UFC champions should get absolutely ZERO say in who they fight

as the champion if i could make it harder for guys to fight me i would. makes it easier for me to keep my belt if guys have harder roads to fight me. plus these guys are probably talking shit about me so its also for the lols

being the champ has its perks. ;)

:rolleyes:

That's exactly the point.

Thankfully, the UFC does a pretty great job at now allowing this to ever happen. So far, Jones attempts to leverage the matchmaking have actually only made thinks harder looking at how easily Gus got the rematch.

However, if this "attitude" is allowed to fester and grow, it will lead to a world in which there are 22 "undefeated world champions" and the #1 p4p fighter in the world refuses to the fight the #2 p4p fighter in the world at the same weight class ala boxing.
 
Champions shouldn't have the final say in match making, but I have no problem with a champion voicing his/her opinion. It's up the UFC at the end of the day, and if the champ has presented the UFC with an argument compelling enough to influence the decision, then more power to the champ. I have no problem with that.

What it really seems like is that people just want to see the champ lose, and aren't satisfied until the next great hope that the champ has to be ducking gets a shot. All this stuff about deserving title shots goes right out of the window if it means the champ has a real possibility of losing.
 
well he is going to fight,he is just going to take some advantages. Also,if he is fighting nothing but top guys,which is what he has been doing,he should expect the same of his opponents. Manuwa and whoever the fuck cornier fought before henderson isnt terribly impressive. He thought so and voiced it.

His opponents fought whoever they fought. If they didn't fight any top guy, maybe that is the reason they are NOT the champion.
The champion has to fight the top guys. That's kind of obvious, sorry.
 
It's long been a problem in boxing. Guys give up titles rather than face the mandatory challenger.

Agreed

It's a sad state of affairs.

And in the end, talented fighters like Rigo and Andre Ward suffer immensely.
 
Champions shouldn't have the final say in match making, but I have no problem with a champion voicing his/her opinion. It's up the UFC at the end of the day, and if the champ has presented the UFC with an argument compelling enough to influence the decision, then more power to the champ. I have no problem with that.

What it really seems like is that people just want to see the champ lose, and aren't satisfied until the next great hope that the champ has to be ducking gets a shot. All this stuff about deserving title shots goes right out of the window if it means the champ has a real possibility of losing.

I agree that a champion can and should voice his opinion. But not refusing fights because he thinks the opponent hasn't done enough.

Everyone wants to see the champion lose. And by continuing to win, you create your legacy.
 
I find it to be okay, within reason. None of the people who've recently been accused of it have gone out of bounds with who they want to face imo. Turning down a top contender for another top contender is okay in my book, as long as everyone gets a go, and they usually do. Until someone is turning down tough contenders for guys who everyone can unanimously agree has no business facing a champ, I'm fine with it.

My feelings, well spoken.
 
Yeah, sure.

I imagine the Miami Heat, for example, saying: "No, we won't play the Spurs in the Finals. We only want the Sacramento Kings".
Or Real Madrid refusing to play Barcelona and only accepting to play Alicante every week.

Apples and oranges.
 
The moment UFC creates a fair and logical way of determining the #1 contender there will be no reason for champions to complain, other than being littlle bitches...
 
Agreed. Nobody wants to see a champion puss out of a challenge.
 
It's long been a problem in boxing. Guys give up titles rather than face the mandatory challenger.

True. Riddick Bowe? I watched since the early/mid 80's. It just seemed these guys always fought everybody. But by the early 90's, if boxers didn't move up in weight, the real matches wouldn't take place for 2-3 years later. I thought boxing made it clear you fight the Mandatory #1, or else.
IDK...how contracts are with MMA fighters, but is there something there saying if your champ, can you refuse a fight presented to you? The champ won't always fight I would think if your champ for a while, the UFC might let you have options. And if your just comin up, you fight who is givin to you.
 
Every title defense shouldn't be a mandatory title defense. There should be middle ground here. Boxing model works fine.
 
True. Riddick Bowe? I watched since the early/mid 80's. It just seemed these guys always fought everybody. But by the early 90's, if boxers didn't move up in weight, the real matches wouldn't take place for 2-3 years later. I thought boxing made it clear you fight the Mandatory #1, or else.
IDK...how contracts are with MMA fighters, but is there something there saying if your champ, can you refuse a fight presented to you? The champ won't always fight I would think if your champ for a while, the UFC might let you have options. And if your just comin up, you fight who is givin to you.
Boxing champions don't always HAVE to fight. There are mandatory title defense when there's a clear challenger, but this shouldn't always have to be the case in MMA. There's not a clear challenger, because there's DC and Gus at the same time. I don't think it's wrong for Jones to choose to fight the one he hasn't fought (and beaten) yet.
 
People always talk about how top fighters should get paid like Mayweather and Pacquiao, but if that were to happen we would be seeing a lot more of this type of shit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having the fighters getting paid more, but really with more money comes more of that diva attitude.
 
Of course they should have a say. All the fighters should have a say since theyre independent contractors with no guarantee beyond the next fight. If you put somebody in a nothing to gain, everything to lose situation they should speak up.
 
If, in an interview, when asked, a fighter states who they would prefer to fight next, they are "choosing" their next fight...

Who a fighter would prefer to fight doesn't matter, they have to fight who the UFC puts in front of them, or leave.

"Oh, Jon say's he'd prefer to fight up and coming Strikeforce HW champ DC than the guy he just beat? DUCK! COWARD! CHICKEN BONES JONES!"

If the UFC say's "nah" and offers him Gus anyway, his only other option is to quit.

The UFC chooses the fights. But the fighters are allowed to have an opinion on who they personaly think should be next. They can only take one challenger at a time.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having the fighters getting paid more, but really with more money comes more of that diva attitude.

You call it "diva attitude", others would call it knowing ones worth.
 
Did y'all know Jones picked to fight Gus instead of a rematch with Machida? And aren't we all glad that great fight happened?

And if Jones was asking for anyone other than DC or Gus Id have a problem, but let's stop pretending DC isn't a good fighter.

Besides we still don't know when Jones is fighting next or who it's against. I remember shertards and Dana saying Silva was avoiding and ducking the Sonnen rematch and we saw what happened there
 
Back
Top