I'm a huge American Football fan right, and I've always thought the officiating in that sport in particular is much better than most sports out there including MMA, Boxing, Football, Basketball. I always thought games weren't at all fixed and I'm still not necessarily sure if some are - but you ALWAYS hear the conspiracies. I honestly thought this year's SuperBowl was fishy, Cam Newton did very odd things - it was really suspect.
That brings me to MMA. You always hear claims of fixes e.g. Kimbo vs Shamrock most recently. Any time a fix is suggested majority of people kick up fuss and get angry with these "silly", "unrealistic" claims - most of the time I agree with those guys.
My question is, with the 100's and 100's of UFC fights over the years, is it possible that any of them have been "fixed". You hear claims of Mendes getting a cheque to let McGregor win, you see very quick taps sometimes, you have guys dropping out with injuries at the last moment which raise eyebrows.
I'm not sure, I honestly don't know to be honest - but I'm interested in some examples if you guys think some actually are fixed.
It's a whole lot easier to see why smaller organisations would have fixed fights because there is less to lose so to speak, and they have more to benefit off of fights going certain ways. Is it possible that the biggest MMA organisation in the world on occasion fixes fights???
I think that it probably happens much more than anyone would like to believe.
Now does that mean the UFC fixes fights??? No, I don't think that they do. But I do think that they have fighters that they would like to see win, and therefore position those fighters in the most advantageous positions possible.
Conor(who I'm s huge fan of) obviously had his hand held since day 1 by the UFC.
If the world were fair, McGregor would have had to fight both Chad and Frankie in a row(with full training camps), before fighting Aldo. Styles make fights and I always thought that Conor could beat Aldo, but I also thought that Frankie would have mauled Conor if they had fought before. Wrestling has historically been kryptonite to most European UFC newcomers.
I find it more than a coincidence that Conor fought Chad(who had to cut a good amount of weight) instead of Frankie(who doesn't cut a lot of weight). Especially when Frankie had already been promised a Title shot, is a former Champion, and Chad was coming off a loss.
I think the UFC has been protecting Conor from wrestlers. I also think that by the time he does start to fight them regularly, he will have excellent TD defense.
As far as the Nate fight goes... I think that Conor has probably known about Dos Anjos's injury since the moment Dana knew. Why Nate Diaz??? Donald Cerrone is a LW contender and is fully ready to fight today.
I was curious when I heard Nate mentioned alongside Conor, soon after the Dos Anjos's fight had just been announced, when Conor is a Champion and Nate is no longer even a legitimate contender. But I think that the UFC was laying the foundation for the contingency if Conor started losing fights and needed a bankable opponent.
I find it very odd that they are fighting at WW, instead of a catch weight(which happens in the UFC). Because if Conor loses(to a non Champion), then it can be claimed that he lost to a fighter who is 2 weight classes above him. When the truth is that Conor is really a LW, who also happened to fight at 145.
So is that "fixing" fights??? No. But if I am right, the UFC has much more control over the outcomes of the fights then most casual fans think.