Do you prefer a wide-open field or a dominant champion?

[EGarrett]

Do you prefer a division like the Heavyweight or Lightweight Division now, where the title has a good chance of changing hands in any given fight, or a locked-up division like Light Heavyweight was for the last few years, with a single dominant champion pushing to break records?

 

[martijn]

Depends who is the champ. I'd like to see Some upsets though

 

[Reach4theSky]

Having a dominant champ in a division of killers is probably the best possible scenario imo.

 

[Cagecide]

Ruthless...

 

[MMAcolyte]

A dominant champ looking to break records. Not exactly sure why though, perhaps because it gets more attention that way and creates more hype/excitement. Combat sports is built around stand-out stars with stories behind them, can't establish that if the title is constantly changing hands.

 

[My name is]

Dominant champ

 

[LouisBolanos]

No brainer. Prize fighting is fundamentally a star-driven sport. Wide open field doesn't lend itself particularly well to creating star power. Dominant champ all the way.

 

[TobikanJudan94]

When a champion becomes dominant his division is not open-field anymore. I remember a guy bumped a 2006 thread about A. Silva coming to the UFC and a lot of people were pointing 185 as a stacked division.

It was considered the worst ever after Silva dominated every single fighter.

205 was considered the best division ever,when Jones came up,they all became past their prime or blown up middleweights.

 

[Toxxus]

I prefer great fights. Whichever setup delivers that is all good.

Whether we have a rotating belt with fighters putting on great displays like Lawlor vs. MacDonald or a long reigning champion at the brink of disaster like Jones vs. Gustafson.

A good fight is a good fight.

 

[INTERL0PER]

I like seeing greatness, so a dominant champ. Seeing one person rise above the rest fascinates me. I love seeing someone pushing the boundaries of what's possible.

I also think that it ups the tension, as each championship fight leads to inevitably higher stakes as they inch closer to records. It makes the belt really mean something.

The one downside is that it can make a division look weak... or it can be the result of a fairly weak division.

But I prefer the stability and spectacle of a dominant champ as opposed to a belt changing hands all the time.

 

[INTERL0PER]

When a champion becomes dominant his division is not open-field anymore. I remember a guy bumped a 2006 thread about A. Silva coming to the UFC and a lot of people were pointing 185 as a stacked division.

It was considered the worst ever after Silva dominated every single fighter.

205 was considered the best division ever,when Jones came up,they all became past their prime or blown up middleweights.

This.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Something like Welterweight where the champ defends but has to dig deep for it

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

Wide open is more exciting


However, when lots of people at the top can beat each other, winning streaks are short, and you can be in the title discussion without having a super streak, that causes many Sherdoggers to say "that division sucks", which is annoying (and false).

Although, if there's a dominant champ, that also causes many Sherdoggers to say "the rest of that division sucks".

Because Sherdoggers love to say something sucks, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate that might be.

 

[xBarnmuckerx]

I like wide open. Unless one of my favourite fighters has the belt, then I like dominant

 

[BonesNose**]

I prefer a dominant champion.

 

[MusterX]

Dominant champ. Sports in general are built upon dominant athletes.

 

[brothir]

Wide open. Sport is about competition. If the competition isn't close, what's interesting about it?

"Hey, the guy/gal who is a massive favourite and has effortlessly dominated so far did so once again. Isn't that just mind-blowing?!"

 

[Organic Damage]

Well people have been shitting on the one woman show that is WMMA since it came to the UFC, so apparently a dominant champ isn't what they want.

I want competitive fights where upsets, flash KO's and the unexpected can happen. So wide-open field I guess.

 

[peterparker66]

I like seeing greatness, so a dominant champ. Seeing one person rise above the rest fascinates me. I love seeing someone pushing the boundaries of what's possible.

I also think that it ups the tension, as each championship fight leads to inevitably higher stakes as they inch closer to records. It makes the belt really mean something.

The one downside is that it can make a division look weak... or it can be the result of a fairly weak division.

But I prefer the stability and spectacle of a dominant champ as opposed to a belt changing hands all the time.

very nicely put .
i like you really like a dominate champ as well because waiting for the next great challenger to dethrone the great champ is just really exiting to me .
but also a wide open division also is exiting as on any given night the belt can change hands but the belt sort of lacks the prestige of a division with a dominate champ .

 

[Malthian]

I like both for different reasons.

However, what will I remember in 20 years? I'll remember the dominant champs.

Anyone who's been watching since UFC 1 would be hard pressed to name a ton of fighters outside the dominant champions give or take a few personal favorites.