Do champions have an obligation to fight until they lose?

[Alpha_T83]

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

Yea but his reasoning is legit. He legitimately wanted to move to 185, but his body couldn't handle the calories. He just isn't built to be a 185er. MOST fighters in GSPs position would have simply pulled out of the fight against Bisping. GSP actually showed up to fight the signed, fought, and then left 185.

If you don't believe me, go watch Chael Sonnen's video about trying to bulk up to 185 during high school. He said it made him sick trying to eat all the calories and ultimately failed:



He basically seconds GSPs account that trying to bulk up bigger than you're meant to be will backfire, and forcing yourself to eat a high calorie diet will just make you sick.

 

[Alpha_T83]

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.

Well said.

 

[DorianGray]

Yea but his reasoning is legit. He legitimately wanted to move to 185, but his body couldn't handle the calories. He just isn't built to be a 185er. MOST fighters in GSPs position would have simply pulled out of the fight against Bisping. GSP actually showed up to fight the signed, fought, and then left 185.

If you don't believe me, go watch Chael Sonnen's video about trying to bulk up to 185 during high school. He said it made him sick trying to eat all the calories and ultimately failed:



He basically seconds GSPs account that trying to bulk up bigger than you're meant to be will backfire, and forcing yourself to eat a high calorie diet will just make you sick.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure I believe gsp. But I don't really care that much. He vacated so it's whatever.

 

[ROIDZ]

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.

Yeah I'm more talking about Conor and Gsp at MW. Winning the belt and not defending at all is dogshit. Fight until they have a good win streak or lose. Gsp at WW or Silva could of retired ages ago and thats fine.

 

[Alpha_T83]

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.

Not really. The only other fight to make at the time was Bisping vs Whittaker, and Whittaker was injured -- not fighting until JUNE of 2018. Bisping would have literally just stayed champion, waiting for Whittaker 8 months later.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Yeah I'm more talking about Conor and Gsp at MW. Winning the belt and not defending at all is dogshit. Fight until they have a good win streak or lose. Gsp at WW or Silva could of retired ages ago and thats fine.

Conor never, ever offered to move up to 185 and fight GSP.

Conor is a crazy man and will fight almost anyone anywhere, but there's no way he'd fight GSP at 185. He'd get murdered.

 

[grimballer]

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.

Bs

If he clearly beat Hendricks n decided to retire or vacate his title ppl wouldn’t have problem with that.

However he leaves after a controversial split decision without really saying for how long (he was basically stripped). Then comes back to face the weakest champ in another division n vacates that title after apparently signing a contract that he’ll defend that title.

That’s the same guy who pretends to care about integrity of the sport

 

[FightGuyOpenMind]

If they vacate or retire that is a personal choice. No one is taking those shots but them, not the fans nor the promoters. When you're past your prime, 50 lbs over your weight class, and suffering from being punch drunk how many of those fans will write you, try to visit, put money towards your care, or even remember you?

As far as holding up the division, that is what happens when there appears to be no governing body. There should be mandatories based on ranking in the contenders' bracket. You have x amount of days to fight this guy or we'll strip you. A commission should be in place, and if it is already then it should be enforcing a set of regulations.

Champions should be fighting, and defending champions not place holders.

 

[ROIDZ]

Not really. The only other fight to make at the time was Bisping vs Whittaker, and Whittaker was injured -- not fighting until JUNE of 2018. Bisping would have literally just stayed champion, waiting for Whittaker 8 months later.

there were a few monsters waiting im pretty sure. Mousasi, Romero, Jacare.

 

[Rebli19]

I would love to see him again but as the other guys said, he should continue to defend

 

[Alpha_T83]

there were a few monsters waiting im pretty sure. Mousasi, Romero, Jacare.

Yea but Bisping wasn't going to fight them. Again, the problem at MW was with BISPING, not with GSP. But because GSP won that fight, everyone blames him.

There are only two scenarios that would have happened: Bisping fights GSP, or Bisping waits until Whittaker (June 2018). If you believe anything else would have happened, you're deluding yourself.

 

[Alpha_T83]

As far as holding up the division, that is what happens when there appears to be no governing body. There should be mandatories based on ranking in the contenders' bracket. You have x amount of days to fight this guy or we'll strip you. A commission should be in place, and if it is already then it should be enforcing a set of regulations.

Couldn't agree more. Sadly, having such a governing body would be nearly impossible.

For example, how does an "official" ranking system handle #1 contenders? For example, the #1 contender loses to the champion, then beats the next best challenger, and is again the #1 contender. This situation leads to perpetual rematches.

How do you decide when a rematch is deserved vs not deserved? You'll either end up with a situation with way too many rematches, or zero rematches. Having a governing body determine ranking and matchmaking is very difficult in practice ... almost impossible.

 

[ROIDZ]

Yea but Bisping wasn't going to fight them. Again, the problem at MW was with BISPING, not with GSP. But because GSP won that fight, everyone blames him.

There are only two scenarios that would have happened: Bisping fights GSP, or Bisping waits until Whittaker (June 2018). If you believe anything else would have happened, you're deluding yourself.

Its not deluded at all bud. At the time many people were shocked they would make that fight when there were a bunch of killers all deserving more. And yes Gsp should of either never had the shot or stayed and defended. You dont have evidence that nothing would of happened. You know that is impossible to know. Mousasi could be a defending champ now. Romero might of killed Bisping and the Government shut down the UFC forever and we might not be having this convo, but what we do know is that GSP held up the division for at least 6 months to a year. Guess we wont agree on this one.

 

[ANIM4L]

Actualy they do. It's called a Championship Clause

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/serious-question-when-signing-to-challenge-for-the-belt.3786659/

 

[FightGuyOpenMind]

Couldn't agree more. Sadly, having such a governing body would be nearly impossible.

For example, how does an "official" ranking system handle #1 contenders? For example, the #1 contender loses to the champion, then beats the next best challenger, and is again the #1 contender. This situation leads to perpetual rematches.

How do you decide when a rematch is deserved vs not deserved? You'll either end up with a situation with way too many rematches, or zero rematches. Having a governing body determine ranking and matchmaking is very difficult in practice ... almost impossible.

That is a good point. If the number one contender loses to the champion then at that point their ranking would be determined on their record, difficulty of opposition, how dominant they were etc. If he moves down in ranking, then a new number one contender is established, and the champion would have within a certain time period to give that fighter their shot. Say the fighter who lost the title shot is now the number two contender then he would not be in the immediate conversation for the title shot. Nor would he be in talks to fight the number one contender. The number one contender earned his opportunity to fight for the title, not the number two contender. Also, a champion who beat an opponent (if convincingly) may not wish to negotiate an immediate rematch.

A rematch being deserved versus not deserved if you lost your original title shot as a contender would be largely up to the discretion of the champion. If you were his mandatory, and he beat you then he fulfilled his obligation to fight you and you lost. At that point he can choose to negotiate a rematch or move onto other contenders. Most times they'll choose the latter. That doesn't mean he won't fight you again, just not right away. Besides Mayweather/Maidana I can't think of any immediate rematches outside of former champions who had a rematch clause in their contract. Undefeated fighters are not uncommon so that alone may knock down your ranking. Also, if you're coming off a loss on your record, and a comparable fighter is on a win streak you should not outrank him.

If there are several comparable fighters then a series of elimination style matches can be contested to see who is the number one contender. The time it takes to establish a winner would still allow the champion to defend their belt in a reasonable amount of time. This way the division will always be active, the number one contender spot will hold weight, and the champion will defend their belt on a regular basis.

 

[and 68 others like this]

I see your point. Its quite stupid to expect champions to fight until they loose. Its perfectly fine with me if a champ vacates the belt. But I don't want him to see coming back afterwards for cherry picked fights. If you vacate, you need to retire imo or go to an entire different promoter. Not come back for money fights or whatever.

 

[Pharenheit]

GSP's career is already set in stone.
I give people credit for managing through their hard time to watch a fighter who they hated to defend his belt 9 times though!

 

[Alpha_T83]

Actualy they do. It's called a Championship Clause

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/serious-question-when-signing-to-challenge-for-the-belt.3786659/

"If, at the expiration of the Term, Fighter is then a UFC champion, the Term shall automatically be extended for the period commencing on the Termination Date and ending on the later of (i) one (1) year from the Termination Date; or (ii) the date on which Fighter has participated in three (3) bouts promoted by ZUFFA, regardless of weight class or title, following the Termination Date ("Extension Term"). Any reference to the Term herein shall be deemed to include a reference to the Extension Term, where applicable."

Literally you just proved my point. That clause does not say they have an 'obligation' to fight until they lose. If you have any reading comprehension, it says they cannot hold up divisions while maintaining the belt. Thus, they must either 1) defend the belt or 2) vacate the belt within 1 year of their last title fight.

Also, the MAIN point of this champion's clause was to attempt to prevent champions from re-negotiating contracts. The 1 year without a defense --> stripped part came after the fact. Basically, once you become champ your contract automatically renews for at least 2-3 more fights. This way the UFC can force their new champions to fight for less money.

 

[ANIM4L]

"If, at the expiration of the Term, Fighter is then a UFC champion, the Term shall automatically be extended for the period commencing on the Termination Date and ending on the later of (i) one (1) year from the Termination Date; or (ii) the date on which Fighter has participated in three (3) bouts promoted by ZUFFA, regardless of weight class or title, following the Termination Date ("Extension Term"). Any reference to the Term herein shall be deemed to include a reference to the Extension Term, where applicable."

Literally you just proved my point. That clause does not say they have an 'obligation' to fight until they lose. If you have any reading comprehension, it says they cannot hold up divisions while maintaining the belt. Thus, they must either 1) defend the belt or 2) vacate the belt within 1 year of their last title fight.

Also, the MAIN point of this champion's clause was to attempt to prevent champions from re-negotiating contracts. The 1 year without a defense --> stripped part came after the fact. Basically, once you become champ your contract automatically renews for at least 2-3 more fights. This way the UFC can force their new champions to fight for less money.

Reading comprehension. If they vacate they arent a champion anymore. Your thread title: Do champions have an obligation to fight until they lose?

Dont get butthurt because I helped answer you question.

 

[spilotes]

If a fighter isn't wanting to fight but does so because he/she feels obligated then they are not fighting at their best, and if they lose there's always the but they weren't at their best argument, which takes away from the winner, so what's the fucking point? Feeling obligated is stupid.