Question: Shouldn't the Loser be paid more than the Winner?

[djsess]

Seems strange to me.

First.....fighters pay doesn't get decided after a fight, its gets done before the fight. So the result has no influence on the pay.

Maybe ts was suggesting a loss bonus:icon_conf

 

[Pig Farmer**]

no. its all about winning. losers are not for ufc

 

[BJ@LW&WW]

only read the thread title.

how is this not wastelanded yet.

 

[motherzuffa]

Maybe ts was suggesting a loss bonus:icon_conf

Is that Lupe in your sig?

 

[bigearv14]

No. You should never get compensated more for failure. What if a fighter decides he needs money more than the win right at the moment? Instant dive and ruins the integrity of the sport.

 

[Hanri]

These great threads just keep coming up.

 

[jayBMX]

"Prize fighting"

 

[sloter21]

hey all, i know this might come off as a little strange, but i think you ought to hear me out before jumping to a conclusion.

let us forget about monetary compensation for a moment. let us take a look at Tim Hague vs Todd Duffee as an example. Duffee knocks out Hague in 5 seconds flat. Duffee gets this massive cheer from the crowd, a highlight reel knockout, an instant fan following, the respect of his colleagues, the praise from Dana and the adoration of people all over the world.

what about Tim Hague? he gets the humiliation of being knocked out faster than anyone in UFC history, the abuse of the crowd as he walks back to the locker room and mockery of his colleagues. oh, and for good measure Hague gets paid far less, but without Hague there would be no fight and no knockout. if Hague had done an Anderson Silva and just run away the whole fight Hague wouldn't have been knocked out and there'd be no cheering from the crowd.

i think the loser should be paid more because the loser loses so much in the way of respect and dignity.

does this not seem strange to anyone else?

You drunk man. Then you would just have dudes throwing fights.

 

[BisexualMMA]

TS' idea creates great incentives for the fighters...........

 

[James271]

A loss isn't always as humiliating as the one punch ko. Fighters often gain respect in defeat if they show their heart. In the case of Silva/Weidman, Silva made over ten times what Weidman was paid. Sometimes the loser does take home a bigger paycheck.

 

[PunchParty]

This is some of the dumbest shit I have read on here.

 

[Lanshire]

No.

 

[nhbfan8080]

A loss isn't always as humiliating as the one punch ko. Fighters often gain respect in defeat if they show their heart. In the case of Silva/Weidman, Silva made over ten times what Weidman was paid. Sometimes the loser does take home a bigger paycheck.

Good post and your first one too (unless you used to post under another nick).

 

[Pem123]

then every fighter want to lose.

 

[EndlessCritic]

god people on the internet are fucking retarded.

 

[BisexualMMA]

No.

 

[SherDogKnoItAll]

hey all, i know this might come off as a little strange, but i think you ought to hear me out before jumping to a conclusion.

let us forget about monetary compensation for a moment. let us take a look at Tim Hague vs Todd Duffee as an example. Duffee knocks out Hague in 5 seconds flat. Duffee gets this massive cheer from the crowd, a highlight reel knockout, an instant fan following, the respect of his colleagues, the praise from Dana and the adoration of people all over the world.

what about Tim Hague? he gets the humiliation of being knocked out faster than anyone in UFC history, the abuse of the crowd as he walks back to the locker room and mockery of his colleagues. oh, and for good measure Hague gets paid far less, but without Hague there would be no fight and no knockout. if Hague had done an Anderson Silva and just run away the whole fight Hague wouldn't have been knocked out and there'd be no cheering from the crowd.

i think the loser should be paid more because the loser loses so much in the way of respect and dignity.

does this not seem strange to anyone else?

You're either a special kind of stupid, or a really good troll. I can't decide which.

 

[Codpiece]

Fair is almost always a crappy way of living life. People respond to incentives. Fairness removes them.

One of the posters around here has the sig 'equality or quality, choose one. You can't have both.' I respect that point of view and agree wholeheartedly. This is a competitive sport, where fighters are paid to perform. Why discourage that?