New Belt Policy

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » New Belt Policy
Next Page »
POLL: Should belts change hands due to a Judges Decision?
Yes 73% (41)
No 27% (15)
MisterFreeze
4/13/10 9:18:38PM
Should the UFC change their championship belt policies so that belts cannot change hands under Judges Decisions?

Perhaps the belt should only change hands when a champion is definitively defeated such as KO, TKO, Submission or Doctor Stoppage?

What do you think?

What would be the pro's and con's of such a rule?


This could prevent outcomes like Edgar vs Penn and Machida vs Rua.

Edgar could still take the win, but BJ could keep the belt and I think everyone would be much happier. (well except Edgar lol)
It was kinda reversed for Machida and Rua. Rua should have gotten the win but Machida still could keep the title until he is definitively beaten.

Discuss.
KaibaThedon
4/13/10 9:24:51PM
cuz Anderson Silva can run around the Octagon for another 3 rounds every fight and not lose his belt?
Violence108
4/13/10 9:33:18PM
if u can control your opp. for 5 rounds thats his problem , the champs do what they have to to win and keep there belt, its the opp. job to take it
postman
4/13/10 9:42:53PM
No offense but maybe the worst I dea I have ever encountered.
MisterFreeze
4/13/10 10:00:06PM

Posted by postman

No offense but maybe the worst I dea I have ever encountered.



Well just to clarify, i'm not saying the UFC should do this. I'm just asking what you guys think about this idea and asking about the pros and cons.
slapshot
4/13/10 10:06:36PM
I think its a dead question seeing as the UFC cant change this rule.

The athletic commission would be responsible for this type of change and there is absolutely zero chance they would implement it.

seanfu
4/13/10 10:09:18PM
Maybe losing a belt over a close decision will make the champs work harder. You think they fight just to keep the title now think about how little aggression they'll have when they don't even have to win their fight to keep the belt.
postman
4/13/10 10:15:01PM

Posted by MisterFreeze


Posted by postman

No offense but maybe the worst I dea I have ever encountered.



Well just to clarify, i'm not saying the UFC should do this. I'm just asking what you guys think about this idea and asking about the pros and cons.



Ok. The best thing they can do is give each judge a 1080 p 19 in lcd tv and let them watch the fight the best way they can. Lets be honest the atmospher is the best part of being at a fight sitting at home inront of your hd tv is the best view of the fight hands down. There is actually a thread up today from someone who was at 112 that was angry because the camera men mad it hard to see the action. Sitting cage side are the worst seats your too low the cage hinders your view then you have the supports in your way camera men maybe the lights are in your eyes they are fighting on the ground clear accross the cage its stupid that these guys don't have moniters.
grappler0000
4/13/10 10:15:19PM

Posted by slapshot

I think its a dead question seeing as the UFC cant change this rule.

The athletic commission would be responsible for this type of change and there is absolutely zero chance they would implement it.




That's not technically true. The commission only determines who wins a fight. They have no say in what an organization does with their belts. Technically, the UFC could say the belt only changes hands if you finish the champ. They would never do that...and of coarse, that would seem very odd and you'd see people heads explode trying to rationalize it, but it's ultimately their decision.
Boo_Radley21
4/13/10 10:19:07PM
They definitely can't do that IMO it defeats the purpose of having a belt. A loss at the hands of the judges is still a loss no matter how you look at it. You can't let a guy keep his belt if he doesn't win the fight and I tihnk it's as simple as that
grappler0000
4/13/10 10:20:12PM

Posted by postman


Posted by MisterFreeze


Posted by postman

No offense but maybe the worst I dea I have ever encountered.



Well just to clarify, i'm not saying the UFC should do this. I'm just asking what you guys think about this idea and asking about the pros and cons.



Ok. The best thing they can do is give each judge a 1080 p 19 in lcd tv and let them watch the fight the best way they can. Lets be honest the atmospher is the best part of being at a fight sitting at home inront of your hd tv is the best view of the fight hands down. There is actually a thread up today from someone who was at 112 that was angry because the camera men mad it hard to see the action. Sitting cage side are the worst seats your too low the cage hinders your view then you have the supports in your way camera men maybe the lights are in your eyes they are fighting on the ground clear accross the cage its stupid that these guys don't have moniters.



Cecil people has a monitor that he uses when the fight goes to the ground...it's kind of in the shape of a Gameboy.
postman
4/13/10 10:26:01PM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by postman


Posted by MisterFreeze


Posted by postman

No offense but maybe the worst I dea I have ever encountered.



Well just to clarify, i'm not saying the UFC should do this. I'm just asking what you guys think about this idea and asking about the pros and cons.



Ok. The best thing they can do is give each judge a 1080 p 19 in lcd tv and let them watch the fight the best way they can. Lets be honest the atmospher is the best part of being at a fight sitting at home inront of your hd tv is the best view of the fight hands down. There is actually a thread up today from someone who was at 112 that was angry because the camera men mad it hard to see the action. Sitting cage side are the worst seats your too low the cage hinders your view then you have the supports in your way camera men maybe the lights are in your eyes they are fighting on the ground clear accross the cage its stupid that these guys don't have moniters.



Cecil people has a monitor that he uses when the fight goes to the ground...it's kind of in the shape of a Gameboy.


Nice
TimW001
4/13/10 10:39:19PM

Posted by postman

No offense but maybe the worst I dea I have ever encountered.



He's not the first person to suggest this. It's actually a fairly old idea.

Still a poor one though, in my opinion.
Taylor8766
4/13/10 10:42:39PM
Ya definetly if the opponent does enough to win it via decision then ya, Edgar did enough to beat Penn, and if it wasnt like that we would have some bad calls, ala Bisping/Hamill. Now if Penn where to retain his title in that fight alot of people would question the judges, so IMO the judges are gunna make some bad calls but all in all as the saying goes "Never Leave it in the hands of the Judges".
slapshot
4/13/10 10:51:38PM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by slapshot

I think its a dead question seeing as the UFC cant change this rule.

The athletic commission would be responsible for this type of change and there is absolutely zero chance they would implement it.




That's not technically true. The commission only determines who wins a fight. They have no say in what an organization does with their belts. Technically, the UFC could say the belt only changes hands if you finish the champ. They would never do that...and of coarse, that would seem very odd and you'd see people heads explode trying to rationalize it, but it's ultimately their decision.


I dont agree, the commission decides the rule they fight by, picks the judges and refs and ultimately tells the UFC what they are required to do to be sanctioned. I dont think they would sanction the UFC if this was done.

I did misread the post though and you are right the belts are UFC's territory.
MisterFreeze
4/13/10 10:54:53PM

Posted by slapshot


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by slapshot

I think its a dead question seeing as the UFC cant change this rule.

The athletic commission would be responsible for this type of change and there is absolutely zero chance they would implement it.




That's not technically true. The commission only determines who wins a fight. They have no say in what an organization does with their belts. Technically, the UFC could say the belt only changes hands if you finish the champ. They would never do that...and of coarse, that would seem very odd and you'd see people heads explode trying to rationalize it, but it's ultimately their decision.


I dont agree, the commission decides the rule they fight by, picks the judges and refs and ultimately tells the UFC what they are required to do to be sanctioned. Because this would effect the judging of fights it would absolutely be decided by the commission.



How would it affect the judging? It should have no bearing on the judging whatsoever. The judges will still judge according to all the same criteria, it's just that if it should happen to reach the judges, the champion would retain his belt no matter the outcome. Whether he wins or loses.
ncordless
4/13/10 11:13:35PM
Why stop there? Make a rule that the champ has to bleed to lose the belt. Or maybe let Dana give a thumbs up or down at the end of the fight. If the fight was boring, just execute both of them for the fans so they can get their money's worth.
chickmagnet
4/13/10 11:47:03PM
What if a champ gets dominated for five rounds?? This is not a good idea and is unfair to contenders.
MisterFreeze
4/13/10 11:52:46PM

Posted by chickmagnet

What if a champ gets dominated for five rounds?? This is not a good idea and is unfair to contenders.



Well if he gets dominated why didn't the fighter finish it??
A champ should be stopped to lose their belt.
grappler0000
4/13/10 11:59:42PM

Posted by MisterFreeze


Posted by chickmagnet

What if a champ gets dominated for five rounds?? This is not a good idea and is unfair to contenders.



Well if he gets dominated why didn't the fighter finish it??
A champ should be stopped to lose their belt.



So, Fedor would've never been Pride champ, regardless of how many times he whooped on Nog?
Caesarrrr
4/14/10 12:08:19AM
I absolutely think not, this is a horrible idea. First of all, it puts the fighters in far more danger. If you have to finish a champ, there is a high chance that you'll have people getting seriously hurt. Broken arms and such.

On the otherside, if you had done this for the penn fight, you said nobody would care except edgar, but thats entirely wrong. If the champ loses and keeps the belt, where is the credibility in calling him the "Champion?" when he clearly isn't?
MisterFreeze
4/14/10 12:14:14AM

Posted by Caesarrrr

I absolutely think not, this is a horrible idea. First of all, it puts the fighters in far more danger. If you have to finish a champ, there is a high chance that you'll have people getting seriously hurt. Broken arms and such.

On the otherside, if you had done this for the penn fight, you said nobody would care except edgar, but thats entirely wrong. If the champ loses and keeps the belt, where is the credibility in calling him the "Champion?" when he clearly isn't?




I honestly doubt it puts the fighters in more danger. Any fighter is in danger of being KOed or submitted at any point in the fight. Therefore they're already in danger.
The danger doesn't increase simply by making those KO's and submissions a requirement for a belt transfer.
the_01
4/14/10 12:17:20AM
I like the way you think, creative.
BlueSkiesBurn
4/14/10 12:20:42AM

Posted by ncordless

Why stop there? Make a rule that the champ has to bleed to lose the belt. Or maybe let Dana give a thumbs up or down at the end of the fight. If the fight was boring, just execute both of them for the fans so they can get their money's worth.






My friend with his Ph.D. always calls the sport Modern Day Gladiation so this could only prove him right. But, FYI ncordless, he never turned his thumb down, it stayed sideways or went up. The Roman thumb down is a Hollywood myth. I'd say to usher in a new era of Caesar we could institute the Roman thumb down.
NatedawgThaM
4/14/10 4:38:14AM
So if Diego vs Guida was a 5 round title fight and Guida was the champion and it still played out the same way. Guida would keep his title? That's ridiculous. Some guys are difficult to finish if they ever get finished.
vomitshovel
4/14/10 9:53:21AM
The point of 5 rounds is to make sure it doesn't go the distance. However it does.
The only thing that will work, as this DEFINITELY wont, would be to make sure the fight ends definitively.
Anderson would love your proposed fix....
But in all honesty i think the only way the fight can be made to be fair for both is for the judges to regard the champ as the champ.
IE, edgar shouldnt have been given a win if he JUST skated through.
The machida - rua verdict was on the right track.
Champ must be BEATEN, and if its by points, it must be a definitive win.
If it can be argued, he shouldnt lose the belt
Caesarrrr
4/14/10 12:13:45PM

I honestly doubt it puts the fighters in more danger. Any fighter is in danger of being KOed or submitted at any point in the fight. Therefore they're already in danger. The danger doesn't increase simply by making those KO's and submissions a requirement for a belt transfer.



Why should belts not change hands over decisions? just because they might be controversial, it doesn't change a thing. Most people probably like this idea of finishing because its more exciting, but why shouldn't a champ have to finish his opponent to retain the belt? Why not turn it around? If the champs are the best, shouldn't they be able to finish their opponents?

and the danger aspect comes from this, some fighters do fight for decisions, whether it is because they're unable to finish fights, or they're simply fighting safe, a few fighters look for points, and then finish, not the other way around. If you forced a fighter to finish the fight, you're now making him look for finishes first, which possibly should be how it is, but regardless, there is a higher chance for a brutal ko or sub.

Whats to stop the champs from pulling a silva and dancing the entire fight anyways?

Its just a horrible idea.
Jackelope
4/14/10 12:31:28PM
One of the most dominant performances I ever saw was Brian Baker vs. Chael Sonnen. Chael straight wrecked him for 3 10-8 rounds IMO. But Baker held tough and Chael isn't exactly a finisher... so it went to a decision. If a fighter ever did that to a champ and didn't win the belt because he couldn't finish that would be the worst robbing in history.

So... no. I don't like it.
Giant_Ochai
4/14/10 2:06:00PM
What a horrible idea.
Bubbles
4/14/10 2:08:44PM
horrible idea. every champ would then start becoming Kalib Starns or Thales Leites and avoid engaging just to retain their belt
Pages: [1] 2
Related Topics