Is It Better To Have A Dominant Champ or To Have It Always Changing?

Ridian

Lifelong Combat Sports Fan
@purple
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
0
What do you feel is better as a fan, to have a dominant champ that keeps the belt for 3-4+ defenses or to have the belt constantly switching hands every 1-2 fights?
 
Doesn't matter which one.

Certain MMA fans will complain anyway.
 
giphy.gif
 
Depends. As a fan, I prefer seeing dominant champions just because I always find it exciting and interesting to see. As a marketing aspect, it's probably more about hitting a sweet spot; dominant but not so dominant that fights become predictable and "boring" to some fans, like GSP or Mighty Mouse.
 
I think having a dominant champ crates that fan atmosphere of every fight being the "will so and so beat him this time"

Having the belt always changing hands is also interesting because it creates the atmosphere of always wondering if this new guy will finally be the next dominant champ
 
Last edited:
What do you feel is better as a fan, to have a dominant champ that keeps the belt for 3-4+ defenses or to have the belt constantly switching hands every 1-2 fights?

As a fan, something in between the options you provided.

That being said, when it's a fighter I'm a huge fan of, I'd be happy to see them win the belt and successfully defend it into their late 80s.
 
Dominance in longevity not dominance in quality. To know if a Champion is truly the best you need to see them really challenged, to see them dig deep to show the heart and tactical brillance of a champion.

Nothing more irritating than seeing a huge obvious disparity in skills in the cage. At that point its just a filler fight with an almost guaranteed outcome.
 
Depends on if said champ generates buzz
 
In the short run, I think it's interesting when the division is wide open and the belt is up for grabs. But ultimately, I like when there's a clear number 1 guy. It restores order. And fundamentally, I like when the best fighter has the belt. The problem with the current landscape is that a number of the champions clearly aren't the best fighters in their division, and that almost cheapens the title of "champion" to some small degree.
 
For me, it's more about having legitimate contenders fighting for the belts. Handing out title shots just because a champ wants an easy fight or because a certain fight may be more profitable lessens my interest more than if the belt changes hands frequently between the best of the best fighting to be the best.
 
I prefer having atble champions, however a few years ago when: Cruz, Aldo, GSP, Anderson, JJ owned their divisions, it did take the luster out of PPV's knowing the outcome was basically known.

I prefer a mix of dominant champions and some up for grabs.
 
Dominant champ. If nobody can defend a belt, it becomes a mere prop and the champion du jour, just another fighter.
 
I don't care. As long as mufuckas get punched, kicked and strangled.
 
2-4 defenses would be nice. I used to not like Silva purely because he was champ forever. That doesn't bother me anymore and I've been rooting for him since beating Sonnen the first time. I don't like situations like Holm beating Ronda, being touted as hot shit, TV shows and whatnot, then losing her first defense, then repeat with Miesha. LHW after Chuck too was all over the place.
 
You need both long term. A dominant champ becomes sometimes that the promotion can build off of and then changing hands lends to parity and selling unpredictability.

Woman's Mma would not be where it is if Ronda lost her 1st or 2nd defense for example.
 
Doesn't matter which one.

Certain MMA fans will complain anyway.

This.

If a dominant champ exist ... their division is weak.

If no dominant champ exist ... then its a fun division but none of them are that good.
 
I agree with a mix of both. You have a dominant champ that keeps the belt for say 2-4 defenses but than loses it and the division is full of killers so it's entertaining to see who gets it next etc.
 
Back
Top