Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST

Why do people like champion to defend everytime?

Print  
  Page 2 of 2     1     2  
Posted By Message

JimiMak

WarWagon Never Die!

JimiMak Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,851
Career:454-333
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: JT WarWagon
Chips:
219
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).

Post #16   2/27/07 8:27:36PM   

dstlvb

MMA Regular

dstlvb Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:195
Career:373-248
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
23
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

Post #17   2/27/07 8:48:58PM   

roadking95th

In Cael We Trust!

roadking95th Avatar
7
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,030
Career:1,351-714
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
180
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.

Post #18   2/27/07 9:03:36PM   

THE_AXE_MURDERER

MMA Regular

THE_AXE_MURDERER Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:203
Career:76-48
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: Rascal Fight Team
Chips:
2

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.

Post #19   2/27/07 9:13:30PM   

MattHughes

MMA Regular

MattHughes Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:103
Career:87-35
Joined:Feb 2007
Camp: themmaboards.com
Chips:
5
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.

Post #20   2/27/07 9:51:03PM   

Svartorm

Hammer of the Gods

Svartorm Avatar
9
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,166
Career:2,077-1,253
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
854
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.

_______________________________________
All brave men with hearts of war, ride the path of mighty Thor.

DREAM 1 - 2nd in Pts
Cage Rage 23 - 6th in Pts
Secondary League Season 3 - 12th in Pts
Secondary League Season 7 - 16th in Wagers
Primary League Season 7 - 26th in Wagers
Secondary League Season 6 - 30th in Pts
Secondary League Season 1 - 31st in Pts
Primary League Season 6 - 39th in Wagers
Secondary League Season 7 - 41st in Pts

Post #21   2/28/07 2:19:16AM   

shawneth

MMA Regular

shawneth Avatar
5




 
 
 


 
 
Posts:221
Career:397-201
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
17
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.

Post #22   2/28/07 4:21:49PM   

JimiMak

WarWagon Never Die!

JimiMak Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,851
Career:454-333
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: JT WarWagon
Chips:
219

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

Last edited 3/3/07 3:05AM server time by JimiMak
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #23   2/28/07 5:47:43PM   
 
  Page 2 of 2     1     2