Talk:The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights Finale

Kimbo Slice match

I just logged on to see who would undercard in this and got this HUGE spoiler. Thanks a lot. Oh and I like the guy who said "If people don't want "spoilers" they should probably just avoid online media." Darkomen or something? What kind of arguement is that?? Thats a laughable quote dude, I'm sorry. Take it off please, so more people like me dont get this huge spoiler, hes fighting Roy Nelson in the next episode and I guess that makes it not too interesting. JMW814 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a spoiler. Doesn't mean he wins against Roy or anyone else. Kimbo is a huge draw and was going to be in the Finale no matter what. And yeah, if you go around reading articles about FUTURE events you may very well run in to a spoiler or two. The solution? Don't go around reading about future events. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Now I can attribute two of the most ridiculous quotes I've seen on Wikipedia BOTH to you!! "If people don't want "spoilers" they should probably just avoid online media." "Don't go around reading about future events." Honestly, why don't you put some thought into what you write before you type the first thing that pops in your head. JMW814 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm dead serious. And it is well thought out. If you choose to read about future events then that is your choice, but don't complain when you find something out about the future that you didn't want to know. It is not my job or anyone else's job to protect you from information that you don't want. That is your job. If you want to bury your head in the sand, be my guest, but don't ask the world to change just because you don't like what you see when you take a look around. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Bro, I don't want to "bury my head in the sand". Just because I don't want 100% of the information doesn't mean I'm some ignorant person. Maybe I'm just disappointed that you gave away half of a show that just started. And I don't get your argument that Kimbo would fight either way. We know only the last 2 would be in the final fight, and your speculation that Kimbo would fight in a fight,necessarily is just your opinion. Personally, I think if Kimbo gets eliminated, Dana will let him continue his career elsewhere. Don't end your reply commanding me on what I should do differently, either. JMW814 (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you watched any of the TUF Finales in the past? If so, you would have seen that many of the competitors on the show compete at the finale, not just the tournament finalists. That's why Kimbo Slice saying he will be fighting at the finale isn't really a spoiler. He could be fighting on the preliminary card for all we know. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I'm saying though. Could. JMW814 (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Could be on the prelims, could be on the main card, but will be fighting according to the man himself. Speculation only if you try to place him on the televised portion or non-televised portion. Placing him on the event isn't speculation, it is reporting information that was obtained through a reliable source. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

In the material people keep removing there is source cited. That source is an interview with Kimbo Slice in which he is asked, "I assume you will be fighting at the finale?" His reponse is, "Yes, in December." This quote fulfills the requirements for having a source for the match. Why do people want to remove it? --TreyGeek (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not in favor of putting Kimbo Slice already fighting before TUF:Heavyweights even starts.I mean it seems more like a spoiler and when people tried that with the last one (USA vs. UK Edition) it was taken down and this is only one source (Not even a rumor anywhere else) from him doing an interview.I'm just saying that we don't really need it because it's too uncessary--Forrestdfuller (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2009 (EST)

No one is saying he is in the final round of the tournament. Lots of fighters on the show have a match in the finale every time. This is just stating that he will be fighting somewhere on the card. Just not where on the card. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If he wasn't a contest I would be all for that.But nobody puts a contests fight on here until it's announced by the UFC.Nobody has ever put a Fighter in a Fight before the show has ever started.He Probaly will be fighting on the show (Because I know that other fights that don't win are the card.)But I Just think your jumping the gun with this one.Kimbo aint that special to be on here.--Forrestdfuller (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2009 (EST)

I don't know where in the past where there was a independent, verifiable source that a contestant in the show was on the finale card. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude,I know they were on the Finale Card.But none of that shit was announced until the week of the finale.The Only source is from him saying he will be fighting in December,which we all knew what was going to happen.But ufc hasn't said anything,mmajunkie hasn't said anything,mmamania hasn't said anything.I could go and on but I just don't think we need Kimbo Slice on the card before the show has started. --Forrestdfuller (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2009 (EST)

• Your concerns over "spoilers" aren't valid. The job of an encyclopedia is to present valid information. The sources back up that Kimbo will indeed be fighting on the finale supports this goal. If people don't want "spoilers" they should probably just avoid online media. Besides, as pointed out above it doesn't mean he's a finalist. They usually bring in half the show's cast to fight on the finale. That's like saying we shouldn't list Brock Lesnar on UFC 106 because the PPV hasn't happened yet. It's ok to put in information about a future event as long as it is properly sourced. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the thing but I guess I have no choice.Now if the the people in the wrestling would learn that you can put Spoilers. --Forrestdfuller (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2009 (EST)

I don't care about it being a spoiler, I just don't think an interview with Kimbo himself is a credible source. Change the page to say "Kimbo claims he will be fighting on the finale, but nothing is confirmed yet". It definitely doesn't fit under the banner "Announced Matchups". Make another heading for "Rumored Matchups" (or unconfirmed.JimG520 (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Firstly, rumors aren't allowed. Secondly, are you kidding me? Kimbo saying he's fighting on the show isn't credible? It's straight from the horse's mouth. And the site that conducted the interview is a reliable site as well. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No. IMO, Kimbo stating that he's fighting on the finale is not credible.JimG520 (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• So is this something that applies to only Kimbo, or do you feel that all fighters' interviews should be considered non-credible? --Drr-darkomen (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Good question actually. I guess I wouldn't consider any fighter's claim until Dana/the UFC confirms it. I would think a claim from an established UFC fighter especially a defending or former champ would be much more credible than anyone on the reality show who has yet to publicly sign a contract. As I said above, I think there should be separate headings for "rumored matchups" and "announced matchups", the latter being only for those officially announced by the UFC/Dana.JimG520 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the other upcoming event pages you'll see that is how it is normally done. However, in this case the UFC has yet to announce any matches for the finale, so all matches are as reported by reputable outlets. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Kimbo really saying he's booked for the Finale? It reads to me like he's just expressing confidence that he'll be on it - like a football player guaranteeing a trip to the playoffs in September. Senor Vergara (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• "I assume you’ll be fighting in the finale." "Yes, in December." That's not boasting or confidence. It's a straight answer to a straight question. --03:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Catchweight?

How is the Houston Alexander vs. Kimbo Slice a catchweight bout? Is because 215 lb is the weight limit, we all know that anything 206 or over falls under heavyweight division. --Dandvsp (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Because they've agreed to that weight. Kimbo could potentially weigh 10-15 lbs more, but the agreement is 215. Ergo catchweight. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And the funny thing is that Kimbo said it was gonna be tough for him to make 215 because he hadn't been there since middle school, but he ends up weighing in at 212. Trunks8719 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones vs. Hamill Controversy

The UFC ruling on a DQ is that if a fight is ended by an intentional illegal strike that the the fighter who delivers the strike is given the DQ and the receiver is the winner. Arguably the illegal elbows could be considered unintentional as it is a relatively new addition to the rulebook, there were no prior warnings from the ref and Jones did not seem aware of what had happened when the ref intervened... however, the fight between Jones and Hamill was not ended "due to the illegal strike" (elbows specifically). On the decision description (main page) it says the elbow caused the cut on the bridge of the nose, however video shows that happened before the elbows and Hamill stated in the post fight that his shoulder was dislocated during the fight and thus why he chose not to continue the fight. The elbows were nothing compared to the rest. just watch the fight! (BrTa) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.216.45 (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where you were going with your rambling. The ref stopped the fight when Hamill was unable to continue after the elbow strikes. The ref, Mazzagatti (selected by the Nevada State Athletic Commission) used instant replay to declare the bout a DQ. The ref saw the elbow strikes cause the injury and thus why he ruled it a DQ. (Report from MMAFrenzy) --TreyGeek (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no rambling. Steve Mazzagatti is simply wrong in his decision. I understand how the decision came about. If you can re-watch the fight, you, as anyone else, can see that the cut is made and bleeding profusely well before the illegal strikes take place. The evidence is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.216.45 (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you just debating the point or asking for the article to change? If you are just debating the point, this is not the place to do that; this is not a WP:FORUM. If you want the article to change, that's not going to happen; the official decision is DQ due to an illegal blow that prevented Hammill from continuing in the match. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)