Originally posted by: Sedulous Date: February 03, 2014 at 11:41 AM Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/should-the-ufc-give-fighters-every-fight-on-their-contract.60896/
We know that fighters will sometimes fight a very safe fight for different reasons. Sometimes it's because of title shot implications and other times it's because they are in danger of being cut. Well, in order to better avoid safe fights due to being cut (Shaub vs Johnson, Reem vs Mir), should UFC allow fighters to fight every fight on their contract regardless of wins or losses?
Originally posted by: Spud Date: February 03, 2014 at 11:53 AM Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/should-the-ufc-give-fighters-every-fight-on-their-contract.60896/
Originally posted by: CupcakeKatie Date: February 03, 2014 at 12:00 PM Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/should-the-ufc-give-fighters-every-fight-on-their-contract.60896/
Originally posted by: C-Me-No-More Date: February 03, 2014 at 12:02 PM Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/should-the-ufc-give-fighters-every-fight-on-their-contract.60896/
I think it would create a log jam for new talent coming in, and by the default damage the UFC name brand too.
If fighters like Leonard Garcia have one fight left in their deal but are on a 4 fight skid, how is it they still deserve a shot at what is regarded as the best MMA org in the world? When you have prospects chipping at the block on win streaks, waiting for someone to finish up their deal. It don't make sense, and I am in my bollocks watching Bellator just because the UFC missed the chance to sign someone with a s--- load of hype around them, don't mind anyone else just not Bellator
Originally posted by: Sapper Date: February 03, 2014 at 12:18 PM Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/should-the-ufc-give-fighters-every-fight-on-their-contract.60896/
I think they should. Most fighters only sign a three or four fight deal. If said fighter, goes 0-2 right out of the gate, they should still be able to finish out their deal. Maybe they make a come back and are now 2-2, or even if they are 1-2 then they get cut.
On the flip side a fighter cannot sign a shitty deal for four fights, get three first round KO's + bonus money.. Then say f--- you I got a better deal and I am leaving. Sure they signed the contract, but same can be said for the UFC.
I wonder if the UFC doesn't already do this. Most fighters that get "cut" is not really the right word. Most cases the UFC just does not resign them after their contract is up. I don't know any numbers, but I bet this is close to 100% of the time.
Originally posted by: demeter Date: February 03, 2014 at 12:35 PM Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/should-the-ufc-give-fighters-every-fight-on-their-contract.60896/
I think it's fine as it is, generally it seems like most fighters do finish out their contract plus, although we could probably take this with pinch of salt, according to Dana generally fighters who try and put on exciting fights are less likely to be cut, Bobby Voelker being a prime example of this.
Originally posted by: Rza Date: February 03, 2014 at 01:02 PM Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/should-the-ufc-give-fighters-every-fight-on-their-contract.60896/
Yes. Otherwise whats the point in signing a contract. The ufc never offer stupid contracts, so why not honour them? I dont think itll stop fighters fighting safe though.
Originally posted by: mmablaster Date: February 03, 2014 at 01:10 PM Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/should-the-ufc-give-fighters-every-fight-on-their-contract.60896/
There are quite a few instances where a fighter finishes out their deal, the UFC tells them they won't get a new contract, and everyone kinda assumes they were cut when really they were just not re-signed.
I do think we will see more high end guys try to get a higher signing bonus when they sign new deals.
