If McDonald beats Barao...

B

BuckkNastyy

White Belt
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
I was wondering if Michael McDonald defeats Barao would he be considered the youngest champ in UFC history,even though its for the interim title?
 
^ pretty much. vitor kills every record, 19 is about as young as you can get
 
i guess technically Vitor is but he was really just the winner of a tournament.

totally different era, i mean the fact that Scott Ferrozzo could have been a champ had he won is scary.
 
benjaminbuttons said:
i guess technically Vitor is but he was really just the winner of a tournament.

totally different era, i mean the fact that Scott Ferrozzo could have been a champ had he won is scary.
Click to expand...

But he wasnt, thats why Vitor is still very much relevant today, because he is a legend to have won a UFC belt only at the age of 19
 
It will probably be so for the Zuffa marketing department.
 
There wasn't a true UFC Champ until Mark Coleman. The tourney winners and superfight champions don't count.

Now, should he be considered the youngest champ? No, because "champ" has a lot of implications attached to it. Still, there should be some type of recognition for being the youngest divisional title holder (or word it however you want) because reaching even placeholder champion status at that age is absurd.
 
Vitor won tournament title so it doesn't count. Yes Michael would be the youngest champion.
 
SavageAngel said:
But he wasnt, thats why Vitor is still very much relevant today, because he is a legend to have won a UFC belt only at the age of 19
Click to expand...
UFC talent back in the day was far worse than Tachi Palace talent in 2009 which Mayday was champion of at 19.
 
SavageAngel said:
But he wasnt, thats why Vitor is still very much relevant today, because he is a legend to have won a UFC belt only at the age of 19
Click to expand...

He didn't win a belt, though, and he didn't become champion; he just won the HW tournament. That's like saying that Shogun was the Pride MW champion, when he just won the GP and Wanderlei was the champion.

And if Mcdonald wins he's gonna be the youngest champion in UFC history, and maybe in the history of any major MMA organization (when the org's actually a major organization, that is; when the WEC had 2 events and they had less than a thousand people at the events total and winning the title made you ranked 50th in the world, that's not quite the same as when it was on Versus and winning it made you ranked first in the world). Interim titles are legit, no matter what anybody's misunderstanding of how they work says.
 
Graniteeyed said:
There wasn't a true UFC Champ until Mark Coleman. The tourney winners and superfight champions don't count.

Now, should he be considered the youngest champ? No, because "champ" has a lot of implications attached to it. Still, there should be some type of recognition for being the youngest divisional title holder (or word it however you want) because reaching even placeholder champion status at that age is absurd.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think Barao would have likely beaten cruz had they fought anyway, so McDonald winning would make him a champ. I know that's just opinion on my part, but think about this.

When Condit was interim champ, nobody really felt like he was the real champ because GSP has just been so dominant. If someone had have beaten Condit, they wouldn't be considered the real champ till they beat gsp.

Same if Anderson was out and an interim champ was named. I feel Barao is a better fighter than cruz anyway.

Just my two cents, people will disagree.
 
To each their own I guess, but I wouldn't consider him a champ.
 
cOugAr_LIbRe_85 said:
I disagree. I think Barao would have likely beaten cruz had they fought anyway, so McDonald winning would make him a champ. I know that's just opinion on my part, but think about this.

When Condit was interim champ, nobody really felt like he was the real champ because GSP has just been so dominant. If someone had have beaten Condit, they wouldn't be considered the real champ till they beat gsp.

Same if Anderson was out and an interim champ was named. I feel Barao is a better fighter than cruz anyway.

Just my two cents, people will disagree.
Click to expand...

Too much subjectivity. It's not like Cruz is a paper champion and hasn't earned and defended the belt or lost during a "non-title fight". Until the UFC strips him of it due to inactivity or he loses, he's #1.
 
Graniteeyed said:
Too much subjectivity. It's not like Cruz is a paper champion and hasn't earned and defended the belt or lost during a "non-title fight". Until the UFC strips him of it due to inactivity or he loses, he's #1.
Click to expand...

I never called cruz a paper champ. I just feel Barao is much better and yeah maybe Barao should beat him to be number 1 in the rankings but lets face it, rankings don't mean much in mma.
 
benjaminbuttons said:
i guess technically Vitor is but he was really just the winner of a tournament.

totally different era, i mean the fact that Scott Ferrozzo could have been a champ had he won is scary.
Click to expand...

Winner of a tournament > interim belt IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,579
Messages
55,428,205
Members
174,774
Latest member
Judoka_Noob

Share this page

Back
Top