I like the contender because it's boxing obviously and I don't like MMA, but the Ulitmate Fighter seems to have more of high caliber fighters on their show that actually go on to do something. (see: Forrest Griffin).
forrest griffins's fight must have been fixed. there's no way that guy shoulda won. he may have had a higher work rate in the fight, but he was hittin nothing. jackson's shots were much cleaner, but he wasn't impressive either that fight.
What does being a reality star have anything to do with level of talent??
everythin... if your a reality star, fans are not goin to want to see you lose and promoters and matchmakers know that. that's why they feed the reality stars fighters to beat on to make them look good or fix the fight in favour of the reality star. if you saw the matt hammil vs michael bisping fight, you know for a fact hammil won that fight. but they gave it to the home crowd guy and the winner of the show. forrest griffin had the cinderella story. he won the first show in an excitin fashion, climb up the ladder beatin up on lesser talent and "won" the light heavyweight belt.
i haven't caught too many shows of the contender, but from what i saw it sucks. they make it seem too hollywood with stalone in it.
the ultimate fight is equally as shitty... you got a bunch of idiots that get all rowdy in a house and think they're mma fighters because they can throw a punch. some of them are good, but most of them are grabage.
they both are good marketin schemes, but they both fail in my opinion