Should fighters be fined/released from contract for turning down fights?

beater81

Blue Belt
@Blue
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
933
Reaction score
324
In this era of mma it is all to common to see people ducking or turning down fights for mostly idiotic reasons, my opinion is you should be given a certain number of declines, say 3 before your fined or released. I also think the champions should have a automatic clause put in they're contract (when they win the belt or defend it) that states they have to defend within a certain time limit or give up the belt. Opinions?
 
In this era of mma it is all to common to see people ducking or turning down fights for mostly idiotic reasons, my opinion is you should be given a certain number of declines, say 3 before your fined or released. I also think the champions should have a automatic clause put in they're contract (when they win the belt or defend it) that states they have to defend within a certain time limit or give up the belt. Opinions?
I honestly think the UFC should pay more money to the average fighter.

Besides: if you think Bisping fighting GSP instead of Romero is against the will of the UFC, you're naive.
 
Last edited:
In this era of mma it is all to common to see people ducking or turning down fights for mostly idiotic reasons, my opinion is you should be given a certain number of declines, say 3 before your fined or released. I also think the champions should have a automatic clause put in they're contract (when they win the belt or defend it) that states they have to defend within a certain time limit or give up the belt. Opinions?

my opinion is that you're not thinking about it from all angles.

each fight is a negotiation. without that negotiation - and a modicum of leverage on the side of the fighters - the power imbalance is vast.

UFC already takes every advantage from every fighter that they can get away with. you want to give them more power to do so.

i too wish it was easier to make good matchups. and UFC shouldn't have to threaten fighters to get them to accept bouts like how Joe Silva told Belcher he either had to fight Palhares or he was cut (because no one else ranked higher would accept).

but giving the side with most of the power already more power isn't the right way to fix this.
 
I also think the champions should have a automatic clause put in they're contract... they have to defend within a certain time limit or give up the belt.
MYVr7.gif
 
Setting up a fight isn't like setting up a tennis match. There are too many factors at play to be forcing people to fight each other.
 
Maybe do it like boxing and have mandatory challengers. If the champion and mandatory don't agree to step-aside money so the champ can fight somebody else (aka a "money" fight like GSP-Bisping) then you have to give up the belt. I don't really like the idea of forcing somebody to fight someone against their will, as this is a sport where potential injuries can be catastrophic. Tough question.
 
how about if the UFC actually held true to their rankings? they warn fighters "look, you're ranked #9; you have to fight someone ranked ~5 thru ~15. no you don't get a title shot, and no you cannot fight a #30".

if they implemented a reasonable policy and then fucking held by it instead of chase short term $ for one-off bouts - and the fighters knew the policy and knew what to expect, then maybe, just maybe, fights between similarly ranked fighters would happen.

instead, the group with the power to help or hurt a policy like this keeps breaking it. no wonder the fighters then try to eke out as much negotiation power they can manage, eh???
 
how about if the UFC actually held true to their rankings? they warn fighters "look, you're ranked #9; you have to fight someone ranked ~5 thru ~15. no you don't get a title shot, and no you cannot fight a #30".

if they implemented a reasonable policy and then fucking held by it instead of chase short term $ for one-off bouts - and the fighters knew the policy and knew what to expect, then maybe, just maybe, fights between similarly ranked fighters would happen.

instead, the group with the power to help or hurt a policy like this keeps breaking it. no wonder the fighters then try to eke out as much negotiation power they can manage, eh???
The way for a fighter to move up in rankings, is to consistently beat guys ranked higher than them, so there has to be some room for mismatches.
 
I think the rankings should mean something and then maybe fighters wouldn't want to have someone else leapfrog them by taking a fight against higher ranked opposition that they didn't want to fight.
 
The way for a fighter to move up in rankings, is to consistently beat guys ranked higher than them, so there has to be some room for mismatches.

not "the" way, but "a" way. Bisping has beaten 2, maybe 3, guys ranked above him, ever. he got ranked by attrition.

and like i said, a #9 can fight a ~5 thru ~15. sure there's times when a #3 or #22 makes sense. that's what ~ means :)

it was just an example. my point is, UFC makes the rules and UFC breaks the rules when it suits them. the fighters are merely doing everything in their power to not get bent over. TS is trying to say it's fighters fault. i say look at the power imbalance and put the blame where the blame is due.

don't get me wrong; i'm as (or more than) frustrated as TS is. i just think his solution is wrongheaded.

cheers.
 
I'd be all for modifying their contracts to have mandatory title defenses, but with the added option of making 1 big fight every 2 years for each champ, that isn't based on contender ranking or weight class (or something along those lines).

They can already fire everyone they want to when they want to, but since there are no set rules on defenses or for taking fights the big names won't be fired and they have to find a compromise, which often leads to missed fights. The value of the title should then be tied to pay, otherwise champs don't really care if they get stripped and rather pursue the biggest fight.
 
I thought the consensus was people wanted fighters to have more power, not less.
 
This is the UFC turning down fights. I doubt Bisping would have realistically said no to Romero if he was offered to him, if you have a source to quote me I'm wrong, lets see it.
 
This is the UFC turning down fights. I doubt Bisping would have realistically said no to Romero if he was offered to him, if you have a source to quote me I'm wrong, lets see it.

well, we always get different answers, often phrased the in certain ways.

for example, UFC is not going to "officially" offer a bout if the fight manager has already said "no fucking way is my fighter taking that fight". then if Dana says he couldn't get that fight together the fighter gets to say "i was never offered that fight, Dana lies!" and they're both right (or more accurately, neither is wrong).

a handful of fights come together with 2 phone calls. Gastelum v Silva is one of those. most fights take weeks of negotiation between UFC, fighters, managers, families, various calendar prior commitments, etc.

that's a long way of saying, i agree, UFC drove the Bisping/GSP debacle. but we have no idea how much Bisping pushed & pulled behind the scenes either. let's remember; he was very emphatic that he preferred a $ fight (source) over a competitive fight.
 
well, we always get different answers, often phrased the in certain ways.

for example, UFC is not going to "officially" offer a bout if the fight manager has already said "no fucking way is my fighter taking that fight". then if Dana says he couldn't get that fight together the fighter gets to say "i was never offered that fight, Dana lies!" and they're both right.

a handful of fights come together with 2 phone calls. Gastelum v Silva is one of those. most fights take weeks of negotiation between UFC, fighters, managers, families, various calendar prior commitments, etc.

that's a long way of saying, i agree, UFC drove the Bisping/GSP debacle. but we have no idea how much Bisping pushed & pulled behind the scenes either. let's remember; he was very emphatic that he preferred a $ fight (source) over a competitive fight.

Good point. I just think Bisping wouldn't really turn down anyone. The UFC propaganda are after the money fights now, why else hasn't Maia received his shot? It's sure as shit not because Woodley is 'ducking' him, he's another that will fight anyone given to him.
 
my opinion is that you're not thinking about it from all angles.

each fight is a negotiation. without that negotiation - and a modicum of leverage on the side of the fighters - the power imbalance is vast.

UFC already takes every advantage from every fighter that they can get away with. you want to give them more power to do so.

i too wish it was easier to make good matchups. and UFC shouldn't have to threaten fighters to get them to accept bouts like how Joe Silva told Belcher he either had to fight Palhares or he was cut (because no one else ranked higher would accept).

but giving the side with most of the power already more power isn't the right way to fix this.



Whether it's a negotiation or not doesn't deter from the fact that the fighter signed a legal binding contract to fight for the agreed amount specified in the contract. I understand there are alot of angles and plays to be made with picking/accepting fights but there comes a time (now) where those said fighters are clogging up the divisions need to just fight, after all that's what being a fighter is all about. The only ones that really suffer are the guys trying to move up the divisions and have no where to go because everyone wants a money fight or one that makes no sense.
 
Good point. I just think Bisping wouldn't really turn down anyone. The UFC propaganda are after the money fights now, why else hasn't Maia received his shot? It's sure as shit not because Woodley is 'ducking' him, he's another that will fight anyone given to him.

agreed.

i think it's just this simple; all 3 parties involved in the contracts win. if Bisping weren't champ, GSP wouldn't sign b/c it wouldn't be worth it. if it weren't GSP (or Conor), Bisping would have no reason not to fight a relevant contender. and UFC believes it will sell so much they're willing to give each $5/PPV after 500k sold. win-win-win. or i should say, win-win-win-loss :(
 
Back
Top