UFC must implement Championship rules to prevent McGregor & GSP debacles

WaylonMercy5150 said:
TS google search how the WBO and WBA titles work. They give each fighter a year to defend vs. a Top Contender according to their rankings. A lot of times fighters just drop the belt for greener pastures. Money fights are the future unfortunately. I will say it was great to see Ortega and Ngannou bring some fresh air to the title picture
Click to expand...
I've lost a lot of respect for the UFC since the WME takeover, it's turned into a joke IMO.
 
The Highlight said:
Here me out.... I'm a huge fan of UFC, but it bothers me how entire divisions are disrespected when Champions hold the belt hostage. Let alone the top contenders who are just sitting around waiting for their shot while the "champion" is playing games and using the belt as nothing more than a symbol of self-worth rather than a respected accomplishment.

To make things fair for ALL the fighters there should be two rules set in place to establish title legitimacy:


  1. You must defend the belt within one year of obtaining the belt otherwise you must forfeit it (the only exception being injury).
  2. A belt must be defended at least once before competing for a belt in another division (this would've prevented McG & GSP's division screw-over).
Click to expand...
Who would enforce it?
 
Have u people thought that the ufc wants stars to keep belts because it gives the ufc more power over them? It's probably a reason they don't strip the huge stars.
 
punkmother said:
the threadstarter. just 'here' him out.
Click to expand...
It's not that hard to enforce rules. Either you do it or you don't get to fight for the title.... it's that simple. Part of the problem with UFC right now is they are letting the fighters dictate what happens.
 
Your rules have nothing to do with the GSP situation though...
 
Novice4eva said:
Have u people thought that the ufc wants stars to keep belts because it gives the ufc more power over them? It's probably a reason they don't strip the huge stars.
Click to expand...
Wrong. They sure like to strip Jon Jones.... and he's a big of a star as any. Certainly the #1 P4P King.
 
The Highlight said:
It's not that hard to enforce rules. Either you do it or you don't get to fight for the title.... it's that simple. Part of the problem with UFC right now is they are letting the fighters dictate what happens.
Click to expand...
you do realize it was literally in gsp's contract that he would have to fight whittaker after bisping, right?

so explain to me which one of these rules, that you have proposed, fixes that issue:
The Highlight said:
To make things fair for ALL the fighters there should be two rules set in place to establish title legitimacy:
  1. You must defend the belt within one year of obtaining the belt otherwise you must forfeit it (the only exception being injury).
  2. A belt must be defended at least once before competing for a belt in another division (this would've prevented McG & GSP's division screw-over).
Click to expand...
gsp came out of retirement, had no belt he was required to defend and won a belt he agreed to defend before retiring again. your magical 2 rules fail to address that situation, despite your fervent claims.
 
JOLLYjoe said:
Your rules have nothing to do with the GSP situation though...
Click to expand...
Yes, Rule #2 would've prevented him from vacating the title. I seriously doubt he would give up the belt for a non-title belt, am I right?
 
Or what? They get fired ? Do you think they will get rid of there biggest money makers lol
 
I have a better proposal: Escrow based pay

Escrow is essentially when you "pay" someone, but put the money in escrow, to be later paid out depending on contractual conditions. For example, NHL hockey players put a % of their salaries into escrow, which they may or may not get 100% (or more than 100%) of, to make sure players and owners each earn 50% of hockey based revenues.

So the UFC should implement championship defense based PPV points pay. Let's say that GSP would earn $20 million from a 1 million buy PPV event. His contract should be written such that 50% of the money goes into a championship defense based escrow. If he does not defend the belt, he forfeits 50% of his PPV points.

Of course, there would be loopholes to this. You can't force a fighter to fight, and thus if a fighter retires due to illness, you'd still have to pay them. GSP's colitis would make a strong legal case for him vacating the belt and retiring, but still getting his 50% escrow based pay.
 
Last edited:
The Highlight said:
Yes, Rule #2 would've prevented him from vacating the title. I seriously doubt he would give up the belt for a non-title belt, am I right?
Click to expand...
What belt did GSP not defend before competing for another belt in another division?
 
punkmother said:
you do realize it was literally in gsp's contract that he would have to fight whittaker after bisping, right?

so explain to me which one of these rules, that you have proposed, fixes that issue:

gsp came out of retirement, had no belt he was required to defend and won a belt he agreed to defend before retiring again. your magical 2 rules fail to address that situation, despite your fervent claims.
Click to expand...
The rule says nothing about coming out of retirement to compete for a belt, that's all fine and dandy. But if he agreed to fight in that division then he should have to defend the belt. But currently it's like a free-for-all...... It's like musical belts. They just throw belts around and see who can win it. There's seriously no need for weight classes anymore because anyone can fight for the title as it is anyways.
 
The Highlight said:
The rule says nothing about coming out of retirement to compete for a belt, that's all fine and dandy. But if he agreed to fight in that division then he should have to defend the belt. But currently it's like a free-for-all...... It's like musical belts. They just throw belts around and see who can win it. There's seriously no need for weight classes anymore because anyone can fight for the title as it is anyways.
Click to expand...
how would you enforce that? what would you have had gsp do besides what happened? and it seems like you don't have a clue, so i will tell you what happened. he vacated his title when it was clear he would not be medically fit to face whittaker.
 
The Highlight said:
That's fine.... but it's not fair to the rest of the MW division.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? GSP held the belt for 33 days before vacating. How is it unfair to anyone at MW? We now have one of the best possible MW fights as a result (Whittaker Rockhold).

MW is kind of an empty division. Mousasi left, and you have Weidman (who has only got 1 win in his last 4 fights), Jacare (who is 2-2 in his last 4 and just lost to Whittaker), Rockhold (who is fighting Whittaker), Whittaker the champ, and Romero (who also lost to Whittaker), Gastelum (who is a bloated WW) and Bisping who has gone back to being the joke he was before his fluke KO of Rockhold.

And that's it for relevant MW fighters... At least GSP stepped in, provided a great fight and got rid of the idiot who was holding up the division and then promptly stepped down.


Bisping and Conor are the real turds in the UFC in terms of holding up belts.
 
We gotta call this shit out when it happens or MMA will end up like boxing, with a slew of different belts in different divisions that different fans value differently......a complete loss of objective meaning to a belt.

Fuck trying to remember a top five, fans will be trying to keep track of one real belt and a bunch of belts that dont represent 'best in the world'....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,099
Messages
55,467,528
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top