Imagine pouring your heart and soul into preparing for the biggest fight of your life, only to lose. Then, the whispers start: 'He wasn't 100%,' or 'She had a nagging injury.' Are these legitimate explanations, or just sour grapes? UFC commentator Laura Sanko has a compelling theory on why we're hearing more and more about fighters' pre-fight ailments.
While post-fight "excuses" have always been a part of the combat sports narrative, Sanko believes there's been a noticeable surge in recent times, especially surrounding high-profile UFC bouts. It's not just about fighters trying to justify a loss; it's about the ever-increasing spotlight on the sport itself.
Consider these recent examples. Before reclaiming the light heavyweight title at UFC 320, Alex Pereira claimed he was only at "40 percent" for his first fight against Magomed Ankalaev at UFC 313. But here's where it gets controversial... After losing in the rematch, Ankalaev's team stated he suffered a significant rib injury before the fight even began. Was Pereira's claim a preemptive strike, or a genuine assessment of his condition? Was Ankalaev's injury a factor, or a convenient narrative after defeat? These are the questions fans are now grappling with. And this is the part most people miss: it's not just about these two fighters.
Sanko argues that the explosion of MMA's popularity and the pervasiveness of social media are major contributing factors. "I think it's just the nature of the beast with everybody being in everybody's business," Sanko explained to MMA Junkie. "It's going to come out regardless of whether the fighter sits down and does an interview about it. Part of it is on them, part of it is on just the fact we have so much information about everybody at this point." In other words, secrets are harder to keep. The 24/7 news cycle and the insatiable appetite for behind-the-scenes information mean that even minor injuries are likely to surface.
Sanko isn't placing blame on any particular fighter. She acknowledges the incredibly difficult position they're in. Expressing concerns about a pre-existing injury can easily be interpreted as making excuses, regardless of the fighter's intent. There's a delicate balance between transparency and self-sabotage.
For Sanko, the ideal scenario is that significant injuries remain private, especially if the fighter themselves isn't the source of the information leak. She admires the old-school mentality of fighters who keep their ailments under wraps and accept defeat without explanation.
"There's a number of guys, but Dustin (Poirier) is definitely at the top of the list with that old-school mentality where I guarantee Dustin Poirier was banged up in about every fight," Sanko said. "But they're going to tell you it's the best camp ever and they're also not going to tell you after they lose what they were dealing with. But that's just the story of being a prize fighter." Poirier, for example, embodies the stoic warrior who fights through pain and adversity without complaint. He'd rather accept the loss than offer any perceived excuse. Think of it like a poker face – you don't want your opponent to know your weaknesses.
So, is the rise in injury disclosures a sign of the times? Are fighters becoming more transparent, or are they simply trying to control the narrative in an era of unprecedented media scrutiny? And perhaps the most important question: Is it fair to judge a fighter's performance when we know they were less than 100% going in? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. Do you agree with Laura Sanko's assessment? Or do you think fighters have a responsibility to be upfront about their injuries? Perhaps a bit of both?
