Is It Better To Have A Dominant Champ or To Have It Always Changing?

[CrimsonFan]

Most of the dominant champs had boring/uninteresting title fights during their reign. That sucks imo

 

[7th]

dominant is best, then you want to see who can knock him off. When you have no dominant champ, it's like there's no true #1 which means whoever had the belt was pretty much an illegitimate champ. Like Alvarez or Bisping right now, and just like Rashad, Rampage, or Forrest when they held the belt. Looking back it means very little. Nobody wants a sport full of Buster Douglases.

 

[Shaddows]

What do you feel is better as a fan, to have a dominant champ that keeps the belt for 3-4+ defenses or to have the belt constantly switching hands every 1-2 fights?

I like dominant fighters.
I like history in the making, and dominant fighters make history.



Note: I don't have anything against title changes. IMO it shows how this game is all about style clashes.

 

[Ridian]

It seems like when you have a dominant champ for a while, once they lose the belt tends to switch hands more often. Not always the case but seems like most of the time.

 

[Red Ninja]

Depends on the champ.

 

[fightgirl]

Dominant champ. Exciting to see if they can add yet another win to their streak but equally exciting to see if their opponent will be the one to end it.

 

[Deleted member 245586]

It's always best to have the very best be champ and fight for the title

 

[Ridian]

Seems everyone's opinion is about 50/50

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I like it always changing to be honest. It draws more interest from me.

 

[Agnawedbone]

Like most things in life whats best is to have a good mixture of both.

 

[777 Others]

What do you feel is better as a fan, to have a dominant champ that keeps the belt for 3-4+ defenses or to have the belt constantly switching hands every 1-2 fights?

Both I think! Mixture of the two throughout the divisions keeps it interesting

 

[LeBron]

Dominant. Sports are about watching greatness.