Non-Title fights

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Non-Title fights
pv3Hpv3p
1/26/07 4:11:56PM
A lot of people seem to crack down on Pride because of too many champs fighting non-title fights. How do ya'all feel about this?

Do you think having non-titles fights cheapens the belt and the champion?

If a champion loses a non-title fight, but wins a sanctioned rematch, where does that put things?

Do you just like to see a good fight between equally skilled opponents? (the belt being just a plus)

Please discuss...
jmoooooo
1/26/07 4:28:36PM
if you are the champion, every fight should be a title defense. It leaves no room for any shady business. (Champion fights someone from the same camp/one of his friends and "lays down" to help his friends career, but never risks losing the belt)

The champions never take it easy, and the challengers are rewarded fairly for beating the best.
punisherind
1/26/07 5:52:37PM
im okay with non-title fights if its during a grand prix or tournament, or if the opponent is in a heavier weight class. aside from those two exceptions, i think every fight should be a title defense.
BloodandTears
1/26/07 6:40:29PM

Posted by punisherind

im okay with non-title fights if its during a grand prix or tournament, or if the opponent is in a heavier weight class. aside from those two exceptions, i think every fight should be a title defense.



Thats it dude.. I'm with you, if a non title fight happens in a grand prix its ok..
hippysmacker
1/27/07 12:52:35AM

Posted by punisherind

im okay with non-title fights if its during a grand prix or tournament, or if the opponent is in a heavier weight class. aside from those two exceptions, i think every fight should be a title defense.



Totally agree, I think it odd that Big Nog only had one defense ever.(lost to Fedor)
the-james
1/28/07 4:44:26PM
I hate it, just make them defend their titles
Reignofterror
1/28/07 5:11:23PM
I don't understand the point of non title fights, and champions shouldn't be champions if their fighting and not defending their belts. Gomi and Silva both have the potential to hold their belts for as long as they have considering their skills so why does pride not give their champions all their fights title fights. Gomi is considered the number one lightweight in the world, and Wanderlei is a top 3, and they've proved that against the men they've beat. If Wand had his fights for the title I think he would've surpassed Liddell in terms of respect in the eyes of many fans.
ElGuApO91
1/28/07 6:04:06PM
i think that unless its an owgp non title fights are stpid because both fighters train hard and try to be as ready as thyey can be. and of course if the non title holder wins he still doesnt get the belt.
D-Boy
1/28/07 6:14:30PM

Posted by ElGuApO91

i think that unless its an owgp non title fights are stpid because both fighters train hard and try to be as ready as thyey can be. and of course if the non title holder wins he still doesnt get the belt.



I agree but I also think they shouldn't lose their titles in any kind of GP not just OP ones as training and injuries from previous matches can get in the way and change a fighters abilities against his next opponent
Svartorm
1/28/07 6:32:58PM
With the exception of fights outside their weightclass, I think its ok. Like Huges Vs. Riggs was cool with me, even though Riggs wasn't the correct weight to win the title.
crimethinc
1/28/07 6:47:11PM
I think within the weight clas it should always be a title defense. If I beat the current champ and wasn't considered the new champ I would be pretty dissappointed. Not making weight and losing your title shot makes perfect sense though. You can't be welterweight champ if you aren't a welterweight when you fight (weigh-in) even if it's just a pound or two.
Related Topics