# Talk:UFC 94

Where are the sources for the listed matchups? Jake Sheilds isn't even under contract to the UFC yet. Marcbjr2 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
St-Pierre defeated Penn by TKO (corner stoppage) after the end of round 4 to retain the UFC Welterweight championship. According to http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=news.detail&gid=17593 it was not corner stoppage or at least not solely corner stoppage. "There wouldn’t be a fifth round for Penn, who was wisely kept in his corner by Octagonside physician William Berliner, as well as his own cornermen."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.183.234 (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 

Watch the video and you can see someone from Penn's corner tapping the physician on the shoulder and say "we're stopping it," just as the physician was walking away. It was a corner stoppage, plain and simple. Bad intentionz (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, according to WP:OR, Wikpedia does not published unpublished facts. Sorry, but UFC.com saying it's a ref stop would trump what you saw on the broadcast. Also, the most authoritative word on the subject is the NSAC, and they say ref stop on doctor's advice.[1] hateless 01:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware the NSAC published the results like that. Good to know in the future. I do want to add that the claim wasn't an unpublished fact, it is listed as Corner Stoppage over at Sherdog, which is what we use for all the events at of the MMA project. Bad intentionz (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Salary: a fixed compensation periodically paid to a person for regular work or services. (ref) Wikipedia's own article also refers to it as part of a contract, which is within the definition for our purposes here. The payment to fighters are FIXED until the contract expires. MMAWeekly and MMAjunkie refer to the monetary sums as salaries. The article on purses also say that purses are generally awarded to people for winning or coming into place in a competition. Fighters are paid their salary amount win, lose or draw. 142.58.80.232 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The words you missed is periodically and regular. I get paid a salary every two weeks, that's a regular occurrence that happens after a set period. That is a salary. A purse is only paid after a performance for work done on a irregular schedule. If a fighter withdraws from a fight, he is not entitled to purse. Fights are scheduled irregularly, no one fights exactly every x amount of days or weeks, so this is not regular work. And finally, UFC contracts are not employment contracts (employment is the magic word you missed in the Wikipedia article), the UFC never refers to its fighters as employees, they're considered independent contractors. As for MMAJunkie and MMAWeekly, please establish they are experts in the english language. hateless 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
1) By the same token, if you don't show up to work you are not entitled to your salary either. So I don't see why your withdrawal comment would apply here.
2) As for "periodically" paid, no where does this say it has to be fixed period of time. A period of time could be from 2 months to 9 months. The only requirement, by my interpretation, is that the payment is more than once. The fixed in the above definition applies to the monetary amount, which I have already dealt with.
3) As for your argument that fighters are independent contractors, I would respectfully disagree. According to the wiki article on the subject: "The IRS advises taxpayers to look at three aspects of the employment arrangement: financial control, behavioral control, and relationship between the parties.
Generally speaking, independent contractors retain control over their schedule and number of hours worked, jobs accepted, and performance of their job. This contrasts with the situation for regular employees, who usually work at the schedule required by the employer and whose performance is directly supervised by the employer."
Fighters do NOT retain control over their schedule and number of hours worked, jobs accepted, and performance of their job. They can ONLY fight for the UFC. The fighters will fight when they are required, and the performance is directly supervised by the employer. If they  do not perform to the standards expected by the UFC, or if they fight like Kalib Starnes, they are gone. There has also been no authoritative ruling by the courts to say UFC fighters are independent contractors (until you can find a case suggesting otherwise). Since it has not been defined by the courts as an independent contractor, I am of the view that they automatically fall under the definition of employee. I have also outlined why they should be classified as an employee for our purposes here.
I cited MMAWeekly and MMAjunkie, because this is not the definition of salary for  project: English or the like. This is a mixed martial arts article, and these two publications are authoritative for mixed martial arts articles. I see no reason why you, or anyone else, can come into the article and change what has been published by those two websites to your definition within your analysis. Also, I want to address your statement of "it would not constitute as original research for the correct usage of the english language". This is not as simple as a verb tense error. I think your assertion that fighters are independence contractors is far beyond merely a consensus English issue, it is closer to the a legal one. You are making your own analysis of the subject, which DOES constitute as original research. You are not an authoritative figure on the subject, and you have not cited any relevant material to support your claim that fighters are independent contractors. Why don't we go ahead and make professional athletes (baseball/football players) independent contractors also? Their schedule is not fixed, and they do not have to go to work everyday either.
For the reasons outlined above, I am changing it back to salaries. 142.58.91.200 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait, you accuse me of original research, and then you write a legal dissertation (largely uncited) over whether UFC fighters are really employees or independent contractors? Is this some kind of joke? OK, you want cites? Lets go to Websters: "fixed compensation paid regularly for services". UFC payouts are not fixed (payment varies depending if you win or lose) nor is it regular (a one-time payment contingent on a performance). If you want a longer definition, there's Webster's Learner's Dictionary: "an amount of money that an employee is paid each year—A salary is divided into equal amounts that are paid to a person usually once every two weeks or once every month." I shouldn't need to explain that one, do I? hateless 05:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
What is regularly defined as? I think you have to consider what's regular in the circumstances. A fighter fighting once every few months IS considered regular in a fight company. In other words, they are being paid "regularly" for their services. IE, he goes to the doctor regularly. What does regularly mean? Is it really limited to two weeks and a month? I don't think so. Also, the definition you included said "usually onces every two weeks or a month". That definition leaves the door open for time frames outside of two weeks and a month.
One element of the definition that is not up for debate, is the fixed compensation part. It clearly states that salaries have to be fixed. A fighter is NOT paid a different "salary" because he wins or loses. The disparity in the amount comes from the awarding of bonuses, due to their performance. A fighter's pay can increase even if he loses (via bonuses), so it follows that winning or losing do not affect salary figures. Check out Chuck Liddell's last 4 fights, and you will see that he made 500k in each fight. Then, take a look at the 3 before that, and again, you will see that they stayed the same for 3 fights. If you're saying that person A is no longer making a salary just because of the possibility of bonuses--that's ridiculous. It isn't just Chuck Liddell; you can refer to any UFC fighter and you will be able to see a fixed salary for handful of fights. Still not convinced? Here's an article about Fabricio Werdum being released because he refused to negotiate a pay cut. Do golf players and boxers ever negotiate pay cuts?
Let's compare the two definitions of purse and salary:
Purse: an amount of money that is offered as a prize in a competition (such as a horse race, a golf tournament, or a boxing match Webster's Learning Dictionary
Compare that to your definition of salary. No where does it mention about the amount being "fixed". IE the amount can vary from race-to-race, tournament-to-tournament, and boxing-match to boxing-match. What a UFC fighter earns is NOT a prize, but fixed compensation his services. As I have already established, there is NO difference in base salary if the fighter loses or wins (if it's part of the same fight contract). The ONLY difference comes from bonuses.
I think what you're doing right now is generalizing a boxer's contract over to a UFC fighter's. These two are inherently different; and I have attached a copy of a single Boxer/Promoter bout agreement to illustrate as such: PDF As it states in there:
The Promoter agrees to pay, after said contest, and the Boxer agrees to accept as compensation, in full settlement of his/her claims and demands resulting from the performance by him/her of this contract the sum of US Dollars, and/or percent of the 'grossreceipts derived from the sale of tickets for admission',
THIS is a purse. As you can see, the amount offered varies from fight-to-fight, because the promoter can choose to pay whatever he pleases. This is much different than a UFC salary, which is negotiated for a few fights in a row, and you can predict with 100% accuracy what a fighter's base salary for his next fight is after considering his previous fight (if the mistake is not made of neglecting a new contract agreement). The same cannot be said about a boxer, because, as you can see, a promoter can specify what he wants to pay each time. It's also not the same as a golfer, who expects different prizes from the US Open and a small tournament he plays immediately after. A UFC salary is also different than a racer's purse because a racer's pay-out CAN fluctuate depending on where he places, PRIOR to the assessing of bonuses.
I also want to point out what has happened here. An editor created the section "Salaries", with a reliable source referenced. You changed it to Purse, based on your own "knowledge of the english language." I am requesting that the section be changed so it reflects the article that it referenced.  I feel I have established here the reasons why a UFC fighter makes is closer to a salary, and not a purse. However, I do not feel Hateless has produced sufficient material to warrant his edit based on his knowledge of the english language. I feel that Hateless should have the onus placed on him because it is HE who is making the controversial edit. I will withhold from changing the main article, because the last edit was made by Aktsu, and I respect him for all the work that he has done for the MMA project. Therefore I feel it would be appropriate for him to consider the validity of my argument and act accordingly. RonaldW123 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh, hateless has done more for the MMA project than me though :) My initial reaction was that 'purse' sounds correct but I'll take a look around at what the various MMA websites use and re-read the above before I form a definite opinion. --aktsu (t / c) 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
(Undent) A quick search of the NSAC-website turned up this, so it seems like what's reported to them is in their own words a 'purse'. You're right in that it seems most MMA websites refers to it as a 'salary' though. How would a compromise with something along the lines of "Fighter payout" or similar sound by the way? --aktsu (t / c) 19:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Aktsu, the definition of purse in the link you referenced was last revised in 1997, far before the days of MMA's rise to prominence. Boxing was the likely the only event on the NSAC's radar at the time of the drafting, and MMA sites should have priority over that definition because of specificity. I think I have established the inherent differences between a boxer's payout and a UFC fighter's. It also not just a single MMA site that calls the pay out to the UFC fighters a "salary", but the majority of them, as you have mentioned. And since the MMA sites are much more focused and specific to our topic, we should stick with them.
I also want to wait for Hateless' response to the arguments in my previous post before we discuss a possible compromise. I am definitely open to the idea though. RonaldW123 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
A salary by definition is a periodic payment of money over time or based on a wage, whereas a purse or prize money is defined as money awarded for winning or coming a place in a competition. I think the choice is obvious. — Moe ε 20:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An MMA fighter isn't paid for winning or coming a place, though. They are paid for showing up only. Please refer to my previous arguments. RonaldW123 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
They most certainly are. A MMA fighter wouldn't be paid if they didn't fight. In this particular example, there are only two places, both of which received payment if they actually fought. A purse is the correct definition. Your argument is crap even if you read the article:
Georges St-Pierre ($400,000 - includes $200,000 win bonus)
A perfect example of a purse, he was paid since he won the match. A purse doesn't have to be a different amount each time, it can be received in a set amount each time they compete (i.e. they receive a purse for each fight they compete in and an additional bonus if they win the match). Salary is by far no where near correct, salaries have to be paid at a specific time and to an employee, and MMA fighters aren't even employees. — Moe ε 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Might be the exception to the rule, but at at Affliction 1 Ray Lizama and Justin Levens were both paid even though they didn't fight due to time constraints. Also; "White cited middleweight champion Rich Franklin, a native of Cincinnati whose UFC deal calls for a basic fee of $18,000 per fight with another $18,000 for each win". --aktsu (t / c) 22:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
True there are rare exceptions. The time constraints one is for obvious reasons, not because they didn't compete, but there was no time for them to compete so they received the money for showing up anyways. The thing about the basic fee, like I said, a contract can call for what a purse can pay, a purse just isn't made up on the spot. Nowadays, its probably fixated into their contract what their minimum purse will be for them fighting with a purse for winning. — Moe ε 22:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
He was not ONLY paid because he won the match. He gets paid $200,000 for showing up. Why are you ignoring this fact? This is a consistent figure for the X amount of fights the UFC have signed him for. IE his $200,000 is FIXED for the length of his contract. Again, just because a fighter can earn a bonus does not automatically disqualify him from earning a salary. This is entirely different from a boxer who will make what the promoter pleases on a fight-per-fight basis (refer to the promotional contract I have attached above, which effectively contradicts your statement that purses are not made up on the spot). Also, according to the definition of salary that Hateless has posted, a salary is "usually" paid on a bi-weekly or monthly basis. Again, it doesn't say that a salary has to be paid in a two week or monthly basis. RonaldW123 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is ridiculous. It's clear to me that personal pride and the failure to admit personal mistakes is taking a way too prominent role in this discussion. I'm not going to bother even reading the above and I'm not going to participate in this discussion anymore, but I will say that "salary" is an inappropriate word. hateless 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Purses" isn't a correct word either. I think I have established that by definition, it is much closer to salary than purse, because the figure is fixed for all the fights of a contract, and the lack of the element of awarding the sum based on winning or losing, or coming in place. UFC fighters are not boxers. RonaldW123 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Purses is entirely correct. The commissions, by its statues, polcies and actions, reports these numbers as "purses," and within the realm of combat sports the term is unambiguous.[2][3] Your "demonstration" is the one thing on this page that smells of original research than anything else. hateless 22:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, that definition was drafted in 1997, far before MMA was in the public's eye. Why go with that definition when the overwhelming majority of MMA sites TODAY, which are dedicated to the topic of mixed martial arts, recognize the monetary amounts as salaries? Also, the NSAC has to overgeneralize when creating a statute for "unarmed combat". With the MMA websites we have specificity. The fact that you can possibly believe that each site can make the same error again and again is baffling. RonaldW123 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
How would you feel about "Reported payout" or similar as a compromise Hateless? --aktsu (t / c) 21:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
So your argument about whether they receive purses or salaries is because MMA and boxing isn't the same? Now you're just borderline being disruptive. Salaries are given to employees, Purses are given to athletes who compete. Do you think boxers don't have contracts like MMA fighters, too? — Moe ε 22:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
That's entirely not my argument. UFC Fighters do not make purses because:
Salary: "fixed compensation paid regularly for services, an amount of money that an employee is paid each year—A salary is divided into equal amounts that are paid to a person usually once every two weeks or once every month." (def posted by Hateless above)
1)The figure is fixed for as long as the fighter is contractually obligated to the UFC. Contrast that to the match-by-match basis on which boxer's payouts can be determined. PDF The definition has not given a given a condition for "fixed compensation", so it has to be fixed. This is why boxers do not make salaries and UFC fighters do.
2)The definition also states that the salary is to be divided into equal amounts. That is TRUE. GSP will make $200,000 until his contract expires, which denotes equal division. Boxers are NOT subject to equal division. Their payouts are determined by a fight to fight basis! That is not fixture. UFC Fighters are subject to fixture.
3)Again, just because a UFC fighter is not paid "usually" every two weeks or every month, does not mean that it is not a salary. The word usually naturally denotes that there are other possibilities.
Now compare that to the definition of purses:
Purse: an amount of money that is offered as a prize in a competition (such as a horse race, a golf tournament, or a boxing match
There is nothing about the $200,000 GSP makes that constitutes as a "prize". He is paid this amount as long as he shows up to work (ie the fight). Just because he has the ability to earn a prize, IN ADDITION to his salary does not make his payout not a salary. The fact that the 200k is fixed shows a salary element to his payout. RonaldW123 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any objections to "reported payout," although I hope you reaching for a compromise because you see valid points on both sides, not because someone won't lower their voice. hateless 22:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It's hard to argue with basically all MMA sites reporting it as salaries, though you assessment definetly seem to have some merit as well -_- --aktsu (t / c) 22:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, also note that the MMA media, and the media in general, is also not shy about using the word "purses," see Google. The use of "salaries" is prevalent, and I admit that there is an accepted definition out there that salaries means simply "compensation for work done."[4] But salaries do have a certain connotation that does not apply to these payouts. hateless 02:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Remind me, how does the word Purses reflect the fixed compensation that each fighter is issued as part of an exclusive UFC contract? Also, the term salaries is far beyond "prevalent". It's the overwhelming majority. Replace Hateless' Google query with the term "salaries" and the results immediately jump from 90,000 to 301,000. I see no reason why Wikipedia should not reflect the terminology of these reliable MMA publications over a term that was defined by the NSAC more than 10 years ago without the full understanding of the nature of the UFC contracts, specifically in mind. RonaldW123 (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where to put this in this thread, but http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=409&zoneid=13 is interesting reading. Apparently UFC fighters are contracted to X usd per fight, with the same about as a win bonus. --aktsu (t / c) 22:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
General commentary here.  Neither word is accurate if you simply consider the general usage definition.  Salary implies that the payments are on a regular schedule; this is not the case.  Purse implies that the payments are a reward for competing well; this is also not strictly true.  Both words are used frequently in the press to refer to fighter pay.  Searching google news archives for ufc salary or salaries returns 3 to 4 hundred hits.  Searching for ufc purse or purses returns similar quantities.  I think either word is fine.  I personally prefer purse, since I think it more clearly defines the relationship between the parties.  But "pay" is a particularly good word, since it is both literally true and accurate and also commonly used.  So, that would be my !vote. gnfnrf (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


### One final argument
I want to make one final post about why a boxer's "purse", and the usage of the term, should not extend over to the UFC and its fighters. I have created a separate section because the other was way too cluttered in my view. Anyone who takes exception to the separation is free to merge them.
Consider Floyd Mayweather Jr., and his apparent final 3 fights in boxing. The first one was against Baldomir, in which he earned a guaranteed $8 million for the fight.[5] The second was the biggest fight ever, against Oscar De La Hoya, where he earned a guaranteed $10 million.[6] Now consider his apparent final fight against Ricky Hatton, where he earned $11 million.[7]
Let's also look at Oscar De La Hoya. In his fight against Bernard Hopkins, he was guaranteed $30 million. [8] Now look at his subseqent fight against Ricardo Mayorga where he was guaranteed only $8 million, a $22 million drop in guaranteed purse from the last fight.[9]. And of course against Mayweather, he was guaranteed $23.3 million.[10]. As a point of interest, his purse against Pacman was a guaranteed $20 million.[11] Boxer's guaranteed purses depend on who they face. The bigger the fight, the more money they get.[12] (There is a little comment on the bottom that Pacman will make "pittance" compared to the $12 million he'd be guaranteed against Hatton). There is no contractual fixture like the UFC Fighters. Chuck Liddell made the same amounts against Babalu Sobral and Tito Ortiz (which shattered the North American MMA records for both PPV buyrates and Gate totals). He also made the same against Rampage, Silva, and Keith Jardine. 
As everyone can clearly see, there is absolutely NO fixture as to what a boxer makes fight-to-fight. The difference per fight is, in every case, millions, and on one extreme $22 million dollars. This entirely contradicts the argument that User:Moe_Epsilon has made here that boxer's purses are not "made up on the spot", or on a fight-to-fight basis. Also, note that the purse is to be negotiated between the fighters[13] on that same fight-by-fight basis. This is a stark contrast to the UFC contracts, which has no negotiating whatsoever between the fighters, or with the promotion for that matter. There has been no evidence that fighters can negotiate bigger paydays because they are about to fight in a big fight, nor that the promotion can negotiate a smaller payday for a fighter because he's fighting in a smaller event for his next fight. The only way to negotiate a new guaranteed payout is to negotiate a new, fixed contract, altogether, as I will prove shortly. Compare that to Mayweather's and DLH's purses and you can see an obvious difference. 
As I have already pointed out on numerous occasions, UFC fighters are paid a fixed amount for the term of an entire contract. I don't feel the need to cite third party sources here. Simply look at fighters like Chuck Liddell and you can see the consistency in his UFC contract by his salaries. Also see Brock Lesnar, Quinton Jackson, Dan Henderson, Brandon Vera, Forrest Griffin, and Mirko Cro Cop and Rameau Thierry Sokoudjou before their releases. In some cases, the amounts do vary, like the case of Anderson Silva and Wanderlei Silva. But since there has never been evidence of fighters negotiating higher paydays for a single, big fight, we have no reason to expect as such. Note that there has been evidence of negotiations for a new fight contract altogether, like the one Rampage signed to make his pay jump from $170,000 to $225,000[14]. Also, consider, Fabricio Werdum's release from the UFC because he refused to negotiate a pay-cut. The UFC couldn't simply decide to drop his salary for the next fight.[15] This, again, shows fixture in the UFC's contracts. The most likely explanation for the two Silva's pay increasing is that certain fighters' salaries aren't divided equally and will be given out in increased increments. But note that in the end, the fighter will still make the grand total of a fixed figure that has been pre-determined and signed by a multiple-fight contract (as evidenced by Werdum's attempted paycut negotiation, Rampage's signing of a new contract at $225,000 per fight). 
As you can see, the boxer's "purse" and a UFC fighter's "salary" are completely different concepts. A UFC fighter's payout is much closer to "fixed compensation" as outlined by the definition of salary, than it is to a boxer's "purse", which should be regarded as prize money. It changes from fight-to-fight; just like how a golfer's and a poker player's purse changes from tournament-to-tournament. There is absolutely no reason for the term "purse" as outlined by the NSAC to take precedent over the overwhelming majority of MMA sites that refer to these figures as salaries. These sites have engaged in detailed analyses of the concept, which is far more than what the NSAC did when they defined the umbrella term (for the sport 'unarmed combat', and not MMA) in 1997.
I know I have come off very aggressive, and maybe even hostile in this discussion. I only acted that way because I was taken aback by Hateless' sheer arrogance in dismissing an entire plethora of MMA publications for his own definition. After this post, I am formally proposing that the term "Purses" be dropped entirely for either Salaries, or Salaries & Win Bonuses. I see no reason for the articles to accommodate a pompous error made by Hateless. More importantly there is no reason for the articles to not reflect the terminology of the MMA websites that they reference. RonaldW123 (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I see them as having elements of both purses and salaries.  If I had to pick, I think that I would go with salaries because it is fixed.  NFL players make a salary, but it is not given out on a weekly or monthly basis, they get 16 checks (1 each game) and that's it for the whole year.  That is very much like the contract of a UFC fighter.--2008Olympianchitchat 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I agree that payouts have elements of both purses and salaries. Personally I would go with salaries as well, exactly because the payouts are fixed. I guess with salaries, you can still let the reader know about the purses element by saying the fighters are subject to a win bonus. With purses though there's no way of expressing the fixed element to the payouts, which would limit the reader's understanding IMO. Just my comments. I'm no expert on the matter, but yeah, I think I'd go with salaries over purses. Bad intentionz (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Let me interject with a few actual examples of usage here. For example: the IFL once paid regular (weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly) payments to fighters for not only fighting but to train.[16] Sam Caplan asks an IFL fighter Sam Lierly if he gets paid "paid per fight" or "a salary", Lierley says "salary" and "show money."[17] The IFL later went toward a more conventional model, with payment at fights only. Roy Nelson characterized the former payment scheme as a "salary" and the latter as "going backwards and paying only for fights."[18]  To people in the IFL, they see a distinction between a salary and their fight night payout. This to me is precedence that within the context of MMA, a salary is distinct form of payment that does not apply to fight night payouts. The point I want to make here is that while fighter's pay has been called a "salary" before and might seem correct to the general readership, it has connotations where if we are going to specific, it is an inaccurate term-- or at the very least, there are people out there that would consider it inaccurate.
Also, Roland, keep it WP:CIVIL, I've avoided personal attacks while you've accused me of malfeasance from the beginning. Don't mistake editing boldly for arrogance. The matter is moot, we're not using "salary" nor "purse" any longer and I'm puzzled why you keep insisting only your wording is correct. hateless 23:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out a logical flaw in your analysis: To people in the IFL, they see a distinction between a salary and their fight night payout. This to me is precedence that within the context of MMA, a salary is distinct form of payment that does not apply to fight night payouts. Of course people in the IFL would see a distinction between a weekly salary and their fight night payout-- they were actually paid both! What these fighters said was not within the general context of MMA, but of the IFL only. Imagine if you were in the IFL and exposed to the same system as the above fighters--would you consider a salary distinct from a fight night payout? Because these two fighters are exposed to a distinct system of what is expected in MMA, taking what they say for the majority of fighters would be an error in my view. It might be more convincing if you actually cited UFC fighters saying "we don't make salaries". Also, consider that the interviewer, Sam Caplan, has recently called the UFC figures "salaries" when reporting for UFC 94.[19] Since he was the one who actually interviewed the fighter, if what Lierly said was reflective of MMA payouts in general, you'd think that Caplan would be the first person recognize as such.
I also want to respond to one more statement from Hateless:
it has connotations where if we are going to specific, it is an inaccurate term-- or at the very least, there are people out there that would consider it inaccurate.
The UFC event articles are not meant to get any more specific than listing the amounts. So this should not at all be considered when assessing the accuracy of the term Salary in the articles. Arguably, any topic on Wikipedia will have a minority of dissenters. Should they always be accommodated?
Aktsu, I respect your decision to offer a compromise. Compromise usually denotes two equally competing sides. However, I don't feel this is the case here. On the one dissenting side of the balance scale, you have Hateless. On the other, you have a list of MMA publications that universally recognize the term as Salaries:
:http://mmajunkie.com/news/13889/official-ufc-94-salaries-georges-st-pierre-earns-400k-of-1-1-million-payroll.mma
http://www.thefightnetwork.com/news/mma/2679/full_ufc_94_salaries_fight_bonuses__stpierre_leads_heap
http://www.themmanews.com/?p=2644
http://mmaagents.blogspot.com/2009/02/ufc-94-salaries.html
http://www.fightticker.com/story_0202090900_ufc_94_salaries
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/2/1/743885/ufc-94-gate-and-salaries
http://www.fighting-mma.com/ufc-betting-information/ufc-news/ufc-94-salaries-and-payouts/
http://www.nokaut.com/?id=12&solo_news=3048&lang=e&title=UFC+94+Salary+Information+Released&PHPSESSID=d609ff6c0a05a2795f7b747c6bbaefd5
http://mmafrenzy.com/9277/ufc-94-fighter-salaries-st-pierre-earns-400000/
http://www.411mania.com/MMA/news/95847/UFC-94-Salaries-Announced.htm
http://mmamania.com/2009/02/01/ufc-94-fighter-salaries-and-paydays-for-st-pierre-vs-penn-2/
http://164mph.com/Ultimate_Fighting_Championship/post:ufc-94-salary-breakdown/
http://www.mmamadhouse.com/ufc-94-fighter-salaries-gsp-takes-nearly-half-the-pot/
http://mmablips.dailyradar.com/story/ufc_94_st_pierre_vs_penn_fighter_salaries_mma_weekly_1/
http://www.mmanews.com/ufc/UFC-94:-St.-Pierre-vs.-Penn-2-Fighter-Salaries.html
http://www.mmafighting.com/news/2009/02/01/ufc-94-st-pierre-vs-penn-2-fighter-salaries
http://www.ufcfight.com/mma/2009/02/salaries-and-bonuses-for-ufc-94-st-pierre-vs-penn-2-event-.html
http://www.mmaplayground.com/forums/topic29891-1.html
http://fiveouncesofpain.com/tag/ufc-94-salaries/
http://www.mmauniverse.com/news/SS3969
http://www.examiner.com/r-6145173~UFC_94_salaries__Georges_St__Pierre_earns__400K_of__1_1_million_payroll.html
http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/?go=news.detail&gid=148185&title=UFC-94-Gate-and-Salaries
http://www.watchkalibrun.com/2009/2/1/743857/ufc-94-bonuses-salaries-li
http://impactwrestling.com/Content.aspx?ID=23927
http://www.fightscoops.com/UFC/UFC_94_St_Pierre_vs_Penn_2_Fighter_Salaries.shtml
http://impactwrestling.com/Content.aspx?ID=23927
http://www.fightscoops.com/UFC/UFC_94_St_Pierre_vs_Penn_2_Fighter_Salaries.shtml
http://nextlevelsportsmarketing.com/2009/02/01/ufc-94-fighter-salaries-st-pierre-earns-400000/
Accordingly, I think the UFC 94 article should be reverted to the version made by the original editor who named the section "Salaries", along with the reliable source referenced.
Also, I want to apologize for my arrogance insinuations. I was out of line. RonaldW123 (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not universal.  Plenty of reliable publications and MMA news sources use purse as the term. [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], and so on, and so on.  But the point isn't whether I can cut and paste more links than you.  The point, which I tried to make above but you didn't address (or, apparently, acknowledge), is that both terms are used in reliable publications, and that neither term is used in the strict sense of its meaning outside of MMA specific terminology.  And since MMA terminology and actual definition do coincide on a third term, "pay", lets use that. gnfnrf (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Nevada State Athletic Commision:
NRS 467.0105  “Purse” defined.  “Purse” means the financial guarantee or any other remuneration for which contestants are participating in a contest or exhibition and includes the contestant’s share of any payment received for radio broadcasting, television or motion picture rights. (Added to NRS by 1985, 936) [29]
I hate to skip over everyone's discussion, but regardles of what a bunch of websites or reporters want to use MMA IS prizefighting, which occurs for a purse...just like boxing. I'd consider the NSAC a higher source than anything cited since they are a GOVERNING body. I.e. you can't fight in Nevada unless you play by their rules, which say that fighters get payed a purse (a technical term that is explicitly defined) and which (probably) a majority of UFC fights are fought under. Floodo1 (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have created a pretty detailed explanation of the whole situation over on BJ Penn's page. I think it would be a good idea to move that block of text over here to the UFC 94 page, then reference it on both BJ's and GSP's page. I'll do this in a few days if no one objects, as I think the version on BJ penn's page is more detailed and documented. Especially regarding rules change in repsonce to the fight.
I also have some information from BJ's first public appearance regarding a rematch as well as how he will fight Kenny Florian before any rematch (which, for the time being, is on my main page) Floodo1 (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The official results (per the NSAC) have GSP winning by doctor stoppage and Machida winning by TKO.  Sherdog has GSP winning by corner stoppage and Machida winning by KO.  This article lists the NSAC results among its references, but has the Sherdog results.  I realize we trust Sherdog in most situations, but shouldn't the NSAC results have precedence? --jhanCRUSH 05:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

They should indeed. Fixed. --aktsu (t / c) 05:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
glad I saw this here, saves me some research. I'm going to update the BJ Penn and GSP and I guess Machinda personal pages to match up with this information :) Floodo1 (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:UFC 94/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting Review. Leujohn (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Well done
Leujohn (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article so extensive? 68.161.161.133 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a problem with that? (pinchet (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
Yeah, is there a problem or something? Articles are supposed to be extensive. This is an encyclopedia and all.--WillC 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not a problem, but it's surprising, because most other UFC event articles are tiny. I think this article is great.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.85.50 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on UFC 94. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131231543/http://www.mmaweekly.com:80/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=6326&zoneid=2 to http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=6326&zoneid=2
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090404173216/http://www.setanta.com:80/uk/Articles/other-sports/2009/01/28/UFC-Machida-vs-Silva-preview/gnid-37514/ to http://www.setanta.com/uk/Articles/other-sports/2009/01/28/UFC-Machida-vs-Silva-preview/gnid-37514/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090409022509/http://mmaweekly.com:80/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=8094&zoneid=4 to http://mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=8094&zoneid=4
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218230909/http://www.mmaweekly.com:80/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=8095&zoneid=3 to http://mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=8095&zoneid=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)