Should the UFC do a better job of giving the #1 contender a title shot??

[D.R.H.]

the reason not to do it is that it doesn't work, and it doesn't help. i don't like the numbers, but none would work well. you will always have party crashers and things that don't neatly fall in and there's no reason to be so rigid. again, it's not some season with an end.

I don't see how any of those are a problem? If someone plays spoiler, you've got a new contender. If someone gets injured, you bump up the next guy in line. That fact that it's not a season with an end is advantageous, because you have the time to work back up if/as necessary. I admit it's not perfect, nothing is, there's always going to be bumps in the road...but do you really like the haphazard way they do things now? I mean look at the mess at 205 and 185. There's got to be some way to add a little structure to those train wrecks right?

 

[RearNakedCh0ke]

So hendricks is the #1 contender for winning two ultra tight split decisions, and Diaz isn't for losing one highly controversial one?

I'm not sure that necessarily follows.

It's the same reason why Edgar got the title shot before Maynard. Maynard should have lost to Diaz. Everyone knew it.

Wait WHAT!? So his last two fights against top 5 fighters was split decisions? Ah you must be trolling...

 

[Jopo]

So hendricks is the #1 contender for winning two ultra tight split decisions, and Diaz isn't for losing one highly controversial one?

I'm not sure that necessarily follows.

It's the same reason why Edgar got the title shot before Maynard. Maynard should have lost to Diaz. Everyone knew it.

I'm surprised to hear that from you. You're usually a 'W is the only thing that matters' guy.

I'm actually glad that the UFC title shot system isn't completely linear.. in fact, sometimes its too linear... ala Frank Mir vs JDS.

 

[Saskatoonmike**]

I still don't get this, where Diaz is being rated higher for a loss than Hendricks for wins. Especially as others have said, this is even ignoring the unambiguous KO wins against Fitch and Kampmann. Again, would'a could'a should'a are not a good basis for determining who's who, especially how subjective it is.



The big problem here specifically is that GSP and Hendricks fought on the same show, and didn't have anything debilitating or long-term that would screw things up. So the argument of closed matchups and layoffs waiting for contender sorting out just doesn't feel like it hashes out here.

I will again try to explain.

If #2 and #3 are fighting for first contender spot then one of them has to lose. that loss however does not necessarily drop them below #3.

If number 10 is fighting is fighting #8 and #5 and beats both he does not necessarily leap frog over #3 despite the fact he has wins and #3 has a recent loss to #2.

(if you do not think Diaz and Condit were 2/3 then that isw seperate from what I posted)

 

[ContinueZero]

Other sports have clear and defined scoring systems to determine who is the #1. We don't have that here, it's all subjective so technically the guy fighting for the title is #1 contender.