Why do people like champion to defend everytime?

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Why do people like champion to defend everytime?
Kudos
2/27/07 3:38:53PM
I want to hear arguments. I am in favor of non-title match, but I want to hear others. I know a lot of people say champion lose credit after a loss in a non-title match, but if they win in a rematch, do they get it back? If the champion defend the belt and lose the belt, do they lose credit?

Why defending the belt every time is bad
- Fluke win by someone undeserving of the belt
- Possible 3rd rematches (Couture vs. Liddell (3), Arlovski vs. Sylvia (3))
- MMA is not boxing, so you don't have to defend everytime
- Belt can switch hand frequently
- Fighter demand more money if they win their first belt (bad for promotion)
- Champion get rematches after loss, kind of like losing then defending

Why non-title fight is good
- After beating the Champ in a non-title fight, you get a title shot. No 3rd rematch.
- Give champion breather match
- Best fighter lose once in a while to newcomer. It's hard to be undefeated in MMA..
- Creates contenders and someone deserving of the belt
- Champion can have second chance
- If you are a better fighter, surely you can beat the champ twice

Of course, my arguments have flaws.
Dadaman
2/27/07 3:50:45PM
Well to be quite honest I agree with some of the points you present. And, sure there is no answer that is %100 correct because that's just the way things are.

But if you're the champ then you're at the top of your game. You should always be at the top of your game. There should be no excuse for a division champion loosing besides being outfought.

If he's outfought then how can he still rightfully be the champion?

Gomi for instance. He gets a lot of leeway from Pride cus he's sorta their ambassador from Japan to America. Even though the rules where heavily in favor of Diaz (no knees/stomps) Gomi accepted the fight and he was outfought. So how is he still rightfully the champion after he submitted to another man? It's a champs responsibility to his name and his belt and the sport to defend what he has with all he can and then some.
Ydoc
2/27/07 4:00:16PM
When someone has a title they should have nothing but wins during their reign, but when your champion is a loser (recently) it takes away from the belt and that fighter. He looks protected and groomed for the belt instead of a true champion. Pretty soon the belt means nothing and isn't a selling point for that company. Why even have belts if you aren't going to use them to distinguish the best from the rest?


Posted by Kudos
I know a lot of people say champion lose credit after a loss in a non-title match, but if they win in a rematch, do they get it back? If the champion defend the belt and lose the belt, do they lose credit?



Yes they lose credit and there needs to be a road back to title contention for the title loser. That makes it a better story and more sense if a guy loses his belts but wins two fights to get a chance to win it back... and by that time there could be another new champion. I hate when rematches of title matches happen right after the contender won... he didn't get that luxury... he had to earn his fight and so should everyone else.
JimiMak
2/27/07 4:17:47PM
The whole point of having titles is to have "the best" guy always putting that up against, either #2 or an appropriate contender. A "fluke loss" to someone who has earned their way up to a title shot isn't a fluke. A champion should never be in the ring with someone who is considered unworthy to hold the title if he should win. And if said unworthy fighter beats a champion, he wasn't really unworthy. Frequent changing of hands of a title isn't a bad thing if it is consistently changing among the best hands. People want to see the best match possible, it takes away from a fight, IMO, to know even if the guy wins he can't be champ- if he beats the champ, he should be champ. Without consistent title defenses (this includes Fedor, due to lack of) you might as well not have a champ, either just have a tourney champ or no champ like PRIDE originally did.
Kudos
2/27/07 4:33:04PM

Posted by JimiMak

The whole point of having titles is to have "the best" guy always putting that up against, either #2 or an appropriate contender. A "fluke loss" to someone who has earned their way up to a title shot isn't a fluke. A champion should never be in the ring with someone who is considered unworthy to hold the title if he should win. And if said unworthy fighter beats a champion, he wasn't really unworthy. Frequent changing of hands of a title isn't a bad thing if it is consistently changing among the best hands. People want to see the best match possible, it takes away from a fight, IMO, to know even if the guy wins he can't be champ- if he beats the champ, he should be champ. Without consistent title defenses (this includes Fedor, due to lack of) you might as well not have a champ, either just have a tourney champ or no champ like PRIDE originally did.



Didn't Gomi put up a good fight against Diaz even though it's a non-title fight?
Diaz is a newcomer and get a shot at Gomi right away where as guys like Aoki and Gilbert should've fought Gomi before him. Fluke win can happen when a champion fight a new comer, not saying Diaz win was a fluke. Diaz get a title shot at Gomi now, and I am sure he's confident he can beat Gomi again. Just think of it as a loss champion getting his rematch.

My point is that I don't like seeing belt change hand frequently. Imagine if Randy beat Timmey, Timmey beat Randy in a rematch therefore get the belt back. Randy want a rematch because he just loss the belt and win it back in the 3rd rematch. What is the point of the belt then if it can changes hand each time a fight happen?

BTW, how does Randy deserve a title shot then if he have two straight title shot fights with Chuck and then get a 3rd title fight with Tim? Just because he's popular?
JimiMak
2/27/07 5:00:23PM

Posted by Kudos


Posted by JimiMak

The whole point of having titles is to have "the best" guy always putting that up against, either #2 or an appropriate contender. A "fluke loss" to someone who has earned their way up to a title shot isn't a fluke. A champion should never be in the ring with someone who is considered unworthy to hold the title if he should win. And if said unworthy fighter beats a champion, he wasn't really unworthy. Frequent changing of hands of a title isn't a bad thing if it is consistently changing among the best hands. People want to see the best match possible, it takes away from a fight, IMO, to know even if the guy wins he can't be champ- if he beats the champ, he should be champ. Without consistent title defenses (this includes Fedor, due to lack of) you might as well not have a champ, either just have a tourney champ or no champ like PRIDE originally did.



Didn't Gomi put up a good fight against Diaz even though it's a non-title fight?
Diaz is a newcomer and get a shot at Gomi right away where as guys like Aoki and Gilbert should've fought Gomi before him. Fluke win can happen when a champion fight a new comer, not saying Diaz win was a fluke. Diaz get a title shot at Gomi now, and I am sure he's confident he can beat Gomi again. Just think of it as a loss champion getting his rematch.

My point is that I don't like seeing belt change hand frequently. Imagine if Randy beat Timmey, Timmey beat Randy in a rematch therefore get the belt back. Randy want a rematch because he just loss the belt and win it back in the 3rd rematch. What is the point of the belt then if it can changes hand each time a fight happen?

BTW, how does Randy deserve a title shot then if he have two straight title shot fights with Chuck and then get a 3rd title fight with Tim? Just because he's popular?



Gomi did put up a good fight, however should not have walked out as champ. "Flukes" are wins none the less. No newcomer should fight a champ, unless brought in and built up as a threat right away. I also don't think a dethroned champ should get an immediate rematch, he should have to earn it just like everyone else.

I guess my main point is that I don't see the point of a belt if it can't change hands everytime. A champ has to really earn a long run. Otherwise they are just a figure head/ poster boy. BTW I also don't think champs should fight in tournaments, they should be to decide who gets shots at belts.

I couldn't agree more on Randy. They needed to have Tim fight someone before CroCop, and someone they felt would make him look legitimate if he knocks out.
zephead
2/27/07 5:01:06PM
They have the #1 contender, the #2 contender ect. etc. for a reason. You have the belt and others want it. People train their whole lives to be the champ. To allow someone to fight the champ i.e. Zulu fighting Fedor or Diaz fighting Gomi with nothing on the line, makes it for me, a bogus fight. Pride wanted to showcase Gomi but they also wanted an American fighter to fight, thinking he would dominate Diaz and Americans would go "Wow. he can fight." It backfired.


How would Fedor like to have fought Nog for nothing. No belt on the line, just a fight? It means nothing. In fighting, once the belts around you're waist, you're defending everytime you step into the cage or octogon. The Zulu fight was just a joke. A waste of a fight on the card. Fedor, as the champ, gets to fight and has no fear of losing the belt. So what stops him from trying new techniques out? Fighting from his knees? Doing strictly sambo? Jui-Jitsu?

How would you like to be the #1 contender in your weight class, have done nothing but sacrifice your whole life to get to that point of fighting for the belt. Your last fight was against the next best and you beat him. You know now is your shot. They then allow the champ to fight a non-title fight and he loses. Now you have to wait for their rematch. Is that right?
SteedTheDeed
2/27/07 5:09:13PM
some good points but i still would like more title defenses. maybe not every match but they never defend.
Kudos
2/27/07 5:45:23PM

Posted by zephead

They have the #1 contender, the #2 contender ect. etc. for a reason. You have the belt and others want it. People train their whole lives to be the champ. To allow someone to fight the champ i.e. Zulu fighting Fedor or Diaz fighting Gomi with nothing on the line, makes it for me, a bogus fight. Pride wanted to showcase Gomi but they also wanted an American fighter to fight, thinking he would dominate Diaz and Americans would go "Wow. he can fight." It backfired.


How would Fedor like to have fought Nog for nothing. No belt on the line, just a fight? It means nothing. In fighting, once the belts around you're waist, you're defending everytime you step into the cage or octogon. The Zulu fight was just a joke. A waste of a fight on the card. Fedor, as the champ, gets to fight and has no fear of losing the belt. So what stops him from trying new techniques out? Fighting from his knees? Doing strictly sambo? Jui-Jitsu?

How would you like to be the #1 contender in your weight class, have done nothing but sacrifice your whole life to get to that point of fighting for the belt. Your last fight was against the next best and you beat him. You know now is your shot. They then allow the champ to fight a non-title fight and he loses. Now you have to wait for their rematch. Is that right?



I agree that a champ should defend the belt every time, but against contender only. In the case of Diaz, a newcomer, I think a non-title is ok. In the case where champion fight contenders all the time, there would be a shortage of contenders like Fedor. Liddell is running out of contenders too. Shortage of contenders will just lead to rematches.

Fedor fight in sambo tournaments a lot and there's nothing for grab. He fight to compete with himself and to improve himself. He would fight the same with or without anything to lose.

Both Pride and UFC have problem with title fights. Like right now, Randy getting a shot at Tim. Randy have loss two title shots in LHW division and now he have an automatic title shot in the HW division make no sense to me. He last fought in the HW division and loss. Hughes and Franklin will problem get their shot at their title after their win at UFC 68.
Reignofterror
2/27/07 6:13:30PM
Some of the points you say that are bad in my opinion are actually good. For example having the belt passed around frequently.

I believe that if a champion is truly the champion then he will defend his title everytime he fights, it should be there responsibility. If they lose a non title match many people will question whether they are truly deserving of the title, like what many people thought this weekend over Nick Diaz' win over Takanori Gomi. Gomi is undoubtedly an excellent fighter but he lost to Nick Diaz in a non title fight which makes it an awkward situation for the champion who really shouldn't be the champion anymore. Pride could also gain much more credibility if each time one of their champions fought it was for the title, because quite frankly I feel disappointed when what could be a great title fight turns into a regular match up, and for many other fans it even turns them off the whole event.
DirtySouthBoss
2/27/07 6:28:39PM
I am going to go out on a limb and say why not?

The belts are there for a reason and if a fighter gains one or loses it in a night then it is because they deserve to. It makes it more exciting and if the challenger is better then hell get the belt and keep it from whoever challenges him next.

There are no regular seasons and most fighters only fight every few months. It would take too long to have set up matches and then title shots every time.
hippysmacker
2/27/07 6:28:54PM
I think champ's should always defend . There have been some title matches from time to time where I thought the challenger unworthy, but you never know. Someone may be underated or unkown at the time. As of 2007 I think their is enough talent that anyone fighting for a title should be someone people could conceivably be seen as top 10 or a fomer champ at least. I wish Randy hadn't come out of retirement. He is my favorite all-time fighter, and I fear he could get hurt at his age. He 's lost s step in my eyes, and also has nothing left to prove in them. Still, he is a former champ. Since Vera and the UFC couldn't come to an agreement , and Gonzaga hasn't earned it ,I think it was the best possible scenario they could come up with on short notice. Sure Cro-cop would have been better, but that's a promotional thing more than anything, they just wanted to showcase him first . As for Diaz most people had him ranked in the top 10 at a higher weight, which makes him desreving in my eyes. I hate to quote spiderman ,but " with great power comes great responsibilty". Being champ gives, you that power, prestige, and money. If you are the champ you should have to defend , otherwise there is no point is striving to hold that belt. It becomes meaningless to me. Non-title matches against unworthy opponents is worse than defending against unworthy opponents in my eyes. Legends like Sakuraba and Randy may get more title shot's than their ranking strictly deserve, but they are legends. This sport wouldn't be were it is without them now. Royce could have had a title shot, but didn't want to commit to fighting full-time if he won. That's his right as a legend IMO. At least if the title is on the line , a guy knows if he gives it his all and wins he will be rewarded. Well that's my 2 cents
jocksmall
2/27/07 6:40:09PM
i believe that if a guy makes weight and beats the champ then we have a new champ. why should he have to beat him twice?
Thalzaar
2/27/07 7:22:01PM
I believe champs should defend each time. Perfect example that has been mentioned is the Gomi/Diaz fight. In my opinion, Gomi didn't take the fight seriously, didn't train hard and even in his interview, he basically was pretty mellow about the fight, just saying he was enjoying Vegas, enjoyed the fight, etc. He didn't give it his full attention, and why not? He was going to be champion win or lose. Diaz on the other hand and a lot to prove. First fight in PRIDE, so he had to make a statement, which he did and I look forward to seeing how far he goes in PRIDE.

Putting the title on the line keeps champs more focused, imo. You don't see Liddel coming to a fight halfway prepared. He always gives it his best. I'm not a huge fan of Liddel, but I give him credit where credit is due. He gets the job done and defends his title each time.

I'm not a fan of champions fighting without defending. However, I can sorta see the other side of the coin. Sometimes it's nice to just go out and bang without any worries for a change, but then again, they are the champ, so they gotta represent what they are capable of and show they deserve that title.
hathcock32
2/27/07 7:49:20PM
I dont get how anyone could say the champion fighting in a non-title fight is a good idea. First of all guys only fight 4-5 times a year. Makes no since to not have every fight a title fight. Thats why Chucks streak is so impressive he defends it every match
JimiMak
2/27/07 8:27:36PM
If a champ is gonna have one of their couple of fights a year they should all be against ppl who have earned the right to fight for the title. You're robbing them of a title shot just as much as if Diaz had gotten one.

I also wanna say that, I think, the reason they used nick in this fight is because of his recognizability in the US. PRIDE will soon realize that US fans are more concerned with title matches and contendership order than asian fans. The Japanese are content to see a champ vs someone who will put up a good fight or a freakshow. Americans want to see a direct road in which a fighter goes up a specific ladder and fights other top contenders to determine who gets the shot. It's almost like there is a constant tourney goin on. Even Dana White would do well to announce that matches are for a shot at the belt before they happen. That's also why I don't think a champ should get first rematch, the next #1 should've been determined earlier in the night (or at a previous ppv).
dstlvb
2/27/07 8:48:58PM
The belt changing hands is not a bad thing. IF you have a weight class trading the belt around and one guy steps up and holds it for an exteneded time it makes his accomplishment all that more special. The best thing that can happen is a couple title changes then a dominant champion. Eventually you get back to the title changing hands again
roadking95th
2/27/07 9:03:36PM
I believe anytime a Champ is fighting at his weight class, it should be a title fight. The only exception I could see would be for a tournament. I do like the idea a setting up very good fighters from different weight classes and then, obvisously, the belt would not be on the line unless it is at the weight class the belt represents.

How impressive is it for a Champ to have losses, during his "reign," when he has loss to someone at his weight class. I don't care how long you have held the belt, I care how many times you have defended it.

As far as Trilogies, I think they should only apply when the loser of the second match works his way back to the top going through contenders. The way our wrestle-offs worked in school was you had to beat the starter 2 times. If the starter won the first time, the challenger had to prove himself again. If the challenger won the first time, then the original starter got an immediate rematch, if time allowed before the next duel meet.. As an example: Silva beat Franklin. Silva now is Champ, but the former Champ, Franklin gets first shot for title. Now, no matter who wins the 2nd match, the loser has to earn his way back to the top. If Franklin, the Champ, had won the first time, then Silva would have to earn a rematch.

If an org. is worried about paying more to an "unworthy" fighter, who lucked into the belt, then they shouldn't put the fighter into a situation where he could win the fight.

THE_AXE_MURDERER
2/27/07 9:13:30PM

Posted by Kudos

I want to hear arguments. I am in favor of non-title match, but I want to hear others. I know a lot of people say champion lose credit after a loss in a non-title match, but if they win in a rematch, do they get it back? If the champion defend the belt and lose the belt, do they lose credit?

Why defending the belt every time is bad
- Fluke win by someone undeserving of the belt
- Possible 3rd rematches (Couture vs. Liddell (3), Arlovski vs. Sylvia (3))
- MMA is not boxing, so you don't have to defend everytime
- Belt can switch hand frequently
- Fighter demand more money if they win their first belt (bad for promotion)
- Champion get rematches after loss, kind of like losing then defending

Why non-title fight is good
- After beating the Champ in a non-title fight, you get a title shot. No 3rd rematch.
- Give champion breather match
- Best fighter lose once in a while to newcomer. It's hard to be undefeated in MMA..
- Creates contenders and someone deserving of the belt
- Champion can have second chance
- If you are a better fighter, surely you can beat the champ twice

Of course, my arguments have flaws.

Ageed.
MattHughes
2/27/07 9:51:03PM
The best fighter should have the belt, it's as simple as that. There is no such thing as a "fluke" win or a "lucky" win. Every fighter has been training hard and they go in the ring/octagon looking to win. They throw punches with every intention of hurting their opponent or knocking them out, they look for submissions on the ground. No such thing as a lucky win, and right now I would not want to be in Gomi's shoes, hes the "champ" but he just lost a fight. Theres no way he can feel like the champ now and people don't see him as the champ. I like Gomi more than Diaz but Diaz deserves that belt, and Gomi doesn't deserve the title "Champion" right now.
Svartorm
2/28/07 2:19:16AM
I think all fights should be for the belt, with the exception of open weight fights. I don't think champs should be in tournaments either unless its an open weight tournament.

I think fighters who lose the belt should have to work their way back up, and that the #1 contender should get a shot. There are exceptions though, like signing a huge fighter, as they should be able to jump the rankings a bit, like Cro-cop.
shawneth
2/28/07 4:21:49PM
To hold the championship belt, means that you are currently the best... If you lose to someone(in a non-title fight), you cannot possibly be the best. If the belt holder loses a fight and still gets to hold the belt, the belt means nothing.
JimiMak
2/28/07 5:47:43PM

Posted by MattHughes

The best fighter should have the belt, it's as simple as that. There is no such thing as a "fluke" win or a "lucky" win. Every fighter has been training hard and they go in the ring/octagon looking to win. They throw punches with every intention of hurting their opponent or knocking them out, they look for submissions on the ground. No such thing as a lucky win, and right now I would not want to be in Gomi's shoes, hes the "champ" but he just lost a fight. Theres no way he can feel like the champ now and people don't see him as the champ. I like Gomi more than Diaz but Diaz deserves that belt, and Gomi doesn't deserve the title "Champion" right now.



I agree with everything you said, but I hate your avatar
Related Topics