What is the criteria of being kicked out of the UFC?

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » What is the criteria of being kicked out of the UFC?
POLL: What is the criteria of being kicked out of the UFC?
As long as you are exciting, you stay 53% (31)
1 horrible, utter beatdown. 3% (2)
2 losses in a ro 0% (0)
3 losses 39% (23)
A pattern of inconsistency (1win-1loss-1win-1loss) 5% (3)
candynuts
8/14/08 9:01:51PM
I hear a lot about how some UFC fighters should be kicked out of the UFC after they lose a match in horrible fashion, or if they lose 2 fairly competitive matches to sub-par competition, or are just plain inconsistent, but it never appears to be consistent. I always heard that there was a 3 loss rule that constituted on getting the boot from the UFC, but it is now not necessarily true. The 3 loss rule is the criteria that I use when constituting whether or not to be kicked out of the UFC.

-EDIT- Clicked enter before I was done with the poll. Egh..

Anyway, I know that it usually determines how the fight goes, how marketable, other ongoing actions etc...

Here are a few names that I've heard that should be kicked out of the UFC.

Jorge Gurgel - Unbelievably is 3-3 in the UFC.
Alessio Sakara- Is 3-4-1 in the UFC
Chris Lytle- 4-8 in the UFC
Jason Lambert - 4-3 in the UFC
Pete Sell- 0-4 in the UFC

What do you think? Personally, I think most of these are gatekeepers and I think are great for the UFC.


breakdown5
8/14/08 10:18:11PM
Look at Clay Guida. He's suffered a bunch of crappy decisions, but he always brings a good fight to the show. He'll never be mentioned as someone who should be booted because he always shows up to fight. That is all that is important.
Mr_Dead_Sexy
8/14/08 10:39:23PM
It's probably a combination of Win/Loss, marketability, how exciting a fighter you are to casual fans, and if you can but used to build another fighter.

Best example is Guida. From a record stand point, he's fairly inconsistent. But, he is the tried and true definition of a gamer. Always has exciting fights, and is a stern test for anyone. He's always on the main card, and there's a reason. People love him. Even if he loses vs Danzig, he's not going anywhere for awhile.

Then, there is the ridiculous Drago/Burkman match. To us 'non casuals' this is likely gonna be a snoozer, and we know that it's loser leaves town. But, the UFC has tried to pimp out both these guys, Ultimate Fighter, ect. We know we're going to see Burkman KO'ing Morgan time after time. Then we get to hear about how Drago trains with *Goldy voice* "FORMER UFC WELTERWEIGHT CHAMPION, MATT SERRA!" Even after this fight, loser leaves, winner has one fight to turn it around. Unless it is a 3 round piss break fight, in which case, both are gone, IMO.

And of course, we all know the UFC loves to bring in unknown fighters and "give them opportunities." Just look at most of Huerta's fights. Of course, this can be a good thing if someone fights well. Just look at Frankie Edgar/Kevin Burns. All eye jokes aside, both of these guys were brought in to get crushed in their first, and in Burns' case, second fight. But they both won them, so now they're staying in the biz.
murphy_16
8/14/08 10:56:09PM
pete sell is 1-4
F--K_Luck_AuH2O
8/14/08 11:24:37PM
I think its either 3 or 2 losses in a row unless its against top competition. I think a fighter (like Gurgel) could win one lose one for the rest of his career and eventually retire witha 20-20 record. The thing is as long as you avoid two losses in a row...your good. Simply put, the UFc can't cut somebody with a winning/even record...and can't cut sombody who just won...so in Gurgel's case as long as he doesn't fall below.500 he's safe.
postman
8/15/08 1:40:12AM
Chris Lytle always puts up a great fight.
DCRage
8/15/08 7:32:20AM
It seems to be 3 losses in a row unless you fight like Wanderlei Silva-exciting fights and you give more than 100% every time. If you're a smaller guy (Lightweight or Welterweight) worst-case might be just getting sent to WEC. Alternately, as we've seen recently you can also get kicked out for major misconduct outside the Octagon.
fullerene
8/15/08 9:26:21AM
Pay scale and the expectations that come with it is also a factor. CroCop was basically kicked out of the UFC after two losses and I think the same thing would have happened to Lesnar if he lost to Herring. Fedor argued that he was being asked to sign a deal that gave them the right to cut him if he lost once.

In those cases there was an expectation that the fighter would be a headliner and a contender for the title. If that isn't the case then it doesn't make sense to pay them high salaries to be gatekeepers or journeymen. With a guy like Guida or Lytle the expectation is that they will be exciting fighters and guys who determine who is really a contender (people that beat them) and who isn't (people they beat). They can stay indefinitely in that role as long as they fight hard.
DCRage
8/15/08 11:12:47AM
Never heard anything about that for Fedor, I always thought the major sticking point, or one of them anyway, was it being an "exclusive deal" that locked Fedor into UFC. That meant no fighting in Russia unless UFC went there, probably no Japan without UFC, and definitely no sambo tourneys (big sticking point).
stock
8/16/08 12:46:18AM
I think their are 3 criteria.
A combination of:

1. Marketability/excitement
2. Don't piss Dana off.
3. 3+ straight losses.
pv3Hpv3p
8/18/08 10:05:31AM
I voted for a pattern of inconcistency, but more on the side of the UFC... I don't think there's any set rules for getting released, it's just a business decision, IMO
Rush
8/18/08 11:30:43AM

Posted by fullerene

Pay scale and the expectations that come with it is also a factor. CroCop was basically kicked out of the UFC after two losses and I think the same thing would have happened to Lesnar if he lost to Herring. Fedor argued that he was being asked to sign a deal that gave them the right to cut him if he lost once.

In those cases there was an expectation that the fighter would be a headliner and a contender for the title. If that isn't the case then it doesn't make sense to pay them high salaries to be gatekeepers or journeymen. With a guy like Guida or Lytle the expectation is that they will be exciting fighters and guys who determine who is really a contender (people that beat them) and who isn't (people they beat). They can stay indefinitely in that role as long as they fight hard.




Very good points, expecially about the pay scale.


JohnnyNapalm
8/18/08 2:40:47PM

Posted by stock

I think their are 3 criteria.
A combination of:

1. Marketability/excitement
2. Don't piss Dana off.
3. 3+ straight losses.



Nick Diaz would be an exception to that list.

But I think Dana liked it when Nick routinely shot the camera guy the middle finger, so he kept him longer
ziegler3334
8/18/08 2:41:41PM
As long as someone is exciting, they're safe. For example, there is no way lytle is going anywhere after that bloodbath against kos. the fans and dana white both want exciting fights. so if someone if providing those pretty consistently, everyone should be happy. also, if most of your wins are by decision, you are more likely to be cut after fewer losses than someone who does finish fights regularly. kenny florian finishes fights.
Dooletchetoreh
8/18/08 4:24:20PM
Sometimes guys are unfairly booted. If you want it to be fair, it has to be looked at in a case by case basis. Its not about consective losses, cause if your fighting A level guys losing to them is nothing to be ashamed of. Just how I think the court system should work, you have to look at it as a case by case basis.
zephead
8/18/08 6:23:43PM

Posted by ziegler3334

As long as someone is exciting, they're safe. For example, there is no way lytle is going anywhere after that bloodbath against kos. the fans and dana white both want exciting fights. so if someone if providing those pretty consistently, everyone should be happy. also, if most of your wins are by decision, you are more likely to be cut after fewer losses than someone who does finish fights regularly. kenny florian finishes fights.







Put up good fights, you will stay.
KYGUY07
8/18/08 11:34:30PM
even though lytle is only 4-8 in the ufc, he brings everything to the octago every single time he fights, and its not like he lost to a bunch of nobodys. lytle lost to great competition like lawler, serra, hughes, koscheck, riggs, and alves.
jawbreaker517
8/27/08 10:19:45PM

Posted by candynuts

I hear a lot about how some UFC fighters should be kicked out of the UFC after they lose a match in horrible fashion, or if they lose 2 fairly competitive matches to sub-par competition, or are just plain inconsistent, but it never appears to be consistent. I always heard that there was a 3 loss rule that constituted on getting the boot from the UFC, but it is now not necessarily true. The 3 loss rule is the criteria that I use when constituting whether or not to be kicked out of the UFC.

-EDIT- Clicked enter before I was done with the poll. Egh..

Anyway, I know that it usually determines how the fight goes, how marketable, other ongoing actions etc...

Here are a few names that I've heard that should be kicked out of the UFC.

Jorge Gurgel - Unbelievably is 3-3 in the UFC.
Alessio Sakara- Is 3-4-1 in the UFC
Chris Lytle- 4-8 in the UFC
Jason Lambert - 4-3 in the UFC
Pete Sell- 0-4 in the UFC

What do you think? Personally, I think most of these are gatekeepers and I think are great for the UFC.



I don't think any of these guys are gatekeepers. They should all be out if the UFC.
Related Topics