A lot of MMA fans don't understand what ducking is

[Vojislav]

Fighters don't duck other fighters because they're "scared" as in scared to physically fight them and possibly take a beating, they duck other fighters because they're afraid of taking a loss and what the consequences of taking a loss would mean for them financially and career-wise.

Unfortunately, ducking is becoming more and more of a reality in MMA just like it has been for a while in boxing.

No one is denying that MMA fighters are tough dudes and they aren't scared to just strictly fight somebody, however they are getting more and more greedy and want to plan their careers, take the least risk for the highest reward on their way up and cherry pick their way to big money fights that they feel they're entitled to for some reason.

No one is saying that for example Conor is scared of a physical confrontation, however he is definitely scared of taking a loss in MMA at this point of his career because his personality and money earning capabilities would take a massive hit.

There is a lot of ducking going on in MMA these days. If you wonder why the cards are so poor and so many fighters don't have fights booked and fight only once a year it's because they're all ducking each other and they're only ready to fight the right opponent, at the right time, for the right money and the right ranking. Look at the WW. Usman wants Colby, Colby wants RDA, RDA wants Woodley and Woodley wants a "money fight". In the end, nobody fights. Fortunately there are still some exceptions but ducking is becoming more of a norm than ever.

This is a massive problem and fighters should be called out for it. Unfortunately, this is what happens when there is a lot of money in the combat sport and fighters become picky about who they want to fight because they're absolutely terrified of taking an L - not because oh physical consequences but because of financial ones. Boxing had its golden age when there wasn't that much money in it and Sugar Ray Robinson and LaMotta fought each other 5 times. MMA also had its golden age in PRIDE where real warriors like Shogun and Cro Cop fought 5 times a year or even more.

TLDR: Fighters don't duck because they're scared of a beating, they duck each other because they're greedy and scared of taking a financial loss that an MMA loss brings in some form or another. They're all brave and not scared to fight but a lot of them are also very greedy.

 

[sirmorbach]

I say get rid of rankings. We all know they don't mean shit anyway, so we're just giving them reasons not to fight.

"Oh, hey, I'm #6. No way I'm fighting #11."

 

[jojoRed]

I say get rid of rankings. We all know they don't mean shit anyway, so we're just giving them reasons not to fight.

"Oh, hey, I'm #6. No way I'm fighting #11."

Thats like getting rid of a grading system, how the hell do we know which fighters to match up and where fighters are in relation to other fighters. Its easy to to make statements on what to do without actually coming up with a solution. So whats yours?

 

[SeattleFightFan]

the sad part is, you actually did have to say it TS. because i agree with you; a lot of sherdoggers still equate "ducking" with "physically scared".

 

[UFCDefenseForce]

Practically the same thing.

A doesn't want to fight B because B will murder them, so A is ducking B.
VS
A is ducking the fight against B because they might lose.

 

[Vojislav]

the sad part is, you actually did have to say it TS. because i agree with you; a lot of sherdoggers still equate "ducking" with "physically scared".

Yeah, they are like "how can you say Bisping is ducking Romero, Bisping is a tough dude, he was in there with killers like TRT Vitor". When in reality, Bisping ducked Romero to pursue a financially higher reward. I'm pretty sure Bisping would fight Romero under different circumstances, but as it was he ducked him. He definitely wasn't eager to fight him and he was even open about it. The same goes for Conor and Tony.

 

[WinZip]

Practically the same thing.

A doesn't want to fight B because B will murder them, so A is ducking B.
VS
A is ducking the fight against B because they might lose.

Difference is that it wasn't always like that. In the early days, it was less about belts and more about entertainment, so even guys that were 7-5 could keep getting big fights if the promoter knew it would be entertaining. Taking a loss mattered less - put on a good show and they'll give you another fight. Sometimes they got paid the same regardless of outcome.

We had less ducking then (though it did happen).

 

[Deleted member 478803]

Ahahaha, fuck you and your long winded explanations.

 

[Corleone187]

 

[CPH]

Unfortunately, a lot of the retards here need to have their food pre-chewed for them like this, so to speak.

 

[JoeRoganade]

Thats like getting rid of a grading system, how the hell do we know which fighters to match up and where fighters are in relation to other fighters. Its easy to to make statements on what to do without actually coming up with a solution. So whats yours?

Rankings don't mean jack shyt.

 

[ArmenianAssasin]

Ahahaha, fuck you and your long winded explanations.

Lmao , you said it not me

We’re fans — we want to see good fights — we don’t care about the reasoning / justification of why they are not happening

I want to see Conor v winner of khabib / el cucuy

If Conor doesn’t take the fight —- I don’t give a crap why not ( scared , business , whatever ) makes no difference to me

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Yeah, they are like "how can you say Bisping is ducking Romero, Bisping is a tough dude, he was in there with killers like TRT Vitor". When in reality, Bisping ducked Romero to pursue a financially higher reward. I'm pretty sure Bisping would fight Romero under different circumstances, but as it was he ducked him. He definitely wasn't eager to fight him and he was even open about it. The same goes for Conor and Tony.

Bisping is the king of all examples when it comes to smart career management. every time he lost to a highly ranked opponent, he fought lower tiered fighters several times before trying again. and then once he got the belt, he took the safest possibly fights available (and still almost lost both). in the end he was 1-7 against

Bisping was good-but-not-great-fighter with exceptional fight and career management. and now he's a millionaire.

the counter example to that is Chris Weidman, who fought and lost to three top 5 tier fighters in a row.
~~~
i think the biggest problem is that many fans still have a quaint and superficial notion that fighters aren't fighting for money. they think all fighters should challenge themselves like Weidman, instead of look after their careers like Bisping. as a fan, i can understand why they'd wish that, but as a rational human being, i don't understand their reluctance to see the obvious.

so they see a fighter doing what's best for himself financially, and bemoan his 'ducking'.

 

[Verace]

I disagree

Ducking encompasses fear of consequences

 

[cooks1]

Largely true.

This is why it is so important to have a fair, transparent system for matching top fighters and not deviate from it. Every time you do, those decisions are absorbed by the fighters and factored into their decision making. Think about how many deviations from 'the best fight the best' have happened with the top fighters in the last few years.

Conor not defending FW, going 1-1 with Diaz, then going straight to a LW ts, never defending that, then fighting Mayweather.

Bisping winning the title, then never fighting against a top ranked contender.

TJ now apparently not defending BW and fighting at FLW. At least this makes some sense as MM has cleared out his division and then some, but he should be going up, not the other way around.

It would also help to have an employee model as opposed to a IC model, and paying fighters a lot more. You have more say over the actions of an employee than an IC. And if they were not worried about living in squalor within the next year, fighters might be more comfortable taking these risks.

 

[sirmorbach]

Thats like getting rid of a grading system, how the hell do we know which fighters to match up and where fighters are in relation to other fighters. Its easy to to make statements on what to do without actually coming up with a solution. So whats yours?

Well, they do whatever the fuck they want anyway.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Largely true.

This is why it is so important to have a fair, transparent system for matching top fighters and not deviate from it. Every time you do, those decisions are absorbed by the fighters and factored into their decision making. Think about how many deviations from 'the best fight the best' have happened with the top fighters in the last few years.

Conor not defending FW, going 1-1 with Diaz, then going straight to a LW ts, never defending that, then fighting Mayweather.

Bisping winning the title, then never fighting against a top ranked contender.

TJ now apparently not defending BW and fighting at FLW. At least this makes some sense as MM has cleared out his division and then some, but he should be going up, not the other way around.

It would also help to have an employee model as opposed to a IC model, and paying fighters a lot more. You have more say over the actions of an employee than an IC. And if they were not worried about living in squalor within the next year, fighters might be more comfortable taking these risks.

agreed. the current system evolved from a time when UFC had all the power at the negotiating table. and they enjoyed the luxury of doing whatever they want. usually it didn't matter; most fans wanted #1 v #2 most of the time. but times have changed.

and as things changed, fighters found out they have some leverage. and now they use it.

UFC can solve this by (as you say) implementing and sticking with a policy based system. but the cost is giving up that luxury of doing whatever they want. like Conor v Alvarez.

 

[Vojislav]

i think the biggest problem is that many fans still have a quaint and superficial notion that fighters aren't fighting for money. they think all fighters should challenge themselves like Weidman, instead of look after their careers like Bisping. as a fan, i can understand why they'd wish that, but as a rational human being, i don't understand their reluctance to see the obvious.

Money doesn't mean anything to me, I only care about the legacy of fighters. Also, Fighting for money is the most idiotic thing ever. No money can pay for being brain damaged and having CTE which is what all of these elite fighters get eventually. It's even worse than being a mercenary. The only good reason for fighting is fighting for honor and to challenge yourself. If you want money putting as much dedication as these fighters put into fighting into something else would earn you better money with no damage. People like Bisping are essentially not very smart. He has millions but what good is that when he has CTE? His legacy was the only thing that he had and he tarnished it.

 

[Erocthadon]

I ducked reading all that shit.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Money doesn't mean anything to me, I only care about the legacy of fighters. Also, Fighting for money is the most idiotic thing ever. No money can pay for being brain damaged and having CTE which is what all of these elite fighters get eventually. It's even worse than being a mercenary. The only good reason for fighting is fighting for honor and to challenge yourself. If you want money putting as much dedication as these fighters put into fighting into something else would earn you better money with no damage. People like Bisping are essentially not very smart. He has millions but what good is that when he has CTE? His legacy was the only thing that he had and he tarnished it.

i don't care if money means nothing to you. it means something to the fighters. and this whole thread we were talking about fighter's perspectives (on why they do or don't accept certain bouts).

damn man, i thought we were on the same page. are you really one of those who i was talking about above, who "still have a quaint and superficial notion that fighters aren't fighting for money"?

i guess we weren't on the same page. weird. owell, my guess is we agree on 95% of it. cheers.