Dana White keeps the UFC rematch between Charles do Bronx and Holloway a secret, but praises it: 'Incredible fight'

As there is a verbal agreement between the parties, the official, even without giving a definitive answer, tried to praise the possible fight

Dana White during a UFC event. Photo: Reproduction/Instagram/UFC

Dana White during a UFC event. Photo: Reproduction/Instagram/UFC

The next fight charles do brox in the UFC is not as simple to resolve as it seems. Last Saturday (11), in Rio de Janeiro, the former lightweight champion (up to 70,3 kg) recovered in the company by finishing Mateusz gamrot and immediately challenged Max Holloway, eyeing the 'BMF' title (toughest fighter in the company). The Hawaiian then expressed his support for the duel to take place, but Dana White kept it a secret.

At the post-Contender Series press conference, held last Tuesday (14), in Las Vegas (USA), the UFC president did not guarantee that the rematch between the sport's legends will happen next, despite the interest of part of the MMA community. Upon receiving Do Bronx's challenge, Holloway imposed as a condition that the fight take place outside Brazil and in early 2026.

See too

Durinho and Do Bronx are Brazilian stars in the UFC

In turn, Charles emphasized that he would face 'Blessed' at any date, time, and place. Since there is a verbal agreement between the parties, Dana, while not giving a definitive answer, was quick to praise the potential rematch.

"That would obviously be an incredible fight. To see both of them again, but we don't have anything. But we talked about it today," said the UFC president.

PUBLICITY:

Reckoning

charles do brox e Max Holloway They faced each other in the UFC in 2015, in the featherweight division (up to 65,8 kg). On that occasion, the Brazilian suffered an esophageal injury during the fight and was knocked out in the first round, in just over a minute. Visibly stronger mentally and physically, the athlete assured that, under normal circumstances, the fight would have developed completely differently.

Read More about: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,