UFC must implement Championship rules to prevent McGregor & GSP debacles

don't think that might happen unless someone buys out the ufc from WME and tries to make a legit sport like the Fertitias did but.... it's the WME era where cash and casuals are more important, that's why irish jabroni is the current boss of the UFC.
 
MikalP said:
How are you putting GSP in the same category as McGregor in all this?

He is not holding up any division. He won the MW belt after a massive consecutive defense streak at WW, vacated immediately after realizing he won't be defending it. Conor clogged up two divisions back to back because of his ego.
Click to expand...

Its far far worse to vacate than just take a while before defending, vacating makes the next champ looks weak and it takes years before the division truly recovers.
 
King Joffery said:
Its far far worse to vacate than just take a while before defending, vacating makes the next champ looks weak and it takes years before the division truly recovers.
Click to expand...
Agree. That's why I give mad respect to DJ because he wanted the title defend record before taking a superfight.
 
Meh...GSP vacated his title twice when his intention wasn't to defend it. That's the right thing to do.

Conor, on the other hand, is a fucking slimy sleazebag who clings to any form of legitimacy his little Irish paws can cling to. And he kind of has to...since he refuses to defend or treat his titles like they actually represent much of anything.
 
That typically is the rule unless you make them money. UFC will never do things in the interest of fairness.
 
They need to get like boxing and make mandatory challengers instead of this shit show they have.
 
nfffffku said:
Maybe you shouldn’t be fighting for a title you don’t plan on defending at all?

Novel concept, I know.
Click to expand...
Dana only seems to have a problem with this when it's GSP though. At the same time as he's slagging Georges at every opportunity he's allowed Conor to do far far worse for 2 years and he's aggressively pushing for Dillashaw to go down and do the same. It becomes an absolute shitshow when you have different rules for different fighters.
 
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). Of course, I'm assuming GSP will want to fight for the title in a different division next because I seriously doubt he'll take a non-title fight. The idea here is you have to EARN your shot.
Click to expand...

When you're a champion your bound to the UFC until you lose the belt or you die.

GSP is still bound by this clause, that is why he had to take a championship fight, he had no choice.

He said before he doesnt want to be champion anymore, he was asking for Nick Diaz or Anderson Silva, fun fights for the fans that will sell well. But WME would not abandon the champion clause in his contract and risk losing GSP to Belator.

So the championship clause ruins your entire argument and they will never abondon it.
 
I would say even with injury, after a year without defending you must vacate or have an interm. I also don't like what they did for DC and Ronda by giving them the belt. Even in DCs case I believe they should've had another shot with him and #2 for the "vacant" belt. Other than that I agree with you TS.
 
GSP nutthugers just dont see the problem. They only want to suck his dick as long as they can.
 
Why take harder fights and risk brain damage if you can take easier fights and get paid more? Poor UFC lmao
 
Jesus Christ, some of you are WAY too invested in belts and belt defenses.

Just watch fights for fights. The belts mean fuck all anyhow.
 
LikeItIs said:
Jesus Christ, some of you are WAY too invested in belts and belt defenses.

Just watch fights for fights. The belts mean fuck all anyhow.
Click to expand...

No

Belts and championships mean something in every sport. And they meant a lot in MMA for a long time.
 
Thepaintbucket said:
There was a post on here regarding USDA-UFC loop hold. Basically the UFC is a paying customer and they can waive certain requirements for fighters. ie..we don't know if Conor or Ronda were being tested as previously being reported.
Click to expand...
or Borck according to Hunt's lawsuit
 
ShreddinMMA said:
No

Belts and championships mean something in every sport. And they meant a lot in MMA for a long time.
Click to expand...

Meant, as in past tense.

The UFC tossed the meaning of belts away ages ago in favor of money fights. It seems rare to have an actual #1 contender fighting for the belt these days. Rankings mean so little now and it's not going to change.

At this point they are absolutely pointless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,883
Messages
55,452,221
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top