Mandatory Title Defenses

I think a guy should only be stripped of the title if:

A) He doesn't fight after 18 months because of an injury.
B) He retires because of an injury

I think they should invoke an interim title (preferably via tourney) if they anticipate a fighter will be off between 6-12 months.
 
After one years hiatus an interim belt should be created after two the champ should be stripped.
 
How many fighters, not just champions but total fighters get 3 fights a year? Keep dreaming.
 
120 days is more than enough time. The WWE champion defends at every PPV, and oftentimes on at least one Monday Night Raw in between.

Think about it.

I know you won't.

There is no definate numebr of days that works for every situation. If you definately want to make guidelines concerning title defenses, they need to be applicable. I think 180 days is more viable for everyone than 120 days.

120 days is a good goal, but 180 is more realistic. And 180 days is also prefectly fine.

(Please, don't ever bring up WWE when discussing MMA, it's insulting)
 
Dana needs to take away the UFC health coverage. This is making it so fighters are more likely to pull out instead of fighting with an injury like in the old days. And better yet, Dana needs to pay the fighters less so they will be more hungry to fight as it will be more of a hardship financially if they cancel due to injury. Us fans come first.
 
i agree, i think each champ should defend 3 times a year at least. if a champ is injured its okay but they should be stripped eventually. like cruz, he has been out for a long time the division has changed and i think he should be stripped for now

3 times a year is too much for champions. It would be very difficult to find worthy challengers. Just who would Anderson Silva have fought the last 5 years in title defenses?

Other than Lutter missing weight, in the 6 years since he beat Marquardt in a title defense, he had 14 scheduled fights - 11 were title defenses, 3 were at 205. Nobody could have come up with 7 more worthy title challengers when he already had to fight guys like Leites and Cote in title matches.

3 times a year is too many title defenses. Maybe 5 in two years, but that is probably stretching it a bit as well.

As for the "stripping" a champ of the title if he doesn't defend it - fine. Make it 9 months, injured or not.

One thing to watch out for is champs who have accepted fights but their opponent pulls out - not the champs fault. They should not be penalized for that.
 
There is no definate numebr of days that works for every situation. If you definately want to make guidelines concerning title defenses, they need to be applicable. I think 180 days is more viable for everyone than 120 days.

120 days is a good goal, but 180 is more realistic. And 180 days is also prefectly fine.

(Please, don't ever bring up WWE when discussing MMA, it's insulting)

You didn't even think about it, did you?

I knew you wouldn't.
 
Itt: autistic man-children love seeing a gold belt get passed around so much they don't care about stripping champs and keeping the title legitimate.
 
What if a champion who has defended their belt 3-4 times suffers a major injury right before his fight and is forced to miss 5-8 months? Its absolutely unfair for any champion to lose his belt, lose his years of hard work and dedication, because of some stupid rule.

A year is fine, that is reasonable. Most injures can be rehabbed completely in a year, unless its something major and if its that major, maybe the athlete needs to reconsider ever fighting again.
 
What if a champion who has defended their belt 3-4 times suffers a major injury right before his fight and is forced to miss 5-8 months? Its absolutely unfair for any champion to lose his belt, lose his years of hard work and dedication, because of some stupid rule.

A year is fine, that is reasonable. Most injures can be rehabbed completely in a year, unless its something major and if its that major, maybe the athlete needs to reconsider ever fighting again.

Yea, any sort of timer should start from the first fight they miss. Most injuries that don't happen in their last fight will probably happen in the camp for the next one, so pretty close to fight time.
 
Every six months.
If the champ can't fight in 6 months time, create an interim belt.
If the champ can't fight in 1 years time, strip him of the title.
 
Pffft. Why not 4 weeks? How long does it take to travel?
 
I believe that The UFC needs to instate a rule that would define exactly how long a champion can go without defending his title before he is stripped of the title. I'd be in favor of a rule stating that if 120 days go by without a champion defending his title, he will be stripped of it.

The hardest thing isn't winning a championship belt; it's holding on to the belt. Far too many fighters have gotten away with ridiculously long periods of time without defending their titles. It hurts the sport and if the sport is to grow, there needs to be a rule that clearly states the maximum amount of time a fighter can go without defending his title before he is stripped of it. We have far to many instances of champions defending their titles once in a year, which makes the title somewhat of a joke. The fans want to see fighting champions who are willing to defend their titles on a regular basis, even when they may be sick or injured. Staying in shape, avoiding serious injury, and being consistently able to defend his title are all attributes a champion should have in order for him to maintain both his and The UFC's credibility and integrity.


Most training camps are between 3 to 4 months long.
That means the fighter ends one fight and should start working towards his next training camp right away.

and what about injuries?

And what about extra-octagon activities?

no. I think that they need to work towards 3 Defenses per year (optimal), but 2 are fine also.
That is discounting the fact that many fighters gets suspended after fights...
 
1 to 1.5 year depending on champ and number of previous title defenses
 
Itt: autistic man-children love seeing a gold belt get passed around so much they don't care about stripping champs and keeping the title legitimate.

I don't consider Cruz's belt legitimate. This is an ever evolving sport. In the YEARS he has been off, fighting has changed. He doesn't represent today's UFC.

Plus I once saw Al Snow defend his Hardcore title 3 times in one night.
 
I'd be in favor of a 365 day rule... but 120 is ridiculous. Champs barely fight that often when perfectly healthy.

And you don't have a problem with that? I have a problem with the 6-8 months we currently have... should be 3 defenses per year, 2 with injury... and perhaps one deferment, allowing up to a 12 month period between fights to nurse an injury. If a fight isn't set to occur before 365 days from the last defense, they will be stripped of the belt and given the first shot at the title, upon their return.
 
Most training camps are between 3 to 4 months long.
That means the fighter ends one fight and should start working towards his next training camp right away.

and what about injuries?

And what about extra-octagon activities?

no. I think that they need to work towards 3 Defenses per year (optimal), but 2 are fine also.
That is discounting the fact that many fighters gets suspended after fights...

Only a fighter that has gotten out of shape because of inactivity would need a 3 or 4 month training camp. If a champion is defending his title consistently his fighting schedule alone will keep him in good enough condition that he just needs to maintain his regular workout schedule to be ready to defend his title on a consistent basis.

Josh Barnett fought 3 times in The UFC in 2001. In PRIDE in 2003, Barnett fought 4 times within an 8 month time period. UFC fighters used to fight up to 3 times a night! Training camps are good for sports that have an off season. Football players have a training camp in the summer before playing their regular schedule in the fall. Once that begins though, they play every week. A football player on average sees about 12 minutes of intense action per game. That's remarkable close to the number of minutes in a typical MMA fight. And of course an MMA fighter doesn't have to deal with being hit by multiple opponents at once who are running at top speed the moment before impact. The momentum forces generated in that type of situation are far greater than any MMA fighter faces when being taken down by his opponent. If NFL players can compete weekly, why is it unfair to ask an MMA champion to defend his title at least once every 120 days?

The whole point of having a mandatory title defense every 120 days is so that the public sees the champion compete often enough that they see the champion fight often enough to get to know something about him and become interested in seeing him continue to defend his title. Some people here are advocating allowing a champion a year and a half between title defenses. In that period of time the general public could completely forget and even worse, simply stop caring about who the champion is because he competes so little. How many successful mainstream sports are thriving right now while having their champions perform once every year or year and a half?
 
Back
Top