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

If all weightclasses were wide open, no dominant champs, the UFC would die in a matter of 5-10 years. People need dominant champs. There's a reason scripted fighting (WWE) doesn't have "wide open classes".
 
Organic Damage said:
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.
Click to expand...

I like a dominant champ, but I like to see them in a fight now and then. Everyone hated Anderson v. Leites, but I enjoyed it because it showed that Anderson was human. We learned that he won because he made people fight his fight, and maybe if someone could take a fight to him he'd be in trouble. That set us on the "Search for Sonnen", though we didn't know it would be Chael at the time.

I'm glad Bethe got one or two decent strikes in on Ronda. If no one ever hits her, she might get bored and keep acting. Here's hoping Meisha makes it to the 4th this time.
 
EGarrett said:
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?
Click to expand...

I love a dominant champion, but as long as he has real challenges.

For instance, Cain. He was deemed the best, the most dominant, etc. But he had real challenges (i.e. Werdum).
Or Weidman is deemed the top of the top, but he has Luke, Jacare and Yoel.
 
Reach4theSky said:
Having a dominant champ in a division of killers is probably the best possible scenario imo.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not like Rhonda, a dominant champ in a division of ... no talent
 
My ideal title pictures:
#1) 205 post Chuck, pre Jones (when Chuck was a contender again and the division was crazy)
#2) Robbie Lawler at WW right now where he is a "beatable" champion and every contender provides a compelling matchup

My least ideal title pictures:
#1) Can Velasquez's shit reign of being a non-existent champion
#2) Mighty Mouse's string of meaningless, lackluster title defenses against nobodies
#3) Frankie Edgar/Ben Henderson's completely unnecessary string of rematches due to both's inability to win fights convincingly

I don't mind champs who stay on top for a long time but they need to be fighting people who have a chance at least. For me, I don't care if the division is wide open or if there's a dominant champ; I like to see active champions, exciting fights, and fresh matchups (no endless rematches).
 
Fedor era was so good because he always looked beatable but still somehow always won.
 
Also if its a dominant champ he needs to be fighting at LEAST 4 times a year to keep it interesting.
 
EGarrett said:
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?
Click to expand...

1st it depends on weightclass.

In the Male HW and LHW UFC divisions most top 20 contenders have enough "power" to more quickly turn the tide of the fight. The chance of title changing hands is always there for the upper two weight male MMA contestants. I therefore admit to loving there being the "good chance" as you say for the belt to change hands. I am uncertain if I remember any UFC HW champion ever fitting this "dominant" model in UFC history. Might make JDS & Cain newbie fans cry, and hardcore MMA fans either laugh, or please don't go there. . .

The closest thing to date we have had a UFC HW champion come to possibly being considered "dominant" for any extended period of actively defending the title was Tim Sylvia.


LHW is right there for me. That WC was considered "Murderers Row" before Jon wiped it out! That is what made his run special. He DID successfully run the gauntlet and TOOK DOMINANT!

MW down, much of the natural "single strike" power fades, and IMO allows for the technique to be better applied to championship level fights. I prefer "dominant" champs MW and below.
 
Dominant champ no doubt, but I want to see the kings get pushed. Aldo-Mendes was good for 145. GSP-Hendricks was good for 170.
 
that's a good question. reigns like gsp and anderson had were fun because you were content to wait until that big upset (and i still remember the reaction of the crowd at the bar when weidman finally pulled it off, it was wild).

but obviously it's nice to see competitive title fights and have things shaken up too. maybe a mix of the two, a run for a fight or three and then it changes hands.
 
I prefer a dominant champ as long as there are viable challengers.
 
Dominant champ. Love tuning in hoping to see them get knocked out. Only problem is when they are given cans.
 
Best champ so far?
Robbie because there are quite a few guys who can beat him but he is holding em off. Hopefully he holds for a long time.

That's why I like non-dominant champs with loads of viable challengers. Makes it exciting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,678
Messages
55,433,969
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top