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

If you win the championship you are the champion. What's with the fake and true champ, especially coming from people who would be thrilled to win a consolation prize.
 
Paolo Delutis said:
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..
Click to expand...

You're a champion or you're not a champion, there's no middle ground. Which means 'true champ' is redundant, unless plain 'champ' means 'false champ' or 'not champ'. Which is why it looks like you're saying he wasn't a champ (or equivalently, he was a 'false champ').

For the distinction you have in mind, you'd be better off saying he was a short term champion, or one fight champion; most would agree that someone who wins say gold medal in say four successive Olympics is more impressive than someone who wins just once and then retired.
 
BJ left America, and his WW belt, to fight in Japan against the #1 LW in the world.
Lots of guys left their UFC belts behind to fight in Japan during that time frame. IE: Bustamante and Pulver.
 
philweed said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
Yes, it was him.
He said that to either BJ Penn or GSP.
I think it was to GSP, after GSP beat him (for the belt) and lost to Serra on his first title defense.
It is long ago, but I think that was is.
 
AnotherOldGuy said:
You're a champion or you're not a champion, there's no middle ground. Which means 'true champ' is redundant, unless plain 'champ' means 'false champ' or 'not champ'. Which is why it looks like you're saying he wasn't a champ (or equivalently, he was a 'false champ').

For the distinction you have in mind, you'd be better off saying he was a short term champion, or one fight champion; most would agree that someone who wins say gold medal in say four successive Olympics is more impressive than someone who wins just once and then retired.
Click to expand...


Well i see what your trying to demonstrate if you want to talk about terms you have to first talk about genre or theme...combat sports has it own sent of terms that dont apply to regular or olympic sports..for example..a team that wins the stanely cup two years in a row isnt defending champions..there repeat or returning champions..there never in a position of defending there stanely cup victory otherwise the first lost of the next season would crown a new stanely cup champion but it doesnt work like that becuase its a yearly season sport..just like olmypics is a 4 year short season sport..no1 considers michael phelps a defending gold medalist..hes a returning or repeat medalist...MMA is a combat sport without a season and with it there is a clear distinction list of champion types/terms..for example

Paper champ - someone award a title on less then idea grounds Becuase of there popularity or overall image ..sometimes given a belt without. fighting for it , due to vacating or new division creation can create paper champion siutations

Protected champion/favored champion - A champion whos clearily being shielded from hard competition in order to extend there reign and or keep the promotion /manager/fighterprofitable

True champion : a champion who defends there belt agianst all top ranked contenders regardless of problematical matchups and is usually succesful.

Champion : a fighter who wins a belt in a championship fight..or recieves one for outstanding competitive accomplishments in other promotions.

Different genre different terms
 
Shaddows said:
I don't share your opinion, but I do think you bring a very interesting way of seeing it.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

It's not really my opinion, to be honest. Just what I think is a valid way of seeing things.

The other, equally valid, way of seeing it is to view "Prize Fighting" as just that... a contest to win a prize. So if the championship is the prize, then when you win, that's that. Mission accomplished. You're a champ.

I alternate between the two perspectives, but I think both have merit.
 
jeremyemilio said:
Thanks.

It's not really my opinion, to be honest. Just what I think is a valid way of seeing things.

The other, equally valid, way of seeing it is to view "Prize Fighting" as just that... a contest to win a prize. So if the championship is the prize, then when you win, that's that. Mission accomplished. You're a champ.

I alternate between the two perspectives, but I think both have merit.
Click to expand...
Well, I think it can be a mix.

But instead of prize fighting (who don't necessarily have rankings and fighting someone more popular can get you a bigger prize than fighting for the top)... I would put it like climbing a mountain.
The second you reach the mountaintop, you've done it.
Everyone else is beneath you, trying to get to where you are.

But there's merit in "validating" by fighting the next guy who shows up. I just think that the belt around your waist is prof enough you are the champion. Defending or not.
 
Njmma209 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The term “paper champion” refers to people who don’t earn their championship (for example, being crowned a champion without a fight). It doesn’t apply here.
 
No. By definition, you are the champion after you beat the champion.

If you win the title fair and square you are the champion. If you lose the belt in your first defense, so be it.
 
A true champ doesn’t have everyone wondering if they’re ever going to fight again going on two years..
 
Paolo Delutis said:
Well i see what your trying to demonstrate if you want to talk about terms you have to first talk about genre or theme...combat sports has it own sent of terms that dont apply to regular or olympic sports..for example..a team that wins the stanely cup two years in a row isnt defending champions..there repeat or returning champions..there never in a position of defending there stanely cup victory otherwise the first lost of the next season would crown a new stanely cup champion but it doesnt work like that becuase its a yearly season sport..just like olmypics is a 4 year short season sport..no1 considers michael phelps a defending gold medalist..hes a returning or repeat medalist...MMA is a combat sport without a season and with it there is a clear distinction list of champion types/terms..for example

Paper champ - someone award a title on less then idea grounds Becuase of there popularity or overall image ..sometimes given a belt without. fighting for it , due to vacating or new division creation can create paper champion siutations

Protected champion/favored champion - A champion whos clearily being shielded from hard competition in order to extend there reign and or keep the promotion /manager/fighterprofitable

True champion : a champion who defends there belt agianst all top ranked contenders regardless of problematical matchups and is usually succesful.

Champion : a fighter who wins a belt in a championship fight..or recieves one for outstanding competitive accomplishments in other promotions.

Different genre different terms
Click to expand...

You make some good points, though I think the terms you suggest are pretty arbitrary. And the problem with "True" is it automatically means anything which isn't true is by definition false.

So if True champ means someone who has defended, then someone who wins and then doesn't defend is a false champ, which basically means they were never really a champ. And that's simply factually not the case. I'd suggest a different word than True for that reason - something like 'exceptional' or 'long term' which doesn't suggest the counterfactual statement that someone who doesn't defend was never a champ in the first place.
 
AnotherOldGuy said:
You make some good points, though I think the terms you suggest are pretty arbitrary. And the problem with "True" is it automatically means anything which isn't true is by definition false.

So if True champ means someone who has defended, then someone who wins and then doesn't defend is a false champ, which basically means they were never really a champ. And that's simply factually not the case. I'd suggest a different word than True for that reason - something like 'exceptional' or 'long term' which doesn't suggest the counterfactual statement that someone who doesn't defend was never a champ in the first place.
Click to expand...


Yeah..i guess, or maybe proven or tested champion...but i didn't invent the terms lol ..probably some ancient sherdogger long before us coined the term.. Either way...Mcgregor is far from a proven/tested/true/long term/exceptional champion lol..
 
Daniel Cormier should rematch stipe....stipe deserves it and there is no one else in the division as good as him....If DC wins i will call him goat.

Volkov could potentially be the next big heavyweight if dc beat stipe and Volkov he would be the best heavyweight of all time.
 
Njmma209 said:
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?
Click to expand...
There are no true double champions since neither of those guys actually earned their second title shot in the next division, and none of them bothered trying to defend yet (and against Brock doesn’t count lol)

The whole double champ bs is just a gimmick and a UFC money grab attempt, titles mean fuck all these days.
 
it isn't a rule and it doesn't apply to anything. You're champion once you win the fight
 
I think. It does. In a case like conor, where he couldnt fight at 145 anymore because it was too much of a cut he was double champ but ig he defended the 155 bely he would have been good. He would have gave up the 145 belt either way but defending the 155 belt vs khabib should havr bern his move. He would have gained more that way than giving up both belts then coming back to fight khabib anyway for the belt.
 
is it even possible to defend in two divisions? They gotta be more active.....

nobody defended in two divisions yet. They should be forced to, it just holds up divisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wormwood
Alex Pereira Not Moving Up to HW Anytime Soon - Wants to Defend LHW Belt
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Captain Insano
Captain Insano

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,981
Messages
55,459,205
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top