UFC must implement Championship rules to prevent McGregor & GSP debacles

punkmother said:
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.
Click to expand...
in GSP's case he would be unable to fight for a belt in his next fight....... I'm assuming that's his plan, right?
 
They do, it's called a contract. They've just made it a lot easier by letting things slide.

You can't make a person fight by holding a gun to their head. In the case of Conor, they can't/don't want to strip him potentially because of the "champion clause" (I assume it's still inbuilt in their bout contracts) whereby the winner automatically has a one fight extension irrespective of how long more they have on their actual deal to avoid them taking the title elsewhere.
 
The Highlight said:
Sorry, I edited my last post. But I meant to say that he'll probably want a title fight for his next fight.... am I right???
Click to expand...
Oh. I thought I really did miss something. Yeah, I would assume he wants to do that or some sort of huge payday fight and then leave again.
 
JOLLYjoe said:
Oh. I thought I really did miss something. Yeah, I would assume he wants to do that or some sort of huge payday fight and then leave again.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I edited my OP to include those details, BTW did GSP decide which division he is fighting in next?
 
The Highlight said:
in GSP's case he would be unable to fight for a belt in his next fight....... I'm assuming that's his plan, right?
Click to expand...
Your original post would make sense in the case of GSP if he actually has any intentions of fighting again. But to be honest dude, I really don't think we'll see him in the cage again; I'm pretty sure this fight was entirely to solidify his legacy with the money he made just being a nice little bonus. I could be wrong but if that's the case then it would be hard to prevent the GSP situation from happening again with those clauses you've added.
 
Clinerrrr said:
Your original post would make sense in the case of GSP if he actually has any intentions of fighting again. But to be honest dude, I really don't think we'll see him in the cage again; I'm pretty sure this fight was entirely to solidify his legacy with the money he made just being a nice little bonus. I could be wrong but if that's the case then it would be hard to prevent the GSP situation from happening again with those clauses you've added.
Click to expand...
He already said he wanted to fight at least 3 times upon his return...... He had one already so I'd expect at least two more.
 
what if they have some kind of illness where they cant compete for the belt.

dude the belt is just for promotional purposes.
 
3. No queue jumping in a division other than your own.

I don't care if you are the GOAT. Beat a contender first in the division in which you want to compete.
 
The GSP and McGregor 'debacles' made the UFC a crapton of money this year, and WME has debt to repay. No change will happen.




Meanwhile there are still excellent fights going on like Cub vs DHC and Cowboy Olivera vs Medeiros for fight fans to enjoy. If the UFC does what is has to to grow and still hosts good fights, I'm happy.
 
kneesus said:
3. No queue jumping in a division other than your own.

I don't care if you are the GOAT. Beat a contender first in the division in which you want to compete.
Click to expand...
I kinda agree..... I mean you should be considered a contender but not get the title shot right away when there's other fighters who've been fighting their whole life waiting for their shot in the same division.
 
Good point because however good you are you may never get a shot. This must put off talent entering mma
 
Codpiece said:
The GSP and McGregor 'debacles' made the UFC a crapton of money this year, and WME has debt to repay. No change will happen.




Meanwhile there are still excellent fights going on like Cub vs DHC and Cowboy Olivera vs Medeiros for fight fans to enjoy. If the UFC does what is has to to grow and still hosts good fights, I'm happy.
Click to expand...
So you consider all these women's fights good?
 
James4210 said:
Good point because however good you are you may never get a shot. This must put off talent entering mma
Click to expand...
Yup. Meanwhile it may be 16 months between Conor winning and defending his belt (maybe longer). Absolute crap.
 
The Highlight said:
So you consider all these women's fights good?
Click to expand...
No, I don't watch WMMA because watching women get hurt isn't enjoyable to me.

A great part of the proliferation of cards is that the optionis there to not watch some fights and still see loads of quality MMA.
 
Clear rules on when a fighter will be stripped of the title due to inactivity would be good.

Exceptions due to injury would make it a little hard to enforce objectively. But if there aren't exceptions you may run the risk of a champ fighting with an injury because otherwise they will be stripped.

Tricky business, but some clarity I think wouldnt hurt. At the very least some "guidelines" would be good.

But money will always trump everything else
 
Foppa21 said:
They do, it's called a contract. They've just made it a lot easier by letting things slide.

You can't make a person fight by holding a gun to their head. In the case of Conor, they can't/don't want to strip him potentially because of the "champion clause" (I assume it's still inbuilt in their bout contracts) whereby the winner automatically has a one fight extension irrespective of how long more they have on their actual deal to avoid them taking the title elsewhere.
Click to expand...
It's not about holding a gun to their head. It's about giving the divisions a sense of structure and not have it be a laughing stock and have the belt be a free-for-all pawn up for grabs whoever the hell wants it. They have to change the contracts is all.
 
mutombo said:
Clear rules on when a fighter will be stripped of the title due to inactivity would be good.

Exceptions due to injury would make it a little hard to enforce objectively. But if there aren't exceptions you may run the risk of a champ fighting with an injury because otherwise they will be stripped.

Tricky business, but some clarity I think wouldnt hurt. At the very least some "guidelines" would be good.

But money will always trump everything else
Click to expand...
Injuries don't have to be objective because the doctors diagnose the fighters and they say whether they're able to fight or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,986
Messages
55,459,521
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top