- Joined
- Dec 20, 2015
- Messages
- 5,071
- Reaction score
- 55
nobody lays down perfectly like that if they were really ko'ed
Discussion: Is there solid evidence that a fight has ever been fixed in the UFC?
- Thread starter The Natural Born Runner
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 27,219
- Reaction score
- 5,581
was going for the leg, fight didn't end there.
i think it's highly unlikely, i'm sure some fighters have thrown fights but the ufc itself fixing fight? no, too much risks,
the only sketchy fight to me was houston alexander vs kimbo, would not be surprised if alexander was instructed to take it lightly to milk kimbo for one more fight
but otherwise there is to many times when big fight didn't go the ufc way, and most of the sketchy decisions were always in non importnt fight except hendricks vs gsp
the only sketchy fight to me was houston alexander vs kimbo, would not be surprised if alexander was instructed to take it lightly to milk kimbo for one more fight
but otherwise there is to many times when big fight didn't go the ufc way, and most of the sketchy decisions were always in non importnt fight except hendricks vs gsp
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2004
- Messages
- 143,287
- Reaction score
- 101,980
kimbo vs houston was too bad to be a fixed fight. That fight sucked,and both guys looked like shit.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 3,562
- Reaction score
- 0
When there's a lot of money on the line, almost anything is possible. Especially looking at the level of corruption that's been shown to exist in other businesses and organizations before.
However, I'm willing to give the full benefit of the doubt until I see some actual proof. And no, a fight not going the way you thought it 'obviously' should have isn't proof. Neither is any of the other bullshit conjecture that people have brought up in this thread.
However, I'm willing to give the full benefit of the doubt until I see some actual proof. And no, a fight not going the way you thought it 'obviously' should have isn't proof. Neither is any of the other bullshit conjecture that people have brought up in this thread.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,853
- Reaction score
- 0
Silva/Griffin and Houston Alexander/Kimbo were highly suspicuous fights.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2005
- Messages
- 68,677
- Reaction score
- 10,953
This is the logic behind fixing a fight in the UFC that people will use. The UFC first and foremost is a business and we know that certain fighters bring it a shit load more revenue than other fighters do. So you have to ask the question using this weekends fight as an example. What does the UFC gain by having Nunes as champion rather than Ronda?? Ronda winning would certainly be more advantageous for them in the future in terms of ppv buys and keeping her on top brings in the $$$. So you have this reason alone why they would do it.....obviously money motivated.
Now I personally believe that fights arent being fixed and I dont think they will be. One reason is that there is just way too much to lose if a fixed fight gets exposed. Especially with how much the UFC is worth today something like that could be detrimental to their business. Was there fights fixed in the mid 90s??? Possibly because at that point the UFC was not big business and the fighters could have agreements (well we know this actually did happen early UFC).....but not in the past 15 years.
I was talking with a fighter (ufc) and he mentioned that the Fertitas have more than enough money and the UFC was a business they build because they genuinely cared about the legitimacy of the sport. In short, they didnt need more money and fixing a big fight is just too risky and doesnt bring in that much more cash.
Another reason is that the UFC once they have a star can really keep them there without fixing results. Take Ronda for example, she lost her title but is back in another big title fight. Suppose she loses to Nunes....well the UFC will simply keep her on top by giving her a shot at 145 belt. I think once a star is established the UFC knows how to keep them on top. Conor for example isnt champ at FW anymore and he could lose the LW belt. The UFC an always have him go back down for a title fight or to WW for a title fight
Now I personally believe that fights arent being fixed and I dont think they will be. One reason is that there is just way too much to lose if a fixed fight gets exposed. Especially with how much the UFC is worth today something like that could be detrimental to their business. Was there fights fixed in the mid 90s??? Possibly because at that point the UFC was not big business and the fighters could have agreements (well we know this actually did happen early UFC).....but not in the past 15 years.
I was talking with a fighter (ufc) and he mentioned that the Fertitas have more than enough money and the UFC was a business they build because they genuinely cared about the legitimacy of the sport. In short, they didnt need more money and fixing a big fight is just too risky and doesnt bring in that much more cash.
Another reason is that the UFC once they have a star can really keep them there without fixing results. Take Ronda for example, she lost her title but is back in another big title fight. Suppose she loses to Nunes....well the UFC will simply keep her on top by giving her a shot at 145 belt. I think once a star is established the UFC knows how to keep them on top. Conor for example isnt champ at FW anymore and he could lose the LW belt. The UFC an always have him go back down for a title fight or to WW for a title fight
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 30,365
- Reaction score
- 9,917
Fight fixing in real life isn't like the movies, nobody takes a 'dive.' Instead judges or refs just favor one fighter in order to sway the odds significantly. This is why promoters hate 10-10 rounds, those are supposed to go to the guy their friends bet on.
Some of the ridiculous scoring we've seen is strong evidence of fight fixing.
Some of the ridiculous scoring we've seen is strong evidence of fight fixing.
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Messages
- 13,063
- Reaction score
- 1,292
HEY PEOPLE...
Ken was going for a leg lock...It's not hard to debunk
Just show the next 2 seconds
Ken was going for a leg lock...It's not hard to debunk
Just show the next 2 seconds
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 1,364
- Reaction score
- 19
This isn't evidence but its more of a logical conclusion that I came to after doing some deep thinking about the outcome of this fight.
Diaz vs. Conor I
Dana and the UFC both knew that a rematch between these two fighters would generate the biggest PPV event ever, and both fighters are two of the most $$$ hungry fighters on the UFC's roster.
Conor knew that 1 loss in a weight class two classes above his own wouldn't do much to tarnish his career and legacy. And he knew that he could easily avenge the loss and that a rematch would break all PPV records, and you know what, he was 100% right.
Diaz never had a pay day higher than $50,000 in his life. So when the UFC came around with an offer of $1,000,000 for one fight and another milly for the second fight. He was like "is dat nuff to buy mom a house and get me a caddy with spin rims" and the UFC says to him "Si mon esse" , Diaz replies "yo dayum, fo sho"
Win-win for everybody.
Diaz vs. Conor I
Dana and the UFC both knew that a rematch between these two fighters would generate the biggest PPV event ever, and both fighters are two of the most $$$ hungry fighters on the UFC's roster.
Conor knew that 1 loss in a weight class two classes above his own wouldn't do much to tarnish his career and legacy. And he knew that he could easily avenge the loss and that a rematch would break all PPV records, and you know what, he was 100% right.
Diaz never had a pay day higher than $50,000 in his life. So when the UFC came around with an offer of $1,000,000 for one fight and another milly for the second fight. He was like "is dat nuff to buy mom a house and get me a caddy with spin rims" and the UFC says to him "Si mon esse" , Diaz replies "yo dayum, fo sho"
Win-win for everybody.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,597
- Reaction score
- 2
you have to go through two interviews and then orientation. he was making 30k a year along with hughs...go look it up..there even was a tbread about it recently.
30k mo. is allot of money....so lidell had to go through a process. in the meantime due to his popularity he fought a little more and didnt care about winning.
lidell has had a history of not caring....all the drugs..partying..etc.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,229
- Reaction score
- 0
No he didn't. He went down and was finished a few seconds later. He never went for a leg lock, it was more of a slip.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,222
- Reaction score
- 0
Fixed fights in 2016
1. Conor vs Nate 2
2. DC vs Anderson Silva
3. Conor vs Alvarez
1. Conor vs Nate 2
2. DC vs Anderson Silva
3. Conor vs Alvarez
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2004
- Messages
- 143,287
- Reaction score
- 101,980
No one is gonna let someone tee off on them like Conor did to Nate in the first round. Also Nate is from the school of "aint no bitch" and is not capable of the cunning ruse of "acting" and "play fighting"
you know what happens when you ask a diaz bro to work a fight
"AY EVERYONE LOOK THEY ASKED ME TO WORK A FIGHT,YO FOR REAL"
