UFC should strip belts after 9 months without defending, no exceptions

winkydinks

winkydinks

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,503
Reaction score
1,435
If a champ is injured, then tough shit. Reclaiming the belt shouldn't be a problem once they're healthy if there's so much concern. It's bullshit that Rose got to hold onto her belt for well over a year without fighting in a ripe division. Cejudo's now clogging up two divisions, including the deepest one in the UFC. By the time he defends the FW belt next, he'll have sat on it for 18 months. Whittaker sat on his for 16 months in another great division. Meanwhile, Shevchenko got her belt a year ago and has already defended it twice. Andrade was champ for three months before going into an unsuccessful title defense. Jon got his belt less than a year ago and has already defended it twice. Holloway's about to have his second defense in a year, that probably would be his third if not for the interim poirier fight nonsense.

Interim belts suck and are meaningless. There has to be some standard. I get that there are booking issues and shit that comes up, but idk why some of these fuckers get to admire the shiny belt on their shelf for as long as they want, while others are aggressively defending it and putting on shows.
 
the ufc at least needs to set up some guidelines for such an occasion. there doesn't seem to be any reason for the decisions made other then "money".
 
cabear said:
the ufc at least needs to set up some guidelines for such an occasion. there doesn't seem to be any reason for the decisions made other then "money".
Click to expand...
100%. Why set a precedent, when you'll just want to break the precedent soon when it meets your needs?

TS and others need to ask themselves "why would the UFC do this?" when they propose big changes. And don't say "for the fans", please.
 
Yes it would be great but it's not in the UFC's best interest. The UFC would then be liable if they don't offer the champ a fight along that timeline.

The UFC isn't going to just stick a champ on the next PPV card just because they want to fight. It has to make sense marketing wise.

Take Ngannou for instance. There's a reason Ngannou is sitting out right now. The UFC is waiting for the most opportune moment to utilize him. Same goes for the champs.

Do you have any reason to believe Cejudo doesn't want to fight? I haven't heard anything.
 
I see your point, but it may be too rigid. I personally favor a rule that, if 9 months have passed and the champ doesn't at least have a fight scheduled, then (s)he is stripped. If the fight is scheduled after the 9-month deadline, the champ will be stripped if the fight falls through.
 
Titles have been meaningless since Brett Hart took Shawn Michaels intercontinental title in a cage match.
<DisgustingHHH>
 
delbosque said:
I see your point, but it may be too rigid. I personally favor a rule that, if 9 months have passed and the champ doesn't at least have a fight scheduled, then (s)he is stripped. If the fight is scheduled after the 9-month deadline, the champ will be stripped if the fight falls through.
Click to expand...

You sound as though it's the titleholders who choose not to fight within 9 months.
 
I would make it a year but other than that I agree. Its not about if the champ's excuse is fair or not its about what has to happen. You don't reschedule the superbowl because your players are injured.
 
Ackmed said:
You sound as though it's the titleholders who choose not to fight within 9 months.
Click to expand...
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

Sometimes it's injury, not a choice. Other times it's UFC. Sometimes it's both (e.g. DC was hurt and UFC was chasing Brock Lesnar, so it worked out nicely for them both).

TUF used to push title shots back 6 months.

Lots of reasons. And UFC likes control. Holding themselves to a rule "for the fans" doesn't help UFC with their agenda. Which is making money.
 
The reality is that belts don't really matter. It's about putting on the best performance against the best of the division.
 
Champions actually get suspended without getting stripped.
 
Championships should be annual, like every other sporting activity on planet earth: every year, the current champion is thrown into a tournament or similar format and needs to fight his way back to earn the title
 
What about the BMF belt? If ufc tries to strip that one, it’s three piece and a soda time
 
It's at a ridicules level now. It seems like they somehow can fight 3-4 times a year...until they get the belt..then all of a sudden it takes an act of congress to get them to fight. It would be better to strip them..that way, they get to be a real multiple time champion if they win it back, without actually losing the belt. I think they would have a problem if not being the champ affects their sponsorship money outside the cage though.
 
Yes, I agree.

We don't need another Dominick Cruz hijacking the belt.
 
zero chance, they like belts. ffs, they created a stupid BMF belt..only gonna get worst from here
 
Sounds strict, but after thinking about it...yeah, I agree. Champs would try to defend more and if they were injured it would allow more up-and-comers to have a title shot. More title fights, basically.

Jarl
 
I've been saying similar for years only 6 months maximum not 9 months. And someone else said about Dominick Cruz holding things up. They are an obvious McGregor fan because he was the biggest offender for stalling title shots. He's an overrated loudmouth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,980
Messages
55,459,122
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top