of Mir's head. This was a controversial move, considering that Mazagatti gave no prior warning to Lesnar, and also took a complete point from Lesnar's score on the first offense. After the fight resumed, Lesnar contined to punish Mir, but was caught in a heel hook, and tapped out at 1:30 of the first round. Though disappointing, Mir was complementary to Lesnar at first, saying that he had never faced anyone that big that moved so quickly, and Dana White later commented that Brock, "showed a lot of credibility in that fight."

In his second UFC fight, Lesnar captured a win over veteran Heath Herring, in which he broke one of Herring's orbital bones with an incredibly powerful straight right punch, and then won the decision with a final score of 30-26 from all three judges. After this fight, controversy followed Lesnar into a bout with the legendary Randy Couture, who was the current Heavyweight champion. Though many did not believe that Brock deserved the bout (Dana White maintained that stuffing Herring's momentum after his win over Cheick Kongo validated the match choice) he went on to have what many consider an incredibly competitive bout until Randy was dropped by a hard right hand in the second round.

After that bout, Brock was put on a path to a rematch with Frank Mir, who had handed him his only loss in his career. At the biggest MMA event to date, UFC 100, Brock defeated Mir by TKO in round 2, solidifying himself as the undisputed UFC Heavyweight Champion. Though he showed much improved wrestling technique, chin, heart, and patience in the bout, his excellent performance is overshadowed by the antics afterwards, where Brock's emotions got the better of him, cursing in Frank Mir's face (as a response to Mir's constant trashing of Brock's skill and accomplishments in pre-fight press) and giving the crowd the finger after they began to boo him. With this performance, Brock became both incredibly respected by MMA competitors, but infamous with the fans.

With all of that said, there are a few questions that remain with Brock Lesnar that need to be addressed. The first of which is the question of legitimacy. Truthfully, I see no reason to think that Brock should not be given credit for having so many accomplishments in such a short amount of time. Though he does not have a flawless record, what he does have is an impressive one, considering even in his only loss he showed solid technique and ability, even though he was finished by Mir. The only fighter he has faced that could be considered to be a "tomato can" would be Min Soo-Kim, but victories over Herring, Couture, and Mir still speak volumes. Though his antics at UFC 100 were downright deplorable, his actions during the fights speak for themselves.

The second question most poised by fans is whether or not his technique is sound, and if it is overshadowed by how powerful he is. Though it is undeniable that Lesnar is an incredibly powerful man (he is forced to cut 20 pounds to make the 265 pound weight limit, and is known for his monstrous strength) he does have the wrestling credentials to show that he does have a great base in amateur wrestling, which has proven to be a great base for many MMA fighters, such as Randy Couture, Mark "The Hammer" Coleman (whom was originally slated to face Lesnar instead of Herring) Rampage Jackson, Chuck Liddell, Frankie Edgar, Sean Sherk, TUF 8 winner Ryan Bader, and many others.

Truthfully, the finishing question poised is whether or not he could defeat Fedor Emelianenko, which brings me back to the original article that I've become infamous for writing and making a video of. Truthfully, I myself have no idea whatsoever if Fedor could beat Brock, or vice versa, and there's a reason why. That reason is because Fedor signed with Strikeforce instead of the UFC. I think Fedor is missing out on great competition, and because of this, Lesnar has an opportunity on his hands. There are several fighters that Brock can face, such as Shane Carwin, Gabriel Gonzaga, Cain Velasquez, Frank Mir in a rubber match, Gilbert Yvel, Junior Dos Santos, and Antonio "Minotauro" Nogeiura, and training for and learning to fight against these men will make him into a much better fighter than he is already. Truthfully, I think that, in relation to Brock, Fedor is missing out on being in possibly the biggest match of MMA history, and that's a shame.

To conclude, Brock Lesnar, as of right now, is a credible fighter that is exciting to watch, and whether you love him or hate him, is here to stay for a seemingly long time.

A Christmas Wish List

A Christmas Wish List
Posted by: Marcus

First and foremost, my apologies to my readers and watchers. I haven't updated in a while because I recently turned twenty-four years young, and I've been either spending time playing new video games, preparing for final exams, or trying out a new short story that I'm writing. Either way, not much time has been devoted to thinking about media, other than what I'm going to watch, listen to, or play next. However, I now find myself with a little bit of a breather. This week, I've decided to write about a couple of films that I'm hoping will be made in the future, or what I believe need to be made. Since it's Christmas, I'm hoping Santa delivers at some point in the future.

1. At the Mountains of Madness and The Shadow over Innsmouth.

I'm including the two together simply because I don't believe you can make one without the other. Both of these stories are considered classics in horror literature, and the Cthulhu mythos is one of the more noticable in fiction. However, why is it that these films have never been greenlit? Though I'm only vaguely familiar with Shadow, I recently was able to read Mountains, and found myself enthralled with Lovecraft's storytelling. He has this odd ability to give enough description to give you a great mental picture, but doesn't over-explain like I think Tolkien had a tendency to do. It's a chilling story of an expedition gone horribly wrong, and it simply does the story of finding an unimaginable horror better than anything I've ever encountered. So, with all of this going for the story, why on earth won't someone allow gifted director Guillermo Del Toro write and direct it? According to him, it's simply because there is neither a love story nor a happy ending, which to me sounds like a cop out. There are several films out there that have no semblance of a happy ending, such as The Godfather, Goodfellas, The Silence of the Lambs, American History X, and so forth. Del Toro should be allowed to make this film, simply because with his rare talent for filmmaking, it could easily be his greatest achievement, or achievements if he were allowed to follow it up with Shadow over Innsmouth.


2. Predator 3

Truthfully, I think this is a true sequel that is long, long overdue. Though there have been numerous crossovers across different forms of media (and most of it horrible), it has been nearly twenty years since the second film in the franchise. However, I think the question would simply remain as to how you can take a film franchise that seems to have been recently bogged down in muck, and make it the same caliber of the previous two films. I think that the first step is simply to get the project an incredibly solid director. Though the obvious choice would be John McTiernan (who directed the original) I think a newer director could be a wiser idea, simply to get a fresh perspective. My thoughts go to Paul Greengrass, Len Wiseman, or Antoine Fuqua, simply becuase they're directors who could bring in something new. Or, I've always wanted to see how directors Ridley Scott and James Cameron would take on the series. As for the cast, I've always wanted to see what would happen if you took the risk of putting Sly Stallone in a lead role, or possibly Bruce Willis. When it comes to Predator, it seems like the lead role almost has a necessity to have an experienced action star like Glover or Schwarzenegger in the lead for it to work, simply because the larger than life actor works much better as a foil to a great movie monster like the Predator. I also think a military style film in a place like Iraq, or possibly Afghanistan would work well, simply because a desert area is another great area with a constant feeling of hostility, like the jungles of South America. With a big name cast, I'd also like to see a sort of parallel to Jesse Ventura and Carl Weathers' roles in the first film, simply to have more larger-than-life personalities to make the movie more fun. It would be interesting to see a couple of men like Sam Worthington or Dwayne Johnson in a film like this.

3. Another James Cameron Terminator film.

Though many think me crazy for it, I did enjoy the last two Terminator films. However, as many have pointed out, there is an element missing from both of them, and thus the films have had easily spotted flaws to them. The third film in the franchise had far too much levity that came down far too heavy for a movie that was so steeped in the idea of a global apocalypse brought on by a race of sentient machines. The fourth film, in my opinion, was much better, but had a few inconsistencies in it that I blame for simply having a fairly green director attached to the film. Though Christian Bale didn't put on as much of a performance that he has in past projects like American Psycho or Equilibrium, I wouldn't say he did poorly either. I think, truly, that this is where James Cameron needs to come in again. When a single director makes not only establishes a series as being good, but establishes it as one of the greatest film sagas in a single genre, removing that director takes a crucial element from the storytelling. Now that Cameron is finished with Avatar, I believe that he should very much consider returning to the franchise. Though Arnold would no longer be attached, I think that the storyline has come to a point where his presence isn't necessary. Now it's time for the character of John Connor to step up a bit more, and I think that Cameron can put him there.

Where are you going, Ubisoft?

Where are you going, Ubisoft?
Posted by: Marcus

As of late, I've been very much engrossed in Assassin's Creed II, and I must say that this game series is quickly climbing by list of favorite franchises. There's something interesting about a science fiction title that uses its roots in history in great detail. I see the game as a sort of cross between The Matrix and Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons, except it doesn't suck. However, this is where I begin to wonder as to how the series will continue to pan out.

Truthfully, this is one of the most complex titles I've ever played that isn't an RPG. I thought about trying to explain to my father how the series works, and I couldn't think of a solid way to truly simplify the title to explain to someone who isn't a gamer. The first question that I think of is whether or not this incredible complexity keeps potential players out. In rebuttal to myself, I do think the ability of this game to tell a story within a story with such grace is one of the more redeeming qualities, and you could describe either the historical aspect of the story or the science fiction aspect and possibly hook someone in.

The second question I had was simply wondering exactly are they going to do with the third installment? Truthfully, the most logical line of thought leads to thinking that they could do something in Colonial America, or (if the series is only a trilogy) simply put Desmond into the modern day and let him go at it. Truth be told, I don't doubt that Ubisoft Montreal will make a wise choice when it comes to the game, and we definitely won't be expecting it to be that good. For example, not many people would expect Italy during the Renaissance to be that interesting for a video game, but the second game is so visually arresting, with a great backdrop of conspiracy and murder that it keeps you on the edge of your seat.

My final question is probably the most abrubt, since I'm not going to spoil anything. How on earth do you answer some of the more glaring questions of this game? Most importantly, why did Altair come to Italy? The move doesn't make much sense. Then again, I haven't played the PSP title.

Hmmmm. This entry is a bit shorter than others. Oh well. What I will say is that we'll be having a new member of the Corner soon named Brandon. He's a buddy of mine who has fresh ideas on game reviews and the like, and I'll be putting his introduction on Youtube soon.

Until then, the other announcement is that there will be two Youtube shows. The first is Devil's Advocate, where I will simply do what I do best, and give my position on controversial subjects. The second proposed show is ADHD "After 'Da Hype' Dies" which will be a review show that features Brandon reviewing a title after the adrenaline wears off.

Arrevederci!

New Website Stuff

New Website Goings-on
Posted by: Marcus


Since I established The Cynic's Corner, I've gotten plenty of entries, and even have a copycat out there that is trying his best to be me, but is failing miserably. That's a lot more progress than I thought I would pull off with this blog, but thank the Lord above that everything has gone so well so far.

With all that said, I've finally started putting videos of mine on Youtube!

http://www.youtube.com/user/CynicsCorner

I will try to have a couple videos up each month, and I will still be writing weekly entries here on the main blog, so you folks know that I'm not abandoning you who enjoy reading what I write. The entries on Youtube, truth be told, will be more along the lines of unscripted rantings, whereas these entries will probably be much more organized, and thoughtful.

So, enjoy both, faithful readers! Stick around, and I doubt you'll be disappointed.

Halo 3: ODST - Bust or Must-Buy?
Posted by: Marcus

To be quite honest with those of you who read this blog, I don't like reviewing video games. The main reason is that I am not a big fan of what factors into the reviews of popular magazines and websites, and how each site gives more weight to minor issues in some games, and less in others. I'm also not a big fan of the fact that many magazines don't factor in new ideas brought to the table, and if they help the game, or hurt it. With all of that said, I felt that Halo 3: ODST deserves a review from The Cynic's Corner. However, it doesn't deserve a review because of the quality of the game, but rather on the merit that it's become a discussion point amongst gamers.

Before I begin, I will say that at the end of my review, I won't be scoring this on a five or ten point scale. I'll simply be putting a listing of who should consider buying it, renting it, or passing it up altogether. With that said, let's dig in.

Starting off, I have to say that the presentation elements in this game are pretty solid. The overall look of New Mombasa is interesting, and has an odd tech-noir feel to it, similar to the movie Blade Runner, but not quite. The graphical detail is a bit improved from Halo 3, but still lacks polish. Though the facial models and character models are better, they still seem a bit rushed, but at the same time aren't anything to be embarrassed over. However, the gun models, vehicles, and everything else look pretty solid. Then again, I've always considered Halo's game graphics akin to Frank Quitely's comic book art. The art on actual humans isn't very good, but the environments look solid. For better or worse, the look of the game doesn't touch graphical giants like Gears of War 2, Killzone 2, or Metal Gear Solid 4, but it's a better effort than the last game. The game transitions for scene to scene very smoothly, and overall doesn't take you out of the experience, which is actually a first since the original Halo.

When it comes to sound, the player is getting a mixed bag. Most of the classic weapons and sound effects haven't changed over time, and they shouldn't fix what isn't broken. However, the "new" weapons introduced in the game (the silenced SMG and the Pistol) really sound a bit off. The silenced SMG sounds way too loud to be silenced, and the Pistol sounds way too silent to be the classic Magnum. Though you could make the argument that the gun uses soundless ammo, the counterpoint is that you can't make high caliber silenced ammo without shredding the gun, or killing its stopping power. The orchestral score at some points doesn't seem to fit the situation, but at other points it nails the mood of the moment. This has been a problem throughout the Halo franchise, and really needs correcting. However, it's not like the sound quality is consistent MIDI files, and your guns sound like belching warthogs, so I wouldn't say its bad either.

Gameplay is also a mixed bag. The campaign is by no means bad, but it's not going to climb the ranks of best FPS campaigns either. The main issue with it is that the storyline is incredibly short. On Normal difficulty, it will only take you three or four hours to complete. Though there are secrets to unlock, the issue here is that they aren't numerous enough, nor do they carry any weight aside from extra gamerscore. There is a subplot about some girl, and how the city went nuts during the invasion, but you're not given any reason to care, considering you can't do anything about it. Aside from the downturns, what you do have is a good amount of solid action, but it doesn't change the fact that it ends too fast. The new Firefight mode, truthfully, isn't all that its hyped up to be. Without the presence of Matchmaking, it isn't easy to find people to play it with, and some achievements are dependent on having four people to play it with. Though certain skulls will activate at points, it really isn't much different than Horde from Gears of War 2's escalating difficulty. Though the game is fun, it's not much fun when you're playing by yourself. However, I do think that the next game in the series, Halo: Reach, should incorporate the gametype, simply because it would be a lot more fun to play with a team of Spartans instead. If you're wondering why I'm not talking about the Mythic disk, it's because this is a review about Halo 3: ODST, not the previous game. I think it's idiotic for a reviewer to include the two together when they're separate games, despite the packaging.

The storyline of the game, truthfully, stinks. To put it simply, you won't care about any of the characters of this game. Tricia Helfer's character is essentially her character from Burn Notice and Nathan Fillion's character is essentially his character from Firefly, but both in the Halo universe, rather than the respective TV shows. The other characters are, for better or worse, simply archetypes from other action games and movies. You have your whiny tech-savvy guy, the mandatory black guy, the guy who doesn't talk much, and the tough southern guy. Yes, it's essentially a rip of Delta Squad from Gears of War, except with no character development whatsoever. The issue here is that you're never given a reason to care about these characters, or their backstory. You'll simply want to dig into more action instead, which doesn't work for a video game in this day and age. Also, there isn't much of a narrative either, which digs a bigger hole for the game, along with the fact that the "big secret" of the game becomes irrelevant to you if you've played the rest of the series. Truthfully, this game's story seems like it's trying to be a launch point for new players of the franchise, but has the issue that there aren't many people who own an X-Box who haven't played the franchise yet.

Buy It - If you're new to the series, or are a Halo fanboy.
Rent It - If you want something to occupy you for a few days
Don't Touch It - If Halo doesn't interest you.

A Fighting Champion

A Fighting Champion: How Champions should face adversity
Posted by: Marcus
As an MMA fan, and a fan of Mauricio "Shogun" Rua, you probably have assumed by this point that I was disappointed by the finale of UFC 104. I was sitting in the home of my closest friend, both of us on the edge of our seats, as we saw Shogun pick apart one of the pound for pound greatest fighters on the planet. Lyoto Machida, who many had assumed would destroy Shogun after annihilating Rashad Evans, was systematically weakened and beaten up by the vicious leg and body kicks of a man who is a master of Muay Thai. After five rounds had finished, Lyoto looked like he could barely walk, and Shogun looked ready to fight another five rounds if he had to. It was quite possibly the most technical battle ever seen in MMA, and easily the fight of the year. However, the judges must have been watching some other fight, because they gave Lyoto Machida the win, followed by a crowd booing the judges for their faulty decision.

However, in regards to this blog entry, that wasn't what caught my ear. Machida could have easily walked away from another fight with Shogun and fought someone else, like the winner of Evans vs Thiago Silva, or the winner of Griffin vs Ortiz. Instead, he agreed to a rematch as soon as he could fight again, and the fans will get to see the two best light heavyweight mixed martial artists battle again. It is my belief that this is how a true champion acts.

Too often in other sports do we see champions not face the best competition in the world, simply because their camps won't allow it to happen, or because of fear. Floyd "Money" Mayweather is a shining example of this. If you're not familiar with Mayweather, he's a coward. This is one of the two best boxers in the world right now, and he refuses to fight the one man who could beat him. That person is Manny "Pac Man" Pacquiao. Truthfully, I might be a little harsh with Mayweather, but I know I'm not the only one who thinks that a fight between the two won't happen. Many boxing aficionados have also been quoted as saying "Mayweather would fight Cotto, but never Pacquiao. Pacquiao can defeat him."

When it comes down to it, a true champion is a tested champion. To call yourself the best in the world, you must fight the best in the world, and win. Anderson Silva is easily the pound-for-pound best fighter in the world because he has never backed down, and annihilated the best in the world in two weight divisions. B.J. Penn has fought in two divisions, held titles in two different divisions, and never backs down from a challenge. Matt Hughes is called the most dominant champion the UFC has ever have because he's defeated every single UFC Welterweight Champion sans Pat Miletich. Do you, the reader, see the pattern?

I know that many people say that Dana White is MMA's anti-christ, but you all know for a fact that he's correct when he says, "the best in the world fight the best in the world." Fact of the matter is, can people who don't fight the best really be called the best? Fedor Emelianenko passed up on the chance to fight Brock Lesnar to fight in Strikeforce, where his first fight is against Brett Rogers, and his inevitable ending will be fighting Alistair Overeem. In the UFC, he could have fought Lesnar, Mir, Minotauro, Velasquez, Carwin, etc. The same goes for Mayweather. Floyd is not the best in the world, because he's backing down from fighting the best in the world, whereas Manny doesn't have that issue. In the world of Boxing, look at why Ali is considered the greatest of all time. Not only has he fought some of the all-time greatest fighters, he defeated them, some by KO.

To finish it up, I have to say that though I disagree with UFC 104's decision, I do agree that Machida acted like a true champion afterward. He's willing to fight the best, and I think that's the way that the best should act. Truth be told, I think that sports businesses like the UFC are good for fighting. If look look at lists of the top ten in every division, notice how most of the people on those lists are in the UFC or WEC (which is owned by Zuffa) and the rest, truth be told, are over-hyped to degrees. I think that a champion is forged in the hottest fires, and is never scared of being there. Georges St. Pierre once said, "I'm always ready for the fight." That, I think, sums up what true champions think.