Re-evaluation of the "No Fighter Bashing" rule.

I love the PG. It has become sort of my internet home away from home and I would do everything in my power to not let a sour apple or a rule be the reason to not post anymore. Having said that, I feel disrespected as a fan when I cannot theorize about the performance of a fighter or question a fighter's heart. Yet it is perfectly fine when a direct and or indirect participant of the sport questions the integrity of fighters.

IMO, the fans who follow MMA are the most crucial element to this business and yet we are told to not bash or refrain from bashing fighters which includes questioning a fighter's heart and integrity and so forth. They way I see it, if we don't call fighters out about their hearts and integrity, things like matches being thrown and fighters faking injuries are more likely to occur. We, the fans, have a stake in this business and if our voices aren't heard, we can expect MMA to slowly make its way to becoming a sport of a joke like Boxing.

The counter response I am anticipating is, " This is the rule of the site and if you want to bash and question fighters' hearts and integrity, do so at your own leisure or at another site."

While I can respect the rules of any given site, it pains me to know and see someone can write an article or do an interview and bash fighters while we, the fans, are not allowed to do so in most prestige mma sites including this one.

I have had my doubts about many MMA related things including fighters but my voice can't be heard because of this rule. I can almost guarantee if I made the same claim as Schlemenko, I will have been warned or told to stop.

Again, I love this site and I would not want to jeopardize its growth in any way, but how is the opinion of one fighter, promoter, manager, reporter and or writer - more valid and more acceptable than the fans, who are an intricate part of this MMA equation? I truly believe this fighter basing rule needs to be re-evaluated. I think the Playground is filled with respectful and intellectual posters who can theorize about a fighter's performance without having to ridicule the fighter.

I don't think this rule needs to be black or white. I think it can be in the gray area and moderators can enforce this rule at his or her discretion.

difficult subject. there are many members of the playground that can respectfully criticize fighters without bashing, but there's always that 1% that fucks it up for everybody else. i think the rule is ok as long as we can respectfully criticize fighters. leniency is fine but calling them names gets non of us anywhere. i like how you are challenging the "Man". props

Fighter bashing fills the forums with just that, fighter bashing.

Which leads to pointless arguments between members defending their honor.

Which leads to bans.

I honestly think the rules for this are fine as they are.

---

Posted by tcunningham

difficult subject. there are many members of the playground that can respectfully criticize fighters without bashing, but there's always that 1% that fucks it up for everybody else. i think the rule is ok as long as we can respectfully criticize fighters. leniency is fine but calling them names gets non of us anywhere. i like how you are challenging the "Man". props

---

I can understand some will abuse this rule if it was relaxed. What needs to be put in stone are guidelines to help posters state their opinions in a professional and non-degrading manner. For instance, the rule can state something like - "Theorizing is OK but outright accusations without proof or probable cause will not be tolerated." Something like that...

i almost referred to a fighter as a doormat & gatekeeper earlier. figured it'd be best if i didnt.

---

Posted by Budgellism

I honestly think the rules for this are fine as they are.

---

To be honest, I will live if the rule does not change. However, according to the rule, we can't even speculate that Overeem could be juicing.

---

Posted by george112

Fighter bashing fills the forums with just that, fighter bashing.

Which leads to pointless arguments between members defending their honor.

Which leads to bans.

---

I'm not campaigning for the complete removal of the fighter bashing rule. I just want to see it - relaxed a bit to allow more potential discussions regarding fighter's motives, heart, integrity and so forth.

I doubt this rule will be changed or relaxed but I just wanted to give my two cents in response to the thread about fighters faking injuries. It seems sort of unfair that THEY can blatantly speculate and make accusations and we have to do so in such discrete manners to avoid being banned. It is what it is.....I will live.

I think bashing should be considered as someone making an asinine statement with no regard to the discussion.But in all honesty too much censoring,trying to be PC and making too many rules takes fun away.For the most part i think the majority of people are just making their own honest observations on things,Who is anyone to judge what someone elses opinion on people or things are?.If i think someone sucks or is a douchebag...Thats my opinion.........And if the rules are i can't call someone a dbag..then thats how it is..Not being able to type that on an internet forum isnt going to ruin my day.

There is a fine line to walk here....for example when I said earlier that Rua was all heart and no conditioning on a recent post I also mentioned that maybe a camp switch that had a greater focus in the cardio aspect of the game would be good for him. This post was not insulting to anyone and it will be a question that many people will ask him soon enough. Maybe it will be Ariel Helwani instead of some random fan but walking that line is key. Now saying Overeem was /is guilty of juicing is not bashing as it a provable fact backed by science. Saying he cheated or is a cheater is safe as well as his actions are directly against the rules. Saying he is a scared little bitch etc....and attacking him as a person is lame and shouldnt be tolerated. You know what I mean?

well obviously bisping is fair game right ?

---

Posted by aussiemma

well obviously bisping is fair game right ?

---

No but Nick Diaz would be as he's retired



See my point... Fighter bashing should not be allowed at all, this is a mature forum.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

We, the fans, have a stake in this business and if our voices aren't heard, we can expect MMA to slowly make its way to becoming a sport of a joke like Boxing.

---

Our voices are heard. Are you satisfied with the UFC's product? I tend to be. If anything, the UFC has a proven track record of catering to the fans' wishes. (Just a couple weeks ago, they had a phone poll, and at the end of the night of fights, the fans chose who will fight for the title next. The UFC listened. This was right after the UFC's decision to go with the winner of Shogun vs. Vera as the de facto #1 contender met a lot of backlash from these fans that have unheard voices you speak of.)

---

While I can respect the rules of any given site, it pains me to know and see someone can write an article or do an interview and bash fighters while we, the fans, are not allowed to do so in most prestige mma sites including this one.

---

You show me one credible journalist that has been permitted to "bash" fighters while writing for a credible website.

Anyway, this seems to be your major point for permitting bashing:

---

They way I see it, if we don't call fighters out about their hearts and integrity, things like matches being thrown and fighters faking injuries are more likely to occur. We, the fans, have a stake in this business and if our voices aren't heard, we can expect MMA to slowly make its way to becoming a sport of a joke like Boxing.

---

So making up stuff about a topic you have no insight into is a good way to help the sport?

i don't think calling michael bisping a douche is fighter bashing. Is hard to say where to draw the line though.

---

Posted by aussiemma

i don't think calling michael bisping a douche is fighter bashing. Is hard to say where to draw the line though.

---

I would agree with this, the truth is the truth.

I think everything can be done with class. I have had my moments of bashing, but I usually just get caught up in the moment and apologize for it later. I think the rule is fine where its at.

Been there, done that. It is definitely a sticky subject. I would stay away from that one however I am pretty sure you will get a warning before you get banned. The mods are a lot more laid back nowadays.

---

Posted by bichez

Been there, done that. It is definitely a sticky subject. I would stay away from that one however I am pretty sure you will get a warning before you get banned. The mods are a lot more laid back nowadays.

---

Opps looks like my wife forgot to log out of her account.. I was suppose to have posted that incase any one was completely confused :).

I think it's fair to call out a fighter on a shitty fight. Just stop there though. No name calling. Example: Fighter A looked slow, and unprepared. He gassed terribly, and looked like shit. I think we can comment on a performance, and that's it.

You’re allowed to question a fighter’s heart, integrity, cardio, Skill set......as long as you have facts to back up your claim. A perfect example would be the Reem. A year ago it would have been a no to call him out and say he is a liar and a cheat he obviously is on the gas. But it is no fair for you to say that as its been proven he lied about the horse meat he did "cheat" by using roids. Schlemenko is in the loop to be able to make those claims he also isn't part of this site. You on the other hand have very limited access to fight camps and fighter medical records so for you to claim that fighters are faking injuries to get better match ups would be purely speculation.

First of all, the rules about bashing have loosened up some. Making a comment that isn't over the top(as per the mods discretion), or saying something in a funny/sarcastic way is pretty much allowed now. If other posters complain about a post that's bashing then we will look into it every time.

Secondly, Shlemenko is a fighter. He gets in the cage for a living so that guy calling others out is worth a helluva lot more than some guy sitting behind his keyboard. That really shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Someone that posts on here and has shown in the past that they know what they're talking about will usually be allowed to slide more than a new poster, someone that's constantly bashing, or someone that has shown that their knowledge of the sport is somewhat limited. These things are what the mods consider when using their discretion.

Some good rules of thumb to follow when criticizing a fighter are:

Would most people be offended by this?
Do I really have any basis or background on this to base my opinion on?
Has the fighter I'm criticizing shown a pattern of what I'm talking about?
Does it hurt my feelings when someone calls me out and criticizes me?

I'll end on this note: If you really feel the need to trash fighters when discussing MMA, there are plenty of sites that allow that.

---

Posted by aussiemma

i don't think calling michael bisping a douche is fighter bashing. Is hard to say where to draw the line though.

---

If you don't have anything nice to say don't say it. If you have to say it visit another forum.

Not sure if I even understand the rule completely regardless I don't see the point in trash talking our heros. Critisizism on the other hand, is in a different realm...atleast you had something debate worthy to bring up. must spread love KFM

I respectfully disagree with KFM that the rule needs to change. As Cowcatcher elucidated, and as my own experience has shown, you can make disparaging comments about fighters where you have a basis for it and you are not simply speculating.

so basically you want all of us to read your theories of fight fixing and how much you hate _____. The rules are fine as it is. Go to sherdog and see how much you can get away with. I got double yellows over there for posting "Mir's a dick. Go Nelson."

If you want to write things outside the rules of this site, create your own blog and write whatever you want.

btw you are jeopardizing its growth by not being a premium member

---

Posted by scoozna

I respectfully disagree with KFM that the rule needs to change. As Cowcatcher elucidated, and as my own experience has shown, you can make disparaging comments about fighters where you have a basis for it and you are not simply speculating.

---

Vitor Belfort vs Anthony Johnson

To me, Johnson looked like he was in control of the fight if you know what I mean. I said something a little bit more to that degree in the spoilers thread and I was told to stop. I was prop-ed once or twice for making that accusation but neither of the posters who prop-ed me were willing to post how they felt on the boards. To this day, I still believe something shady happened in that fight but I can't openly state it and it's frustrating as a fan to watch and not be able to dwell on some of the possibilities.

I don't like to bash fighters at all; I just want to be able to speculate within reason of course.

---

Posted by MuayThaiGeek13

Not sure if I even understand the rule completely regardless I don't see the point in trash talking our heros. Critisizism on the other hand, is in a different realm...atleast you had something debate worthy to bring up. must spread love KFM

---

I'm not concerned with bashing fighters; I don't like to do that... I'm more focused on being able to speculate about whether or not a fight was thrown and things of that nature.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

---

Posted by MuayThaiGeek13

Not sure if I even understand the rule completely regardless I don't see the point in trash talking our heros. Critisizism on the other hand, is in a different realm...atleast you had something debate worthy to bring up. must spread love KFM

---

I'm not concerned with bashing fighters; I don't like to do that... I'm more focused on being able to speculate about whether or not a fight was thrown and things of that nature.

---

You have to consider that it's a sport, and especially that it's MMA. In all sports there are seemingly miraculous comebacks, and even more so when it's a sport like MMA where one punch or TD can change the tide of a fight dramatically. At the level of the UFC, where one bad performance can cost a guy his job, and when he only can count on getting a check a few times a year tops, do you really think guys are willing to throw fights?

In the case of Rumble/Vitor, you have to realize what a toll weight cutting takes on the body, especially for a guy like Johnson that cuts huge amounts of weight for a fight. Cutting 10 pounds the day before a fight can take a toll, imagine cutting 30. Speculation like that is silly, and that's the nice word for it. It doesn't have a place on these boards.

I will add that I'm sure fighters drop fights intentionally in smaller organizations, ie Bob Sapp, so it's not like it never happens, but it just doesn't make sense for it to happen in the UFC just like it doesn't make sense in the NFL, NBA, MLB, etc. There's no reason to throw fights at that level because it can ruin a career. I don't see many fighters willing to take that chance, and the UFC for sure doesn't want that happening on their watch, nor would they promote that happening. It would be suicide for them as an organization in this day and age where information flows so freely.

So now KFM wants to be able to say who is throwing fights?

My rule on fighter bashing: If you can't say anything nice, say it in your camp forum.