Should Managers Accept Every Fight Offered?

[Scottfutile]

37 minutes ago, clydebankblitz said:

I am absolutely 100% fine with managers rejecting fights. Would I like them to accept every fight? Sure, why not. That being said, I'm also fine with whatever the response. Some managers try to cherry pick stylistic matchups. Some managers have their eyes set on a specific opponent due to hype. Some managers want a rematch of an old fight from a while ago. For me, I find that my job is to figure out how to keep every manager happy whilst also doing whatever is the fairest option. EDIT: I want to add in here that you obviously wouldn't go 5-0 cherry picking opponents and then have the ability to ask for a title shot. You have fought who you wanted to, but it's still the org owners choice of when to pull that trigger.

That being said, if someone felt specifically "difficult" I might not pick up a fighter of theirs again. There's managers who repeatedly pick up and immediately drop fighters that I won't sign guys from either. I've not come across anything like that much but it could happen.

• As a manager, you have the absolute right to do whatever you feel is best by your fighter such as declining fights.
• As an org owner, you have the absolute right to release a fighter for whatever reason you see fit.

Like in real life, being the former two much results in the latter, and you have no leverage to roll with the latter.

 

 

I love you!!!

TBH I haven’t gone 5-0 with anyone. There are situations where I have taken horrible fights and short notice fights to help org managers out. I’ve taken pay cuts to help orgs that were struggling financially.  I understand there is give and take in the game as there should be and like in real life there is an imbalance. However I guess it comes down to one thing, the old maxim “respect has to be earned”.

[Scottfutile]

👍 keep up the downvotes guys, your contribution is really valued and adds so much to an already fascinating discussion… 😂😂🤣

[Ramirez]

9 hours ago, Scottfutile said:

That’s an interesting perspective. Out of curious what do you mean by biggest fights? Financially or hype wise?

i mean the best fighters, wherever the best guys are i want my guys involved. you can only be the best if you beat the best and i want to know for sure how good my fighters actually are.

[CelticStryder]

Only way I ever decline a fight is if my fighter wont be healthy come fight time (cuts, injury, energy) or if I feel the fight is a gross mismatch. When I say gross mismatch I am talking that it is pretty obvious my fighter is being fed to another fighter who is multiple levels ahead of mine.

[popart]

Alex nailed it earlier.

stylistic matchups are no reason to decline a fight.

 

needing the date moved because of injury time/etc is reasonable.

If you own an org, don’t give fights you know are completely unwinnable.

If you fucked up by signing the contract to begin with, offer back your signing bonus.

Just don’t be a dick.

 

 

[Scottfutile]

6 hours ago, Ramirez said:

i mean the best fighters, wherever the best guys are i want my guys involved. you can only be the best if you beat the best and i want to know for sure how good my fighters actually are.

It is a ballsy way to approach things and hats off to you for having a proper samurai mentality.

[Scottfutile]

5 hours ago, CelticStryder said:

Only way I ever decline a fight is if my fighter wont be healthy come fight time (cuts, injury, energy) or if I feel the fight is a gross mismatch. When I say gross mismatch I am talking that it is pretty obvious my fighter is being fed to another fighter who is multiple levels ahead of mine.

That raises the question of what exactly constitutes a gross mismatch and I think it is difficult to answer.  It is entirely subjective and comes in multiple forms.  I think what makes this question interesting is the fact that only the manager see the full skills breakdown which means they are the ones with the most information, and yet appear to have the quietest voice.

[Scottfutile]

5 hours ago, popart said:

Alex nailed it earlier.

stylistic matchups are no reason to decline a fight.

 

needing the date moved because of injury time/etc is reasonable.

If you own an org, don’t give fights you know are completely unwinnable.

If you fucked up by signing the contract to begin with, offer back your signing bonus.

Just don’t be a dick.

 

 

Interesting points.  Here's a question - If managers should give back their signing bonuses if they want to leave, why aren't orgs expected to pay up a fighter's contract when they release them?

[popart]

26 minutes ago, Scottfutile said:

Interesting points.  Here's a question - If managers should give back their signing bonuses if they want to leave, why aren't orgs expected to pay up a fighter's contract when they release them?

Because they have already paid that. you are paid your signing bonus at the beginning of the contract as soon as you sign. The bonus is the only thing guaranteed between either org or manager. 

[Scottfutile]

17 minutes ago, popart said:

Because they have already paid that. you are paid your signing bonus at the beginning of the contract as soon as you sign. The bonus is the only thing guaranteed between either org or manager. 

Do you think it would be possible to do away with the signing bonus completely?  I remember reading a bleacher report article on UFC pay and was surprised to learn that the UFC do not pay signing bonuses.  Certainly if they were gone, it would increase wages and give fighters more incentive to fight.  However, I suppose the downside is that it would hamper new, or poorly financed fighters from accessing decent training facilities.  I understand why from an org's perspective it may be frustrating as it is a non-reclaimable expense, so in essence you have to write that money off when budgeting.

[Daudy]

1 hour ago, Scottfutile said:

That raises the question of what exactly constitutes a gross mismatch and I think it is difficult to answer.  It is entirely subjective and comes in multiple forms.  I think what makes this question interesting is the fact that only the manager see the full skills breakdown which means they are the ones with the most information, and yet appear to have the quietest voice.

You see the full breakdown of skills for your fighter, but only the primaries of the opposing fighter which are a guide, but not actually that much information sometimes. Org owners do see a star rating for both guys which is linked to total skillpoints.

This isn't quite the same as being able to fully look into each fighter's build, but is probably one of the most objective ways of seeing the stage of development/build between two guys. If you're both as developed as each other - then that's probably what most people would consider fair.

Obviously the breakdown of where those skill points actually are and how they influence fights may mean that advantages are present in reality for one fighter over another even if they have the same number of skill points. But, you as a manager are the only person that would know where that breakdown for YOUR guy is, and you'd have 0 idea how many skill points your opponent would have nor where they are put (although you can maybe make educated guesses based off their primaries).

Trusting and learning which org owners match-make fairly using this among other considerations is down to experience and finding out. The reverse is true, in that if you're an org owner offering fights you know have two guys of similar skill point totals, and still getting rejected for reasons entirely brought on by a manager themselves (e.g. stylistic nightmare where you have no clear advantages at all because of a poorly rounded build despite similar total skill points/development) then they'll cut you or remember not to renew/hire.

 

57 minutes ago, Scottfutile said:

Do you think it would be possible to do away with the signing bonus completely?  I remember reading a bleacher report article on UFC pay and was surprised to learn that the UFC do not pay signing bonuses.  Certainly if they were gone, it would increase wages and give fighters more incentive to fight.  However, I suppose the downside is that it would hamper new, or poorly financed fighters from accessing decent training facilities.  I understand why from an org's perspective it may be frustrating as it is a non-reclaimable expense, so in essence you have to write that money off when budgeting.

This is an interesting idea, and I suppose there's nothing stopping someone from running an org where they offer $1 signing bonuses and just have bigger base payments and win bonuses. However, I think this situation may lead to some unforseen circumstances that actually give more power to unscrupulous org owners and away from managers/fighters (which is perhaps exactly why the UFC practices this lol).

You can be sold false pretenses to sign away your top guy for some monster base salary and win bonus, but with 0 deposit paid, you rely on them actually scheduling fights for your guys and not just keeping him locked away and/or resetting the inactivity by offering you unfair fights that you'll never accept. At least if you were being gulag'd or a victim of an org owner going AFK previously, you'd have a signing bonus to take away that you agreed to.

Also, it exacerbates the situation where you will obviously be far more adamant on actually getting fights. Sometimes you have to wait before a matchup that makes sense becomes free. Anything that puts pressure on forcing fights to happen to get paid at all inevitably leads to more unfair matchups likely to be happening. You want to fight? This is the only guy available, otherwise wait until the next event finishes for the next opponent, then wait the period until the event you're both scheduled to fight in occurs, and in the meantime you've had 0 dollars. I suppose if you've already had a few fights with your mega base salary and big win bonus, this is ok and you can wait it out, but no signing bonus while waiting for that initial fight can be rough for lower tier fighters with not much money.

But I think it could be an interesting model someone can try right now - especially if you don't plan on being a scumbag org owner. EDIT: The more I think about it though, there must be a reason the UFC follow the practice of no signing bonuses, particularly with their undercard/prelim guys, and it's probably not for the benefit of the fighters.

[Scottfutile]

1 hour ago, Daudy said:

You see the full breakdown of skills for your fighter, but only the primaries of the opposing fighter which are a guide, but not actually that much information sometimes. Org owners do see a star rating for both guys which is linked to total skillpoints.

This isn't quite the same as being able to fully look into each fighter's build, but is probably one of the most objective ways of seeing the stage of development/build between two guys. If you're both as developed as each other - then that's probably what most people would consider fair.

Obviously the breakdown of where those skill points actually are and how they influence fights may mean that advantages are present in reality for one fighter over another even if they have the same number of skill points. But, you as a manager are the only person that would know where that breakdown for YOUR guy is, and you'd have 0 idea how many skill points your opponent would have nor where they are put (although you can maybe make educated guesses based off their primaries).

Trusting and learning which org owners match-make fairly using this among other considerations is down to experience and finding out. The reverse is true, in that if you're an org owner offering fights you know have two guys of similar skill point totals, and still getting rejected for reasons entirely brought on by a manager themselves (e.g. stylistic nightmare where you have no clear advantages at all because of a poorly rounded build despite similar total skill points/development) then they'll cut you or remember not to renew/hire.

 

This is an interesting idea, and I suppose there's nothing stopping someone from running an org where they offer $1 signing bonuses and just have bigger base payments and win bonuses. However, I think this situation may lead to some unforseen circumstances that actually give more power to unscrupulous org owners and away from managers/fighters (which is perhaps exactly why the UFC practices this lol).

You can be sold false pretenses to sign away your top guy for some monster base salary and win bonus, but with 0 deposit paid, you rely on them actually scheduling fights for your guys and not just keeping him locked away and/or resetting the inactivity by offering you unfair fights that you'll never accept. At least if you were being gulag'd or a victim of an org owner going AFK previously, you'd have a signing bonus to take away that you agreed to.

Also, it exacerbates the situation where you will obviously be far more adamant on actually getting fights. Sometimes you have to wait before a matchup that makes sense becomes free. Anything that puts pressure on forcing fights to happen to get paid at all inevitably leads to more unfair matchups likely to be happening. You want to fight? This is the only guy available, otherwise wait until the next event finishes for the next opponent, then wait the period until the event you're both scheduled to fight in occurs, and in the meantime you've had 0 dollars. I suppose if you've already had a few fights with your mega base salary and big win bonus, this is ok and you can wait it out, but no signing bonus while waiting for that initial fight can be rough for lower tier fighters with not much money.

But I think it could be an interesting model someone can try right now - especially if you don't plan on being a scumbag org owner. EDIT: The more I think about it though, there must be a reason the UFC follow the practice of no signing bonuses, particularly with their undercard/prelim guys, and it's probably not for the benefit of the fighters.

That's a great point about the star ratings.  It is not something I had even considered since they don't appear on the scouting report.  Certainly regarding fights that I am having trouble understanding the logic behind,  I will ask org owners about the star ratings.

Regarding matchmaking I had assumed that the primary considerations were hype and record, and the secondary considerations were recent form and rankings(If the org utilises them).  It never occurred to me that there was something like developmental booking.

Following your org owner summary, how do we as managers know that we have a bad build without assistance from the org owner?  What I mean is that poor communication often hinders progress for everyone.  Imagine the scenario, you keep trying to book a 2 star fighter, and he turns down 75% of fights.  Supposing he takes two in total, and gets hammered by wrestlers and goes back to rejecting fights.  If the owner suggested taking a month off to focus on improving his wrestling it benefits everyone and may stop the fight rejections.  Of course you as an org owner would hope the manager is able to see the problem, but if he isn't sometimes a little encouragement is all that is needed. (You have totally got me worried that my fighter builds are terrible ;s)

Oh god, UFC practices.  It's unbelievable that fighters only earn a 20% profit split.  At this point Bellator pays double.  Somehow the PFL have established a financial model that appears to be stable at least.  I suspect we have reached the era that comes just before great change.

You are spot on with the problems of not paying a signing fee.  The UFC get away with it because for most fighters its a dream.  That won't last forever.  I wonder if perhaps it would be better to offer managers a choice up front.  Signing fee = Expected to fight out the contract, No signing fee = Higher wages and release available upon request.

Gulaging is an incredibly pointless policy.  Granted it is inspired by the UFC's treatment of certain fighters, however, it is damaging to an orgs reputation, it can adversely affect new players and it creates a situation where nobody wins.  I honestly don't have an answer, I just want the game to be fun.

Thank you for your response.  You have given me a number of points to think over regarding my own relationships with orgs, and the thinking that goes on behind the scenes. I think I will be a little slower to judge in future.

[Daudy]

I agree with you that gulaging is just punitive and serves little else. Better to cut and go separate ways and so on. It only needs to happen once and then you'll probably just never associate with that person again. It was just part of the point that no sign up fee potentially makes it suck even more.

Regarding what goes into matchmaking, I'm sure all the things you listed are also factors too. It's just that on top of all that, they also objectively have some tools to compare the relative development of each guy. Each org owner will prioritise different things so it's worth opening up the conversation with them if you want to know or are not sure. Obviously if you've got several options who are 3 stars each, you then revert to things like their hype, win streaks, so on.

With bad matchups, it's more obvious maybe in the early game, as some builds at that time may be all or nothing (e.g. all wrestle and nothing else). There are a couple of ways as a manager to maybe make everybody's life a bit easier while looking out for your fighter. 1) As someone mentioned earlier, you could always seek contracts with grapple only or striking only orgs as you round out a bit. 2) Open up the conversation and ask for more time to train to make that matchup better. This is one of the most valid reasons for a decline as per a number of org owners have stated, so 90% of the time they'll do their bit to accommodate.

Don't underestimate point 2 as well, assuming your guy isn't a total brick (which hopefully you've figured out early in his career, or he's old enough to be well rounded already), requesting a bit more training time is a really good way to get your guy where he needs to be. This is particularly true of young fighters who are going to be matched up against 25 year old creations. You're a good chance to catch up or be very close to a lot of 25 year old creations pretty quickly, so requesting a bit more time to train before fighting your opponent might actually make it a super even fight.

Take my 135 creation tournament entry. He isn't too dumb (I had no opportunity to test hiddens for this tourney, but did have two training sessions to figure out learning speed between my options) and I drew a PURE wrestler first fight. The weeks of training was enough to get his TDD to a decent place among other things, and then mixed with the knowledge he'd only try grapple, it was an easy gameplan to win a matchup that on paper was a horrible one for a well-rounded striker.

[Scottfutile]

18 minutes ago, Daudy said:

I agree with you that gulaging is just punitive and serves little else. Better to cut and go separate ways and so on. It only needs to happen once and then you'll probably just never associate with that person again. It was just part of the point that no sign up fee potentially makes it suck even more.

Regarding what goes into matchmaking, I'm sure all the things you listed are also factors too. It's just that on top of all that, they also objectively have some tools to compare the relative development of each guy. Each org owner will prioritise different things so it's worth opening up the conversation with them if you want to know or are not sure. Obviously if you've got several options who are 3 stars each, you then revert to things like their hype, win streaks, so on.

With bad matchups, it's more obvious maybe in the early game, as some builds at that time may be all or nothing (e.g. all wrestle and nothing else). There are a couple of ways as a manager to maybe make everybody's life a bit easier while looking out for your fighter. 1) As someone mentioned earlier, you could always seek contracts with grapple only or striking only orgs as you round out a bit. 2) Open up the conversation and ask for more time to train to make that matchup better. This is one of the most valid reasons for a decline as per a number of org owners have stated, so 90% of the time they'll do their bit to accommodate.

Don't underestimate point 2 as well, assuming your guy isn't a total brick (which hopefully you've figured out early in his career, or he's old enough to be well rounded already), requesting a bit more training time is a really good way to get your guy where he needs to be. This is particularly true of young fighters who are going to be matched up against 25 year old creations. You're a good chance to catch up or be very close to a lot of 25 year old creations pretty quickly, so requesting a bit more time to train before fighting your opponent might actually make it a super even fight.

Take my 135 creation tournament entry. He isn't too dumb (I had no opportunity to test hiddens for this tourney, but did have two training sessions to figure out learning speed between my options) and I drew a PURE wrestler first fight. The weeks of training was enough to get his TDD to a decent place among other things, and then mixed with the knowledge he'd only try grapple, it was an easy gameplan to win a matchup that on paper was a horrible one for a well-rounded striker.

The matchmaking is fascinating in the sense that it would be interesting to know org by org how they weigh it.  I certainly will be more inclined to ask the question now.

I do have one fighter that I got in free agency and it was quickly apparent that wrestling is his kryptonite.  I moved him to a KT organisation where in his first fight he was dismantled in the clinch by a fighter with significantly better wrestling.  I subsequently asked the owner for 30 days to work on his wrestling and they happily obliged.  It is fantastic when an org helps facilitate a fighter's growth as it makes you feel as if everybody is pulling in the same direction.

Personally, I tend to focus on training the gameplan, which is fine with your own builds but can be your undoing with fighters you have picked up on free agency that are unbalanced.  I recognise now that my approach with free agents has been significantly lacking, and is certainly something I can improve on.

Unfortunately my tournament entry was a wrestle boxer whose takedown defence was sketchy, and despite my best efforts I couldn't raise quick enough.  I was drawn against a BJJ fighter and stupidly didn't set my clinch up aggressive enough, leading to a round two socket breaker.  

I suppose the lessons I'm taking from this thread is take more time preparing for fighters before signing org contracts, research the quality of the division when an org makes an offer, work on strengthening new free agents before accepting a deal, and don't be afraid to ask about the logic of a matchup you are not keen on.

Thank you for this discussion, as it has provided me plenty of food for thought.

[lotos]

Anyone who voted no is a pussy. You're here to fight, not cherry pick opponents.

 

[clydebankblitz]

On 7/20/2022 at 11:51 AM, Scottfutile said:

The matchmaking is fascinating in the sense that it would be interesting to know org by org how they weigh it.  I certainly will be more inclined to ask the question now.

Highland is obviously such a strange org, but I'll tell you how I take it into account.

 

Firstly, I try my absolute best to have guys off of wins Vs guys off of wins, and same with losses. None of this "Let's put Till and Cannonier against Whittaker so we can lose two contenders and not gain one" kind of stuff.

I don't really take hype into consideration.

My rouge guide is a 3 fight win streak should probably earn you a title shot if you're fighting "unrestricted".

I do what I can to avoid having fighters compete against each other multiple times. Sometimes it's very hard to avoid, especially when two fighters or more are so dominant (Diaz & Shalashaska, Sonatane Murtaz & Torhte)

Now that there are different IDs, I try to keep people fighting around their same ID until they've proven themselves to be dominant at that level. Once they are clearly better than the rest, I'll talk to the manager and discuss if it's time to test them against a lower ID guy who's towards the bottom of the division.

 

 

From the manager's POV, me not taking hype into account can be a negative because they're taking all the risk on their ranking in that fight. They may not wish to move down and are happy to keep being the best of their level. That's what I'm stronger on letting managers reject fights all they want. There's many very legitimate reasons and my number one goal is to keep these 25 year olds in the game.

[Scottfutile]

2 hours ago, clydebankblitz said:

Highland is obviously such a strange org, but I'll tell you how I take it into account.

 

Firstly, I try my absolute best to have guys off of wins Vs guys off of wins, and same with losses. None of this "Let's put Till and Cannonier against Whittaker so we can lose two contenders and not gain one" kind of stuff.

I don't really take hype into consideration.

My rouge guide is a 3 fight win streak should probably earn you a title shot if you're fighting "unrestricted".

I do what I can to avoid having fighters compete against each other multiple times. Sometimes it's very hard to avoid, especially when two fighters or more are so dominant (Diaz & Shalashaska, Sonatane Murtaz & Torhte)

Now that there are different IDs, I try to keep people fighting around their same ID until they've proven themselves to be dominant at that level. Once they are clearly better than the rest, I'll talk to the manager and discuss if it's time to test them against a lower ID guy who's towards the bottom of the division.

 

 

From the manager's POV, me not taking hype into account can be a negative because they're taking all the risk on their ranking in that fight. They may not wish to move down and are happy to keep being the best of their level. That's what I'm stronger on letting managers reject fights all they want. There's many very legitimate reasons and my number one goal is to keep these 25 year olds in the game.

It is a difficult challenge because Highland is such a mammoth beast.  I appreciate form being taken into account.  I remember the glory days of MMA when it was booked as a sport and not a wrestling show.  As a manager I don't concern myself with hype because it fluctuates.  Sometimes you win some, sometimes you lose some, but its not a priority.  I am more interested in puzzle solving.

I think you have reached the point with Highland where you have fighters that have reached Legend status so they become much harder to book.  Really they can only go at the top of the card so there are limited options until someone breaks through.

In my dealing with you, you have always been excellent to work with, even though I can sometimes be a pain in the arse.  Full disclosure(I have two fighters with Highland)and wouldn't hesitate to sign more fighters with you.  I think where you excel is that you try to understand manager's thinking and work with them.  I know the second fighter I signed with you, Ryder Young is still a puzzle to me.  I picked him up on free agency only to discover so many holes in his game, and I haven't yet been able to work out the right direction for him.  You have given me sometime to plug some of those holes and lined him up with a challenge which is going to show me whether I'm on the right track or if I have more work to do.

At the end of the day, the owner and the managers objective should always be the same.  To help the fighter become the best version of himself.  As long as we all remember that, we will move in the same direction.

 

 

[clydebankblitz]

I'm not going to get into the "glory days of MMA"...because 2022 is probably the least pro wrestling MMA has ever been in it's entire existence haha.

I'm lucky that a lot of fighters are kept for Highland, and I don't have the deal with managers tiring at repetitive challengers and looking elsewhere, so that's a unique area I don't face a challenge. I know guys like Torhte and Kazuo are quite happy to just keep turning back challengers without even looking at the name on the sheet, so whether it's a 17th rematch or their first time they're quite happy to boss through anyone. But I personally really dislike it. I like to only make those matches when it really makes sense.

The thing to take into account though is that I rely on the fighters. Other orgs don't. They don't want to deal with the fighter but realistically, there's so much potential talent for Syn, Combate, SFL or whoever else is going these days that if someone's really being choosy, especially at such a completely unrestricted "you've already made it to the big show" level, they don't feel required to deal with it. I'm in a different spot because I need every fighter I have, and it's less about convincing managers to stay with me and more about convincing them that their fighter is worth keeping. So don't take how I deal with it as completely the same as how others should.

Also I cut two fighters for not fighting for 1/1/1 on Highland 2 when I thought I was gonna go bankrupt (resulting in the spawn of IXF) so I've more than made my own rash negative decisions too.

[kjkjkj]

I don't get managers who accept every fight, and I used to be one of them. You should always be seeing where your fighter's skills line up with your opponent's because if you don't you could unknowingly be accepting a one sided beatdown

[TJMitchell]

I'm terrible at checking fights before accepting, always have been. Just hit accept. A day before the fight I'll have a look at my opponent and see how I should set up my guy. And by set up I mean pick one of the two presets I have 

[Scottfutile]

6 hours ago, TJMitchell said:

I'm terrible at checking fights before accepting, always have been. Just hit accept. A day before the fight I'll have a look at my opponent and see how I should set up my guy. And by set up I mean pick one of the two presets I have 

Hahaha.  I'm pretty sure that's how Cowboy Cerrone game planned as well 😁

[EzekelRAGE]

I only decline fights that cuts into my training time. I usually like to have a fight every 25-30 days.

If it's not cutting into your training time and the opponent meets the ID/weight then it shouldnt be a problem in most instances.

[KingofConsent]

As a manager, I’ll only decline a fight if there is a giant skill gap…. Otherwise I’ll just cry for a few minutes and accept the fight after I finish throwing my internal tantrum

[Scottfutile]

On 8/22/2022 at 12:12 AM, EzekelRAGE said:

I only decline fights that cuts into my training time. I usually like to have a fight every 25-30 days.

If it's not cutting into your training time and the opponent meets the ID/weight then it shouldnt be a problem in most instances.

A couple of times I've asked for 30 days to train and been declined.  Then had my fighter sidelined....

[Scottfutile]

2 hours ago, KingofConsent said:

As a manager, I’ll only decline a fight if there is a giant skill gap…. Otherwise I’ll just cry for a few minutes and accept the fight after I finish throwing my internal tantrum

God I know that feeling.  Just got a free agent that dropped two in a row back on a winning streak and got offered a fight against a beast.  Every part of me wanted to decline it, and I suspect he may get beaten.  In the end I accepted it to see how much my guys wrestling has improved.  At some point he has to be tested against the next level.  Unfortunately I don't think he will pass the exam.