UFC 153: Stephan Bonnar Turned Down Fight with Glover Teixeira
One of the biggest problems in the sport of MMA right now is obviously injuries. It seems we can't go a week without a major fight having to be scrapped because someone was hurt. Another part of the game that is becoming a growing problem is fighters picking and choosing their fights, and in result, turning down fights.
One of the first names that come to mind is, of course, Jon Jones rejecting the idea of facing Chael Sonnen, which resulted in the cancellation of UFC 151. Today, we find out about another fighter that turned down a fight, although this one had a much better result and a much more odd reasoning.
According to MMAJunkie.com, Stephan Bonnar got the call to step in and face Glover Teixeira first at UFC 153, but Bonnar rejected the idea because Teixeira didn't have more Twitter followers than Bonnar.
Bonnar would go on to say:
I know it sounds cheesy, but it's true. That's how I feel. That's a measure of someone's popularity, and I just want a bigger name. The last three opponents, I've had more Twitter followers than them, and I've beat them, and I feel like I deserve a bigger name now.
Luckily for Bonnar, as well as the UFC, another call would be made and this time the fight on the table was none other than UFC Middleweight Champion Anderson Silva.
"It's great, though, because I feel like I have nothing to lose. Fighting Anderson in his backyard, I'm a record-setting underdog. I couldn't ask for anything more," said the original Ultimate Fighter runner-up on facing Silva.
Many fans won't ridicule Bonnar for turning down the fight with Teixeira because the result has a happy ending, so to speak, with fans. But the UFC can't allow fighters to keep picking and turning down fights. For Bonnar, you could say the semi-retired fighter deserved to have that one last major fight, but if more fighters follow the "Twitter Rule" of picking fights, the UFC could have a major problem on its hands in the future.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?