"to be the champ you have to beat the champ" is a lie

[Dr. Rose]

I agree with "it's major bs how in a draw, neither side gets their win money" It is total bs, it is punishing people for putting on a good show, where the matchmaking did a good job of pairing up people.

 

[samuelsoncast]

The champion should be a man or woman that decisively, unquestionably, won a title fight.

Sean Strickland won the title decisively against Izzy. He left no doubt. It was a schooling from beginning to end.

The champion deserves the benefit of the doubt, such as Jones has gotten numerous times in his career, or GSP against Hendricks, etc.

This is extremely sad and Strickland's life will change dramatically without the belt.

Not sure if pressing "ignore" will help me to forget this thread.

 

[Krimzon]

If we're going by strike count then get rid of judges and use their strike counter. The judges don't have access to that info so right now it means nothing. If we aren't going to take into account the nuances of a fight then we should boil it down into a sterile math equation.

i am in complete agreement

 

[WildShrimper]

You really took the stupid "you gotta BEAT the champ" shit seriously eh

 

[legcramp]

To be the champ you have to win at least 3 rounds out of 5.

 

[Last Falconry]

This is something a five year old would suggest. Lol @ everyone who liked the OP

 

[Ares Black]

A split decision means that two judges scored it for the winner.


If a champion can't convince more than one judge that he won the fight, maybe he isn't the champion anymore.

 

[Safton]

No ruleset assigns a handicap to the titleholder in the scoring criteria, nor should they. For all intents and purposes, the belt goes into limbo the moment both men step into the cage. Either the challenger does enough in those 25 minutes to win the belt according to the official criteria or they don't. We don't need arbitrary, unwritten rules where the challenger has to beat the champ by X amount in order for it to really count. I mean, shit. Sandhagen vs. Vera was a Split Decision, technically speaking -- and it was one of the most clear-cut schoolings the Bantamweight Division saw that year. If that had been a title fight with Corey challenging Marlon, you're telling me Vera gets a title defense because one judge decided to do his own thing? No thanks. There are some Unanimous Decisions that are more sketchy than Splits!

This is putting aside the fact that the champ already gets an inherent benefit in that they automatically retain the strap in the event something wonky happens (Draw, No Contest, etc.) If both fighters stare at one another for 25 minutes and do nothing, the champ walks out and keeps their belt regardless -- so the onus is on the challenger at the end of the day to make something happen without the need to make up silly unwritten rules like "tO bE tHe cHaMp yoU goTttA beAt tHe cHaMp" or talking about how it wasn't "convincing" enough.

 

[arcadeperfect]

Champion is already protected if the fight goes to a draw. Why should the #1 fighter be protected with a safety net? The champion should prove dominance and superiority.

 

[ComfortablyNumb55]

Did anyone else notice how contradictory this is?

If a champion should be the person who "decisively, unquestionably, won a title fight" then the champion should not "deserve the benefit of the doubt," since they did not win "decisively" and "unquestionably."

The only way this makes sense is if ts meant for the title to change hands, but that is not what is said.

No, the point just flew over your head.

THE champion deserves the benefit of the doubt because he unquestionably won the title. He left zero doubt.

THE CHALLENGER should have to win definitively to get the nod because he never unquestionably won the title.

 

[ComfortablyNumb55]

Champion is already protected if the fight goes to a draw. Why should the #1 fighter be protected with a safety net? The champion should prove dominance and superiority.

Why should the challenger be given a safety net? The champion deserves it more because he unquestionably won the title.

 

[Rationality]

The only alternative I'm interested in to the current system would be a winner take all overtime round. Try it in some division or other org first to see if it seems better though.

 

[DarthChen731]

Tf does "Benefit of the doubt" even mean in this situation

 

[arcadeperfect]

Why should the challenger be given a safety net? The champion deserves it more because he unquestionably won the title.

As the champion you're supposed to be the clear cut #1 fighter. You're already protected if the fight goes to a draw. Not allowing the challenger to win a split decision is an arbitrary rule that is completely unfair. In any other scenario split decision wins are possible, but when you're facing the champion you're automatically locked out of a win condition? Complete nonsense.

 

[Ares Black]

The problem is that TS doesn't understand what a split decision is.

Why in God's name would you give the belt to someone who the majority of judges thought lost the fight?

 

[Ares Black]

Tf does "Benefit of the doubt" even mean in this situation

It means don't think too hard about it.

 

[Ares Black]

As the champion you're supposed to be the clear cut #1 fighter. You're already protected if the fight goes to a draw. Not allowing the challenger to win a split decision is an arbitrary rule that is completely unfair. In any other scenario split decision wins are possible, but when you're facing the champion you're automatically locked out of a win condition? Complete nonsense.

It's actually one of the sillier threads I have ever seen.

 

[arcadeperfect]

It's actually one of the sillier threads I have ever seen.

Not the first one either. Imagine winning the belt so you can become immune to losing close fights.

 

[Ares Black]

Not the first one either. Imagine winning the belt so you can become immune to losing close fights.

Lol a fighter could theoretically lose a bunch of fights in a row but still be the champion for some reason.

 

[Rationality]

I also believe that the defending World Cup and Stanley Cup champions have to be beaten by 2 goals.
Incumbent politicians must be defeated by 3% or more.
And Super Bowl champs can't lose by anything less than a touchdown!