Interim titles are absolutely worthless and have no place in the sport. What is the number of days a champion must go without defending his title in order for an interim title to be created? There is none! The UFC management just decides to create an interim title whenever they feel like it! There is no objective criteria for when an interim title becomes created. If the point has come where an interim title must be created, why not just strip the non-defending champion of his title and give his title to the man that would have gotten the interim title?
This interim title stuff is absolute nonsense. Even in pro wrestling there was a rule that if the champion did;t defend his title with 30 days, he would be stripped of his title. There were no such things as interim titles. If the champion couldn't defend within a reasonable amount of time he no longer deserved to hold the title! That's from pro wrestling but tell me it doesn't make far more sense than The UFC policy on this. Winning the Championship title belt isn't the hardest thing to do, the hardest thing is keeping the Championship Title Belt! That's a saying that has been around forever and it applies everywhere except The UFC where if management likes you, you can go indefinitely without defending and still remain champion. That takes away from the credibility of the title! There must be an objective standard dictating the longest period of time a champion can go without defending before he is stripped of his title. Until there is, UFC Titles won't have the prestige they should have. It shouldn't be a case of "the better the management likes you, the longer you can go without defending and not get stripped of your title." That's a subjective standard and it makes a joke out of the whole thing. An objective standard of fighters having to defend their titles within a certain number of days or be stripped of their titles is what is required.
This interim title stuff is absolute nonsense. Even in pro wrestling there was a rule that if the champion did;t defend his title with 30 days, he would be stripped of his title. There were no such things as interim titles. If the champion couldn't defend within a reasonable amount of time he no longer deserved to hold the title! That's from pro wrestling but tell me it doesn't make far more sense than The UFC policy on this. Winning the Championship title belt isn't the hardest thing to do, the hardest thing is keeping the Championship Title Belt! That's a saying that has been around forever and it applies everywhere except The UFC where if management likes you, you can go indefinitely without defending and still remain champion. That takes away from the credibility of the title! There must be an objective standard dictating the longest period of time a champion can go without defending before he is stripped of his title. Until there is, UFC Titles won't have the prestige they should have. It shouldn't be a case of "the better the management likes you, the longer you can go without defending and not get stripped of your title." That's a subjective standard and it makes a joke out of the whole thing. An objective standard of fighters having to defend their titles within a certain number of days or be stripped of their titles is what is required.
