Editor’s note: The views and opinions expressed below are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Sherdog.com, its affiliates and sponsors or its parent company, Evolve Media.
* * *
It hardly could have been predicted in advance, but heading into UFC Fight Night 207, arguably the greatest subject of discussion surrounded the bout between Alonzo Menifield and Askar Mozharov. Thanks to the stellar work of Sherdog associate editor Jay Pettry and followed up on by the Ultimate Fighting Championship and Tapology, the MMA world became aware that Mozharov’s record was heavily manipulated by an elaborate effort to legitimize fake wins and hide real losses.
Record padding is always going to exist in some form in combat sports. While MMA fans are understanding of records that are less than perfect, there is still every incentive for professional fighters to construct records that look as impressive as possible. On the more benign side, that can mean carefully selecting opponents. More unscrupulous actors can go well beyond just that. In the case of Mozharov, this meant using different names, falsifying evidence of fights that never happened and trying to pass off real results as not having happened. It was such an egregious example of this type of elaborate ruse that it caught the attention of fans, media and Menifield himself.
Of course, you wouldn’t know any of that watching the UFC broadcast of the Menifield-Mozharov fight. The introductory video for the fight didn’t mention the dominant story surrounding the fight. Heidi Androl’s presentation on the fight talked simply about Mozharov’s training camp with no mention of the swirling controversy about his record. Jon Anik and Paul Felder discussed Mozharov’s visa situation, his feelings about the war in Ukraine, his fighting style and the odds for the fight but mentioned not a word about the dominant story surrounding his UFC debut. It wasn’t until Menifield brought it up on his own after the fight that anyone on the broadcast acknowledged the reality, and Felder quickly changed the topic of conversation when he did.
This isn’t to pick on Anik, Felder or Androl. Clearly, there was a directive from the UFC not to touch on the subject. Perhaps the company’s leaders felt it reflected poorly on them that they didn’t catch the ruse from Mozharov themselves. Perhaps they don’t want fans thinking about that type of behavior going on behind the scenes in the sport. It might be instead the company’s general aversion to discussing anything that reflects negatively on a fighter, whether it be criminal conduct outside the Octagon or even just the fact that a fighter is on a losing streak. Regardless of the reasons, it reflects a broader trend that’s nothing new, and it’s a trend UFC would be better off reversing.
It’s easier to understand the UFC’s mentality in the context of someone like Greg Hardy or Mike Perry, accused or convicted of domestic violence. That’s not to say the UFC was right to avoid touching on the subject when it was pertinent to discussing their career arcs, just that it’s not hard to figure why the UFC wouldn’t want fans thinking of its athletes in that light. The NFL has been similarly accused of trying to brush player misconduct under the carpet over the years.
The case of Mozharov highlights the broader import of the UFC’s mindset. It’s not only subjects that are a potential black eye for the sport that are avoided, but subjects that are mostly just bad for the individual involved. The central story of Mozharov’s UFC debut was his prodigiously misrepresented record. There’s no way the subject would not come up at all in a natural conversation about the fight without a specific decision being made to avoid it. The UFC was thus playing the role as not simply a protector of the sport’s interests but basically playing the role of publicist for the fighter.
The argument against this approach isn’t a moral one; there’s nothing inherently bad about avoiding subjects that reflect negatively on a fighter. Rather, it’s counterproductive to producing the best possible product. The UFC produces so many events with so many fighters that the story of two good fighters looking for a win isn’t going to inspire a lot of excitement. Unique stories, good or bad, are much more interesting. If a fan knew about Mozharov’s doctored record, it created much more intrigue about how he would do in the fight. Was it all a mirage, or would he prove his doubters wrong?
A similar dynamic exists when it comes to struggling UFC fighters. When a big name has lost a number of fights and is fighting for his career, that’s intriguing. More often than not, the UFC’s prefight packages for those fighters will simply highlight their biggest past wins rather than outlining the high stakes of their latest bout. Trying to overcome previous struggles is often more interesting in sports than gunning for another triumph, but the UFC remains laser-focused on the latter story.
It also works against the credibility of the announcers when they’re avoiding obvious subjects that viewers are thinking about. Even brushing on something in passing can go a long way to making the announcer seem like someone who can be trusted, which in turn invests you in their calls and adds meaning when they put over their excitement about the upcoming pay-per-view. This was always a strength of Joe Rogan, who would say things on the air that you knew the UFC probably didn’t want him to say, like talking about the greatness of fighters under contract to rival organizations. That in turn made him a powerful pitchman for the product because fans believed what he said. Mozharov’s background is ultimately a low-stakes affair, but it represents a broader point the UFC would be better served to address.