High Champion Turnover: Good or Bad

W

WarKO

Guest
A few years ago we had the Great:

  1. The Spider
  2. Rush
  3. The Last Emperor
  4. Aldo "No Nickname"
Since then, the GOATs, in sad sequence, have fallen one by one.

Besides JBJ there has been a huge turnover rate. If a guy even defends the title once he's lauded as GOAT.

Since then manny prospect have come and been squashed, like Cain, Rhonda, Weidman and McMouth. No one seems to be able to hold their crowns. Note: I know, Conor didn't lose his title but there's now a big blemish on his record.

Is this good for the sport or bad in mainstream terms? It's nothing like the boxing world where Champs last much longer, and guys dominate for decades (Klitcho and Mayweather recently).

Is it bad: does it show to the mainstream that the sport is just illegitimate brutality where anyone can get lucky, nobody lasts and it's all the sport of a bar fight.

or​
Is it good: does it show to the Mainstream that the sport is so competitive is difficult for anyone to survive and a champion is a beast among beasts with all the sports acumen, discipline and cerebral gifts of a NFL QB.

 
sthyFDt.gif
 
Good. It shows that there are many high level elite fighters and divisions aren't just 1 or 2 good guys and the rest shit (as people said about HW, WBW, and even LHW when Jones and Gus were briefly considered the only 2 top fighters).
 
You can't compare with boxing as immediate rematches are rare and there are mutiple world organisations and belts, which means fighters can avoid dangerous fighters and cherry pick opponents.

This is why I prefer the UFC to the current state of boxing, as with UFC, there is no hiding place for champions. If someone is a champion, they have to fight the number 1 contender.......and yes before someone comments, I know Conor is viewed as avoiding Edgar, however he has defeated Aldo & Mendes and was set to face RDA at LW, so in his case you can argue he has faced tougher opponents and set himself up for failure with the RDA fight.
 
I like seeing it. It shows the level of competition is much higher at the top. One longtime champ in any division shows that we have one fighter that is a bit above everyone else.
 
Its good.

The UFC gets extreme tunnel vision when it comes to their more marketable stars.

But MMA's unpredictability forces their hand over and over lately creating new stars and a wider interest base despite the UFC and its "we only promote the stars" attitude.
 
As a fan of MMA... the divisions opening up have made for better fights, especially title bouts. So, my vote is: Good.
 
Great question that's been on my mind, nice work TS.

it's a double edged sword... makes it exciting that whoever is challenging could walk away with the strap, but makes it hard for the UFC to overhype their fighters.

Wait, those are both good things.
 
I think its fun and exciting.. All the bullshit rematches need to stop though.
 
I'll go with 3.

It's extremely hard to stay on top in the UFC because of the nature of the sport and the matchmaking system in place. There's too many variables in MMA, too many ways to lose. In boxing, a top guy is guaranteed to win 99% of the time, whereas in MMA there's always a feeling that a guy can just get that one punch or quick submission. With the matchmaking, a champion will never get easy fights, always top contenders whereas in boxing a guy can be fed cans.

Just goes to show what a huge accomplishment it is to stay on top for so long like Silva & GSP.
 
I think its fun and exciting.. All the bullshit rematches need to stop though.
Yeah pretty much this. Its fun and makes it more exciting and you don't know what will happen... but it creates too many rematches, I hate all the rematches, some of them are so pointless like Rockhold vs Weidman
 
Back
Top