Why didn't Whittaker get credit for a title defense?

[ArkhamAsylum]

I'm confused on how this works. I know it USED to be that if one of the fighters missed weight it was automatically a non-title fight, like Travis Lutter VS. Anderson Silva. Although I always thought that was dumb, Anderson should have been credited a title defense since he made weight.

However, RECENTLY when titles have been up for grabs, if one fighter doesn't make weight, then only the fighter that MADE weight is eligible for the belt. Like in the Pettis VS Holloway fight. (Pettis missed weight but Holloway didn't, so Holloway still got the belt if he won).

Whittaker made weight and defended. Why doesn't it count as a title defense? The rules on this seems VERY inconsistent. Is it dependent on state commission or something? What am I missing?

 

[Summoning]

Because majority of Sherdogers gay love gay jesus.

 

[Davey Crockett]

 

[fightfan84]

no one has ever been credited with a title defense when they weren't defending their title. its really pretty simple stuff to understand

 

[808nEffect]

no one has ever been credited with a title defense when they weren't defending their title. its really pretty simple stuff to understand

 

[Touch of Death]

Because Romero lit up Whittaker like a Christmas tree.

Should have been a draw or Romero win.

 

[HUGHPHUG]

I guess it can't be a title defense if no one is trying to take it away from you

but yes, it's stupid

 

[ArkhamAsylum]

edit, had events mixed up

 

[TheAmericanGazelle]

If there is no potential for you leaving the arena without a belt, it's not a defense.

It's almost irrelevant though. Fight fans know who beat who and the circumstances behind each fight

 

[TheRassler]

Also, in UFC 221, Romero missed weight for the title fight. Whittaker still gets the belt though because he made weight.
Following that logic, shouldn't he get credited for a defense as well?

So for this last fight, if he wins he keeps the belt, if he loses he keeps the belt. What kind of “defending the belt” logic is that? Either way, he keeps the belt, he’s not defending anything.

 

[Gigaton Punch]

It's because if he lost that decision, he would still be champion. It's not a defense

 

[wigglestick]

Whooooooo cares, he didn't really win it anyways lol

 

[jeff7b9]

For a VACANT TITLE if one fighter misses weight the other can still win the belt.

A title may only be defended or passed to a victorious contender if BOTH fighters make championship weight.

 

[Gilday]

Because if he lost he still kept the title, he wasn't defending the title.

How is this a hard concept?

 

[Naught2Sixty]

How long have you been pondering this op? No title on the line = No credit for defense.

 

[acovarru]

Because he lost but judges suck

 

[ArkhamAsylum]

How long have you been pondering this op? No title on the line = No credit for defense.

At the start of their UFC 221 fight, Buffer says it's for the UFC Middleweight title. But that's not true, is it? Romero couldn't have won it. Only Rockhold was eligible.

Same logic should apply with a missed weight defense. If Whittaker wins, he gets credit for a defense. If he loses, he doesn't get defense credit but still keeps the belt.

 

[Sapp]

If your title isn't at risk you aren't defending it.

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Can't defend a belt when it's not on the line

 

[KYS]

Whatevs.

Everybody knows he scored a W (or a draw ffs) against the scariest dude at MW by far.