UFC News: Mackens Semerzier vs. Roberto Peralta Ruled a No Contest by CSAC
On Tuesday afternoon, the California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) ruled the bout between Mackens Semerzier and Robert Peralta, which took place 12 Nov. at UFC on FOX 1, a no-contest.
After meeting with the CSAC, Semerzier's manager, Brian Butler-Au of SuckerPunch Entertainment, tweeted, "Very happy with the CSAC, they got it right! Time to go home."
Semerzier responded by tweeting "Justice is blind but I know that ***** aint deaf. The ppl have spoken. #Rematch."
The bout was initially ruled a TKO victory for Peralta after Semerzier was dropped by what appeared to be legal strikes. However, review of the footage later revealed that the knockdown was a result of an inadvertent headbutt.
Bleacher Report was able to get in contact with "Mack Da Menace" to get his thoughts about the situation.
When asked how he felt, he said, "good, but it's kind of weird. It's one of those things I wanted to get corrected, but at the same time, I'm not happy about it because I'm still not happy about the result."
Semerzier is also looking to get back into the Octagon with Peralta quickly as well.
Should a rematch between Semerzier and Peralta happen as soon as possible?
"Hopefully, me and Robert will get to fight again. I'm hoping March. March will be good for me, and I'm pretty sure it will be good for him."
This was not Semerzier's first time dealing with controversy, as he lost his WEC 52 bout vs. Cub Swanson via split-decision in a fight many felt Semerzier was overwhelmingly dominant.
But that doesn't bother Semerzier, and he holds no ill will towards his fellow featherweight fighter. When asked about a rematch with Swanon, he simply replied "I like Cub, and I'll make money with Cub too. But I don't think now is a good time (for a rematch)."
With Swanson coming off a loss, Semerzier feels now is not the best time. Besides, he's got his sights set on dealing with the current problem at hand, or in his own words, "(Robert) is on my radar right now."
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?