Do we need titles?

[tasticles]

Might as well with the shit they've been running for years now. I don't even care who the champ is so much as who is fighting now.

 

[Profane]

the other thing that kind of irks me is that majority of the current champs are holding nelts with 'tainted' lineage. WW, FW,LHW,MW,WFW were all recently vacated in some way so that the champ never lost their belt. LW looks to be going in the same direction
at least the BW division self corrected with the return of Cruz. Like i feel Whitaker is the best MW but it bothers me that he didnt beat the previous MW champ to achieve his status.

 

[caliboi74lv]

titles? we don't need no stinkin titles

 

[Kenny Powerth]

The UFC needs belts and rankings so that thick people, manchildren and casuals have a storyline that's easy to follow.

Hardcore fans should not require shiny visual aids to know which two fighters would make for the best fight.

That was pretty much brilliant my friend.

Side note: what do you mean by “thick people?” Fat?

“Manchildren and casuals” LOL

 

[Johnny Rosa]

Against: the belt never proves who the best fighter is. The champ proves this by who he beats etc. A guy like DJ would still be considered the best at his weight even without the belt because of what he accomplished. Also guys with belts can use the belt as a tool to duck fights etc.

Which side are you on

What if the champ wears the belt? This was pretty common prior to Conor/ Bisping.

 

[Emjay]

what's the point of fighting without the belt?

Entertainment

there has to be a champion. Otherwise the fights, rankings are pointless.

The fights aren't pointless, they're entertainment. Rankings are already pointless so they shouldn't be argued as some reason for fighting.

UFC isn't a sports league, it's an promotion company.

 

[Cro Cop Is Back]

I see some say that we should get rid of titles.

Argument for: A top guy or "champ" is needed for creating big fights and for promotion. You can say that without a belt there is no real reward for being the best fighter and also no way to prove you are the best fighter. The belt is a symbol for who is the best just like a superbowl ring or a stanley cup.

Against: the belt never proves who the best fighter is. The champ proves this by who he beats etc. A guy like DJ would still be considered the best at his weight even without the belt because of what he accomplished. Also guys with belts can use the belt as a tool to duck fights etc.

Which side are you on

Conor is dat you bruh

 

[L.T.]

Does the NFL, NBA or MLB need a champion at the end of a season? Jesu christo. Fighters need an end goal. Something to aim for. Some order and direction. Conor really fucked shit up for this thread to even exist.

 

[kennysux]

I swear I thought it said titties so I came here to call you a dumbass homo.

After re reading everything, you're just a dumbass probably a homo.

 

[yekmurat]

No I need titties

 

[caliboi74lv]

we need titties

 

[TheGrouch]

Only belt that ever mattered. imo

Does Fedor still have that belt, technically? Werdum? Always wondered that...

 

[eighterumg5]

They didn't have titles in the beginning they fought for what they do now....Money. If you took a majority of the fighters and asked them if theyd rather get a belt put around their waist or be handed a big fat PRIDE Grand Prix style $500,000 check.....Im willing to bet theyd take the check.

Belts became cosmetic over time. They are supposed to be "the marker" #1 spot in a division but we see rankings mean dick so when rankings dont why should titles.

Plus the champion clause wouldn't exist

 

[Pitier of Fools]

Even though the likes of Conor, Germaine de Randamie, GSP, and Mighty Mouse have made titles much less meaningful than they were before, title fights still have an added layer of excitement and tension. So as a fan, I say keep the titles.

 

[MMAart]

If fighters are not given free title shots and not allowed to duck the top contender (e.g. Conor), then the belt is meaningful and the belt holder is the best fighter of the division.

 

[theincognito]

I see some say that we should get rid of titles.

Argument for: A top guy or "champ" is needed for creating big fights and for promotion. You can say that without a belt there is no real reward for being the best fighter and also no way to prove you are the best fighter. The belt is a symbol for who is the best just like a superbowl ring or a stanley cup.

Against: the belt never proves who the best fighter is. The champ proves this by who he beats etc. A guy like DJ would still be considered the best at his weight even without the belt because of what he accomplished. Also guys with belts can use the belt as a tool to duck fights etc.

Which side are you on

Tournament titles, that way they can never be held up by injuries or anything else. I've been shilling for this for years.

 

[Harmonica]

what's the point of fighting without the belt?

there has to be a champion. Otherwise the fights, rankings are pointless.

Egalitarianism invading the world of sports. Rankings imply a hierarchy, and hierarchy rustles jimmies. Either everyone should get a belt or no one should get a belt.

 

[Ramon Antonio]

There's only one belt that matters, all other ones are for a bunch of girly men.

 

[BEATDOWNS]

Does Fedor still have that belt, technically? Werdum? Always wondered that...

Nope that is the WAMMA belt

Only Fedor the GOAT was able to achieve this level of prestige.

 

[Otto!]

we need titties