Marlon Vera, post his recent engagement at UFC on ABC 7, has expressed dissatisfaction with Deiveson Figueiredo’s execution of an axe kick. This circumstance took place when Vera was down in the first round of their bantamweight match held last Saturday in Abu Dhabi. His contention stems from the fact that the kick was landed just after the completion of the first round while he was down, triggering negative emotions towards the incident.
Vera, who was defeated in this arduous match by unanimous agreement of the jury, repeatedly asserts that changes in the declared result could have been achieved if the referee Keith Peterson had taken some concrete action. According to him, appropriate cognizance of the unlawful kick and subsequent action against Figueiredo in the form of a penalty, could have influenced the final outcome of the fight quite significantly.
Opening up on his YouTube channel, Vera voiced his dissatisfaction with the event in stronger words. ‘The axe kick that directly landed on my face in the first round, that was anything but accidental’, asserted Vera. He pushed forth this argument stating that such action should invite automatic deduction of a point, as per his understanding of the tradition.
Maintaining a firm stand on the major principle of the sport, Vera further pointed out the violation of the fundamental rule – not to put up an attack on a grounded opponent. If he were manipulating the event with his hand, Vera suggested, he would have understood the kick. However, the context of this situation differed significantly from that hypothetical scenario.
As Vera further elaborated, the kick in question was not punishing a downed opponent per se but was a ‘clean shot to the face’, while he was securing his guard. This factor complicates the matter significantly, as it is an aggressive move that could squeeze the energy out, leading to a head-on-the-ground situation. This move is considered ‘illegal’ and Vera insists that it could spark a different conversation altogether if it invited point deduction.
Vera’s argument emphasizes the significant influence that Peterson’s actions could have had on the fight’s result. Had he subtracted a point from Figueiredo, following the incident, this would have resulted in a majority draw for the match. The condition of the game and Vera’s standing in it would have differed notably from what it turned out to be.
Further complicating matters, Vera had returned to the ring just five months after suffering a severe beating in his championship fight against the current bantamweight champion Sean O’Malley at UFC 299 in March. Reflecting back on this rapid return, Vera admitted that the decision might have been hasty.
Vera spoke candidly about rushing back to fight too early and revealed that, in retrospect, he and his team recognized that they had moved too quickly after his taxing fight. He emphasized that a considerable amount of time and rest should have been assigned for recovery after the taxing, elongated duel with the competent champion.
Apart from this, Vera shared his initial comeback plan, which consisted of re-entering the ring in either November in New York or December. These timelines were decided after taking into account the recovery period and rest required after a physically demanding match, such as the one he had in March.
However, an early comeback seemed to defy this wisely chalked-out plan. Looking back, Vera recognizes this premature return as a slip on their part. Not just from his end, but he also draws attention to the team’s collective decision-making process behind choosing the comeback date.
Soon, Vera came to realize that the decision to resume competing was heavily influenced by a combination of ambitious ‘me’ and team decisions. Asserting the strength of the collective’s voice in shaping actions, Vera strongly asks his audience to recognize they are all in it together.
‘You often find yourself saying, ‘Let’s just do it,’ even when everyone advises you against it’, Vera recalls. He further elaborates how such a mindset can lead to spontaneous, and sometimes ill-advised decisions, invoking a gamble-like situation.
Vera’s reflections suggest a profound realization of the collective responsibility of the decision to return early. The consequences of that decision seemed evident in the outlook of both the player and the game’s outcome. His confession brings forth many pertinent issues in the sport and raises questions regarding the importance of adequate rest and delays in return.
It is explicit that following a team decision can sometimes blur personal judgments, leading to a risk-prone situation. Marlon Vera’s story serves as a timely reminder of that for both athletes and sports enthusiasts alike. It underlines the importance of decision-making and the immense power it holds in shaping the course and outcomes of future events.