If "The Fix" Was In At UFC 162, What Was The Point?

Posted on July 20, 2013, 12:02 PM by Mike Drahota
> Cool 5
|
> Poor 10

Recently MMA news has been abuzz with talk of a UFC 162 ‘fix’ and Dana White’s subsequent appearances on both ESPN 2 and SI.com to refute the claim. Yesterday during an interview, White was quick to blast Sports Illustrated for seemingly suggesting that the UFC is not regulated as much as boxing, and also for not doing their research in his eyes.

The UFC President was doubtful of the how knowledgeable the SI panel of experts was, noting that they are not regular MMA pundits or writers. Still, SI host Maggie Gray stood her ground when speaking with White, sticking to the stance that ultimately the SI.com panel reached the conclusion that the fight was indeed not fixed.

Here’s how White responded:

"I honestly thought you guys were calling to apologize because you were embarrassed at how ridiculous your show was. Now as I sit here and talk to you, you're even more ridiculous."

"If you don't know anything about what you're talking about, you probably shouldn't talk about it. That sounds like a really good idea. That's why you've been getting smashed by fans and why I smashed you yesterday at ESPN.”

“Because if you're going to talk about something, you might want to do your homework and know what you're talking about, or at least you might want to have at least seen the fight so somebody on that panel would have had half a brain to say, 'You know what, I saw the fight. The guy was viciously knocked out. How could that be fixed?'

"The conclusion of your roundtable should be that you guys should do your homework and understand exactly what it is you're talking about. And if nobody watched the fight that day, you should at least know the sport is regulated. At least know some general things about the sport. At least do your homework."

White is fired up about the subject, and for good reason. If Sports Illustrated sways away from basically any and all MMA coverage until something ‘controversial’ pops up, then how accurate can their opinions truly be? If panel members discussing the Chris Weidman/Anderson Silva bout don’t even know that the same athletic commissions regulate MMA as boxing, then how can their opinions even hold any sort of weight in a discussion about an allegedly fixed fight that is already shaky and without much merit?

The answer is not very much at all. I’ve found all of the fix talk surrounding UFC 162’s main event to be a bit ridiculous, as it would have been too obvious to have Silva clown around before losing. But how can you guarantee Weidman knocks him out? You surely can’t guarantee that Silva’s eyes roll back into his head like they did.

And like White pointed out, you don’t fix a fight where the underdog is sitting at a measly 2-to-1 odds. The UFC stood to lose a whole lot more than anything they could have conceivably gained with a fix. Sure the rematch is huge, but would it really compare to the now-lost superfights between Silva and Jon Jones or Georges St-Pierre?

Nope, not a chance. The UFC stood to profit massively should Silva have won that fight. Anyone suggesting a fix was in doesn’t really know much about MMA or how the UFC works, and that’s why it’s kind of silly for Sports Illustrated to even bring that topic up when they rarely if ever cover MMA in day-to-day news.

Did they see how fried White was at all the UFC 162 post-fight presser and interviews? Do you think he would have been that exhausted and beleaguered had Silva had won? No, he would have been fired up and adamant about all of the blockbuster bouts he finally got to make once Chris Weidman was out of the title picture.

But that didn’t happen. So I ask you, the fans, the people who really matter when it comes to MMA, what did the UFC stand to gain by fixing UFC 162’s blockbuster main event? To me, the answer is a resounding, “Nothing!” What do you think?

 


Comments

REGISTER OR LOG IN TO POST COMMENTS AND BECOME AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY
  • Brian Cox
    Sharp
    12
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0


    She's a moron. She's an example of "yet another" of someone who's pretty enough to look good on camera, but doesn't know what she's talking about.

    I loved when Dana asked her if anyone on the panel watched the fight and her answer...did you watch our show?

    Of the two, the fight or her crappy show, which do you think was more relevant in terms of watching? Her answer tells us all we need to know, because if they had watched it, she would have said...yes, I watched it...the whole panel had watched it, but she did not and the reason why, because no one on the her lousy show watched it and they did what most corporate "journalists" do, they reported without the facts. They reported and discussed how they "felt"...lol!

    This chick (Maggie Gray) is a joke. Her magazine and TV show are a joke. They aren't even bright enough to figure out that if the fight was fixed, that Anderson would have tapped to Weidman's heel-hook attempt and that would have been it. He would not pass that up in favor a KO and getting his head bounced off the canvas.

    Morons and they have no credibility. If I were White I wouldn't bother with SI. They are not what they used to be and their living off of a reputation they built back-in-the-day. It's a lousy magazine and most particularly if you're into MMA.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Entity
    Sharp
    4
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0

    yea, on that other interview he called the guys at SI idiots.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Entity
    Funny
    8
    Sharp | 1
    Weak | 1
    Cool | 0

    By the way, shes not pretty to me, crooked nose droopy eye and horse teeth. 8P
    Dana owned her

    Reply 9 months ago
  • HoustonsOwn
    Sharp
    3
    Weak | 1
    Cool | 1
    Funny | 0

    The problem with the Anderson rematch is that Anderson is most dangerous when he's a counter striker, the last time he didn't fully "bait" a fighter delivered a brooding fight. He lost because there was a point where they went shot for shot when standing, (before the full bait) with little result in A's favor. People seem to think a rematch and a more "serious" A will be bring much better result, but 'serious' isn't when he's most dominant. Like Mayweather, or Canelo, the opponent feeds into their mental game also which gives them an edge. The second fight will be determined by if A can give enough 'game" and not get taken down much, scary.

    Without it, it would be a grueling match, and I want A to win and always have, I'm just also a fighter and want to view things realistically and with proper critique. Will Weidman go down easy? We don't know, no telling, he hasn't felt the knockout or weaknesses so he feels a bit unbreakable in comparison to many others.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • Mike Drahota
    Sharp
    4
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0

    He made some good points but she totally circumvented them. If you're going to just turn everything around on your guest that you don't like, no reason to have White on because you know what he's there to say.

    Reply 9 months ago
  • TheRealDeal
    Sharp
    2
    Cool | 2
    Funny | 1
    Weak | 1

    Idiots who think there was a fix are the same idiots who believed the world would end in 2012.

    Reply 9 months ago