You Run The UFC (Dealing With Fighters)

[LilNubi]

Hypothetically speaking of course. You run the UFC, you decide who gets cut and for what reason. I don't want you to list names of fighters your want to cut, that's not the point of this thread. I want to know what is your criteria for releasing fighters for their contracts.

3 Consecutive Losses = Instant release?

Does it matter if they come to fight?

Does it matter how close the loss is?

Does it matter if the fighter is a 'named' fighter?

How important is legacy?

The UFC claims to only have the best fighters, how important is it to remain true to this?

Once again, names are not important. I want to hear and discuss managing strategies.

 

[CC27]

Hypothetically speaking of course. You run the UFC, you decide who gets cut and for what reason. I don't want you to list names of fighters your want to cut, that's not the point of this thread. I want to know what is your criteria for releasing fighters for their contracts.

3 Consecutive Losses = Instant release?

Does it matter if they come to fight?

Does it matter how close the loss is?

Does it matter if the fighter is a 'named' fighter?

How important is legacy?

The UFC claims to only have the best fighters, how important is it to remain true to this?

Once again, names are not important. I want to hear and discuss managing strategies.

they dont claim to only have the best fighters, they claim they have the best fighters which they do.

Orgs always need prospects and mid/low level guys to fill out prelims.

If the UFC Only did 5 fight cards you wouldnt need low level guys but since they do 12 fight cards they need those lower level guys to fill out cards and keep the payroll down.

You cant have guys like Forrest making 300k a fight fighting in the first fight of the night on Facebook. You need those guys making 8/8, 10/10 to fill out the bottom of the cards.

As for who adn when to cut guys, if they lose a few in a row, if they are boring or put on lackluster performances you cut them if they lose a few. If they always come to fight and put on exciting fights you keep them around a bit longer.

Also name of the fighter matters, a guy like Hardy is a name for the UFC in the UK market so he means more to the UFC so he will get more chances than a prelim fighter.

 

[Brotha Will]

I wouldn't wish that job on anyone

 

[LilNubi]

I wouldn't wish that job on anyone

It's a lot of responsibility, but it must also be quite rewarding.

I'm sure there is a lot of pressure to do the right thing morally, and financially. A lot of tough calls must be made.

 

[COBRA03]

I think the way the UFC runs things now is perfect. They encourage older fighters who are on the downside to retire, more now than ever. There is no absolute guide to getting cut, if you really bring it, win or lose, they keep you. Mike Brown and Leonard Garcia are good examples of that. If you lose a few and get beaten up bad, you will get cut. Pete Sell and Scott Smith are good examples of this. UFC takes care of their guys, and I believe they are safety first, regardless of wheather your a big name guy or not.

 

[filthynumber1]

Example
Alessio Sakara
Guy loses more then he wins but comes to bang

Dana likes guys who bang so he lets that bro bang

Michael hill should prolly be moved into a managerial postiion

 

[Break Brick]

I would keep an entertaining fighter beyond 3 losses, if they do good numbers or if I believe they have the potential to be lucrative for my organisation

 

[Righteous Jon]

I would keep the fun fighters, the fan favorites obviously get more leeway than someone who is boring on a three fight skid or even a one fight skid. Some fighters I would cut the second they lost, such as Okami, or since he just came off of a win I would leave him on the opening fight indefinitely until he got exciting.

Also, Frankie Edgar having 2 loses, to me it seems that he won both fights, and imo he would still have another 3 to go before I cut him, although he was a champion if he did start to lose pretty handily in all of his following fights I might pull him aside and tell him it's time to hang it up because I HATE seeing "past their prime" fighters malingering in small orgs.

My managing style would pretty much be just like the UFC is now, but I would never EVER risk a boring fighter on a ppv card. If I did, it would only be if it was a contender ship fight with a fighter I knew would bring everything he had to give against the boring one.

The other thing is something like Todd Duffee's case, he was a huge promising prospect, and he lost once after a great fight and he gets cut? I don't really care if the guy was being an ass or not (which he claims he wasn't), if he is making the company money it doesn't compute why he should be cut.

My last thing would be guys like Wanderlei, I know he loves the feel of the crowd and 99% of the crowd loves him, but it's time to go for God's sake. He needs to retire and just coach students or something. I would just tell him enough is enough and give him a massive last check for being a great fighter and helping my business.

 

[TheRassler]

I wouldn't wish that job on anyone

I'll take it.

exciting fighters = stay as long as they keep being exciting
LnP'ers/blankets = cut after 1 win
wall n stall'ers = cut after 1 win
marathon runners = cut after 1 win


you can point fight all you want, but if you fall into the last 3 categories, you're done.

 

[OverGodReem**]

Hypothetically speaking of course. You run the UFC, you decide who gets cut and for what reason. I don't want you to list names of fighters your want to cut, that's not the point of this thread. I want to know what is your criteria for releasing fighters for their contracts.

3 Consecutive Losses = Instant release?

Does it matter if they come to fight?

Does it matter how close the loss is?

Does it matter if the fighter is a 'named' fighter?

How important is legacy?

The UFC claims to only have the best fighters, how important is it to remain true to this?

Once again, names are not important. I want to hear and discuss managing strategies.

2 consec loses and your out
dosn't matter if they come to fight.
no dosnt matter how close you still lost.
no it dosn't matter
Legacy is everything.

 

[LilNubi]

I'll take it.

exciting fighters = stay as long as they keep being exciting
LnP'ers/blankets = cut after 1 win
wall n stall'ers = cut after 1 win
marathon runners = cut after 1 win


you can point fight all you want, but if you fall into the last 3 categories, you're done.

After one win is a bit harsh, no?

I could understand if a fighter did is time after time, but what if his first fight is up for FOTY while his second fight is tragically lackluster?

 

[TheRassler]

After one win is a bit harsh, no?

I could understand if a fighter did is time after time, but what if his first fight is up for FOTY while his second fight is tragically lackluster?

it will send a message out to the rest of the fighters that this will not be tolerated.

also I would give incentives to finish for every fight, not just the 3 normal bonuses, but for every fighter to go out and finish.

 

[SnowBlynd]

If I was running it rankings would be secondary. If the fans don't like your fights you're cut first loss

 

[maniacmatt1782]

every situation has unique circumstances, and must be handled accodingly.

 

[AmericanCharm]

Cut after 4 losses
Guys who wall and stall often will be cut
Fighters will be released if they turn down fights
Must defend title 3 times a year or interm champ will be crowned

 

[LilNubi]

it will send a message out to the rest of the fighters that this will not be tolerated.

also I would give incentives to finish for every fight, not just the 3 normal bonuses, but for every fighter to go out and finish.

I'm sure there is an incentive to finish fights that we don't know about. Probably quite similar to the finish bonus Dana give's to the TUF kids.

Likely falls under 'Locker Room Bonuses".

 

[let me bang bro**]

There would never be any 1 and done, I would always give everyone at least 2 chances.

If your exciting you would get more chances than if you weren't

I would sign every decent flyweight I see until there's a good number of fighters

I would put more effort into signing top prospects instead of letting bellator get them while we get Dan stittgen.

Tuf would be talent first, personality second

 

[LilNubi]

There would never be any 1 and done, I would always give everyone at least 2 chances.

If your exciting you would get more chances than if you weren't

I would sign every decent flyweight I see until there's a good number of fighters

I would put more effort into signing top prospects instead of letting bellator get them while we get Dan stittgen.

Tuf would be talent first, personality second

Unfortunately TUF isn't for the diehards. Its for the casuals. In their eyes Personality>Talent every single time. It sucks, but that's just what that show is. I think the UFC should do something similar to what Strikefoce did with the challenger events. Now that you have Fox behind you, you can do a weekly or bi-weekly card of Fuel for newer talent.

 

[LilNubi]

every situation has unique circumstances, and must be handled accodingly.

Isn't this more or less just common knowledge? How would you take care of particular circumstances and events?

 

[ltfightfan]

I wouldn't cut anyone that has consecutive losses. Since the UFC started the three losses in a row and you are gone deal, it seems like the that when we get all of these boring fights and fighters pulling out of fights.

Why put that pressure on fighters. Sure if a fighter is 0-9 then maybe they should find somewhere else to fight but 3 in a row and you are gone is a bit much.