“You’re not a true champion unless you defend your belt”—does this rule apply to double champions?

[FrontNakedChoke]

Don't try to hold Sherdoggers to consistency.

They don't like that.

 

[Paolo Delutis]

Smashed Aldo after working his way to a TS - Conor was the true FW champ until he chose not to fight at 145 anymore.

Yea..because going through contendership..is the same as defending your belt ...your delusional

 

[Jon Stark]

Woodley? Based on what? Not beating Georges? Guy has been out of WW for like 5 years.

There are a few reasons.

1. Gifted two defences vs Thompson who is the better fighter. Thompson should have won both of those matches.

2. Rory MacDonald is a better WW than him, defeated Woodley soundly, therefore, having the WW belt doesn't mean he's the best on the planet in that division. #paperchamp

3. GSP. Sure, let's put that out there as a third point. GSP's next weight class is TBD but if he was to compete at WW again he's clearly the more proven former champion who never lost his belt.

Woodley must have trouble sleeping at night knowing he has a belt but is not the best WW on the planet. That's a huge asterisk.

 

[Leonard Haid]

You're not a true champion unless you win the belt. It doesn't have to get more complicated than that, in my opinion.

 

[MikeMcMann]

BJ Penn, GSP, Conor Mcgregor

All three of these men opted to vacate their second belt without defending it. Not only was their no title defenses, none of them even ATTEMPTED to defend.

Randy Couture rightfully attempted a defense. The other 3 were paper double champs in my opinion. The Natural Couture is the only man who has a true claim to being a champ in two weight classes.

Thoughts?

Taking a defense and losing does not make someone a 'True Champ' by that old meme.

The Meme spoke to WINNING at least one defense after winning a belt to remove any chance that the first win, when you got the belt was not a fluke.

So if you ascribe to that dumb meme Randy Couture was not a true 2 division champ either.

 

[Codpiece]

Yea..because going through contendership..is the same as defending your belt ...your delusional

Once a fighter goes through some other contenders then - follow along OK, because this bit is important - beats the current champ, then that fighter is the true champ.

I can understand if a fighter doesn't seem to beat the current champ and gets a dodgy judges decision why there may be question marks. Or even when a fighter doesn't have to fight many opponents and is gifted a shot, why people may say they don't deserve it yet (though that doesn't discount said fighter from being champ in that case). But if a fighter beats other good fighters in their class, then comprehensively beats a champ? There's literally zero case to complain that they don't deserve it.

 

[Codpiece]

There are a few reasons.

1. Gifted two defences vs Thompson who is the better fighter. Thompson should have won both of those matches.

2. Rory MacDonald is a better WW than him, defeated Woodley soundly, therefore, having the WW belt doesn't mean he's the best on the planet in that division. #paperchamp

3. GSP. Sure, let's put that out there as a third point. GSP's next weight class is TBD but if he was to compete at WW again he's clearly the more proven former champion who never lost his belt.

Woodley must have trouble sleeping at night knowing he has a belt but is not the best WW on the planet. That's a huge asterisk.

Hmmm, not convinced. Woodley I think won one and lost one to Thompson. I wanted Thompson to win, bigtime. He seems like a top bloke.

I think Rory is able to beat Woodley, but he can't beat Lawler who Woodley can beat. When Frazier beat Ali, but lost to Foreman, who lost to Ali - who would you call the champ? I think they were ALL valid champs at some time in that scenario. Same deal with Rory, Lawler and Woodley. Difference being that the UFC let Rory go and make more money elsewhere, so we will never see a resolution.

I am not sure GSP can beat Woodley now. It would be cool if he did, but I think he has lost a step. In his peak? GSP every time. Post knee injuries etc I am not so sure.

 

[Shaddows]

BJ Penn, GSP, Conor Mcgregor

All three of these men opted to vacate their second belt without defending it. Not only was their no title defenses, none of them even ATTEMPTED to defend.

Randy Couture rightfully attempted a defense. The other 3 were paper double champs in my opinion. The Natural Couture is the only man who has a true claim to being a champ in two weight classes.

Thoughts?

meh.
I understand why they say it, but it is stupid.
You got the belt.
You are the champion.
Period.

Nothing to add to it.
There are n if's of But's about it.

 

[WhiteMousse]

Will defending Vs Brawck be a tainted title defense ?

Yes.

Wish there was a way to keep track of everyone saying otherwise, who also squawked when Bisping fought Hendo #15

 

[Paolo Delutis]

Once a fighter goes through some other contenders then - follow along OK, because this bit is important - beats the current champ, then that fighter is the true champ.

I can understand if a fighter doesn't seem to beat the current champ and gets a dodgy judges decision why there may be question marks. Or even when a fighter doesn't have to fight many opponents and is gifted a shot, why people may say they don't deserve it yet (though that doesn't discount said fighter from being champ in that case). But if a fighter beats other good fighters in their class, then comprehensively beats a champ? There's literally zero case to complain that they don't deserve it.

You try following along becuase this is important..

Beating the current champion .. Does make you a champion yes but that only takes place if he allows it..therefore he defends his belt..this is the natural order of things..the mark of a TRUE champion isnt just beating the current champion its your ability to stake your claim as the best and the ability prove it by stopping all comers who challenge that claim..he didnt defend at fw and further disrespected the order of things by not giving the 10 year undefeated aldo a rematch right away..instead waited years later too when aldos coaches declined.Then did the same at lightweight while healthy with several top contenders waiting...he was a champion yes..as in he won championship title fights but he was never a true champion..simple as that..

All other MMA GOATs have multiple title defenses to there credit..becuase it proves the claim to being the best...he doesnt therefore not GOAT or a TRUE champion

 

[Codpiece]

You try following along becuase this is important..

Beating the current champion .. Does make you a champion yes but that only takes place if he allows it..therefore he defends his belt..this is the natural order of things..the mark of a TRUE champion isnt just beating the current champion its your ability to stake your claim as the best and the ability prove it by stopping all comers who challenge that claim..he didnt defend at fw and further disrespected the order of things by not giving the 10 year undefeated aldo a rematch right away..instead waited years later too when aldos coaches declined.Then did the same at lightweight while healthy with several top contenders waiting...he was a champion yes..as in he won championship title fights but he was never a true champion..simple as that..

All other MMA GOATs have multiple title defenses to there credit..becuase it proves the claim to being the best...he doesnt therefore not GOAT

In truth, he was a champion. Therefore, he was a true champion.

The rest is valid criticism for why Conor wasn't a GOOD champion, or a DOMINANT champion. But he was the true champion.

 

[Codpiece]

meh.
I understand why they say it, but it is stupid.
You got the belt.
You are the champion.
Period.

Nothing to add to it.
There are n if's of But's about it.

See this is why you're the best, man. No BS.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

You're a true champion once you win the belt. You're a better champion when defending it. "Paper champ" has nothing to do with it.

This. A paper champ is when the promotion gives a marketable champ subpar competition to artificially prolong his reign.

 

[Paolo Delutis]

In truth, he was a champion. Therefore, he was a true champion.

The rest is valid criticism for why Conor wasn't a GOOD champion, or a DOMINANT champion. But he was the true champion.

Your just twisting words to fit your narrative..

TRUE champions are good and dominate champions..that requires defenses..

Just stop..Conor won big fights, won titles..but thats it..he is not a TRUE champion till he starts defending..he will never be consider GOAT without the title defenses..but he doesnt care about that i guess becuase hes cares about money and doesnt respect the sport or the order of things ..id be suprised if he even fights for "his"LW belt back..probably moves on to another class ..he had almost 2 years to fight khabib or tony and didnt..what changed now?..

 

[Babaganoosh]

Pleas don’t put Conor in the same class as these greats.

 

[moreorless87]

It does rather highlight the reality though doesn't it? Conor was a giant 145er just barely able to make weight who then outsized the 155lb champ as well.

If Conor were smaller and able to make 145lbs whilst also defending at 155lbs yes it would clearly be more impressive but as it is the two divisions aspect of his career is merely highlighting weight cutting ability.

 

[Codpiece]

Your just twisting words to fit your narrative..

TRUE champions are good and dominate champions..that requires defenses..

Just stop..Conor won big fights, won titles..but thats it..he is not a TRUE champion till he starts defending..he will never be consider GOAT without the title defenses..but he doesnt care about that i guess becuase hes cares about money and doesnt respect the sport or the order of things ..id be suprised if he even fights for "his"LW belt back..probably moves on to another class ..he had almost 2 years to fight khabib or tony and didnt..what changed now?..

No, you are the one twisting words. Champion means the guy who wins a title fight against the incumbent champ. That's it. It's not complicated.

This nonsense about TRUE champion this and that....? That's changing the meaning of the term to suit a certain mindset. One can argue about a fighter being a consistent champion, or a dominant champion, or a divisional great based on defences. But literally none of that is relevant to whether a fighter is a true champ or not.

 

[Paolo Delutis]

No, you are the one twisting words. Champion means the guy who wins a title fight against the incumbent champ. That's it. It's not complicated.

This nonsense about TRUE champion this and that....? That's changing the meaning of the term to suit a certain mindset. One can argue about a fighter being a consistent champion, or a dominant champion, or a divisional great based on defences. But literally none of that is relevant to whether a fighter is a true champ or not.

Look im not going to go back and forth on this but i urge you to look at the others in T.S's , O.P .. Whats the difference between them and Conor..then you might begin to understand the meaning of TRUE champion...

 

[Codpiece]

Look im not going to go back and forth on this but i urge you to look at the others in T.S's , O.P .. Whats the difference between them and Conor..then you might begin to understand the meaning of TRUE champion...

All those guys are true champions. GSP is a long term, dominant champion (and IMO the greatest fighter we have seen to date based on quality of opponents), DC is a multiple time defending champ who has only ever lost to a guy with a history of cheating.

We aren't arguing about degree of greatness though. If we were, then there's no issue considering GSP and DC superior to Conor. That in no way means Conor wasn't a true champion, because he was. As much as Werdum was, or Garbrandt was or any other fighter with no defences.

 

[20falarVerdades]

There are a few reasons.

1. Gifted two defences vs Thompson who is the better fighter. Thompson should have won both of those matches.

2. Rory MacDonald is a better WW than him, defeated Woodley soundly, therefore, having the WW belt doesn't mean he's the best on the planet in that division. #paperchamp

3. GSP. Sure, let's put that out there as a third point. GSP's next weight class is TBD but if he was to compete at WW again he's clearly the more proven former champion who never lost his belt.

Woodley must have trouble sleeping at night knowing he has a belt but is not the best WW on the planet. That's a huge asterisk.

Stephen Thompson got almost KTFO several times. IMO he lost both fights.

Woodley is a very stoic man, he called out GSP, who refused the fight, picking an easier bout against Michael Ping. I doubt Woodley is caught up on that, he did what he could do