Legacy wise, do belts really count at this stage?

[screaminleeman]

You didn't actually disagree with anything I said. You just placed more emphasis on the defenses/winning streak, I simply focused on titles and belts as allowing fighters the unique opportunity to have a winning streak that in theory only includes elite fighters, as well as the added pressure of fighting the best guys fight in and fight out.

This is correct. While I do not disagree with your statement, and it does not necessarily denote your personal point of view on the topic, I simply expounded upon this common ideal with my personal preference. Too often (IMO) the intentional decision by MMA organizations in general and the UFC more specifically to elect NOT TO implement the established policy of mandatory title defenses is not given its true significance by MMA fans.

This was NOT an oversight on any MMA executive(s) or the UFC executives part. The decision to NOT have this etched in stone tried and true title defense policy utilized in most every other combat sport should NEVER be dismissed as such.

It was ENTIRELY so that the MMA brass WERE NOT limited to this realistic unbiased title defense approach. It was ENTIRELY so that MMA executives of this (STILL INFANTILE combat sport) would not HAVE TO strip champions that they developed into fan favorites of their titles. It was ENTIRELY to make ANY AND ALL MMA title belts a F-tarded fake waste! It was so that they could 100% manage the title contests and not have to rely of unbiased rankings to hand out shots!

In ANY real combat sport the champion is LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE to defend his or her title in side of a time frame and 100% stripped of their titles regardless of their name. MMA was having NOTHING to do with this, as the average maturity level of this infantile combat sport is itself infantile.

You can say all you like that MMA fans are mature enough to deal with a real combat sport title defense policy, and would have acted like mature combat sport fans when the likes of GSP, Cain Velasquez, Conner McGregor and Dominic Cruz were to get stripped of their titles like the mature combat sport fans reacted to Ali & Klitschko getting stripped of their titles.

In Boxing, mature combat sport fans clearly recognize that no fighter is bigger than the sport, and the sport goes on without them! No mature Boxing fan shed a tear when the most dominant HW Boxer at the time who held the belt and had to retire for nearly 4 years before healing, coming back into boxing, winning his title back and devastating the entire division until retiring! We were intelligent enough to understand that Vitali WAS NOT scared shittless of fellow Baltimoron Hassim Rachman. We recognized that his knees were shot, and he needed to be stripped of the belt (as he was) and the division allowed to continue regardless of his knees.

I don't want to put "figurative" words in your mouth, but IMO, you are giving the average FAR MORE credit than they are due. My apology if you do share my extremely low opinion on the maturity level of this sports fans to enable an "absolute title defense time frame" to have any chance of being accepted in this as I said still infantile combat sport.

 

[Threetrees]

This is correct. While I do not disagree with your statement, and it does not necessarily denote your personal point of view on the topic, I simply expounded upon this common ideal with my personal preference. Too often (IMO) the intentional decision by MMA organizations in general and the UFC more specifically to elect NOT TO implement the established policy of mandatory title defenses is not given its true significance by MMA fans.

This was NOT an oversight on any MMA executive(s) or the UFC executives part. The decision to NOT have this etched in stone tried and true title defense policy utilized in most every other combat sport should NEVER be dismissed as such.

It was ENTIRELY so that the MMA brass WERE NOT limited to this realistic unbiased title defense approach. It was ENTIRELY so that MMA executives of this (STILL INFANTILE combat sport) would not HAVE TO strip champions that they developed into fan favorites of their titles. It was ENTIRELY to make ANY AND ALL MMA title belts a F-tarded fake waste! It was so that they could 100% manage the title contests and not have to rely of unbiased rankings to hand out shots!

In ANY real combat sport the champion is LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE to defend his or her title in side of a time frame and 100% stripped of their titles regardless of their name. MMA was having NOTHING to do with this, as the average maturity level of this infantile combat sport is itself infantile.

You can say all you like that MMA fans are mature enough to deal with a real combat sport title defense policy, and would have acted like mature combat sport fans when the likes of GSP, Cain Velasquez, Conner McGregor and Dominic Cruz were to get stripped of their titles like the mature combat sport fans reacted to Ali & Klitschko getting stripped of their titles.

In Boxing, mature combat sport fans clearly recognize that no fighter is bigger than the sport, and the sport goes on without them! No mature Boxing fan shed a tear when the most dominant HW Boxer at the time who held the belt and had to retire for nearly 4 years before healing, coming back into boxing, winning his title back and devastating the entire division until retiring! We were intelligent enough to understand that Vitali WAS NOT scared shittless of fellow Baltimoron Hassim Rachman. We recognized that his knees were shot, and he needed to be stripped of the belt (as he was) and the division allowed to continue regardless of his knees.

I don't want to put "figurative" words in your mouth, but IMO, you are giving the average FAR MORE credit than they are due. My apology if you do share my extremely low opinion on the maturity level of this sports fans to enable an "absolute title defense time frame" to have any chance of being accepted in this as I said still infantile combat sport.

That's fair, there's nothing here I disagree with - you're just putting it more eloquently than I could.

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

Doesn't mean shit considering how the UFC handles them.

Agreed, which I think is becoming a big issue.

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

Conor earned his title shot at 155 by becoming champ at 145. He didn't beat each and any contender at 145, but he was certainly a legit contender, and deserved the title shot. He won the title, thereby making hi´m a legit contender at 155.

I disagree with your statement mate.

Winning a title doesn't make you a contender in the division above you, it just doesn't.

If anything, dropping weight is a little fairer. If you are Frankie Edgar and you have proven you can beat elite Lightweights then you dropping down for an immediate Featherweight title is not so bad.

On the other hand if you're Chris Weidman and you beat a load of guys and then eventually hold the belt at 185, you do not get a free shot at Jon Jones/Daniel Cormier - it just doesn't work like that.

It's unfair.

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

Belt still define good career.

If Bisping didn't win Vs Rockhold he would have been remembered as one of the best to never have won it.

Not sure you want to be remember like that.

Like championship in other sport.

How do we remember
Dan Marino
Charles Barkley
Ted Wiiliams
Mats Sundin

Not winning the big thing matter at the end

I think it's not comparable outside of combat sports.

NBA, NFL etc. all have tournaments, there is a set end goal. You have to beat all of the best to get to the final and win the trophy. In combat sports you can win a belt and duck many fighters, you don't duck teams in the NFL or NBA.

If Bisping had somehow missed weight by .5 of a pound and knocked Rockhold into next week the exact same way I'd have given him just as much credit.

The belt is just a figure piece for being the best. The belt is irrelevant, it's the fact he knocked out Luke fucking Rockhold inside of 1 round - that's the WOW factor.

Just to show how the belt means nothing, he's now facing a guy ranked #14 in the world. It supports my argument to a tee, belts mean nothing unless you consistently face the next best guy - then the belt begins to mean what it's supposed to mean.

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

Fuck the belts, rich wins, just ask Nate Diaz.

We are talking about legacy here, just in case you missed it.

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

Diaz earned more in 2 fights (maybe 1) than probably any LW champ has ever made in his career.

Why is this relevant to a discussion about legacy though?

 

[MCS]

I give the edge to belt holders when it's close record vs record, but otherwise belts are a bigger deal than they should be. It depends on who you beat for the belt and how many times you defended it. Or you could have zero belts but fought everybody and beat most and that means more than, say, a TKO over Forrest with a lesser record otherwise.

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

Belts are important to recognize and symbolize the hard work put in to attain that belt it shows and represents that you've achieved the height of your sport. In any recognized sport you need a symbolism to represent you as a individual have reached the pinnacle of success a cup, a ring, a medal, a belt, that says you're the best individual or team at this time. No one can look at your bank account and tell you're the champ. But they see that symbolism of your hard work & success and people want to take a selfie with you.

To add, your greatness is not always recognized with a belt, medal, ring, cup, etc greats don't always win these things that's why there are hall of fame's which recognize individual achievements of athletes who may not have won a thing but have done great things in the sport.

I agree with a belt being used, I'm absolutely fine with that and understand you have to have a physical representation of being a champion.

My issue is that when we have conversations around the GOAT for example, or P4P best fighter currently, people bring up title defenses like they are synonomous with fighting great competition.

One of Demetrious Johnson's defenses was Cariaso, one of Dillashaw's was Soto - there is more to it than just the term "successful title defense" - I would rate Dodson knocking out Gamburyan more than Dillashaw beating Soto, just because it's for a piece of leather and gold doesn't add to his legacy, well not if you're a real fan.

 

[Gamer007]

tbf, Iverson had a few 35% fg season, still was one of the best scorer ever.

He never shot below 38%

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

All of them count besides the interim titles and the FW title

I think Conor is the only UFC champion to lose and still hold the title

Haha, good point.

But, does Dillashaw over Soto really count? or Cain over Bigfoot the second time? These are defenses that are solid, impressive wins, but when we are banging on about "title defenses" like they are this colossal thing, you have to look at the competition.

A lot of fighters who've never been champ have better resumes and records than champions.

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

Belts used to mean something. Money took over. And it should.
MMA is a job, all the respect to Diaz and Conor.

I'm delighted the boys get paid, but I'm not delighted that title shots get handed out willy nilly.

If we were all honest and real about it I'd be cool with it, let the UFC try and manufacture a "2 weight champion" out of Conor, but please don't start talking all this GOAT or P4P great talk if he gets a victory of Eddie - anyone could be him if they were given his opportunities.

Let's not have selective amnesia here, Aldo wanted to have 2 titles but he was told he couldn't. WHY, tell me WHY?

 

[themainman]

Belt still define good career.

If Bisping didn't win Vs Rockhold he would have been remembered as one of the best to never have won it.

Not sure you want to be remember like that.

Like championship in other sport.

How do we remember
Dan Marino
Charles Barkley
Ted Wiiliams
Mats Sundin

Not winning the big thing matter at the end

Other sport leagues are meritocracies in the UFC it's not that, it's not always earned or best vs best, especially lately

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

The peecived greatness of a title will outlast and endure this type of hipster stuff.

You might be right, and when you become a fight nerd may realize this stuff, but history will be a wiki table of championship holders.

If we are talking facts, then yes but that if always going to be for the fairweather fans.

Fairweather fans still to this day talk about Mike Tyson like he's in the top 5 boxers ever - these creatures know nothing about real boxing. Same goes for MMA, you might be right - in 10 years people probably will just read Wikipedia pages and draw their conclusions...

But the real fans will always appreciate the Shogun's, the Hendo's, the Diaz's etc.

 

[ChosenMMA]

In my opinion it matters in different aspects, for example..

Amanda Nunes needs that belt to have some relevance to get the big fights, as does Pena, Zingano, you know the score, where as Rousey, Tate have the name to fight anybody and draw the attention to the women's division without it.

Basically depends on the fighter.

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

Other sport leagues are meritocracies in the UFC it's not that, it's not always earned or best vs best, especially lately

Exactly what I said! Nicely put!

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

The belts only have meaning if you give it meaning. Fighters want to be the best and the belt best symbolizes that. But when you get down to the nitty gritty, the belt has no real effect on your life unless other people give it meaning.

So for one's legacy, it all depends how much meaning they give the belt.

Very true.

I just have a hard time with those who bring "title defenses" to the table of a legacy discussion.

I can show you cans upon cans who've fought for titles and lost, and meanwhile whichever champion beat them is racking up what you like to call "title defenses" which is seen as this impregnable stat.

They mean nothing, it's who you beat - belt is irrelevant.

 

[MadVibez]

Conor earned his title shot at 155 by becoming champ at 145. He didn't beat each and any contender at 145, but he was certainly a legit contender, and deserved the title shot. He won the title, thereby making hi´m a legit contender at 155.

No he hasn't! That would mean that every champ automatically deserves a title shot above their weight class.

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

Have to agree, at least how I see or it feels to me Carrying the belt (and more so successfully defending it) are hallmark moments in defining a great run.

Watching a lot of assorted MMA orgs and seeing the Boxing volume of Belts emerge kinda worries me and muddles the water even further... but we knew it would happen. Most of those orgs are so niche at this point I guess it only really matters for TUF anyhow.

Ridin the Storm Out!

I do get you, but there are so many paper champions out there.

Walking around with the belt might be great for the person who is holding it, but in an analysis of career it comes down to the old saying...

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

Who are the greatest fighters ever in our sport?

Anderson, GSP, Jones, Fedor, Mighty Mouse, Aldo

Why?
Title defenses.
While we have fighters that pick title defenses, or we have guys slip in who don't deserve the belt - Greatness is measured in MMA by how long you sit on top of the mountain. The idea is that as a champion you are 'usually' fighting the best fighters available, and if you have the belt for a sustained period of time that means that you're managing to beat the best fighters in the world, regardless of style, talent or experience as a defending champion it means you prove you're the best every time you fight. Even the fact that a guy like Bisping could sneak in and dethrone Rockhold puts Rockhold's greatness into question, because a truly great champion beats anyone on any given night.

There's no other position like it in sports, being a combat sports champion. It's been watered down in boxing, but in the golden age even if there was a squash match here or there you had the best fighters fighting their best opponents with all the marbles on the line.
In MMA we're hitting a weird patch where it feels like belts are meaningless, but eventually guys like McGregor, Bisping (lol) and Woodley will have to defend against whomever is next in line and we'll see their greatness or lack there of.

Belts/Titles mean everything to legacy imo - There are some exceptions from the Pride days because the way fights were made was so fucking weird, but TITLES are important.

See, I disagree here.

It's not title defenses, per se.

It's title defenses by proxy of a title defense meaning something.

Do you honestly sit here and talk about title defenses against bums, like majority of Ortiz's defenses?

On paper, those are still title defenses, on Wikipedia it will tell you he defended the title X amount of times - to the layman that is impressive, it's only when you know the context and the deeper workings of the sport is when you can realize one man's defenses are not equivalent to another.

Nogueira and Shogun are fantastic fighters who don't have title defenses falling out their ears. One could easily make the argument that they rank higher than DJ, Cruz or Aldo in a GOAT list.

I'm telling you man, it's who you've beat, the length of your win streak etc. it's not simply "title defenses".