Chael was the rightful MW champ (of WEC)

[gevoudane]

I do believe they were talking about Chael being the WEC champ but the merger happened and they cancelled all WEC plans. Filho even was going to hand the belt over to Chael. If he didnt lose to Maia they were going to have him then fight for the title, not have the eliminator fights.

 

[Mittens]

In Invicta, Frey the sitting atomweight champion missed weight and Cummins made weight. Only Cummins was eligible to win the title.

I was just about to mention Frey vs. Cummins

 

[Mamou]

You are stating the obvious but apparently what we are saying is too hard for you to understand. Even in my response to you, I made it clear I understood the rule. We ALL know that but what we are saying is that it shouldn't be that way and Chael Sonnen should've been the champion. If the champion misses weight and the fight is still on, as it was, and the challenger wins, he should be the rightful champ because the title is no longer the champions. Not sure why it's so difficult.

I'm not disagreeing, but the facts are that it's no longer a title fight regardless of who misses weight.

I just don't cry about it like other people in this thread.

 

[Mamou]

why was Rockhold eligible to be champion against Yoel?

You mean eligible to be the interim champion?

I've explained this already, it was for an interim title, not the undisputed title, in which it would be non title.

 

[blaseblah]

You mean eligible to be the interim champion?

I've explained this already, it was for an interim title, not the undisputed title, in which it would be non title.

There is no difference in how this is handled. All titles are treated the same.

 

[Mamou]

You keep saying interim titles aren't the same but they are held to the exact same standards. You have to make the exact weight, there isn't a 1 pound allowance. They are all 5 round fights. The winner gets the "interim" title and now gets a piece of the PPV pie.

You keep stating the same thing as if it were factual but there hasn't been a champion who had missed weight yet. Even Paulo Filho knows Chael should be the champion and did the right thing by giving Chael the belt. Anyhow, argue all you want, there's a reason why you're the lone dissenter.

It's a glorified #1 contenders fight, they put those together to sell a "title" fight on PPV and a "champion vs champion" fight when in reality it's the champion against the #1 contender.

You find me an actual title fight, meaning there's an actual champion, where someone missed weight and it was considered a title defense or the challenger could win the belt and not just a non title fight.

If you can't find any such fight under Zuffa/WME, don't even reply.

 

[Mamou]

Because Silva already held the belt and Lutter couldn't win it. There was nothing on the line. Nothing to defend.

I'm not sure why you're arguing this. It doesn't matter whether a title is interim or not. If a Challenger makes weight they are supposed to be eligible to win the title. This is precedence.

In Invicta, Frey the sitting atomweight champion missed weight and Cummins made weight. Only Cummins was eligible to win the title. In Bellator, Halsey the sitting middleweight champion missed weight and Grove made made weight. Only Grove was eligible to win the title.

Those fighters were stripped of their titles, Filho was not.

And exactly, there was nothing to defend, hence the non title fight. Filho was not stripped and did not make weight, there was nothing to defend.

 

[Mamou]

There is no difference in how this is handled. All titles are treated the same.

No they're not, Gaethje wouldn't even put the interim title around his waist because it's not a real title.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Those fighters were stripped of their titles, Filho was not.

And exactly, there was nothing to defend, hence the non title fight. Filho was not stripped and did not make weight, there was nothing to defend.

Wait a tic.

Are you saying that when the belt is vacant and one fighter fails to make weight, the fighter that made weight can still win the belt (which everyone agrees on).

But if the champ doesn't make weight, then there is no title fight.

Except that if the champ misses weight and the fight goes on and the champ is stripped between the weigh-in and fight, then the opponent can now win the vacant belt, but if the ex-champ wins the belt is still vacant?

Did I summarize that loophole correctly? Because if so, I see what you're saying, and it makes sense...but that's not exactly what you've been implying these last 100 or so posts. Just one (me) asshole's opinion. Cheers.

 

[cade187]

That's not my opinion, those at facts.

You can sit here and argue all you want, the facts are when the undisputed title is on the line and 1 fighter misses weight, regardless if it's champion or challenger, it's then considered a non title fight. Champion can't claim a title defense and the challenger can't win the title.

This is literally an opinion, unless you can cite another example of a champion not making weight, specifically in Zuffa, or a rule to that effect. You can't, ipso facto, it's your opinion.

 

[The Schmoop]

You mean eligible to be the interim champion?

I've explained this already, it was for an interim title, not the undisputed title, in which it would be non title.

That changes absolutely nothing. If it was for a vacant title, the exact same scenario would’ve unfolded as both fighters would still have been challengers with only one fighter eligible to walk away as champion. Substitute Chael for Luke and Paulo for Yoel and there’s nothing different at all.

There is zero reasoning for Chael not getting the belt after making championship weight and beating a champion that came in heavy.

 

[Mamou]

Wait a tic.

Are you saying that when the belt is vacant and one fighter fails to make weight, the fighter that made weight can still win the belt (which everyone agrees on).

But if the champ doesn't make weight, then there is no title fight.

Except that if the champ misses weight and the fight goes on and the champ is stripped between the weigh-in and fight, then the opponent can now win the vacant belt, but if the ex-champ wins the belt is still vacant?

Did I summarize that loophole correctly?

If the champ isn't stripped there is no longer a title fight. Filho was not stripped, therefore Sonnen could not win the title because there was no title being defended.

 

[Mamou]

This is literally an opinion, unless you can cite another example of a champion not making weight, specifically in Zuffa, or a rule to that effect. You can't, ipso facto, it's your opinion.

I have already cited 3 fights where they were non title fights because a champion or challenger missed weight.

Those are facts, not opinions

 

[Mamou]

That changes absolutely nothing. If it was for a vacant title, the exact same scenario would’ve unfolded as both fighters would still have been challengers with only one fighter eligible to walk away as champion. Substitute Chael for Luke and Paulo for Yoel and there’s nothing different at all.

There is zero reasoning for Chael not getting the belt after making championship weight and beating a champion that came in heavy.

Except Filho was the champion and he was not stripped for missing weight...

And it also wasn't an interim title fight.

So it's not the exact same scenario

 

[SeattleFightFan]

If the champ isn't stripped there is no longer a title fight. Filho was not stripped, therefore Sonnen could not win the title because there was no title being defended.

But that's why those counter-examples others have given (Grove in Bellator and Cummins in Invicta) are not legit counter-examles in your opinion? Because the champ was stripped, the fight went on, and only the other (formerly known as "challenger") could win the now-vacant belt, exactly like Figueiredo v Benevidez?

 

[cade187]

I have already cited 3 fights where they were non title fights because a champion or challenger missed weight.

Those are facts, not opinions

I know you can't be this ignorant. A champion missing weight is not the same as a challenger missing weight. You're being intentionally ignorant. The fact that no one agrees with you should be enough to at least reconsider your opinion.

 

[Mamou]

But that's why those counter-examples others have given (Grove in Bellator and Cummins in Invicta) are not legit counter-examles in your opinion? Because the champ was stripped, the fight went on, and only the other (formerly known as "challenger") could win the now-vacant belt, exactly like Figueiredo v Benevidez?

Yes, they were stripped and the fight went on. Filho was not stripped and the fight went on. You can't defend a belt if you don't make the weight and you can't win a title that's not being defended.

Like I've said, that is not my opinion, those are facts.

 

[BEATDOWNS]

Correct, 2 non champions were fighting for a vacant championship.

And why wasn't Silva/Lutter a title fight?

Lutter missed weight.

Because Silva already held the belt and Lutter couldn't win it. There was nothing on the line. Nothing to defend.

The fook you on about son Lutter missed weight that is why the title got taken off the table. Lutter chose to take the fight anyway.

 

[Mamou]

I know you can't be this ignorant. A champion missing weight is not the same as a challenger missing weight. You're being intentionally ignorant. The fact that no one agrees with you should be enough to at least reconsider your opinion.

Nah, quite a few people liked my OP.

And it's the exact same, especially when the champion is not stripped of the title. There's no title to defend, therefore it's a non title fight.

I never said I agreed or disagreed with that, but those are facts. I'm sorry you can't accept that.

 

[Mamou]

Lutter missed weight.


The fook you on about son Lutter missed weight that is why the title got taken off the table. Lutter chose to take the fight anyway.

I know, when someone misses weight, it's a non title bout, even when it's the champion and they are not stripped, like Filho.