Banks was supposed to lose the first fight to set Mitchell up for Wlad. Banks screwed up and landed on Mitchell and shattered that glass. He made sure to lose the second fight to help get Wlad's plan back on track, though Arreola permanently derailed any possibility of Mitchell getting a shot. So yeah, it was fixed.
Exactly. Wlad said in an interview, jokingly and sarcastically ''Why did Johnathon beat Seth? Now I have no good Americans to fight!'', but you can tell it was a fix.
i think it was an odd fight. it was even banks birthday and he fought like he wanted to lose. a couple times he would buzz Mitchell almost by accident then would let up the gas almost as if "oh **** i gotta chill" and kept his foot of the gas for that whole round. GBP probably cut him a nice fat under the table "bonus" for that fight.
LOL at the conspiracy theories. If they paid Banks to take a dive, why would they then put him in a fight against someone who could and did knock him out without doing the same again? What was the end game to paying off Banks. Banks has sparring partner syndrome. It's a mindset some fighters get into. He couldn't pull the trigger because he's been the guy paid to not pull the trigger in sparring for so long.
The whole thing reminded me of the Flintoff fight, in wich Dawson stopped punching when he knew he would hurt Freddy with anything he trew at him.
Conspiracy theories? It's OBVIOUS. Mitchell is leagues below Banks. Obviously Banks winning the first time was a mistake, Wlad wanted Banks to lose so he'd get Mitchell.
Banks coulda finished that any round he wanted Someone actually picked Mitchell to beat Arreola based on the Banks II fight, it was definitely fixed
If it were fixed, my guess is that the payoff would have included Banks trying to make it mildly entertaining or let himself get knocked out. That alone makes me question why people would buy into the fix argument. This fight is not much more likely than any other fight to be fixed, just sayin.