Jonathan Snowden is a Bleacher Report lead writer. He's a former radio DJ and television producer who worked for the White House Communications Agency in Washington, D.C. He currently works for the Department of Defense.

Bulletin Board

or to post this comment
  • Spokestick Ethier posted 1302 days ago

    Spokestick Ethier

    This condesdending douche... ducked and blocked me on twitter for civilly asking him to back up a statement he made... Stand by your words, weakling.

  • Ben L posted 1540 days ago

    Ben L

    Thanks for fighting the good fight on Cyborg.

  • Will Scarlett posted 1634 days ago

    Will  Scarlett

    I enjoy lot of the work you produce. But your latest article seems petty and vindictive. Punk didn't appear smug, before the fight, he appeared happy - like a man getting a positive reception from the crowd on the way to the cage, about to achieve a dream of his, would be. He cried at the press conference, not out of weakness as you seem to imply, but when asked about how his wife reacted after the fight. Your attempt to paint this as an attempt to cash on his name is silly - even if he does need the money (which seems unlikely) there are many easier ways to cash in then cage fighting. And he spent a lot of money and over two years training for this. Yes, he never should have been allowed to compete in the UFC. But its the UFC and the athletic commission who are deserving of your rage. Punk had the opportunity to compete handed to him because of his fame, which he earned the hard way in his previous career as a pro wrestler, and he spent his own money on his training. There's nothing to begrudge on Punk's end, and I can't understand your vitriol.

  • Jeremy Cummins posted 1891 days ago

    Jeremy  Cummins

    Since you're a tough guy on the internet, we can talk in person and see if you're tough in person, game? #keyboardwarrior

  • Jeremy Cummins posted 1891 days ago

    Jeremy  Cummins

    You're a joke. "I don't get blocked often on twitter, but when I do, it's by sport writers who don't know what they're talking about..."

  • Matt Smith posted 2035 days ago

    Matt Smith

    Jonathan- thoughts?

    As we all know, fighter’s pay has been a major topic in the MMA world in recent months. Moving briefly away from the resounding mess that is the Reebok deal, I want to discuss the actual salaries of the fighters in recent events.
    Bethe Correia got paid a $14,000 to show up and fight at UFC 190. Stripping back the sponsorship deals (or lack of), fight bonuses or any of Uncle Dana's mysterious 'locker room add ons', this amount is criminal. Yes, we all know it didn't go too well for her. We all know that $14,000 for 38 seconds or so of work isn't too shabby at all. However, this was Correia's big moment in the spotlight. The once in a career opportunity for the majority of fighters to headline a UFC event. To be paid peanuts for such an occasion is criminal by the UFC top brass. Even Ronda Rowsey’s pay, who in all honesty carried that fight card on her shoulders both in performance and PPV buys, was a fraction of what Big Nog’s took home for a flat footed, lacklustre showing from a MMA legend. Rowsey taking home $70,000 in appearance fees compared to Big Nog’s incredible $250,000 for a mid card filler.
    We then move onto the TUF guys and girls and how the UFC continues to milk the fighter for all they are worth. With UFC 191 coming up, let us drill into one of its star’s salaries. John Dodson, the TUF winner and arguably the only guy who has tested one of the P4P greatest fighters in recent memory Demetrious ‘Mighty Mouse’ Johnson, takes home $15,000 in appearance fees. $15,000!?!
    In stark contrast we have Rose Namajunas. An individual billed as the next best thing in WMMA. Talented, raw with an infectious smile, she was touted as the new Ronda Ronsey. However, I ask you all, what has she achieved outside the TUF house? What fights has she competed in to justify her $25,000 appearance fee? Well people the answer is nothing. To me, this sums up the state of how fighters aren’t being rewarded correctly for their hard work and dedication to the game. A flashy smile and a Pride legacy should not guarantee a larger share of an every decreasing pot of gold.

  • Mitchell Gant posted 2038 days ago

    Mitchell Gant

    Using Muhammad Ali to bolster your arguments re. Floyd is more than a bit misguided. Yes, Ali had his share of soft touches, but these were few and far between and hardly count for much considering Ali's activity level. Unlike Floyd, Ali fought regularly. For example, after his return to action in 1970, he competed 13 times in just over two years, most of those matches against top fighters in arguably the most competitive heavyweight division in history. Meanwhile, Floyd averages fewer than two appearances per year. He has fought just 16 times over the past decade! Second, it should be pointed out that George Chuvalo hardly qualifies as a "stiff." He was ranked near the very top of the division in the late 60s, gave Ernie Terrell, Zora Folley and a prime Floyd Patterson tough, close fights and defeated such outstanding talents as Doug Jones and Jerry Quarry. Yes, he has 18 defeats on his record, but keep in mind that's against 73 wins. You would have been better off citing Juergen Blin, Rudi Lubbers or Jean-Pierre Coopman, boxers who truly had no chance whatsoever of defeating Ali, than Chuvalo. Also, what does Chuvalo's nationality have to do with your assessment of his merits as a prizefighter?

  • Riley Blair posted 2044 days ago

    Riley Blair

    Actually, if it was to be taken a step further, since it requires two people to fight, not one, using standard population isn't even the best numbers, I would need the nth triangle. So the 28 straw-weight fighters means 406 possible fight combinations. So out of 20,810 possible fight combinations that exist today, only 757 possible female fights can be booked, which is about 3.6 percent. So that 10 percent they're fighting at now seems actually kinda high.

  • Riley Blair posted 2044 days ago

    Riley Blair

    So I was doing more math, comparing your chart to percentage of fighters and saw that, while women's bantamweight represented 4.58 percent of the UFC, you said they were 4.8 percent of 2015 fights, meaning their sample of fights is actually reflective of their population. Similary, strawweights at 4.93 percent only fought 4.4 percent of fight, for nearly a 1 percent drop. The thing I found most strange is that flyweight, despite being so unpopular, was booked highest compared to their percents, a whole 1.51, even more than middleweight, who fought at 1.41 percent more than their numbers. But male bantamweights? Despite being nearly 11.3 percent of the company only fought 7.1 percent of the fights in 2015. Their differential is the biggest, at nearly 4.2 percent less than they should, which is a PRETTY significant number, undercutting over a third of their potential. Strange stuff, eh?

  • Alan Reynolds posted 2045 days ago

    Alan Reynolds

    Ah come on Snowden! Disabling comments on articles again. If you have an opinion let people have theirs.