Do you believe Jon Jones is obligated to fight Tom Aspinall?

[fzoid4454]

But in some cases it IS the same amount of arbitrariness. Like in the case where the "real" belt holder refuses to fight what's the obvious only challenge (whether they also hold a belt or not).

You're arguing that this is the slippery slope fallacy when YOU presented the scenario where Jones refuses to fight Aspinall but doesn't retire and fights some else to defend his belt. That's not a slippery slope, that's an actual situation where the legitimacy of that belt is destroyed (at least temporarily).

Your argument is that the "real" belt holds legitimacy regardless of what happens to it or how it's assigned to a fighter simply because of what it is. And similarly that an interim belt holds none of that simply because of what IT is. And then you present a scenario where the holder of the belt you deem irrelevant would be viewed by most as the legitimate champion. These views are conflicting.

We view belts differently, and won't agree. To me as a fan they're simply vehicles that aid in getting us the matchups that feature the best fighters ideally fighting each other. You make a trinket that comes with some benefits and tell the competitors "this is your goal". The best guys fight each other to get it, and we as fans get entertained. If one guy/girl acquires it but then won't honor the spirit of why it exists, the legitimacy of it representing "the best fighter" evaporates. And the fact that it's dubbed the "real" belt or whatever is meaningless. The sport is about fighting. Not standing there with a prize.

That's a normal process where champions give up belts if they don't face a mandatory challenger. Usually, in boxing, a champ can choose someone who is ranked highly, but not necessarily the #1 contender, but then they're required to defend against the top contender in a mandatory bout sometime soon or the next fight.

That's not arbitrary in most sports. To the degree that Dana runs the UFC like a WWE clown-show wannabe organization, it's not as formalized.

Riddick Bowe gave up the WBC belt because he was scared shitless of Lennox Lewis.

Mike Tyson was required to fight Lewis, as a mandatory defense for the WBC belt in his second round as champ. He was also terrified of Lewis. Don King low-balled Lewis, offering $13.5M, and Lewis refused. By the formalized process that REAL sports organizations follow, by refusing, the fight would go out to bids for the event, and Lewis stood to make a lot more than that. But since the UFC is a monopoly, a champion really doesn't have options like offering a fight for highest bidding venue/promotion, if the UFC tries to lowball, which they pretty much always do.

Lewis accepted $4M in "step aside" money from Tyson and King, allowing Tyson to unify the WBC and WBA belts by fighting Bruce Seldon (a mediocre champ, with the Tyson being required to make his mandatory WBC defense against Lewis the next fight. Once Tyson had the WBA belt, he gave up his WBC title, to avoid making the mandatory challenge.

I'm not against stripping champs who won't fight top fighters. But Jones just fought in November, so, again (and again and again), AT THIS TIME, there's no basis, at all, to strip him of a title. And if you think that he should be, now, then I'm not sure how you justify not already stripping Aspinall of his oh-so-legitimate and substantial interim belt, since he's been more inactive.

Or doesn't it matter, for an interim belt?

 

[fzoid4454]

But in some cases it IS the same amount of arbitrariness. Like in the case where the "real" belt holder refuses to fight what's the obvious only challenge (whether they also hold a belt or not).

You're arguing that this is the slippery slope fallacy when YOU presented the scenario where Jones refuses to fight Aspinall but doesn't retire and fights some else to defend his belt. That's not a slippery slope, that's an actual situation where the legitimacy of that belt is destroyed (at least temporarily).

Your argument is that the "real" belt holds legitimacy regardless of what happens to it or how it's assigned to a fighter simply because of what it is. And similarly that an interim belt holds none of that simply because of what IT is. And then you present a scenario where the holder of the belt you deem irrelevant would be viewed by most as the legitimate champion. These views are conflicting.

We view belts differently, and won't agree. To me as a fan they're simply vehicles that aid in getting us the matchups that feature the best fighters ideally fighting each other. You make a trinket that comes with some benefits and tell the competitors "this is your goal". The best guys fight each other to get it, and we as fans get entertained. If one guy/girl acquires it but then won't honor the spirit of why it exists, the legitimacy of it representing "the best fighter" evaporates. And the fact that it's dubbed the "real" belt or whatever is meaningless. The sport is about fighting. Not standing there with a prize.

It's pretty clear you don't understand what "slippery slope" is, and why it's a fallacy.

My unrealistic hypothetical had nothing to do with slippery slope. It was illustrating a point.

 

[KungFuCow]

This is worse than Tito ducking Chuck

Only true OGs remember this.... but youre right.

 

[mkess101]

That's a normal process where champions give up belts if they don't face a mandatory challenger. Usually, in boxing, a champ can choose someone who is ranked highly, but not necessarily the #1 contender, but then they're required to defend against the top contender in a mandatory bout sometime soon or the next fight.

That's not arbitrary in most sports. To the degree that Dana runs the UFC like a WWE clown-show wannabe organization, it's not as formalized.

Riddick Bowe gave up the WBC belt because he was scared shitless of Lennox Lewis.

Mike Tyson was required to fight Lewis, as a mandatory defense for the WBC belt in his second round as champ. He was also terrified of Lewis. Don King low-balled Lewis, offering $13.5M, and Lewis refused. By the formalized process that REAL sports organizations follow, by refusing, the fight would go out to bids for the event, and Lewis stood to make a lot more than that. But since the UFC is a monopoly, a champion really doesn't have options like offering a fight for highest bidding venue/promotion, if the UFC tries to lowball, which they pretty much always do.

Lewis accepted $4M in "step aside" money from Tyson and King, allowing Tyson to unify the WBC and WBA belts by fighting Bruce Seldon (a mediocre champ, with the Tyson being required to make his mandatory WBC defense against Lewis the next fight. Once Tyson had the WBA belt, he gave up his WBC title, to avoid making the mandatory challenge.

I'm not against stripping champs who won't fight top fighters. But Jones just fought in November, so, again (and again and again), AT THIS TIME, there's no basis, at all, to strip him of a title. And if you think that he should be, now, then I'm not sure how you justify not already stripping Aspinall of his oh-so-legitimate and substantial interim belt, since he's been more inactive.

Or doesn't it matter, for an interim belt?

I have NOT advocated Jones being stripped...yet. This goes back to my overarching point (which you referenced) that the UFC operates like a free for all where Dana just does whatever he wants with no guardrails. How about there's a mandatory one defense per year? Jones needs to fight by the MSG fall card or he's stripped. Meaning he needs to sign a bout agreement by August at the absolute latest to give time for camps. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me...

 

[mkess101]

It's pretty clear you don't understand what "slippery slope" is, and why it's a fallacy.

My unrealistic hypothetical had nothing to do with slippery slope. It was illustrating a point.

I understand what it is. I hope your scenario is unrealistic.

The reason the slippery slope fallacy doesn't apply is EXACTLY due to what YOU referenced in terms of Dana running the org like a "clown show". The fact you'd use that terminology means that the allegedly far fetched scenarios likely are not so far fetched and thus the slippery slope fallacy doesn't apply.

 

[fzoid4454]

I have NOT advocated Jones being stripped...yet. This goes back to my overarching point (which you referenced) that the UFC operates like a free for all where Dana just does whatever he wants with no guardrails. How about there's a mandatory one defense per year? Jones needs to fight by the MSG fall card or he's stripped. Meaning he needs to sign a bout agreement by August at the absolute latest to give time for camps. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me...

Interesting, because you've been blasting me and arguing with me when I've merely said that no one should be stripped of any belts at this time.

I've never said that Jones should not fight Aspinall. I have said that it's not that simple, when you have Dana running the UFC, so a fair wage is not assumed.

My only points, thus far -
1) Jones is not obligated to fight, at all. He can retire, as an option.
2) If he does not retire, he SHOULD fight Aspinall, next.
3) But he's not the only one who has to meet certain obligations to make a fight happen, the UFC needs to pony up for an event like this and do their part. So let's not dumb it down.

Secondary points, from responses -
1) Jones has recently fought, after a major injury, so he hasn't been sitting on the belt.
2) Jones has been more recently active than Aspinall, so talking about stripping him seems a bit silly.
3) It's normal for big fights with big names to takes months to come together. It's premature to freak out.
4) Reunifying the belts matters not at all, compared to having the best fighters fight for the actual belt.

SO WHAT THE FUCK HAS ALL OF OUR BACK AND FORTH BEEN ABOUT?

 

[mkess101]

Interesting, because you've been blasting me and arguing with me when I've merely said that no one should be stripped of any belts at this time.

I've never said that Jones should not fight Aspinall. I have said that it's not that simple, when you have Dana running the UFC, so a fair wage is not assumed.

My only points, thus far -
1) Jones is not obligated to fight, at all. He can retire, as an option.
2) If he does not retire, he SHOULD fight Aspinall, next.
3) But he's not the only one who has to meet certain obligations to make a fight happen, the UFC needs to pony up for an event like this and do their part. So let's not dumb it down.

Secondary points, from responses -
1) Jones has recently fought, after a major injury, so he hasn't been sitting on the belt.
2) Jones has been more recently active than Aspinall, so talking about stripping him seems a bit silly.
3) It's normal for big fights with big names to takes months to come together. It's premature to freak out.
4) Reunifying the belts matters not at all, compared to having the best fighters fight for the actual belt.

SO WHAT THE FUCK HAS ALL OF OUR BACK AND FORTH BEEN ABOUT?

We were arguing (at least my understanding) about a larger view of belts in general. Spurred by Aspinall/Jones to be sure, but definitely it blossomed into a larger conversation.

It's a philosophical debate about what belts mean vis a vis the UFC. All belts. Your argument (to my understanding) is that Jones' belt is the "legitimate" one based on it not being the interim. My argument is that's not inherently true. The legitimacy can absolutely be destroyed based on what transpires going forward. The belt itself only carries the legitimacy of the decisions made about it. If the UFC were to schedule a other title defense for Jones for example that wasn't Aspinall because Jones refused a fight with Tom---Aspinall's belt would hold more legitimacy at that point than Jones's. We are not there yet. And I never claimed we were.

 

[LostMyBlackBelt]

Old Man vs Can