Do champions have an obligation to fight until they lose?

[Alpha_T83]

I'm surprised at the amount of GSP hate on these forums. I mention GSP because he is the biggest example, but other examples are the WMMA fighters GDR at 145 and Nicco Monano at 125.

It seems people are pissed that GSP vacated 170 without giving Hendricks a rematch, and then vacated 185 without fighting Whittaker. I'm baffled as to why that would upset people, other than simply being disappointed that you don't get to see more GSP fights.

It seems to come down to this notion that the champion "must fight until they lose". Like a passing of the torch, the champion is somehow obligated to eventually yield their legacy to the newer generation. I cannot overstate how much I disagree with this absurd notion.

The only exception I would agree with, is when champions refuse to fight and finally vacate the belt after holding the division up for a year. Nicco Montano would fall into this category. However, GSP graciously vacated his titles rather quickly in both cases. He didn't hold up divisions.

So my question is: Sherdoggers that believe in this nonsense, how do you justify that a "champion must fight until they lose"???

 

[ROIDZ]

They have an obligation to defend.

 

[Alpha_T83]

They have an obligation to defend.

No they don't. They have an obligation not to hold up divisions, this is a huge difference. "Defend or vacate" is the correct statement.

If a fighter refuses to fight for a year, and then vacates, I would 100% agree with you. However, if a fighter says "I need to take a break" or "this weight class isn't for me", and they immediately vacate the title, then they've done nothing wrong.

 

[abiG.2]

Yes, they owe it, if nothing else, to the fans who have made them richer than they ever thought possible.

 

[ralphus1]

I'll turn the question around to TS:

If a champ walks away for whatever reason and decides to come back later, does he/she automatically deserve a title shot?

 

[g*r*b]

What is the fascination some have about "lineal champions?" I've seen articles lovingly detailing chains from UFC 1 to the present that are as complicated as the pedigree of ruling dynasties and as long as the "begat" passages in the Bible.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Yes, they owe it, if nothing else, to the fans who have made them richer than they ever thought possible.

That's so stupid. What fans do they owe it to? Their own fans???? I don't want to watch my favorite fighters fighting past their prime until they lose.

An excellent upcoming example is DC. He's stated in public that he's going to retire when he hits 40. So, assuming he doesn't defend 205 and beats Brock Lesnar at HW, then he will retire having vacated both the 205 and HW belts. Are you going to bash DC for not fighting until he he loses too????

True fans of a fighter shouldn't want them to fight until they lose. And if you're a hater that bought every PPV to see GSP lose, then I couldn't give two fucks what you think.

 

[cambo78]

Many of my old UFC champ favs like Frank Shamrock, Bas Rutten and Bustamante vacated. Didn't bother me one bit. Whatever makes them happy.

 

[Alpha_T83]

I'll turn the question around to TS:

If a champ walks away for whatever reason and decides to come back later, does he/she automatically deserve a title shot?

I think the GSP situation at middleweight was a joke. I'm not going to defend that decision, but that was Dana White & the UFCs decision. Georges simply accepted a fight he was offered.

That situation was created by Bisping ducking the rightful contenders. GSP shouldn't get any hate for that situation.

 

[svmVR2097]

Yes, they owe it, if nothing else, to the fans who have made them richer than they ever thought possible.

No they don't, they already gave back to the fans. They only owe the fans to show up and fight for the next fight they are contracted for, otherwise they don't owe anything to the fans.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

They have an obligation to defend.

That means they can never retire - they have to keep fighting until they get so old they can't win.

Does that apply to everyone? You can't retire from your job until someone else is willing to do it better?

 

[ralphus1]

I think the GSP situation at middleweight was a joke. I'm not going to defend that decision, but that was Dana White & the UFCs decision. Georges simply accepted a fight he was offered.

That situation was created by Bisping ducking the rightful contenders. GSP shouldn't get any hate for that situation.

Agreed. Bisping chased a big payday and ignored the rightful contenders. Not unlike what DC is doing with Brock right now.

The UFC has 'evolved' to now promoting superfights across weight classes, chasing money over title lineages. From a business standpoint it makes perfect sense. And if you're a fighter with an expiring contract and Bellator offers you more money or the opportunity to negotiate with outside sponsors, you better think hard about it.

 

[Old Timer]

I agree totally with your wording TS. The champ owes nothing as long as they don't hold up the other fighters. Your example of GSP is sound, I think he did the right thing is stepping away from both the Divs at the time he was champ. Not a single person got held up.

Many of my old UFC champ favs like Frank Shamrock, Bas Rutten and Bustamante vacated. Didn't bother me one bit. Whatever makes them happy.

This is also so true, but I think in the old days the fans were more into the fights and not so much the drama, oh wait, there was no drama back then, just pure fighting.

 

[cburm]

Its the fact that gsp never fought the fights fans wanted to see at the right times ... If you duck fighters for ever then fight them when there figured out or old or ben defeated or just never fighting them then you go back to having close fights with cans then retire then come back only for the biggest easiest matchups that present themselves it really dont sit well because youre looked as the goat ..

Everyone wanted gsp vs woodly no he fights bisping who was always a mw gatekeeper his entire career he gets the belt luckily thanks to ufc pushing him there. Pretty much losing his fight to silva prior we all know he was ko'd

Then gsp ducking for conor to make his money. If gsp fights and beats woodley wouldnt his legacy be solidified.... You couldnt talk shit about gsp at all you couldnt say hes not the goat... Now wouldnt that be the best thing for his career.

 

[Alpha_T83]

What is the fascination some have about "lineal champions?" I've seen articles lovingly detailing chains from UFC 1 to the present that are as complicated as the pedigree of ruling dynasties and as long as the "begat" passages in the Bible.

The best part is all the 155+ lineal championships could be wiped out in the next year, that haven't been already.

If GSP wins 155, which I think he will, then between DC and GSP, 155, 170, 185, 205, and HW will all have their "lineal" champions end, assuming these guys retire without losing from now on.

 

[NoContest]

If a champ goes away on a decisive win with no major contenders left, I think people would be fine with that.

For example, if Silva had retired after the second fight with Chael, that would have been fine.

GSP left after a pretty close decision against Hendricks. And then beat a pretty weak champ in Bisping who never fought the top contenders in his division, and ducked all the contenders.

 

[DorianGray]

no, but they should vacate if they dont want to defend - as gsp did. He gets hate because he assured everyone he would defend the mw belt and then didnt

 

[Alpha_T83]

Its the fact that gsp never fought the fights fans wanted to see at the right times ... If you duck fighters for ever then fight them when there figured out or old or ben defeated or just never fighting them then you go back to having close fights with cans then retire then come back only for the biggest easiest matchups that present themselves it really dont sit well because youre looked as the goat ..

GSP never ducked anyone at 170. He literally fought every single contender available during his tenure. EVERYONE around GSP was saying "he's only got a couple fights left in him". GSP had a long career full of title fights, and he was drained & in need of a break. He didn't even want to fight Hendricks, but he gave the fans one last fight they were asking for. As for GSP vs Silva, GSP didn't want to go up in weight at the time, and Silva apparently couldn't make a catchweight of 178 pounds.

Everyone wanted gsp vs woodly no he fights bisping who was always a mw gatekeeper his entire career he gets the belt luckily thanks to ufc pushing him there. Pretty much losing his fight to silva prior we all know he was ko'd

GSP had officially walked away from the 170 pound division, and was interested in legacy. He was offered a title fight, and your "gatekeeper" happened to be the champion. You can't blame him for accepting a fight he was offered. It's not his job to be the ranking police. That one is on Dana White & the UFC.

Then gsp ducking for conor to make his money. If gsp fights and beats woodley wouldnt his legacy be solidified.... You couldnt talk shit about gsp at all you couldnt say hes not the goat... Now wouldnt that be the best thing for his career.

Are you kidding me??? GSP is not ducking McGregor. He's actively slimming down to 155 to become the first UFC fighter to win belts in 3 different weight classes. Again, GSP is interested in legacy, and you can't fault him for wanting to set records. If you do, you're just a jealous hater, and your opinion is literally fucking dogshit.

 

[DorianGray]

Yes, they owe it, if nothing else, to the fans who have made them richer than they ever thought possible.

nobody owes fans shit. Fans of everything elevate people in their own eyes and then demand those people repay them for that elevation. It's absurd. You pay for a product that is delivered to you via fight pass, ppv or fox (or a movie theater, netflix, etc....). That's what you paid for. Your adulation of people you don't know doesn't create an obligation they must fulfill.

 

[ROIDZ]

No they don't. They have an obligation not to hold up divisions, this is a huge difference. "Defend or vacate" is the correct statement.

If a fighter refuses to fight for a year, and then vacates, I would 100% agree with you. However, if a fighter says "I need to take a break" or "this weight class isn't for me", and they immediately vacate the title, then they've done nothing wrong.

Its situation dependent though. In your boy Goerges case he mos def held up the division by coming in to get an immediate title shot after never fighting at MW, cherry picking the softest champ to date, wouldn't go up to face Silva in both their primes, Weidman, Luke and then when he becomes champ he gives it straight to Bobby. So in fact yes he did have an obligation to defend otherwise it was a massive fuck around for the division which it became. Thank fuck for Whittaker and Romero.