Champs need to defend belt at least 2 times a Calendar Year

We'd like them to fight 3 times a year. We promised that to our fans but we can't be unrealistic or unreasonable. We can encourage the 3rd fight by doubling the purse.

Who is "we?"
 
Don't kid yourself, there is always another SuperStar right on the Doorstep

Are you KIDDING me? This is where I can't possibly believe you're serious. First off, you don't just have another superstar just like that. New Silvas and Jones' will emerge. Eventually. Just because you strip the champ and give someone else a paper belt that nobody respects, doesn't make the new "champ" a superstar. Especially if you're stripping people of titles before they get anywhere NEAR record defenses because they get a minor injury.

WAY too many variables. Let's say a champ fights in April, and is set to fight again in November or December. Let's say he gets a minor injury, one that will only delay the fight two or three months. What, does that warrant stripping the belt? What if a champ gets married? Has a kid or other personal issues? Some fighters already feel disdain for how the MMA orgs handle individual fighters, and you think this won't make that even worse?

This idea is nonsense and would harm the UFC horribly. How the FUCK do you sell a champ that didn't beat the previous champ, with the previous champ STILL IN THE UFC? Hypothetical: "Hey everyone. Chris Weidman is UFC champ for beating, say, the Bisping/Belfort winner. Even though Anderson Silva is still undefeated in the UFC, didn't fail a drug test, and is still fighting. But still, like totally take the MW division seriously." You could swap any fighters in any division with those names.

And how do you book a fight for the champ that got stripped? If you give him someone who actually deserves in the rankings to fight him, you're holding up the number one contender. If they don't, then you're giving someone an undeserving shot at the champ (he wouldn't have the belt, but every single fighter and 99.99% of fans would consider them the real champ.)

Honestly, the idea of paying fighters more for fighting 3+ times a year isn't a bad idea. Encouragement, but not fucking someone's career up for life because they fractured their arm in the wrong month. But the other idea is so mind-numbingly bad I'm actually embarrassed for you. If you're serious, you should honestly be ashamed of yourself.

Hey, guess what? If this had happened this year, we'd have four champs. Including flyweight, which is by far the smallest division. You think it wouldn't be confusing for the casual fan with people constantly losing the belt WITHOUT LOSING?

When at least a percentage of people can at least see your point, you have an opinion worth merit. When 100% of other people think your idea is a horrible idea, you should take notice.
 
You would have champs and top contenders jumping ship to places like Bellator because sometimes, it's not possible. They're not timed machines set to alarm clocks. They're human fucking beings.
 
You would have champs and top contenders jumping ship to places like Bellator because sometimes, it's not possible. They're not timed machines set to alarm clocks. They're human fucking beings.

But you have to agree that is sad that Anderson only defense his belt one time a year (and god knows what he is doing next year, maybe some Seagal movie shi$)
 
Are you KIDDING me?

No, I'm not. You have an overactive imagination. This is a good rule to keep things rolling. Its not the big over blown deal you're making it out to be. You defend your title twice a year or else you lose it. Everyone lives by the same rule. You lose your belt no
big deal you come back and face one of the young lions in the stable. Its called playing by the rules. Don't over think it.
 
But you have to agree that is sad that Anderson only defense his belt one time a year (and god knows what he is doing next year, maybe some Seagal movie shi$)

Anderson Silva has defended his belt at least twice every single year besides this one and he might have defended it twice this year if he didn't step up to save Ufc 153.
 
But you have to agree that is sad that Anderson only defense his belt one time a year (and god knows what he is doing next year, maybe some Seagal movie shi$)

What are you talking about. He defends at least 2 times a year.
 
No, I'm not. You have an overactive imagination. This is a good rule to keep things rolling. Its not the big over blown deal you're making it out to be. You defend your title twice a year or else you lose it. Everyone lives by the same rule. You lose your belt no
big deal you come back and face one of the young lions in the stable. Its called playing by the rules. Don't over think it.


Clearly the Ufc should just institute rules left and right without ever thinking about the consequences of said actions.
 
But you have to agree that is sad that Anderson only defense his belt one time a year (and god knows what he is doing next year, maybe some Seagal movie shi$)

I do. Masquerading a paper champ around in the meantime though, would TREMENDOUSLY hurt the credibility of that division and the UFC though.

And you obviously can't hold Silva, the GOAT who's fucking destroyed most current top middleweights and set records, to quite the same standard as every other champ. It'd be one thing if it was a division clogged with contenders. If GSP beat Diaz and Hendricks beat Ellenberger, then GSP decided to take a year off while not being injured, that'd be complete bullshit.

And I thought it was dogshit that Condit waited for GSP. Big Condit fan, but bitch move. That's the most justifiable instance ever. But at the same time, stripping the interim champ while the regular champ is on injury leave would be like impossible to follow for non-hardcore fans. The UFC won't ever grow by making rules that confuse the fuck out of anyone who doesn't follow the sport enough to be posting on MMA boards.
 
No, I'm not. You have an overactive imagination. This is a good rule to keep things rolling. Its not the big over blown deal you're making it out to be. You defend your title twice a year or else you lose it. Everyone lives by the same rule. You lose your belt no
big deal you come back and face one of the young lions in the stable. Its called playing by the rules. Don't over think it.

The UFC is seen by millions and is worth billions. Doing DRASTIC changes without thinking about the ripple effect at all is not how anyone conducts business. It's also not called "playing by the rules" when you're making up rules as you see fit.

Sorry you couldn't think of logical reasons to discount what I said, and had to resort to "SHUT UP IT'LL WORK CAUSE I SAY SO."
 
Back
Top