A split decision went the wrong way? BOOOHOOO

kenCs

Couches, couches, couches which one should I pick?
Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,178
Reaction score
0
Why cant people seem to understand about the simple concept of "CHAMP HAS TO BE BEATEN DECISIVELY!".

Did Condit decisively beat Lawler for the belt? NO
Did Hendricks decisively beat GSP for the belt? NO
Did Gus decisively beat Jones for the belt? NO


If a fight goes the distance and it was razor thin, I don't see why it doesnt go to the champ. They havent been beaten by the challenger.

Anyone else agree?
 
Last edited:
Why cant people seem to not understand about "the champ has to be beaten decisively to lose their belt"?
first of all, double negative.

secondly, that's not true.
 
Did Condit decisively beat Lawler for the belt? NO

Define "decisively". I can see your point, but it was pretty clear to me that Condit beat Lawler tho. Besides, who says the champion needs to be "decisively" beat? In order to win the title you need to win the fight, period.

P.S. It was also clear to me that GSP beat Hendricks, but you'll call me biased.
 
I agree somewhat, but the fact that the champ retains thr belt if there's a draw is enough for me. If the champ loses a close decision he still loses
 
That shouldn't be how it goes, the best man in the fight should walk away with the belt and just because the Condit fight was a split that doesn't make it any less of a robbery.
 
"The champ has to be beaten decisively to lose their belt" is not a real rule.

It's just an excuse people use to justify a bad decision.
 
first of all, double negative.

secondly, that's not true.

For that double negative, I deserve this but you caught me before I could edit.
GoT_slapping_joffrey.gif
 
Oh yay, another "beat the champ to be the champ" thread

It's an arcane idea that needs to die a swift and brutal death among fans who spout it constantly
 
Because "the champ has to be beaten decisively to lose their belt" is the dumbest thing ever.



It's a fight...It's a sport, if you win by one inch, you should win regardless if it's against a champ.
 
Was this inspired by the Gilbert Melendez thread?
 
If a fight goes the distance and it was razor thin, I don't see why it doesnt go to the champ. They havent been beaten by the challenger.

Anyone else agree?

Why do idiots always make this argument? The fight should go to whoever the judges felt won the fight based on the criteria established in the rules. Not some bullshit unwritten code that favors the champion. If anything, you should expect MORE out of the champ, not less.
 
Lawler didn't beat Hendricks decisively.
Of course you'll choose to exclude that.
 
Why do idiots always make this argument? The fight should go to whoever the judges felt won the based on the criteria established in the rules. Not some bullshit unwritten code that favors the champion. If anything, you should expect MORE out of the champ, not less.

To trigger tards.
 
Because decisions exist.

Remove them or use them.

It would be stupid for Canada-Man 2.0 to get a to a title shot via 10 straight decisions, but can't win the title that way. It makes everything pointless.
 
Why cant people seem to understand about the simple concept of "CHAMP HAS TO BE BEATEN DECISIVELY!".

Did Condit decisively beat Lawler for the belt? NO
Did Hendricks decisively beat GSP for the belt? NO
Did Gus decisively beat Jones for the belt? NO


If a fight goes the distance and it was razor thin, I don't see why it doesnt go to the champ. They havent been beaten by the challenger.

Anyone else agree?

That's a ridiculous outlook. In the NFL do you need to win by a big margin to beat the defending champions? No. In football? No. In any sport on planet earth? Hell no. You just need to win by any margin. Condit beat Lawler and Hendricks beat GSP by small margins according to most. Therefore they should have had their hand raised.

Hate hate hate this mma philosophy of having to win by a big margin or else the champion should keep his belt. Where did it even come from?
 
Why cant people seem to understand about the simple concept of "CHAMP HAS TO BE BEATEN DECISIVELY!".

Let me try that.

Why can't you understand you must "SUCK MY DICK BEFORE YOU POST!!".

I hope this works. Its been a dry 10 years since I signed up.
 
May not be completely fair, but bias will often lean toward the belt holder in a close fight. I think that is difficult to eliminate in judging.
 
Holy shit this is the end.

You've won sherdog, you've won, my faith in humans is ruined
 
Back
Top