- Joe Rogan, speaking Thursday on his podcast, said he preferred RFK Jr. for president.
- By Friday, facing intense criticism from Donald Trump and his allies, the podcaster walked it back.
- “I’m not the guy to get political information from,” Rogan said in a social media post.
Many people will say “well, he’s at least an expert on combat sports”
No, he’s not really. Most MMA practitioners will say that while he helped legitimise the UFC, MMA in general, and the rise of BJJ his takes are often from a point of either company bias, or personal bias. He’s got two black belts in BJJ and has experience in striking, but dude’s old enough that he’d probably get annihilated by a young purple belt, and aside from TKD he’s not completed in combat sports at a high level.
He respects it, and that’s great to see, but IMO he’s an example of the alpha male attitude that plagues combat sports.
The fuck after you talking about? His knowledge of mma has nothing to do with how well he can compete against other people at his age.
Your comment comes across as idiotic. Because it effectively says coaches arent worth the job they do because they are almost always people who couldnt or can no longer compete.
Such a dumb take. Theres plenty of reasons not to listen to Joe, stop making bad arguments to justify your opinions. Especially when your opinion isnt flawed —> He respects it, and that’s great to see, but IMO he’s an example of the alpha male attitude that plagues combat sports.
…What the fuck are you talking about?
Coaching and analysing are two entirely separate things. Joe Rogan has coached, albeit loosely in striking, but that’s got nothing to do with his role in the UFC. My point is that he is considered at a level that many others in the sport have long surpassed. There’s a reason why someone like Michael Bisping can come in and do a much better job, despite having his own clear biases, and that’s because he’s fought at the highest level with an inclination of what modern MMA is.
My point isn’t that he can’t compete because he’s older. It’s that even in his youth he wasn’t an elite-level fighter, outside of being great at TKD. While you don’t need to be skilled to analyse, it’s not like he’s a skilled journalist or commentator either. Many in MMA don’t value his opinion over journalists or skilled practitioners that have taken to analysis in retirement. He got the job through being famous and knowing about fighting before MMA was a thing, and now that it is a thing that people know a lot about, his gaps have been exposed severely.
Agree to disagree
That’s fair. At least we agree that Rogan is a cunt.
Michael Bisping is an absolute bullshit artist when it comes to fight analysis or color commentary. Don’t believe me? Go listen to him juice up Leon Edwards for five rounds while Belal Muhammad is busy beating the shit out of him, and clearly running the octagon. Every UFC analyst does it, and they are arguably getting worse as time goes on regardless of their experience level with fighting.
Eh, I didn’t say that he was perfect, just that he’s objectively better than Rogan is - especially when paired with Cormier (who I really like).
The Rocky comparison is a tricky one, because the man’s crowning achievement is winning the title after being dominated and dragged back into the fight by his coach. I think the Belal fight surprised a lot of people, especially since Leon is no slouch on the ground. As a grappler myself I’m always going to back the wrestler, but I can see why Bisping would back Leon.
My issue with UFC above most MMA promotions is that it’s becoming more and more like WWE with every passing year. I wonder sometimes if it’s the commentators, or what they’re being told to push by Dana and co.
We are definitely in agreement on this part.
MMA=Men-on-Man anal