can we now admit what we missed out on as fans? (Khamzat)

[Mmmmmmma1234]

If you ignore all his illnesses and VISA troubles, sure

Ts probably thinks Khamzat wasn't even sick the UFC tech team hacked his account to report these things.

 

[TR1]

You're a turd

Truth hurts doesn't it.

 

[SuperAlly]

Truth hurts doesn't it.

Let us know, turd.

Ps. I’m not American

 

[Dionysian]

Why do you think this is collateral damage and not travel restrictions / sanctions working exactly as intended on an associate of Khadyrov?

It sounds like you don't understand how travel restrictions and sanctions exert pressure and influence on the intended targets. Is this the case?


Do you think athletes should ever be punished by international pressure for their profitable associations and relationships with dictators? Or do you think athletes should always be exempt?

If you think athletes should be punished provided they meet the right conditions, then what conditions (in your mind) have not been met with his association to Khadyrov?

No I frankly don't understand how stopping a UFC fighter from competing had any impact on Kadyrov, Kadyrov's weapon supplies for his bodyguards, on the stability of his regime, on those persecuted inside Checnya by a corrupt bureaucrat shaking them down, or Kadyrov's bank account.

Put another way... yes I think athletes should be completely exempt from being punished for criminality when they haven't actually committed any crime. Likewise for being punished due to politics. And I would apply the same to all non-criminal people being exempt for criminal punishments on this planet. Unless they are involved in actual terrorism/violence/criminality/embezzlement/etc, in which case they aren't athletes but rather criminals that happen to compete athletically. THOSE are the conditions for punishment. For athletes, politicians, drug addicts, Burger King managers, and hair barbers... for Chechens, Americans, and Martians.

Opening the door for political punishments is dangerous. For you too. You didn't get a bonus at work because Khamzat wasn't allowed to compete. No one did. But you woke up in a society that took yet another step in rationalizing that it's all good to issue punishments based on political preferences, just a bit more accepted than it was the day prior... and THAT trend wasn't in your interest, in my interest, the interest of fight fans if they remotely care about wanting to see "the best fight the best", or in the interest of the public at large.

 

[don't ask]

You didn't get a bonus at work because Khamzat wasn't allowed to compete. No one did.

You sound insane. There are arguments to be made against this kind of political pressure, but you aren't making them.

 

[fzoid4454]

Read #3. His visa troubles were the direct result of the US state department. I'm not ignoring it, I'm blaming that bullshit for us missing out on MMA history.

#1 is historically verifiable. He beat Gilbert for the #1 contender spot.
#3 has been confirmed by UFC and Khamzat. Trump lifted the ban on him competing.

#2 is the only one that you can argue. I provided my evidence as to why I think they scripted it. You gave absolutely nothing in response other than to be lazy and dismiss that evidence with the phrase "conspiracy theory"... but I guess you don't have any counter-point to say so that's all you can say.

What is the exact mistake he made for being banned from competing in the Western Hemisphere by the State Department for 2.5 years?

He chose the wrong ethnicity / birth country prior to being born? Or he committed the crime of taking a picture with the wrong person?

For autocratic dictators, it's a regular policy to sanction those who are close to them, as well, so there's an actual impact that gets back to them.

They're not going to change national and international human rights policy so you get to be MMA fan-boy happy that your guy gets a shot sooner.

That's not "virtue signalling," for fuck's sake. If Khamzat wants to lie down with dogs, he's going to get fleas.

 

[Dionysian]

You sound insane. There are arguments to be made against this kind of political pressure, but you aren't making them.

Not sure why you highlighted that specific sentence. My point is you gained nothing from his visa ban so it was counter to your interest. Him being prevented from competing didn’t allow you to get one penny more, you weren’t safer, and those that you dislike politically were no worse off.

In other words… we shouldn’t justify something that is against our interests. Your likelihood to be politically persecuted on arbitrary criteria goes up as it becomes more and more normalized, and you earned absolutely nothing in that trade-off. So we shouldn’t be making that political trade off.

For autocratic dictators, it's a regular policy to sanction those who are close to them, as well, so there's an actual impact that gets back to them.

They're not going to change national and international human rights policy so you get to be MMA fan-boy happy that your guy gets a shot sooner.

That's not "virtue signalling," for fuck's sake. If Khamzat wants to lie down with dogs, he's going to get fleas.

So how'd it work out then?

Preventing a UFC fighter from competing in the Western hemisphere... what did THAT do to Kadyrov? Did it lessen his bank account by one dime you think?

If you concede it did absolutely NOTHING then it begs the question... if it had absolutely no "actual impact" to Kadyrov or his regime then why would you use that for its justification?

 

[don't ask]

Not sure why you highlighted that specific sentence. My point is you gained nothing from his visa ban so it was counter to your interest. Him being prevented from competing didn’t allow you to get one penny more, you weren’t safer, and those that you dislike politically were no worse off.

In other words… we shouldn’t justify something that is against our interests. Your likelihood to be politically persecuted on arbitrary criteria goes up as it becomes more and more normalized, and you earned absolutely nothing in that trade-off. So we shouldn’t be making that political trade off.


Cool. So how'd it work out then?

Preventing a UFC fighter from competing in the Western hemisphere... what did THAT do to Kadyrov? Did it lessen his bank account by one dime you think?

If you concede it did absolutely NOTHING then it begs the question... if it had absolutely no "actual impact" to Kadyrov or his regime then why would you use that for its justification?

You're saying the same thing over and over again and not providing anything like an informed argument against sanctions and travel restrictions (while sounding like you don't understand what they are at all)... you're just saying things you're emotional about. You're "it could happen to you" argument can be applied to criminal infractions, too, which you're happy to uphold as the bar that should be met.

When you get to the point you say the actions against Khamzat cost me a bonus, you're not even trying to have an intelligent conversation. I mean, seriously, there's no point in us continuing after you say something like that. Are you going to say his Visa restrictions will attack my children? You've literally abandoned reason and are trying to persuade via mindless and ludicrous propaganda. Is this how you arrived at your opinion? I fucking hope your own argument wouldn't convince you of anything.

 

[Dionysian]

You're saying the same thing over and over again and not providing anything like an informed argument against sanctions and travel restrictions (while sounding like you don't understand what they are at all)... you're just saying things you're emotional about.

When you get to the point you say the actions against Khamzat cost me a bonus, you're not even trying to have an intelligent conversation. I mean, seriously, there's no point in us continuing after you say something like that. Are you going to say his Visa restrictions will attack my children? You've literally abandoned reason and are trying to persuade via mindless and ludicrous propaganda. Is this how you arrived at your opinion? I fucking hope your own argument wouldn't convince you of anything.

I didn't say it prevented you from getting a bonus. I said it gives you nothing... my implication was that a trade-off is rational only if you get something from it. I get a pay raise of a buck more, but then have less insurance options = ok now there's at least a trade-off discussion. But there is no discussion because you can't cite a tangible gain from visa bans imposed on international athletes based on politics. Not one penny earned, not one persecuted person protected, not one extra minute of jail time for criminals, not any inconvenience for Kadyrov... you can cite nothing because literally nothing was gained. Nothing besides the capability of people online to virtue signal.

On the flip side, I told you what you can lose when you defend continually increasing arbitrary political persecution. Up to and including multiple recent reports of people disappearing into vans without habeas corpus. But since you can't cite any upside and won't even discuss the potential downside, the conversation is instead defaulting to insults about me being insane or emotional or too dumb to understand the beauty of the wildly successful international sanctions regime (and since it isn't always clear online... yes... I'm stressing sarcasm on that last comment).

But yeah no need to go in circles. You think I'm insane for not being a fan of the international sanctions regime, I think you're insane for defending it when it is counter to your+the public interest. Next topic.

 

[Nausicaa]

I must say, khamzat has the weirdest fans out there. Might rival Jones as the worst fans

 

[Tweak896]

I must say, khamzat has the weirdest fans out there. Might rival Jones as the worst fans

You fucking hate guys who don't lose.

 

[don't ask]

I didn't say it prevented you from getting a bonus.

This you?

"You didn't get a bonus at work because Khamzat wasn't allowed to compete. No one did."

It sounds to me like your exact words are saying I didn't get a bonus at work and the reason is because Khamzat wasn't allowed to compete.

I said it gives you nothing... my implication was that a trade-off is rational only if you get something from it.

This kind of bullshit thinking is the reason we have so many fucking sociopaths running around trying to hurt their fellow humans. It's okay to do something that benefit someone else if it means we all live in a better society because of it.

I get a pay raise of a buck more, but then have less insurance options = ok now there's at least a trade-off discussion. But there is no discussion because you can't cite a tangible gain from visa bans imposed on international athletes based on politics.

Do you honestly think you're having an intelligent discussion by narrowing it down to "visa bans imposed on athletes" instead of "sanctions and travel restrictions imposed on people close to the tyrant/despot/war criminal/etc."?

Of course there's no great trove of data on such a narrow topic.

Not one penny earned, not one persecuted person protected, not one extra minute of jail time for criminals, not any inconvenience for Kadyrov... you can cite nothing because literally nothing was gained.

This is why I keep asking you if you know anything about sanctions and travel restrictions. Either you don't and that's why you have no idea what their purpose is or you do and you're, again, dishonestly criticizing them for not doing something they're not intended to do.

Nothing besides the capability of people online to virtue signal.

You're a fucking moron.

On the flip side, I told you what you can lose when you defend continually increasing arbitrary political persecution. Up to and including multiple recent reports of people disappearing into vans without habeas corpus.

All police actions are not the same, nor are they levied by the same people. You couldn't possibly speak in any more general terms, but you have to because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and it sounds like you've been educated by a bunch of dipshits on the internet. Details and knowledge are where you bullshit runs out of steam.

But since you can't cite any upside and won't even discuss the potential downside,

I shouldn't have to if you knew anything about this topic.

the conversation is instead defaulting to insults about me being insane or emotional or too dumb to understand the beauty of the wildly successful international sanctions regime (and since it isn't always clear online... yes... I'm stressing sarcasm on that last comment).

Throughout this entire conversation, you still haven't bothered to learn anything about this topic and think doubling down with your uneducated broad brushtrokes and somehow thinking you shouldn't be called an idiot.

Again, there are actual, informed arguments against sanctions and travel restrictions, but you've never even been in the same neighborhood as actual information on the topic.

But yeah no need to go in circles. You think I'm insane for not being a fan of the international sanctions regime, I think you're insane for defending it when it is counter to your+the public interest. Next topic.

You literally don't know enough about them to assess them in any way.

 

[fzoid4454]

So how'd it work out then?

Preventing a UFC fighter from competing in the Western hemisphere... what did THAT do to Kadyrov? Did it lessen his bank account by one dime you think?

If you concede it did absolutely NOTHING then it begs the question... if it had absolutely no "actual impact" to Kadyrov or his regime then why would you use that for its justification?

I would not concede that it did ABSOLUTELY nothing. Did it remove him from power? No, but I don't think they thought it would. Did it inflict pain to his inner circle that he can't as easily ignore as sanctions that just hurt the regular citizens while he just steals more from them and blames the West? Yes.

 

[Jeffery09]

Bro why is this weird azz thread still ongoing. This was debunked even by hardcore Chimaev fans as not being factual.

Just close this trash thread

 

[Dionysian]

This you?

"You didn't get a bonus at work because Khamzat wasn't allowed to compete. No one did."

It sounds to me like your exact words are saying I didn't get a bonus at work and the reason is because Khamzat wasn't allowed to compete.

Basic reading comprehension man... come on now. You didn't get a bonus at work from Khamzat getting a visa ban. Because you didn't. No one did. No one on planet Earth gained anything: not you, nor any Chechen citizen, American citizen, Russian citizen. In other words there was absolutely nothing... tangible or otherwise... to put in your "pros" column for why UFC athletes should be banned from competition due to politics. Meanwhile I cited what the big problem is in the "cons" column. Which you can't address despite me bringing it up 50 times.

This kind of bullshit thinking is the reason we have so many fucking sociopaths running around trying to hurt their fellow humans. It's okay to do something that benefit someone else if it means we all live in a better society because of it.

Still waiting on you to tell me the benefit of banning him. Waiting for a single sliver of evidence of how it helped to "better the world." Did it hurt Kadyrov? Did it detract from Kadyrov's bank account? Did one persecuted person in Chechnya say to themselves "well now today this jail cell is better because Khamzat didn't fight on that New York card"? I will take the fact that you've lapsed into a broken record, endlessly declaring your moral superiority because I am such a bad person... as an admission that you have fuck all in terms of rational arguments.

Do you honestly think you're having an intelligent discussion by narrowing it down to "visa bans imposed on athletes" instead of "sanctions and travel restrictions imposed on people close to the tyrant/despot/war criminal/etc."?

I narrowed it down to that because that's what we're fucking talking about. If you want to argue for the purpose of the sanctions regime overall, feel free to in the war room. Since the OP was created this conversation is arguing either A) it is a good idea to ban athletes based on politics or B) it isn't a good idea to ban athletes based on politics. I am arguing for B. If you are having a different conversation centered solely on declaring your superior morality then that may explain why we're on two different planets.

Of course there's no great trove of data on such a narrow topic.

Which is why I made a thread asking if it is a great idea to ban athletes based on politics. So far we have a grand total sample size of 1 (Khamzat 2022 to 2025). Seems like a pretty damn good time to bring it up (and I'm trying to bring it up AND shoot it down) prior to the sample size being 100 athletes being banned based on bullshit/arbitrary political tests. Either it is a good idea or it isn't. I gave my rationale for why it isn't. So far you've reiterated that trashing me personally is your primary logic for why it was a good idea. Which makes no sense of course. But then again you have no way to logically justify why it is a good idea other than slave morality of "well it is what people in power want, of course it is intrinsically good and I am intrinsically good for echoing what those in power want, and you are intrinsically bad for not wanting what the powerful want." Every single time I ask you for WHY it is good you turn into a broken record, repeating "it is good. it is good. it is good." in a slave mantra, always failing to answer my question of what tangible thing it did in this universe that was any good to any person.

This is why I keep asking you if you know anything about sanctions and travel restrictions. Either you don't and that's why you have no idea what their purpose is or you do and you're, again, dishonestly criticizing them for not doing something they're not intended to do.

We are talking about whether banning UFC athletes based on their politics alone is a good idea. I am saying it isn't. You still haven't begun the conversation after 10+ posts. I can't save you from this rhetorical hell you're in. Go to the war room and declare your moral virtue there based on you parroting the 20-year-old generic bullet points for the sanctions regime. That's the only conversation you really want to have anyway.

You're a fucking moron.

All police actions are not the same, nor are they levied by the same people. You couldn't possibly speak in any more general terms, but you have to because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and it sounds like you've been educated by a bunch of dipshits on the internet. Details and knowledge are where you bullshit runs out of steam.

Classic projection lol. The guy who has said nothing past "sanctions are good" and who is incapable of citing a single reason WHY they are good in THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE (when I've asked why 50 times) is now coming at me for speaking in terms that are too general.

I shouldn't have to if you knew anything about this topic.

Throughout this entire conversation, you still haven't bothered to learn anything about this topic and think doubling down with your uneducated broad brushtrokes and somehow thinking you shouldn't be called an idiot.

Again, there are actual, informed arguments against sanctions and travel restrictions, but you've never even been in the same neighborhood as actual information on the topic.


You literally don't know enough about them to assess them in any way.

You can't actually trouble yourself to mention the benefit of banning athletes based on their politics (despite me asking over and over and over) nor can you critique my position of the downside of banning athletes based on their politics (despite me asking to over and over and over). Like a good slave, all you do is post a single bullet point in different forms: "sanctions are always good. there's a good reason for them. No I can't mention that good reason here or defend the situation they're being used in here. Why? Well because you're too stupid to hear the good reason. So I win." You're incapable of even having a conversation because when I try to say "what about the topic we're talking about" you revert to spamming your slave bullet point ad nauseam. Anyway I'm bored. Good luck with your online virtue signaling.

 

[Dionysian]

I would not concede that it did ABSOLUTELY nothing. Did it remove him from power? No, but I don't think they thought it would. Did it inflict pain to his inner circle that he can't as easily ignore as sanctions that just hurt the regular citizens while he just steals more from them and blames the West? Yes.

Honestly man I fail to see how it hurt his inner circle in any way, but if you know a story I don't then I'll hear you out. Unless you tried to count Khamzat as being his "inner circle" which I think is a stretch for sure.

 

[HuskySamoan]

Let me remind you what we lost as fans. And somehow most didn't see it based on corporate manipulation pandering to the worst of fairweather fan emotions.

1. Khamzat becomes #1 contender at WW in early 2022
Undefeated Khamzat beats top 3 ranked Burns in a FOTY contender with the most buzz of any contender in ages. Easiest "ok next is a title shot" fight matchmaking in human history. This fight, prior to happening, was promised by Dana for the winner to get a title shot.

2. UFC derails Khamzat to cover their PR disaster / fans buy it
Instead, completely defying all logic, they used him as a punishment for Nate saying he wanted free agency. When fans and media turned against the UFC for this match (reminder for those who forgot: it was unanimous and a unfolding PR disaster for the UFC) suddenly it was called off. But they couldn't admit it was pre-planned. Instead someone who called themselves a "UFC doctor" ordered Khamzat to rehydrate, which he did, then they weighed him. He was 178. Reminder for those who don't know how weight cutting works... literally no one on the roster below HW is not nearly exactly 8 pounds over after rehydrating. Instead fans bought it and ignored the MOUNTAIN of evidence to the contrary that it was scripted: UFC never denied what Khamzat's team said about a "UFC doctor" ordering him to rehydrate + if it wasn't scripted they wouldn't have LW Tony slated for WW + Holland slated for 180 (the exact post-hydration Khamzat weight) months before the weight miss + the guy with the least marketing power (Li) taking the lone weight hit as a WW fighting a 180 pound guy (Hernandez), etc. Then the most scripted fight promotion probably in UFC history... the "biggest brawl in UFC history" per Dana between Kevin and Khamzat. A "brawl" that several UFC cameras caught the first 10 seconds of in the form of people yelling at one another... then the cameras magically turned off. All cell phones magically turned off. Not a single pic or second of video footage. And according to Dana, this brawl, the most violent in all of UFC history, which involved more than 20 pro fighters and entire teams... somehow didn't result in a single fight cancellation, single injury, single scratch on anyone's face... nothing. And fans bought it. For years after that it was attacks on Khamzat for "missing weight" instead.

3. Pure political virtue signaling, nothing more, shelves the most promising athlete for 2.5 years of his prime
The Russia-Ukraine war happens. The Biden State Department, completely under the guise of cheap virtue signaling, bans Khamzat from competing in the US. Solely because his ethnicity is the same as a politician they don't like, and his birth country is the same as another politician they don't like. As a result, he can't compete in the US or any country which follows the lead of the US (ie: that means all of Western Europe, Australia, Japan, etc) meaning he was effectively banned from competing anywhere besides Abu Dhabi. There was never any rationale provided for this. But instead we saw 2.5 years of fans saying "terrorist" or saying "but Kadyrov isn't nice" as if that had anything to do with Khamzat who was guilty only of being the same ethnicity. In the middle of this, Khamzat wins the SECOND fight he was promised a title shot (this time at MW vs Usman) and AGAIN doesn't get a title shot, again only explained by politics. Instead, Sean Strickland somehow gets 3 title shots in his next 4 fights. Worst of all, somehow... in a rejection of all logic... fans blame Khamzat for him not being allowed to compete in the West. "He only fights in Abu Dhabi" and "he's inactive" as if the most promising contender in the entire sport WANTED to sit on a couch. At least when Muhammad Ali's prime was stolen based on political horseshit (him not wanting to fight in Vietnam) fans were aware enough to understand "ok we are missing something special because of politics here." But instead Khamzat, without a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing, was banned from competing... based on nothing more than his ethnicity and the crime that he dared to have a photo taken with his President. Now the story has come out that what everyone thought back then was true / that this ban was not reversed until Trump came in. Within a few months he fights for the MW title in the US and wins in utterly dominant fashion.

4. Reminder of what we actually missed out on from summer of 2022 to summer of 2025.
If none of this shit happened, Khamzat would have fought for the WW title in the summer of 2022. He likely would have beaten Kamaru (#1 P4P fighter at the time) and dethroned him prior to Kamaru's streak being broken by Leon. Then he likely would have called out Izzy (#4 P4P fighter at the time) moved up to MW and likely beaten him prior to his streak being broken by Alex. He would have dethroned two P4P dominant champs in a row while attaining double champ status. Then if Izzy was dethroned Alex would have likely moved up to LHW to become a star in another weight class, and who knows if we could have seen Khamzat vs Alex for the belt at LHW prior to Alex getting dethroned by Ankalaev. Potential triple champ status.

TLDR: Regardless of what would have happened... just know this... we were robbed. Three years of the most excited matchmaking in this sport's history went up in smoke, solely due to politics. And most fans bought it hook, line, and sinker complete with echoing the virtue signaling and parroting the UFC corporate line about 279 totally not being scripted and Khamzat totally being at fault for listening to the orders of the "UFC doctor." Wake up. Khamzat at age 28-30 forced into limbo highlights that we had an Muhammad Ali situation happening in MMA: an elite athlete in his absolute prime sitting on the sidelines solely due to political bullshit and we lost something SPECIAL.

What else is new? We missed out on a lot of Floyd's prime, a lot of Tysons, a lot of Ali's. Laszlo Papp never got to fight internationally due to communism, Ike Beabuchi went inside and raped a woman ending his career, Dmitry Pirog herniated his back and had an early, abrupt retirement when he was a young undefeated champ, Salvador Sanchez died at 23 in an automobile accident when he was one of the most promising young champions in boxing history.

In MMA we missed out on so much of Jon Jones career. We missed out on chunks of Khabibs prime and then he retired early too. This will always keep happening in combat sports. Khamzat might just be another case.

 

[Dionysian]

What else is new? We missed out on a lot of Floyd's prime, a lot of Tysons, a lot of Ali's. Laszlo Papp never got to fight internationally due to communism, Ike Beabuchi went inside and raped a woman ending his career, Dmitry Pirog herniated his back and had an early, abrupt retirement when he was a young undefeated champ, Salvador Sanchez died at 23 in an automobile accident when he was one of the most promising young champions in boxing history.

In MMA we missed out on so much of Jon Jones career. We missed out on chunks of Khabibs prime and then he retired early too. This will always keep happening in combat sports. Khamzat might just be another case.

Plenty of good historical examples there.

I just hope that, at least with this case (restricting athletes based on politics) we learn as fans to speak up so that this particular case isn't repeated.

Best fight the best. Skip the virtue signaling.

 

[HuskySamoan]

Plenty of good historical examples there.

I just hope that, at least with this case (restricting athletes based on politics) we learn as fans to speak up so that this particular case isn't repeated.

Best fight the best. Skip the virtue signaling.

The UFC doesnt even sign the best, unfortunately.

Visa issues for Central Asian and Russian fighters will always be a big issue, for the foreseeable future. To this day Im not super certain how much of the Khamzat issue was Kadyrov affiliation, his "illnesses", the weight cut issues and just being a headcase. But I dont care about all the way, I just want to see great talent stay healthy and active, I agree with you.

 

[don't ask]

blah blah blah

This is an edit. I had a longer response, but it was just more of what we've been repeating to each other. Ultimately, what I have to say comes down to this:

I have never once said. I support sanctions or travel restrictions -- what I've been saying is how stupid your objections are.

There are reasonable and informed arguments against them. They involve a discussion of the various different goals, philosophies and implementations of this type of political pressure. They involve a discussion of historical examples of their successes and their failures.

You, on the other hand, are literally putting forward the same arguments fucking morons make against vaccines and traffic laws. (With a side of not understanding that sanctions and travel restrictions are accumulative actions, so demanding benefits from any one action is completely idiotic.)