Cutting fighters

Mr. Manager

Just thought I'd start a thread after reading the latest post in the "interesting article" thread.

If you were Dana White, what would be your policy on cutting a fighter?

There's so much inconstancy with the whole thing that it baffles me at times. You see people like Dan Hardy who goes 2-3 and doesn't get cut yet someone like Okami goes 3-1 and gets cut.

Same with Garcia, he runs out his contract 0-5 yet Fitch goes 2-2-1 NC and gets cut.

Even when it comes to dropping fighters for stupid tweets or public disorders. Look at Miguel Torres - he gets dropped for making a rape joke, "handles his business like a man" so gets reinstated only to get cut after his next loss.


It's difficult to call in my opinion. I'd like to see a shorter roster with a quicker turnover - 2 consecutive losses and you're gone. But then there's tough cuts to make like Chael Sonnen (pre drug test failure obviously). 3 consecutive losses probably seems about right.

pablohoney87

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

Just thought I'd start a thread after reading the latest post in the "interesting article" thread.

If you were Dana White, what would be your policy on cutting a fighter?

There's so much inconstancy with the whole thing that it baffles me at times. You see people like Dan Hardy who goes 2-3 and doesn't get cut yet someone like Okami goes 3-1 and gets cut.

Same with Garcia, he runs out his contract 0-5 yet Fitch goes 2-2-1 NC and gets cut.

Even when it comes to dropping fighters for stupid tweets or public disorders. Look at Miguel Torres - he gets dropped for making a rape joke, "handles his business like a man" so gets reinstated only to get cut after his next loss.


It's difficult to call in my opinion. I'd like to see a shorter roster with a quicker turnover - 2 consecutive losses and you're gone. But then there's tough cuts to make like Chael Sonnen (pre drug test failure obviously). 3 consecutive losses probably seems about right.

Cutting fighters for Dana is a fine line between Draws and having the best in the world. It's a business for Dana. In other words if you are not a Draw you better be on your way to the title. The guys who get cut who arent big draws are normally division gate keepers who are not finishing fights.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's just business

MrStuffins

I'm not sure. It should be taken on a case by case basis. Frankie Edgar lost 3 in a row. Should he have been cut? Absolutely not! 2 fights he won, in my opinion, against Bendo and another against Aldo.

It's really tough to call. Some guys keep their jobs because they put on exciting fights and I think that's fair. Okami & Fitch getting cut is bullsh*t though. And Eskren shoudl've been given a shot.

Mr. Manager

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Cutting fighters for Dana is a fine line between Draws and having the best in the world. It's a business for Dana. In other words if you are not a Draw you better be on your way to the title. The guys who get cut who arent big draws are normally division gate keepers who are not finishing fights.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's just business

Guess I probably went the wrong way on that - from a business POV, I totally get where he is coming from. Garcia was entertaining (to most, not to me. Hated the guy in fact). As far as money goes, he's doing it the right way. I just hate the principles behind it. "Swing for the car park and you're safe but at the same time if you get knocked whilst swinging for the car park you will most likely get cut".

Fighters missing weight is another thing. Can't stand this. You have 1 job before your actual job. Make weight.

Mr. Manager

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm not sure. It should be taken on a case by case basis. Frankie Edgar lost 3 in a row. Should he have been cut? Absolutely not! 2 fights he won, in my opinion, against Bendo and another against Aldo.

It's really tough to call. Some guys keep their jobs because they put on exciting fights and I think that's fair. Okami & Fitch getting cut is bullsh*t though. And Eskren shoudl've been given a shot.

This I would disregard on the same lines as yourself - he didn't lose those fights.

John_D80

Retention in the organisation (and to a certain extent, rankings) should be performance based and not results based.

If fighter A wins 3 fights in a row by lying on top of his opponent for 3 rounds, cut him.

If fighter B loses 3 in a row by split decision against top tier opponents and gets 3 FOTN bonuses there's no way you would cut him.

Personally, it's not the cuts the UFC makes that bewilder me as much as the ones they don't make.

John_D80

John_D80 wrote: »

Retention in the organisation (and to a certain extent, rankings) should be performance based and not results based.

If fighter A wins 3 fights in a row by lying on top of his opponent for 3 rounds, cut him.

If fighter B loses 3 in a row by split decision against top tier opponents and gets 3 FOTN bonuses there's no way you would cut him.

Personally, it's not the cuts the UFC makes that bewilder me as much as the ones they don't make.

So Fighter A could then realistically go on to beat every single person at his weight class outside the UFC because nobody has an answer for his wrestling and he was still cut from the UFC. It's Mixed Martial Arts for a reason. Leonard Garcia has worse striking than most windmills and he got 5 Losses before he was cut (most of his wins were tenuous at best also)

DrPhilG

There's no doubt that Dana and the UFC make many of their cut decisions based on how entertaining fighters are.

The irony is, because of that potential to be cut for a single loss, many fighters are even less exciting because they need to fight safe.

I'd like to see a little more security for fighters. Let's say that you can't be cut directly after a loss, but the UFC have to give you official notification that you're on your last chance.

Doesn't mean that 2 in a row is the boot, because you might lose a close fight or an exciting fight and not get that warning.

But if you lose a stinker, the kind of Fight that would normally have seen you chopped, you are guaranteed to have at least one more fight to save your skin.

That takes the pressure off fighters at least a little, meaning that they can relax without the pressure that they might be heading for the P45. Of course if they get that warning then they're in the same boat and will go back to the old fighting safe option in their next fight but at least it would reduce that pressure a little.

DrPhilG

I would also change fighter contracts from basic plus win, to basic plus win plus finish.

It's already like that in TUF. Fighters automatically get a 5k bonus for a finish.

Zero-Cool

I'd like for ufc to make a list of fighters they're thinking about cutting and then put them all on a 'survival' card where losers get cut and winners get a new contract. Might see some good scraps then.

SDTimeout

Now more than ever a guy getting cut isn't such a bad thing with WSOF, Bellator and even Asian promotions. You can put a run together and get paid for it. The UFC are after a certain style / thing whatever you want to call it. These guys can get paid elsewhere.

I dunno I guess I don't have too much of a problem for it.

Mr. Manager

DrPhilG wrote: »

I would also change fighter contracts from basic plus win, to basic plus win plus finish.

It's already like that in TUF. Fighters automatically get a 5k bonus for a finish.

Couldn't agree more on this note. If Dana is really pushing for "exciting guys" etc then why not incentivise it with a few quid extra.

ShaneU

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

Couldn't agree more on this note. If Dana is really pushing for "exciting guys" etc then why not incentivise it with a few quid extra.

Ehhhh, he already does?

There are fight of the night, ko of the night and submission of the night bonuses in every ufc event

Mr. Manager

ShaneU wrote: »

Ehhhh, he already does?

There are fight of the night, ko of the night and submission of the night bonuses in every ufc event

Thank you captain obvious.

I was referring to the above post where they give $5k for every finish in TUF. Why not transfer the same incentive to all events.

Mellor

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

Fighters missing weight is another thing. Can't stand this. You have 1 job before your actual job. Make weight.

I'm split on that one. A lot of the times fighters deserve to be slated for trying to cut ridiculous amounts. On the other hand, it's partially out of their hands if the body won't play ball.

davmol

At the end of the day ,people want to see exciting fights not strategic masterplans.Its a business so if fighters dont draw the masses they will get cut.

Nothing has changed,humans are still the bloodthirsty specimens we weree centuries ago.We want to see blood and men beating the crap out of each other.

We will follow the novelty of a fellow irish man fighting for 1 or 2 fights but after that it has to be exciting.

Ill pay to watch conor and neil seery but other like Fields and Pendred to me are awful to watch and so i wouldnt spend the money.Im not sure why Pendred got offered a UFC contract as his fighting style is everything dana goes against ie take down,lay on top.Hes just not exciting.Conor is exciting and i like his style-he strikes and goes for finishes.

i think the above factors play a part on a fighter getting cut or not.