Do You Believe Anyone Should Get A Title Shot After Only 2 Fights?

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Do You Believe Anyone Should Get A Title Shot After Only 2 Fights?
POLL: If a Fighter Has only Fought 2 Fights, is he worthy of a title shot?
Yes 39% (22)
No 61% (34)
KO
11/14/08 1:31:42PM
See Poll Below.
Jackelope
11/14/08 1:37:25PM
I'm going to put yes just because the question is so vague. I mean, obviously we all know who you're referring to, but I think the circumstances surrounding the title shot dictate the right to said title shot. In this case there are two belts being held in one division, and that division is weak as hell. So why not?

Now if this were the old days of Pride or the UFC then the answer would be absolutely not.
wiggum
11/14/08 1:43:22PM

Posted by Jackelope

I'm going to put yes just because the question is so vague. I mean, obviously we all know who you're referring to, but I think the circumstances surrounding the title shot dictate the right to said title shot. In this case there are two belts being held in one division, and that division is weak as hell. So why not?

Now if this were the old days of Pride or the UFC then the answer would be absolutely not.



totally agree.....also depends on were they are coming from.....like if its some noobie that demolishes two guys, then no....but if someone with a prominate background in something else, and already had a hype machine, then an argument could be made......like if mike tyson came in and walked thru mir noguira or lesnar...then give him couture!....obviously extremely unlikely, but ya'll get the point
aaa9erh8er
11/14/08 1:43:25PM
i put no but i think its open to situational interpretation. for example when shogun came over if he beat forrest then say liddel thats two fights worthy of a title shot. thats a example now thats for a stacked div. for a unstaked div for example when anderson was boosted into the MW div he got a shot after one fight but that was a stagnent (imo) div. now for present day i really have to agree with jackelop your question is to vauge.
RedCloud
11/14/08 1:47:13PM
Brocks had "3" Fights.
And - Hes a Big Exception to The Rule.
KO
11/14/08 1:51:05PM
My question is vague due to the fact I posted it differently earlier and about 5 minutes later it was deleted and I got a warning for fighter bashing. So I had to word it differently or get banned. I do agree with all of your comments though.
Jackelope
11/14/08 1:52:20PM

Posted by KO

My question is vague due to the fact I posted it differently earlier and about 5 minutes later it was deleted and I got a warning for fighter bashing. So I had to word it differently or get banned. I do agree with all of your comments though.


Ahh, I'll have to go look up what it said

Edit: Yeah I can see why it got deleted although honestly you can state that opinion without flaming. Just bring it up in a thoughtful manner without bashing directly on the fighter. I'll translate for you-

"I think Lesnar fighting Couture is a joke. I'm sure it will be a good fight, but if I was a heavyweight in the UFC I'd be pretty pissed if a 1-1 fighter got a title shot before me. He still has a lot to prove. I don't think just because someone has name recognition from the WWE they can come in and get a title shot based on that alone. What is the UFC thinking?

And on a side note: The guys on TUF this season are out of control. The UFC should do something about that before it's too late."

Man, I should get paid for translator services


Basshandsome
11/14/08 1:59:07PM
No! I mean there is no way that you can prove that you deserve a title shot after only 2 or 3 fights. If one of those fights is a loss and one of your wins is over a can then you really don’t deserve a shot. Also, if there is an interim title holder that has been waiting in line then it is a joke and clearly only got the shot for marketing reasons.
KO
11/14/08 2:00:45PM
Thanks for the translation. Hopefully I didn't piss off the other mod too bad, but I responded to his email he sent me.
Jackelope
11/14/08 2:07:07PM

Posted by KO

Thanks for the translation. Hopefully I didn't piss off the other mod too bad, but I responded to his email he sent me.



People usually get pretty pissed when they're warned. I've been warned in the past long ago, too. Luckily I was mature about it and just said "ok" Although I do understand how people can get emotional and pissed off about it.

Honestly sending a PM back and flaming the mod doesn't help your case much. Somebody did it to me the other day and usually all I ever say back to them is "hey, you broke the rules... I'm just enforcing them" People accuse we mods of taking the site too seriously, but c'mon.. a warning is just a slap on the wrist and believe me I rarely take any pleasure in having to administer said slaps. It's just a very necessary process to keep this site respectful and clean. If people want to get into a flaming war they can always visit Sherdog.

It's a thankless (and payless!) job. We take far too much hell and usually will back each other up. So that's why flaming back doesn't usually help your case much. In fact, for a lot of people it ends up resulting in a ban Bans are something I hate to see just because I enjoy having a wide variety of posters
KO
11/14/08 2:11:05PM
Brock has had 3 fights yes, but his UFC record is 1-1. If he wasn't a celebrity would he have this title shot? I think not, but don't get me wrong it will be a good fight.
KO
11/14/08 2:13:39PM
I understand.
Jackelope
11/14/08 2:14:32PM

Posted by KO

Brock has had 3 fights yes, but his UFC record is 1-1. If he wasn't a celebrity would he have this title shot? I think not, but don't get me wrong it will be a good fight.



I agree 100%. Unfortunately $$ makes the world go round. It's why the UFC is still in business, too... they know opportunity when they see one. They're being smart by cashing in on Brock before he becomes more mainstream MMA and the controversy surrounding the fight loses it's luster.

Main reason why I'm pissed is because Brock has a great potential to win this match just simply because it is a horrible match up style-wise for Couture. If they would have given Nog to Brock I'd be sitting back laughing my ass off right now
aaa9erh8er
11/14/08 2:17:29PM
on the topic of warnings i got one a while ago when serra got his title shot i felt it was unwarented due to the way he earned it( i hope im not bashing agian im trying) but see what i was a personal attack on the guy (originaly) and i do agree its bad
Jackelope
11/14/08 2:25:37PM

Posted by aaa9erh8er

on the topic of warnings i got one a while ago when serra got his title shot i felt it was unwarented due to the way he earned it( i hope im not bashing agian im trying) but see what i was a personal attack on the guy (originaly) and i do agree its bad



Not really following what you're saying here. Perhaps you can clarify?

There are very few fighters that I don't like. Brock is one of them. It's just a matter of finding a smart way to get your point across without being a jerk about it. I think that's one of the main misunderstandings about this site. It's not so much about what you're saying, it's how you say it. It is the internet and it is really easy to come off the wrong way even if you're saying something in jest.

As an example

"soandso" is a complete turd.

can be translated into

I think "soandso" is disrespectful to his opponents and doesn't have the skills to compete at the UFC level. Not to mention that I, personally, can't stand to hear him talk.

In the one you're blatantly using names to make a false general statement regarding a fighter. In the second one you're coming across a bit more intelligent, and while you're pretty much saying the same thing you're not being a jerk about it. Finally, you end it with a statement of personal opinion compared to trying to pass off a false general statement about a fighter.
emfleek
11/14/08 2:28:36PM
When that "anyone" is the biggest draw (PPV-wise and money-wise) in their division, AND you're first priority is to run a business, you're damn right they deserve a title shot.
gsquat
11/14/08 2:57:28PM
I selected yes on the basis that it depends. It depends on who the fighters said person has won and lost to. Its obvious who you're talking about, so you should check out fightmatrix.com. They have a certain fighter ranked thirteen because 66% of the fighters he's fought were top contenders.
AchillesHeel
11/14/08 3:14:01PM

Posted by gsquat

I selected yes on the basis that it depends. It depends on who the fighters said person has won and lost to. Its obvious who you're talking about, so you should check out fightmatrix.com. They have a certain fighter ranked thirteen because 66% of the fighters he's fought were top contenders.


I agree that a fighter's "strength of competition" should be considered when evaluating his losses... Except when deciding who deserves a title shot. For me, that should be reserved for someone with three wins in a row, at least one of which should be against another potential "#1 Contender." For Lesnar, losing well to Mir and then beating Herring isn't good enough. For Mir, losing to Vera then defeating Hardonk and Lesnar isn't good enough. The title fight should be Nogueira vs. Couture.

Since Werdum lost (and likely gone), Lesnar should be fighting Gabriel Gonzaga, and Mir should be fighting Cheick Kongo. If they both win, Mir would get the next title shot and Lesnar would fight somebody like Cain Velasquez, Shane Carwin, or Junior Dos Santos.

At least, that's how it would be if I were in charge.



p.s. The 3 wins in a row don't have to be all in the UFC, but they'd have to be against good competition. So I would count Nogueira's PRIDE win over Josh Barnett.
gsquat
11/14/08 3:17:51PM

Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by gsquat

I selected yes on the basis that it depends. It depends on who the fighters said person has won and lost to. Its obvious who you're talking about, so you should check out fightmatrix.com. They have a certain fighter ranked thirteen because 66% of the fighters he's fought were top contenders.


I agree that a fighter's "strength of competition" should be considered when evaluating his losses... Except when deciding who deserves a title shot. For me, that should be reserved for someone with three wins in a row, at least one of which should be against another potential "#1 Contender." For Lesnar, losing well to Mir and then beating Herring isn't good enough. For Mir, losing to Vera then defeating Hardonk and Lesnar isn't good enough. The title fight should be Nogueira vs. Couture.

Since Werdum lost (and likely gone), Lesnar should be fighting Gabriel Gonzaga, and Mir should be fighting Cheick Kongo. If they both win, Mir would get the next title shot and Lesnar would fight somebody like Cain Velasquez, Shane Carwin, or Junior Dos Santos.

At least, that's how it would be if I were in charge.



p.s. The 3 wins in a row don't have to be all in the UFC, but they'd have to be against good competition. So I would count Nogueira's PRIDE win over Josh Barnett.



I totally agree.
UFCmma666
11/14/08 4:09:32PM
only if he beats anderson silva and fedor in a row
anomoly
11/14/08 11:16:05PM
if you dominate in all three of your fights... yes ... and have millions of people watching your fights... yes
postman
11/15/08 10:05:27AM
For the most part I think not but the HW division is weak and there is 2 belts so this little tournment will be cool. Atleast we know who is the next in line for who. Not to mention this PPV is going to be huge for the sport bring in alot of money to the fighters the UFC abd Vegas. I wish it wasn't in Vegas because they would have had double the crowd due to the size of the building. As crapy as the economy is this fight would have done other citys much better. I think NYC really messed up had they passed MMA could you see the crowed at MSG for Brock v Randy?

The only guy I can think of who could have made a case for a title shot after 2 fights would be Soko after beating Lil Nog and Arona.
jocksmall
11/15/08 10:32:18AM
i think that the title isnt as important in the ufc as it is in other sports. maybe to individual fighters its important but to the fan and the governing bodies its not as important. there has never been a clear ranking system so we all know who the best is and thats why sites like this are popular so we can debate whos the best, who should get the next title shot etc. the ufc knows that every event needs to be sucessful and a few bad ones money wise can cause the company harm. that being said they put on shows to draw the most fans and use title matches as a draw. lets be honest here isnt big nog the champ? when he fights mir i bet that is marketed as a title match. in other sports brock would not be qualified but the ufc has alot invested in the guy and this is a way to get a return on their investment. i believe that once the ufc gets stronger they will be able to have more secure titles with guys having to work there way to a title shot. i have been critical of dana in the past but i am really impressed with the way he has conducted himself lately and been a positive spokesman in the media it is good for his business and will give the sport more coverage in the mainstream media.
to answer the question no a guy with only 3 fights shouldnt get a shot but i understan why and hope that the ufc is working towards being able to be more fair about titles. we should be getting big nog and randy but im looking foward to the event tonite and i hope randy wins and i hope brock puts up a great fight. i wouldnt be suprised if brock overpowers randy either.
prozacnation1978
11/15/08 1:47:26PM
are we talking lesnar record or two fights in ufc

if ufc yes i think if shields or lawler make it to ufc two fights they deserve a shot like cro cop was gonna get as well as shogun was going too
Pitbull09
11/15/08 6:38:32PM
Anderson Silva got a title shot in UFC after only 1 UFC fight if anyone didnt notice. If the division is weak, it happens. For the HW division it really isnt Lesnar who was the reason for getting the title shot. It was Randy leaving and Nog/MIr setting up a title fight. That only really leave Heath as a cotender and he lost.

I didnt vote cause it is situational as it should stay as rankings can ruin the potential matchups
mrsmiley
11/15/08 7:57:50PM
I voted no.

Everyone makes some decent points,but a guy with only 3 fights is too much of a question mark even if he wins a title.

I think to an extent their is a double standard set for what the UFC does compared to other promotions out their.What I mean by that is this:

Elite XC put Kimbo Slice in the main event against James Thompson and everyone said it was BS.It was bad for the sport and was doing a great dis-service to MMA.

Which I agree wholeheartedly.

But then Brock not only gets main event status,but also gets a title shot.Everyone then is very lean on the situation and claims it's just business and we should all understand the situation.

Now i'm not questioning Brock as an athlete or a competitor next to Kimbo Slice because their is no comparison.
Slice couldn't stand in the same cage as Brock.
But I think,and maybe my opinion is severly warped on the whole thing,that despite Kimbo not deserving main event status,I don't think it's quiet fair to call out Elite XC (or any other org for that matter),yet claim it's alright for the UFC to do something similar.Now We all know Elite XC had dirty hands,so that analogy is flawed.


SO Let me put it in simpler terms.
If Brock had never signed with the UFC,and won 1 or 2 good fights against decent competition,then went and fought Fedor in Affliction,a good majority of people would be flooding message boards bashing both Affliction and Fedor,and call Lesnar nothing more than a roid head to feed Fedor who supposedly has never fought any competition.
Yet it happens in the UFC and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
mrsmiley
11/15/08 8:15:50PM

Posted by prozacnation1978

are we talking lesnar record or two fights in ufc

if ufc yes i think if shields or lawler make it to ufc two fights they deserve a shot like cro cop was gonna get as well as shogun was going too



I see what your saying,but Crocop and Shogun,Lawler and Shields are already established fighters.
The might have only of been fighting one or 2 fights in the UFC,but they got plenty more fights outside of the UFC.Lesnar does not.
cmill21
11/15/08 8:31:17PM

Posted by mrsmiley


Posted by prozacnation1978

are we talking lesnar record or two fights in ufc

if ufc yes i think if shields or lawler make it to ufc two fights they deserve a shot like cro cop was gonna get as well as shogun was going too



I see what your saying,but Crocop and Shogun,Lawler and Shields are already established fighters.
The might have only of been fighting one or 2 fights in the UFC,but they got plenty more fights outside of the UFC.Lesnar does not.



Agreed totally different circumstances. Stars in MMA are not the same as stars in the WWE, Golberg would deserve an instant shot, he was like 100-0 at one point.
Related Topics