MMA fans love to play amateur detective. They scour the internet, latching onto fight footage, interviews and performance data in the hope of exposing certain fighters as the frauds that they are. After every major pay-per- view, many of these detectives will be able to claim their prize- validating their credentials as fans who are “ahead of the curve”- as a number of high-profile fighters are “fraud-checked”.
Being fraudulent requires a level of deception on the part of the fighter that contradicts the foundational claim of these detectives. More often than not, the individual deficiencies that are so publicly exploited are there for all to see, hence the ability of the casual viewer to be a one-night Nostradamus. So, it appears that being a fraud is less about your deficiencies as a fighter and instead a product of the personal animosity brought on by fans. If so, why is the label such a common tool in the arsenal of a UFC comments section? What does it say about the fandom as a whole? Will it ever go away?
Checker Profiles
It certainly appears that this phenomenon is less about the fraud and more about the checker. In this world, there are two types of checkers: The amateur detectives that identify “frauds” prior to a matchup (the more legitimate face of the subculture), and the commentators who assign fraud status after a singular loss, confirming the suspicions of the sceptics, and wilfully ignoring the context in which a loss occurs.
Both cases dismiss the issue of stylistic matchups. In the former, it’s less egregious considering that their use of the fraud label is based on pre-existing knowledge. For the latter, it’s essentially unforgivable, considering that the primary allure of MMA is its capacity to deliver anomalous results thanks to the intricacies of this young sport.
Moreover, both types of fraud checking utterly negate the possibility for future growth and development. Once a fraud, always a fraud. It has a singularity that should make more fans uncomfortable, as outside of the superhumans (Khabib Nurmagomedov and Jon Jones), every great fighter that has entered the Octagon has gone through adversity. They have achieved transcendence by obliterating the questions presented to them by opportunistic opponents and cynical fans.
The MMA Tribe
So, what’s the psychology behind this? As it’s clear that the basis for handing out fraud checks is specious at best, and founded on a purposefully-lobotomised perspective that ignores the present and denies the future. The perspective of fraud-checkers instead appears to be internal, with the use of the fraud label being the opening gambit for greater status within the MMA community. Fighters being “frauds” implies that there are some unfortunate fans that have fallen victim to these deceptions. By exposing the deficiencies of this fighter, you can stick it to the uninitiated and prove your credentials as a hardcore.
In combat sports, the majority of matchups will be purely hypothetical. Considering the taxing effects of competing at the highest level and the entertainment factor within MMA, the careers of top fighters are relatively short, meaning many matchups that should take place will, for a variety of reasons, fall through.
Given the chaotic nature of the sport, one full of hypotheticals and stylistic novelties, it’s perhaps necessary to have a few crude but rationalising tools to make the sport into something intelligible, rather than admitting defeat and that the majority in fact are often unable to consistently predict outcomes. Here, the fraud check operates like a function in the world of MMA math, where fighters hold a consistent value across a variety of hypothetical engagements, with the perpetuation of this function ensuring that all-time upsets continue to amaze and astonish fans of the sport.
A useful example of this mentality has been the reaction to the loss of Ikram Aliskerov to Robert Whittaker at UFC Abu Dhabi. Immediately after the finish, several commentators took to social media, to express their glee after “a good Dagestani fraud check”. The points against such a reactionary take are self-evident.
https://twitter.com/CasualMMAinc/status/1804629115749949627
A lack of preparation, stylistic difficulties and pre-emptive exposure to the top of the division- this entire perspective is thrown out- despite Aliskerov’s obvious talent and stylistic favourability against other middleweight behemoths such as Marvin Vettori or Brendan Allen, both of whom lack the head movement and footwork to deal with Aliskerov’s wide left hook and V-step jab.
Final Thoughts
So, will this phenomenon die? Probably not. It will continue to float on the tide of algorithmic preference, and it acts as gasoline for online discourse, increasing the golden user-time number that all tech companies doggedly pursue. However, fans will hopefully always be the generators for sporting discourse, meaning that we’re able to tone down the most egregious aspects of the community, which fraud-checkers certainly are.
