Were titles in two weight classes bigger in the past than now?

[JonesBones]

I was thinking that one reason BJ's feat really stood out and was impressive because the UFC only had 5 belts at the time. Penn had 2 of them. BJ owned 40% of the belts in the org. That looks good. That is marketable.

The UFC has become so watered down, along with growing in talent and interim titles, that 2 belts means less now. Or does it? I am asking. I don't know. Not a Conor hate thread either. Winning those belts was a great accomplishment. But I don't even know many UFC belts are in circulation now with all the interims and weightclasses.

 

[Tamriel Terror]

I think it helps that bj was a very small ww who choked out the #2 goat ww and one of the best ufc champs of all time to get the WW belt, but yes, belts mean less today imo.

Hell look at ufc 211, it had 2 ufc champs (one of the goat wmma fighters and the so called "baddest man on the planet" and it did barely 300k buys) (thats sad)

 

[BigTruck]

Yes it was bc they meant something back then and now they don't mean shit but a popularity contest

 

[wirerat123]

I think it helps that bj was a very small ww who choked out the #2 goat ww and one of the best ufc champs of all time to get the WW belt, but yes, belts mean less today imo.

Hell look at ufc 211, it had 2 ufc champs (one of the goat wmma fighters and the so called "baddest man on the planet" and it did barely 300k buys) (thats sad)

^ That ^

 

[Irishwhiskey119]

I was thinking that one reason BJ's feat really stood out and was impressive because the UFC only had 5 belts at the time. Penn had 2 of them. BJ owned 40% of the belts in the org. That looks good. That is marketable.

The UFC has become so watered down, along with growing in talent and interim titles, that 2 belts means less now. Or does it? I am asking. I don't know. Not a Conor hate thread either. Winning those belts was a great accomplishment. But I don't even know many UFC belts are in circulation now with all the interims and weightclasses.

It'll mean nothing if they add more weight classes that's for sure.

 

[TheChance]

Randy did it better.

 

[Shaddows]

I was thinking that one reason BJ's feat really stood out and was impressive because the UFC only had 5 belts at the time. Penn had 2 of them. BJ owned 40% of the belts in the org. That looks good. That is marketable.

The UFC has become so watered down, along with growing in talent and interim titles, that 2 belts means less now. Or does it? I am asking. I don't know. Not a Conor hate thread either. Winning those belts was a great accomplishment. But I don't even know many UFC belts are in circulation now with all the interims and weightclasses.

If someone wins a belt, and defends it, and get another belt, that's impressive.

but if someone gets a title shot just because he/she is popular, never defends and is allowed to get a second belt that someone else was forbiden to, it kind of takes away from the accomplishment.

 

[Grijswaarde]

So you are asking if BJ was bigger than Conor.. who is now the biggest MMA star ever fighting for tens of millions of dollars in a boxing match?

No he was not.

 

[jx820]

It honestly meant less then. You have to bear in mind that BJ's belts were years apart and at the time people talked about LW the way they talk about flyweights today. The division was considered shallow in the lead up to BJ's win. It really was TUF 5 and BJ's title run that put it on the map.

I feel like a lot of that context has been lost over time. Conor winning 2 belts became a bigger story because he's a bigger star, and the sport is bigger overall, but also because they were concurrent. Everyone was talking about it.

For Randy winning belts in two divisions lacked context. Nobody had really tried it before. So he was the first, but no one was really sure if it was hard particularly with him moving down. BJ it was a bigger deal (IMO) but it was still a bit of a foot note because he was the second guy to capture belts in 2 divisions. Connor became the 3rd guy to capture in different divisions, but the first double champ. He also did it in as big a way as possible.

So I think it's a bigger deal now, but if Nunez won the 145 lb title, I don't think it would be nearly as big because it would be #4 and women's 145 is a laughably shallow division. There is a lot of context rolled in, but I think it was the biggest deal with Conor and BJ.

 

[funksoulbrother]

Penn is more accomplished for what he did INSIDE the cage. (especially for the time and considering the situation)
Conor is more accomplished for what he's done OUTSIDE the cage.

Conor's more accomplished over all though

 

[Typrune Goatley]

I love Alvarez. He is a very good LW that has been around forever but...

BJ beating Hughes was a much bigger deal to me than Conor beating Alvarez

 

[Idonotbelieveit]

Bi was so impressive because he owned the unstoppable ww champ 5 or 6 time champ

Hardly anyone gave penn a chance

Damn impressive doing what he did and couture many times

 

[Idonotbelieveit]

Conor's more accomplished over all though

yeah and and his prime Connor has another 10 years to add to his legacy

Bj is done and peaked early

 

[Grijswaarde]

Penn is more accomplished for what he did INSIDE the cage. (especially for the time and considering the situation)
Conor is more accomplished for what he's done OUTSIDE the cage.

Oh indeed.. but you cannot deny Conor is way bigger than Penn ever was.

Also, Conor is still a great fighter.

 

[Idonotbelieveit]

Randy dominated both division bj didn't he only owned lw

 

[SeattleFightFan]

So you are asking if BJ was bigger than Conor.. who is now the biggest MMA star ever fighting for tens of millions of dollars in a boxing match?

No he was not.

I haven't done the math, but i'm pretty sure the Hansen Brothers "MMMM Bop" album sold more than all of Leonard Cohen's albums combined. and because TS used the word "bigger" instead of, say "more accomplished", your argument is probably technically accurate. but other than their mom and piano teacher, no one would argue that Hansen Brothers are more accomplished musicians than Leonard Cohen.
~~~~~
so, from an accomplishment perspective, it's an interesting question: BJ's 2.5 years from '01 to '04 vs Conor's 3.5 years 2013-2016.

it was BJ's first 9 fights. that's pretty goddamn amazing. i mean cmon, beating Din Thomas in your 2nd bout it sick, and beating Hughes - a guy who owned the division above yours for half a decade, and again for a few years afterward - 2 years into your career is crazy.

and we have to acknowledge that Conor did it in an era where everyone is better. and that's pretty goddamn amazing.

of course people want to itemize it. debate it. whatever. the problem is, there are too many variables, and all are subjective. so i'll call it a draw. both were great accomplishments. but i WILL say that holding the belt year in and year out for 5 or 8 years is, IMO, a more impressive accomplishment than either of them. GSP, Hughes, Silva....BJ and Conor both chose to go after "bigger fish" instead of prove they were the best year in and year out. it's hard to blame them, but it isn't hard to decide that defending the belt time and time and time again is more impressive than winning it once or twice. IMO.

(PS BJ never actually got the LW belt prior to Hughes I)

 

[MCS]

Less belts adds more like you said, but regardless of era it depends on who you beat. Hughes is such a more impressive win than Alvarez. Dominant p4p fighter vs a longtime top 5 guy who just got into the UFC, had some close fights, won the belt and Conor was his first defense.

You also have a huge FW going up 10 pounds vs a regular sized LW going up 15 against a big WW. If Pettis was still champ with like 5 defenses the win would mean more. Not to say it doesn't mean much but in comparison.

 

[Grijswaarde]

I haven't done the math, but i'm pretty sure the Hansen Brothers "MMMM Bop" album sold more than all of Leonard Cohen's albums combined. and because TS used the word "bigger" instead of, say "more accomplished", your argument is probably technically accurate. but other than their mom and piano teacher, no one would argue that Hansen Brothers are more accomplished musicians than Leonard Cohen.
~~~~~
so, from an accomplishment perspective, it's an interesting question: BJ's 2.5 years from '01 to '04 vs Conor's 3.5 years 2013-2016.

it was BJ's first 9 fights. that's pretty goddamn amazing. i mean cmon, beating Din Thomas in your 2nd bout it sick, and beating Hughes - a guy who owned the division above yours for half a decade, and again for a few years afterward - 2 years into your career is crazy.

and we have to acknowledge that Conor did it in an era where everyone is better. and that's pretty goddamn amazing.

of course people want to itemize it. debate it. whatever. the problem is, there are too many variables, and all are subjective. so i'll call it a draw. both were great accomplishments.

(PS BJ never actually got the LW belt prior to Hughes I)

Fair enough.. it depends what point of view you take.. but still i think Conor is also a better fighter than BJ ever was. BJ Penn is/was a beast, but don't forget Conor ko'd a goat contender in like 15 seconds.. and even though that might've been sort of a fluke.. his rematch with Diaz was also epic and required a LOT of balls.. he could've lost a LOT there.

I don't even like Conor, thought he would lose against the first really strong opponent.. but he proved me wrong.

So yeah i get your point but i still stand by mine with all respect.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Fair enough.. it depends what point of view you take.. but still i think Conor is also a better fighter than BJ ever was. BJ Penn is/was a beast, but don't forget Conor ko'd a goat contender in like 15 seconds.. and even though that might've been sort of a fluke.. his rematch with Diaz was also epic and required a LOT of balls.. he could've lost a LOT there.

I don't even like Conor, thought he would lose against the first really strong opponent.. but he proved me wrong.

So yeah i get your point but i still stand by mine with all respect.

i agree. however, everyone in 2017 is better than everyone in 2002, just like everyone in 2002 was better than everyone in 1993.

boxing solved this issue long ago by not defining "greatest" by who was "better" heads-up, but by how well they dominated their eras. it took boxing 75 years to get there. MMA fans will eventually get there too. but for now, i'll say their accomplishments - at the time of them - were about equal, for the times they were in. it's my way of saying "fuck this never ending debate". not unlike "who's the best LHW between Chuck/Wandy and Jones? 6 guys had the belt, and they all had win/loss records against each other. so why bother.

you should listen to this discussion with Mark Kerr & Josh Barnett https://soundcloud.com/mmaroasted talking about how they trained back then. Josh Barnett used to just go up to guys and offer a NHB bout, just to train. because he didn't have training options. now, 1997 to 2003 was very different, so BJ wasn't going through that. but still, it shows an evolution.

imagine being a weightlifting, wrestling, boxing general tough guy, and the biggest and toughest mofo in your circle, and some doughy 19 year old kid comes up and says "hey man, ya, i'm Josh. sooo, have you ever seen that UFC stuff? ya, so, wanna do that? yes, now. upstairs, where they have those wresting mats". it makes me giggle, just a little bit.

plus, you should listen to it anyway. it's fucking great

 

[Grijswaarde]

i agree. however, everyone in 2017 is better than everyone in 2002, just like everyone in 2002 was better than everyone in 1993.

boxing solved this issue long ago by not defining "greatest" by who was "better" heads-up, but by how well they dominated their eras. it took boxing 75 years to get there. MMA fans will eventually get there too.

Agreed, but the big difference is MMA was still evolving so the number of opponents was just waaaaay smaller. Being champion right now just means you stand on a way bigger heap.