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

[MMAProfessional]

I get why people say it but honestly you're a champ when you win the belt.

Right? If you were good enough to beat the current champ you were champ in two weight classes.

 

[HNIC215]

If you fight your way into a title shot and earn your belt... you’re a true champion!

Once you have your belt, if you just hand pick and choose easy opponents who aren’t ranked 1 or 2 and/or considered the best of your division... you’re a weak champion!

If you simply refuse to defend your title and sit on your ass your entire reign as champion... you’re a shitty champion!

Also, you are not “The GOAT” unless you defend it for years and years against the best of the best in your division.

This is why over time the true champions are always respected, honored and remembered and the weak champions are forgotten.

 

[blingking]

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.

1. Woodley whooped wonder boys ass in the first fight. It was clear that Wonderboy got 3 rounds but those rounds were by relatively narrow margins compared to the ass whoopings Woodley’s rounds had. Basically everyone had the fight either 47-47 or 47-46 Woodley.

2. Rory beat Woodley but Lawler beat Rory twice and Wonderboy once, Woodley beat both of those. Rory may have be able to beat Woodley if they fought again but he had his chance with a title shot vs Lawler and a #1 contender fight vs Wonderboy and lost both of them. Therefore he doesn’t have the claim as the best WW on the planet.

3. GSP isn’t an active fighter and hasn’t fought at 170 for 5 years. Could GSP beat Woodley, possibly but he’s not an active fighter so who the fuck knows?

 

[TheLinguist]

DJ has a belt and defended it. I do not consider him a champion due to the caliber of his opponents thus far

 

[Spiderbite]

I think the rules apply to an extent.
As a GSP nuthugger, I think GSP won the MW belt, but i wouldn't call him the MW champ, but it doesn't bug me either way given he vacated.

Same goes for Conor or Cormier, but if DC defends, he wins.

I always liked the Matt Hughes (I think?) quote: 'Winning the belt is easy, keeping it is hard' or something like that.

 

[Bumblebeef]

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?

vacate the second belt is ok, because its hard to defend both belts without holding up a division.

 

[Russie]

DC wants to defend both before retiring. People want to give him shit already for not vacating LHW. I commend him for what wants to try and do. Unlike someone who appears to have never had any intent of defending belts.

 

[MikeMcMann]

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?..

Actually you are the one twisting words to fit a narrative.

Anyone who wins the belt is a Champ, full stop.

You and others may not think the path to that title shot was fair.

You may think them not defending was not fair.

You may have all sorts of SUBJECTIVE reasons to discount his championship in your opinion and that is all ok. 20 different people can have 20 different opinions on the strength or weaknesses of any Championship win and that, again, is ok.

What is NOT subjective and part of any narrative is the objective truth that if you win the belt you are the Champ, period.

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...

As you shouldn't as you are wrong.

Pointing out guys who have DONE more as Champ is completely subjective and has nothing to do with whether a guy is a Champ or not.

 

[Wise1]

That’s like saying hey man, don’t reach for the stars, stay here on planet earth with the rest of us... F*** that. I love it when these guys aim for a higher glory, that’s why I tune in. If I wanted the standard I’s probably be more into ball sports.

 

[Pequeño Corey]

Why would it be?

Healthy Brock is better than everyone on the HW roster except Cormier and a healthy Cain (oxymoron)

He beats Stipe easily

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Tour'soverboyo]

This and the whole “you have to DECISIVELY beat the champ to be the champ” are fan fiction

 

[Gamer2k4]

Different people have different paths to their titles. Some are earned, some are aided by good luck and favorable circumstances, and some are gifted. That's why defenses are the more meaningful statistic: the more you have, the more likely it is that you've consistently fought (and defeated) the best the division has to offer.

 

[Erratic]

No. If you are champ in more then one division, you are true champion no matter what , you don't need to defend your belt at all - you are already true champ .

If you take the 145 belt and then go KO the next champ and take the 155 belt, it should count as a 145 defense by default

 

[jeremyemilio]

I get why people say it but honestly you're a champ when you win the belt.

Kind of... but the reasoning makes sense.

Think of it in terms of other positions.

When can you really say you are a cop? When you get hired? Or when you show up and start your first beat shift?

When can you really say you are a teacher? When you get hired? Or when you show up and start teaching your first class?

Hell, when can you really say you are a fighter? When you start training? When you book your first fight? Or when the bell sounds and your first fight starts?

If you died before you ever got the chance to perform your duties in any of these positions would an accurate obituary say "He was a cop/teacher/fighter" or would it say "His life was cut short just as he was about to commence his career as a cop/teacher/fighter"?

When you win a belt, you become the champ in the same sense that when you get promoted you become the boss... but you really aren't the boss until you've told someone what to do, and you really aren't a champion fighter until you're in the arena fighting as a champion fighter.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

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?

It doesn't apply to anyone. Ovechkin and the Washington Capitals just won their first Stanley Cup championship. They'll still be true champions (trademark pending) even if they don't repeat next year.

Same for the Philadelphia Eagles winning their first Superbowl championship this year - doesn't matter if they don't defend (or even if the team disbands), they're still champ.

Or go through the long list of Olympic gold medalists who win it and then retire without ever competing again - most folks would say they're still true champs.

The people who came up with the true champion after defending bit were promoters who wanted to make money on follow-up fights.

 

[empsim]

of course youre are true champ, just not on the same level as guys with multiple title defences

 

[Paolo Delutis]

Actually you are the one twisting words to fit a narrative.

Anyone who wins the belt is a Champ, full stop.

You and others may not think the path to that title shot was fair.

You may think them not defending was not fair.

You may have all sorts of SUBJECTIVE reasons to discount his championship in your opinion and that is all ok. 20 different people can have 20 different opinions on the strength or weaknesses of any Championship win and that, again, is ok.

What is NOT subjective and part of any narrative is the objective truth that if you win the belt you are the Champ, period.

As you shouldn't as you are wrong.

Pointing out guys who have DONE more as Champ is completely subjective and has nothing to do with whether a guy is a Champ or not.

Never said he wasnt champ.. Learn to read..he wasnt a true champion is what i said, meaning he didnt live up to what it means to be champ and wasnt respectful enough to the sport that made him..thats my point..but you go write your novels while swinging nut to nut..

 

[Jon Stark]

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.

Interesting opinion. I disagree and feel Woodly is a paper champ.

 

[Shaddows]

Kind of... but the reasoning makes sense.

Think of it in terms of other positions.

When can you really say you are a cop? When you get hired? Or when you show up and start your first beat shift?

When can you really say you are a teacher? When you get hired? Or when you show up and start teaching your first class?

Hell, when can you really say you are a fighter? When you start training? When you book your first fight? Or when the bell sounds and your first fight starts?

If you died before you ever got the chance to perform your duties in any of these positions would an accurate obituary say "He was a cop/teacher/fighter" or would it say "His life was cut short just as he was about to commence his career as a cop/teacher/fighter"?

When you win a belt, you become the champ in the same sense that when you get promoted you become the boss... but you really aren't the boss until you've told someone what to do, and you really aren't a champion fighter until you're in the arena fighting as a champion fighter.

I don't share your opinion, but I do think you bring a very interesting way of seeing it.

 

[philweed]

I believe it was Matt Hughes who initially said this and some of the mma community went with it. It's stupid. If you beat the champion, then you ARE the champion.