Why do people hate fast-tracks to the title?

[Filthy Phil]

(TLDR at bottom)

The mantra within the UFC has since the beginning been "the best fighting the best". While I understand that this often is a buzzword rather than an actual guiding principle when it comes to matchmaking, I feel that most MMA fans do cling to it quite religiously.

An example: Israel Adesanya. Arguably one of the best future contenders at MW, he might get the next title shot if he gets past Anderson Silva. I see a lot of people moaning about this, that he needs to get more wins. After all, his only good looking wins are tooling a journeyman in Tavares, and knocking out a fringe contender in Brunson. After looking at the state of the MW-division though, I see few alternatives.

Champion : Robert Whittaker
1 Yoel Romero (lost twice to Whittaker)
2 Luke Rockhold (Moving to LHW)
3 Jacare Souza (Already lost against Gastelum and Whittaker)
4 Kelvin Gastelum (fighting next)
5 Chris Weidman (KO'd by Jacare)
6 Israel Adesanya

This brings us to the critical question: When there is a shortage of viable challengers, do you want the champion to stay active, or are you in favor of letting contenders fight until we have a definitive challenger, forcing the champion to be sidelined?

We want stars, don't we? I sure as hell want it. I want to watch legends be made, and this is mostly done by being active and racking up wins. Anderson Silva became the legend he is today because he fought a bunch of people, and did so spectacularly. Let's be honest, a lot of them were not elite, but the KO's will be forever remembered in highlight reels. For Whittaker, or any champ for that matter, to gain real respect he has to show people why he is the champ. I would much rather watch Whittaker fight 2-3 times a year and add to his highlight reel, than watching him fight once a year against a "deserving" opponent.

In this case the only viable challengers seem to be Adesanya (assuming he wins against Silva) and Jacare. Do you want them to fight first, or do you give one man a title shot first?

TLDR: I think it's pretty lame to wait an entire year between title fights within a division, and I think it would be better for everyone if the champion stayed active fighting less than perfect challengers, rather than waiting around forever until a "deserving" challenger shows up.

The question: When there is a shortage of viable challengers, do you want the champion to stay active fighting less-than-ideal challengers, or are you in favor of letting contenders fight until we have a definitive challenger, forcing the champion to be sidelined?

 

[Klaavical]

Every tit has to be milked before the chores are done.

 

[IndyCovaHart]

Paying your dues is a tried and true way of separating the wheat from the chaff.

What’s the point of a ranking system if top contenders are leapfrogged.

 

[Rum]

Because

 

[Kowboy On Sherdog]

If he gets some crazy highlight knockout of Silva the casual hype will be there and no doubt a fight vs Whitaker will sell... Don't mind this at all... At least it will be a top contender getting the fight.

 

[GSP_37]

The results will show if the challenger was worthy. I recall Rich Franklin suggested Anderson didn't deserve shitle tot and apparently he was worthy.

 

[Slatersan]

Every tit has to be milked before the chores are done.

This. This is what grandma always used to tell me.

 

[Klaavical]

This. This is what grandma always used to tell me.

Does she still set the table for breakfast the night before?

 

[Filthy Phil]

Paying your dues is a tried and true way of separating the wheat from the chaff.

What’s the point of a ranking system if top contenders are leapfrogged.

Does anyone other than the #1 contender ever get the title shot with that logic?
I'm not saying that #10-20 ranked guys should get title shots, but that we maybe should be a bit more flexible in situations where "separating the wheat from the chaff" would mean that the champ would be forced to be inactive for a long stretch of time.

 

[Shaddows]

(TLDR at bottom)

The mantra within the UFC has since the beginning been "the best fighting the best". While I understand that this often is a buzzword rather than an actual guiding principle when it comes to matchmaking, I feel that most MMA fans do cling to it quite religiously.

An example: Israel Adesanya. Arguably one of the best future contenders at MW, he might get the next title shot if he gets past Anderson Silva. I see a lot of people moaning about this, that he needs to get more wins. After all, his only good looking wins are tooling a journeyman in Tavares, and knocking out a fringe contender in Brunson. After looking at the state of the MW-division though, I see few alternatives.

Champion : Robert Whittaker
1 Yoel Romero (lost twice to Whittaker)
2 Luke Rockhold (Moving to LHW)
3 Jacare Souza (Already lost against Gastelum and Whittaker)
4 Kelvin Gastelum (fighting next)
5 Chris Weidman (KO'd by Jacare)
6 Israel Adesanya

This brings us to the critical question: When there is a shortage of viable challengers, do you want the champion to stay active, or are you in favor of letting contenders fight until we have a definitive challenger, forcing the champion to be sidelined?

We want stars, don't we? I sure as hell want it. I want to watch legends be made, and this is mostly done by being active and racking up wins. Anderson Silva became the legend he is today because he fought a bunch of people, and did so spectacularly. Let's be honest, a lot of them were not elite, but the KO's will be forever remembered in highlight reels. For Whittaker, or any champ for that matter, to gain real respect he has to show people why he is the champ. I would much rather watch Whittaker fight 2-3 times a year and add to his highlight reel, than watching him fight once a year against a "deserving" opponent.

In this case the only viable challengers seem to be Adesanya (assuming he wins against Silva) and Jacare. Do you want them to fight first, or do you give one man a title shot first?

TLDR: I think it's pretty lame to wait an entire year between title fights within a division, and I think it would be better for everyone if the champion stayed active fighting less than perfect challengers, rather than waiting around forever until a "deserving" challenger shows up.

The question: When there is a shortage of viable challengers, do you want the champion to stay active fighting less-than-ideal challengers, or are you in favor of letting contenders fight until we have a definitive challenger, forcing the champion to be sidelined?

I stopped reading when you played that asinine excuse of "lost to Gastelum and Whittaker" for Jacare.
That's clearly a BS excuse you repeat ad nauseum and it is irrelevant.

Jacare is the top contender.
Adesanya is not.

If you want to go by history, why are you so dishonest and don't mention that Jacare Beat Brunson BEFORE Adesanya did.
And Jacare beat Weidman who beat Silva TWICE.
So why would Jacare lose his top spot to Adesanya? because you fucking like him?

That is just stupid. Make up better excuses or don't be dishonest.

Anyone who's unbiased knows Rankings mattare. And Jacare is the top contender AND above Adesanya.

 

[Filthy Phil]

I stopped reading when you played that asinine excuse of "lost to Gastelum and Whittaker" for Jacare.
That's clearly a BS excuse you repeat ad nauseum and it is irrelevant.

Jacare is the top contender.
Adesanya is not.

If you want to go by history, why are you so dishonest and don't mention that Jacare Beat Brunson BEFORE Adesanya did.
And Jacare beat Weidman who beat Silva TWICE.
So why would Jacare lose his top spot to Adesanya? because you fucking like him?

That is just stupid. Make up better excuses or don't be dishonest.

Anyone who's unbiased knows Rankings mattare. And Jacare is the top contender AND above Adesanya.

You did an excellent job at not answering the question.

However, I personally believe that novelty is key in these situations. Jacare got thouroughly smashed by Whittaker, and lost against Gastelum, which is a pretty strong argument against giving him the next title shot. Plus, Adesanya is undefeated, and that does mean a lot if you're ranked.

 

[mn6ws6]

Your title isn't really fitting with your argument, honestly. Fast-tracked to a title by definition is Conor McGregor. Hand picked fights to make him look good and mind games to get his opponent angry and the crowd in a frenzy. He goes up against actual challengers and we've seen what happens.

What you're discussing is finding a title challenger, which is easily done by using someone ranked high enough with enough quality wins to justify their shot. If you're top 10, you're there. And I'd rather see a new face go up against the champ than the same ole, same ole. If you lose a title shot, it should take you two top 10 wins to get another. If you lose your TITLE, it should take you one top 10 win to get another shot (not auto rematch.)

 

[fightsnob]

I think there should be some rule that the champion has to fight x amount of times in x months, and he should fight whoever is available whether that person is ranked 1 or 11. This is something akin to what was done when Iaquinta fought Khabib

 

[awymore]

Paying your dues is a tried and true way of separating the wheat from the chaff.

What’s the point of a ranking system if top contenders are leapfrogged.

I don't consider it leap frogging if everyone higher ranked is on a losing streak or recently lost to the champ. When that's the case, I don't give a shit if it's #9 or #10 fighting for the title. If the champ is healthy, let him fight.

 

[LetThemBleed]

You did an excellent job at not answering the question.

However, I personally believe that novelty is key in these situations. Jacare got thouroughly smashed by Whittaker, and lost against Gastelum, which is a pretty strong argument against giving him the next title shot. Plus, Adesanya is undefeated, and that does mean a lot if you're ranked.

By that token should Costa get the next shot ahead of Adesanya if he beats Yoel in their to be confirmed bout in March? He's undefeated and would have beaten better competition provided he gets past Yoel.

 

[laleggenda27]

I think the premise of your argument is flawed. Often times, the kind of "fast tracks" you're talking about usually occur because of bad matchmaking and roster decisions. In your example, the situation at MW would have been fine if: (1) Yoel wasn't given an undeserved second shot at the title; (2) Mousasi was re-signed; and Israel wasn't matched up against a shot Anderson.

I fully support the idea of keeping champions active. I hate the fact that so many champions sit on their titles. But if the UFC handled their business better, there's no reason they'd need to give title shots to unproven fighters.

 

[Ken Fresno]

(TLDR at bottom)

The mantra within the UFC has since the beginning been "the best fighting the best". While I understand that this often is a buzzword rather than an actual guiding principle when it comes to matchmaking, I feel that most MMA fans do cling to it quite religiously.

An example: Israel Adesanya. Arguably one of the best future contenders at MW, he might get the next title shot if he gets past Anderson Silva. I see a lot of people moaning about this, that he needs to get more wins. After all, his only good looking wins are tooling a journeyman in Tavares, and knocking out a fringe contender in Brunson. After looking at the state of the MW-division though, I see few alternatives.

Champion : Robert Whittaker
1 Yoel Romero (lost twice to Whittaker)
2 Luke Rockhold (Moving to LHW)
3 Jacare Souza (Already lost against Gastelum and Whittaker)
4 Kelvin Gastelum (fighting next)
5 Chris Weidman (KO'd by Jacare)
6 Israel Adesanya

This brings us to the critical question: When there is a shortage of viable challengers, do you want the champion to stay active, or are you in favor of letting contenders fight until we have a definitive challenger, forcing the champion to be sidelined?

We want stars, don't we? I sure as hell want it. I want to watch legends be made, and this is mostly done by being active and racking up wins. Anderson Silva became the legend he is today because he fought a bunch of people, and did so spectacularly. Let's be honest, a lot of them were not elite, but the KO's will be forever remembered in highlight reels. For Whittaker, or any champ for that matter, to gain real respect he has to show people why he is the champ. I would much rather watch Whittaker fight 2-3 times a year and add to his highlight reel, than watching him fight once a year against a "deserving" opponent.

In this case the only viable challengers seem to be Adesanya (assuming he wins against Silva) and Jacare. Do you want them to fight first, or do you give one man a title shot first?

TLDR: I think it's pretty lame to wait an entire year between title fights within a division, and I think it would be better for everyone if the champion stayed active fighting less than perfect challengers, rather than waiting around forever until a "deserving" challenger shows up.

The question: When there is a shortage of viable challengers, do you want the champion to stay active fighting less-than-ideal challengers, or are you in favor of letting contenders fight until we have a definitive challenger, forcing the champion to be sidelined?

You have a nuanced understanding of all, or most, of the factors involved in matchmaking. And you shelve your biases when assessing those factors.

Those who will disagree do not, and cannot.

 

[grooves12]

Personally, I like the idea of tournaments that are being used in Bellator and PFL. Including the champion in the tournaments, as Bellator does allows the champion to stay active. It also has the side benefit of eliminating the BS immediate rematches of title fights that the UFC seems obsessed with. You lose, you are done and the division moves on. You will get your chance again, but you need to earn it.

The UFC used to follow a similar model on an unofficial basis... but as "personality" became the primary driver of matchmaking they have went away from it and it has ruined the entire organization to the point that the titles are meaningless and there is no building of legit contenders.

The other problem is the UFC escalators in the contract that make pay based on whether it's a title fight or not. This leads to fighters avoiding tough fights and looking for the easiest path to the championship. It's a problem of the UFC's own making. If they paid fighters fairly and gave them "main event" money on par with championship money, you would see a lot more good fights and guys willing to fight their way up the ranks to legitimize the titles again.

 

[Shaddows]

You did an excellent job at not answering the question.

However, I personally believe that novelty is key in these situations. Jacare got thoroughly smashed by Whittaker, and lost against Gastelum, which is a pretty strong argument against giving him the next title shot. Plus, Adesanya is undefeated, and that does mean a lot if you're ranked.

I responded to the question. You just didn't like it.
You are merely dishonest and avoiding my points. On that, YOU did an excellent job at not answering them.

So are rankings meaningless?
And one loss means you can NEVER rematch them??? Kind of odd, seeing how Yoel just had a second fight against the champ... one he did not even deserve, since he didn't even make weight when he beat Luke.

Oh, and let us not even mention that the champ and top contender are the only ones that beat Jacare.
Adesanya has yet to fight anyone from the top ranking....

So please, continue trying to be biased and dishonest. Talk to me when you can discuss about rankings and proper way to climb through them.

 

[Franklin U.]

Roses are red
Forest fires burn,
Uncle Enzo says
Anyhting of any worth,
Is something you earn.