Imagine witnessing a UFC star nearly come to blows with another fighter over a controversial call at a local MMA event—in Turkey, of all places. But here’s where it gets controversial: Was Carlos Prates justified in calling out Mavlud Tupiev’s decision to stop fighting after an illegal strike, or did he cross the line? Let’s dive in.
Earlier this week, UFC’s Carlos Prates found himself at the center of a heated exchange during the Core FC 2 event in Istanbul, Turkey, on December 11, 2025. The incident unfolded during the main event bout between Erdem Taha Dincer and Mavlud Tupiev. Tupiev dominated the early rounds, but fatigue set in, allowing Dincer to regain momentum in the third. During a cage-side exchange, Dincer landed an illegal soccer kick to Tupiev’s head. While the strike connected, it didn’t appear to cause fight-ending damage. Ultimately, Tupiev was deemed unable to continue, and Dincer was disqualified, handing Tupiev the win.
And this is the part most people miss: Prates, who was ringside for the action, took issue with Tupiev’s decision to stop fighting after the illegal strike. From outside the cage, Prates began vocalizing his frustration, accusing Tupiev of quitting. Tupiev, clearly offended, attempted to leave the cage to confront Prates in the stands. Security intervened, and Prates was eventually escorted out of the arena to prevent the situation from escalating.
What makes this incident so intriguing is the unexpected presence of a UFC star at a regional MMA event in Turkey, coupled with his willingness to openly criticize another fighter’s decision. Prates didn’t hold back, later taking to Instagram to express his frustration: ‘That guy gave up the fight and said he couldn’t fight because of an easy illegal kick. And one minute later, he gets mad with me and tries to fight me. Luckily for him, security didn’t let us fight, piece of s—t. Stop giving up when you start winning and getting tired, bro.’
Here’s the controversial question: Was Prates right to call out Tupiev’s decision, or did he overstep by inserting himself into the situation? While illegal strikes are never acceptable, the debate over fighter resilience and when it’s appropriate to stop a fight is a nuanced one. Prates’ bold stance certainly sparks discussion—but is it fair to criticize a fighter’s decision to prioritize safety over pride?
Check out the footage below and share your thoughts. Is Prates a voice of reason, or did he take it too far? Let’s hear your take in the comments!
