Requirements For Regular Title Defenses Are Necessary For Title Belts To Mean Anything!

[Blackjack]

These days an injury prone fighter like Velasquez can become champion, have his first defense a year after he wins the belt and win. Then another year later he has his second title defense in two years and loses. They guy could claim to have a two year title reign when he only had one successful title defense in those 2 years! That makes the belts practically meaningless. There needs to be a stipulation guaranteeing that a champion either defend his title a minimum of once every certain number of days or be stripped of his title.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

No one cares about years. It's about defenses.

 

[Cygnus-X]

They guy could claim to have a two year title reign when he only had one successful title defense in those 2 years! That makes the belts practically meaningless.

Well, it would be meaningless if your definition of "meaning" in this context would be judging a title reign by time rather than number of title defenses.

 

[Blackjack]

Well, it would be meaningless if your definition of "meaning" in this context would be judging a title reign by time rather than number of title defenses.

No, because you someone could potentially get three title defenses at a rate if one per year but that would;t be nearly as impressive as three title defenses in one year. To me, a two or three year title reign should mean a lot. Why let fighters hold the belt hostage when they won't defend them? It devalues the belts. That featherweight title belt is really prestigious now!

 

[Blackjack]

No one cares about years. It's about defenses.

And you don't care how few times a title is defense in a three year title reign? One successful title defense and then a loss is enough for a three year reign? Fon;t you like fighting champions? Or is an injury prone champion who goes over a year without defending just fine with you? I prefer to see regular, mandatory title defenses by a fighting champion.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

And you don't care how few times a title is defense in a three year title reign? One successful title defense and then a loss is enough for a three year reign? Fon;t you like fighting champions? Or is an injury prone champion who goes over a year without defending just fine with you? I prefer to see regular, mandatory title defenses by a fighting champion.

I have no idea what the point of this is. You said someone could claim they were champ for 3 years or whatever. I said no one cares. Title defenses are what matters, not years.

 

[Cygnus-X]

No, because you someone could potentially get three title defenses at a rate if one per year but that would;t be nearly as impressive as three title defenses in one year. To me, a two or three year title reign should mean a lot. Why let fighters hold the belt hostage when they won't defend them? It devalues the belts. That featherweight title belt is really prestigious now!

To you it should mean a lot. But in reality it's just not important, nobody is aiming for Anderson Silva's record as number of days as champ. They're aiming for his record of title defenses.

 

[Valhoven]

Do you mean to say, TS, that you want a timer running in having to defend a belt? Such a system tiered looking like this?

Defences:

1st w/in 6 mnths
2nd w/in 6 mnths (of 1st)
3rd w/in 9 mnths (of 2nd)
4th w/in 12 mnths (of 3rd)

***

I reckon you'd have to adopt a doctor-verified injury window that could extend the limits but you're also qualifying the belt by factors outside what happens inside the octagon on fight night, so the "better man" concept gets watered down in the process. This is why how many times a fighter has defended means so much to everyone.

Werdum, f.ex., is a pain in the butt in this regard but when he took the belt, he was the "best" in the division and the belt symbolised that; if we want to see a contest between bests, we have to manage the antics of whomever the best is at a given time...so we can see who the best is when he again fights.

Just my thoughts.

 

[rudy323]

I think they should say "Title fight, on this certain date, Champion vs #1 contender, and those in the top 5, be on stand by because you may have to fill in because there WILL be a championship fight!"

 

[camelfarmer1]

Agreed.

 

[skysolo]

These days an injury prone fighter like Velasquez can become champion, have his first defense a year after he wins the belt and win. Then another year later he has his second title defense in two years and loses. They guy could claim to have a two year title reign when he only had one successful title defense in those 2 years! That makes the belts practically meaningless. There needs to be a stipulation guaranteeing that a champion either defend his title a minimum of once every certain number of days or be stripped of his title.

What about Mcgregor? What if he wins? Will he fight at 145? I guarantee he won't be forced to or be stripped.

You want these rules, but who will enforce them?

The UFC? Nope, a special case such as Mcgregor will be able to bend the rules.
The NSAC? They cannot regulate the UFC in that way.