UFC should have a rule for stripping titles!

Katsumi Yamada

Katsumi Yamada

Gold Belt
@Gold
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
16,618
Reaction score
791
We've seen fighters stripped of the title for all kinds of reasons over the years ( listed in the spoiler tag)
1. Injuries (Tony Ferguson, Frank Mir).

2. Periods of inactivity of varying lengths (Conor McGregor)

3. Leaving the company (Murilo Bustamante, BJ Penn, Jens Pulver)

4. Failed drugs tests (Josh Barnett, Tim sylvia, Sean Sherk)

5. Criminal convictions (Jon Jones)

5. Refusing to fight challengers (Germaine DeRandemie).

6. Moving divisions (Conor McGregor)
And as im sure you would all agree, we've seen far too many interim championships awarded to fighters.
So do you think the UFC should have a set criteria for stripping a champion of his belt?
I do! the scope for bias, corruption , false advertising ,and leveraging against fighters just too extreme and obvious.
So here's my simple idea for a rule to solve all the confusion:
A champion must enter the octagon to defend his title within 365 calendar days of winning the belt, and within 365 calendar days of each subsequent title defence, failing which the title will be forfeited.

No interim titles to be awarded under any circumstances.
Click to expand...
I like this because 1 year is a long time... it allows for fighters like Tony to have injuries, it allows fighters time to negotiate a good deal and promote every big fight fully, it allows them to even have short time in prison or whatever and still keep the belt. It's also not too long that it would hold up the division.

Thoughts? Thanks for reading.
 
Last edited:
I feel like if UFC was a legit sports league they would have this rule or guidelines in place already, but it hurts their promotability and their revenue in the short term, so they don't.
 
But Tony was the interim champ . That's debatable right? Stripping the interim champ
 
favouritism
 
Dana agrees with you

unless your name os Conor mcgregor
 
Makes sense to me. They made a lot of money with McGregor but I think they also did a lot of damage with all the talk about money fights instead of promoting their champions.
 
Ranking, rules, title shot ...

Fckng jokes
 
A champion should also be stripped if he misses weight for a championship fight, and for testing positive for PED's.
 
Titles are meaningless. It’s about how many people view and not whose the best.
 
When will people learn that the UFC doesn't care about the belts, it's only a promotional tool for them, this is why it's so easy for them to create interim belts
 
Rdude92 said:
But Tony was the interim champ . That's debatable right? Stripping the interim champ
Click to expand...
Not sure...but if the rule I suggested was implemented there would be no interim champions ever.

Since Tony fought Lee less than a year after Conor vs Alvarez, Conor would have still been champ and Tony never would have been.

Khabib vs Barboza would probably have been for the vacant belt, if not then it would have been decided at UFC 223.
 
It cant really cause that many problems, and maybe it will prevent some injuries from happening. I agree there should be a rule
 
No more title fights. All catch weight bouts.
 
KOByFootStomp said:
A champion should also be stripped if he misses weight for a championship fight, and for testing positive for PED's.
Click to expand...
Would not be opposed of being stripped due to PED offences, once the hearing and final result is settled.

As for missing weight...what if mighty mouse misses weight and they fight at 127lb catchweight and MM wins. What then?

I say stick to the 1 year rule, MM would have to defend again in relatively short order to keep the belt. And I think it's fair
 
I think Red Dela Cruz will win the stripping title

21766404_1770674219630240_8215671732332938055_n.jpg
 
Katsumi Yamada said:
We've seen fighters stripped of the title for all kinds of reasons over the years ( listed in the spoiler tag)
1. Injuries (Tony Ferguson, Frank Mir).

2. Periods of inactivity of varying lengths (Conor McGregor)

3. Leaving the company (Murilo Bustamante, BJ Penn, Jens Pulver)

4. Failed drugs tests (Josh Barnett, Tim sylvia, Sean Sherk)

5. Criminal convictions (Jon Jones)

5. Refusing to fight challengers (Germaine DeRandemie).

6. Moving divisions (Conor McGregor)
And as im sure you would all agree, we've seen far too many interim championships awarded to fighters.
So do you think the UFC should have a set criteria for stripping a champion of his belt?
I do! the scope for bias, corruption , false advertising ,and leveraging against fighters just too extreme and obvious.
So here's my simple idea for a rule to solve all the confusion:

I like this because 1 year is a long time... it allows for fighters like Tony to have injuries, it allows fighters time to negotiate a good deal and promote every big fight fully, it allows them to even have short time in prison or whatever and still keep the belt. It's also not too long that it would hold up the division.

Thoughts? Thanks for reading.
Click to expand...
I have said the same.
 
im curious why it matters to the consumer though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,263,323
Messages
57,222,161
Members
175,588
Latest member
MateusNardello

Share this page

Back
Top