Unearned title shots: 2025 edition

[AmonTobin]

Indeed, it isn't hard to be objective and I've explained my criteria. You're the one who wants to insert your feelings about the Strickland vs DDP scorecards.

The only subjectivity is who counts as a legitimate serious contender that someone has beaten to earn that shot. And, again, if someone counts 2024 Paulo Costa as a serious contender, then they would not be a serious person.

So should Paulo Costa just retire then? I mean, if he's a ghost of himself, a bum, and not a serious contender.

 

[Dr Fong]

I'm not sure what you're missing here.

The only one missing anything is you. I explained that scorecard crying is not part of my criteria.

Again, not all unearned title shots are terrible in the same way that others are. They have their own justifications. But they are not earned when we establish that 'earned' = beating legitimate top contenders (something Strickland hasn't done for either of his two title shots).

 

[Dr Fong]

So should Paulo Costa just retire then? I mean, if he's a ghost of himself, a bum, and not a serious contender.

No, if I was his manager I would advise him to continue to fight once every year on average for a few more years like he has been doing for the last 7 years. Because it is important that he retains his status as an active 'UFC fighter' in order to maintain his social media following and sponsorships, which is his real livelihood.

The only fighter he has beaten in 6 years is the ghost of Luke Rockhold, so obviously taking fighting seriously is not high on his agenda, but he does need to maintain the appearance of being a fighter.

But I'm not sure what your overly sensitive question has to do with this thread.

 

[Slapjit]

MI was gwaan post unearned title shots in slaps but ting a meritocracy hope ting get better fi yuh tho mi believe in u guys

 

[AmonTobin]

No, if I was his manager I would advise him to continue to fight once every year on average for a few more years like he has been doing for the last 7 years. Because it is important that he retains his status as an active 'UFC fighter' in order to maintain his social media following and sponsorships, which is his real livelihood.

The only fighter he has beaten in 6 years is the ghost of Luke Rockhold, so obviously taking fighting seriously is not high on his agenda, but he does need to maintain the appearance of being a fighter.

But I'm not sure what your overly sensitive question has to do with this thread.

I wasn't aware of all these ghosts in the UFC roster. Consider starting a 2025 Active Ghost Fighters on the UFC roster who have unearned rankings.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Khamzat will most likely get next. He's not really "losing" anything. We need closure after that Sean vs DDP fight was so close.

That fight did seem really close.

Then DDP went on to finish Izzy while Sean took a breeze fight against Costa, so that puts DDP in a firmly forward position.

I'm not terribly impressed by Sean's effort, but I still thought he won that fight. I know it's not a popular opinion, but I remember it being a very close fight with Dricus taking the most damage. I'm all for Khamzat getting a shot next but I also think Sean and Dricus have unfinished business. I think the rematch is warranted. I'm not disputing that someone arguably deserves it more, but I disagree that it's completely unearned.

Hey, I bang the drum all day for people who get robbed, but I never turn around and use that as logic for overrruling results or shoehorning rematches. Wins are wins, losses are losses, and bad decisions happen to everyone. If bad decisions are the problem, then the goal is to fix that, not to try and mulligan it until we get the result we want, and create a system that incentivizes fighters to sit and not take fights and stay highly ranked and squat based on their "good performances" in a loss. It's a FREQUENT story in the UFC.

Sean might not have deserved to lose, but he did, and has done nothing to put himself back there. To me, that's unearned.

Strickland's getting it because the first fight with DDP was razor close and inconclusive.

I mean.. it concluded with a judges decision against him. If the logic REALLY held that a close fight warrants someone a rematch, then why didn't they do it immediately? Sounds like Sean should have been in there before Izzy and they should have run it back right off the bat, if "Oh boy, that was a close one" is reason enough

So should Paulo Costa just retire then?

I think so, yeah. But I'm not him

I mean, if he's a ghost of himself, a bum, and not a serious contender.

Lots of fighters fight to fight (and also live in the delusion that they will be a serious contender again). If every fighter who was never going to be a champ should "just retire" because of it, this sport wouldn't have a lot of fighters.

I wasn't aware of all these ghosts in the UFC roster. Consider starting a 2025 Active Ghost Fighters on the UFC roster who have unearned rankings.

You think the Rockhold fight mattered even a single iota?

 

[AmonTobin]

Hey, I bang the drum all day for people who get robbed, but I never turn around and use that as logic for overrruling results or shoehorning rematches. Wins are wins, losses are losses, and bad decisions happen to everyone. If bad decisions are the problem, then the goal is to fix that, not to try and mulligan it until we get the result we want, and create a system that incentivizes fighters to sit and not take fights and stay highly ranked and squat based on their "good performances" in a loss. It's a FREQUENT story in the UFC.

Sean might not have deserved to lose, but he did, and has done nothing to put himself back there. To me, that's unearned.

I mean.. it concluded with a judges decision against him. If the logic REALLY held that a close fight warrants someone a rematch, then why didn't they do it immediately? Sounds like Sean should have been in there before Izzy and they should have run it back right off the bat, if "Oh boy, that was a close one" is reason enough.

That's my rational. The fight was that close imo. He certainly could've campaigned for an immediate rematch although I doubt that ever would've got it. I think most people were clamoring for Adesanya-DuPlessis next. I don't have any dog in the fight but I thought Dricus could just as easily have left without the belt that night. It all came down to scorecards and just as many people agreed as disagreed with the outcome, hence why I think the rematch was warranted.

 

[snugglecakes]

explained that scorecard crying is not part of my criteria.

you can't just shrug off a talking point that plooks your argument up the ass and out the mouth and just say "not part of my criteria. That's not how an objective fair debate works.

 

[Meathead Jock]

You definitely have a bias against Strickland if you can’t see how he’s earned it.

Only earned it if Khamzat wasnt an option. If Khamzat is able to take the fight then he absolutely has earned it more than Strickland.

 

[AmonTobin]

Only earned it if Khamzat wasnt an option. If Khamzat is able to take the fight then he absolutely has earned it more than Strickland.

100% I agree. I'd rather see Khamzat but I still understand the rational for the Sean rematch. I don't think it's nuts. That fight was way too close for me to say "Dricus beat him". That's just not what I watched.

 

[Dr Fong]

you can't just shrug off a talking point that plooks your argument up the ass and out the mouth and just say "not part of my criteria. That's not how an objective fair debate works.

There is no objective way to define it. Simps will tell you that Stipe 'earned' his shot simply by being the 'GOAT' or some nonsense. There is no title shot in existence that some shill or a moron won't defend.

The point is not to dwell too much on the relative merits of the unearned category. The point is to establish how the majority of title shots go to people who are coming off losses, layoffs, or wins over nobodies/shot fighters. Contenders beating other legit contenders to earn a title shots have become conspicuously rare, which is a curiosity in a so-called sport.

The criteria is entirely rational for this purpose. It involves some subjectivity when assessing contender quality, but it's still quite straightforward and most people intuitively understand what is meant by 'earned' in this context.

It doesn't mean, as explained, that all title shots in the 'unearned' category are subjectively bad.

It's a simple concept that people are trying to complicate because they are butthurt over a particular fighter.

 

[JoeRowe]

This thread catalogs unearned title shots in 2025, just as I had one for 2023/2024. It's not supposed to be exclusively a thread for Strickland fans to go into a demented incel rage, although that was expected.

An earned shot is an active fighter beating top contenders. All other title shots are unearned - as stated in the OP, if you are coming off losses, inactivity or only beating random bums (like 2024 Paulo Costa) the fighter didn't earn the particular title shot. Crying over a decision is not part of the criteria for earning a shot, funnily enough.

Not all unearned title shots are created equal. Nobody is saying Strickland's title shot is in the same category as Stipe Miocic's.

You're doing more crying in this thread than Strickland on a Podcast. The entire premise of this thread is so you can bitch & moan about Sean. What a pussy lol

 

[JBJ was here]

Sean decided to sit on his ass and not fight anyone worth a damn.

Pretty much an all-purpose reply for this thread. I was seriously wondering what O'Malley had to do with a middleweight title shot for a second before I figured it out.

 

[Dr Fong]

You're doing more crying in this thread than Strickland on a Podcast. The entire premise of this thread is so you can bitch & moan about Sean. What a pussy lol

Not doing any crying, friend, you seem to be confused about the concept. No, this thread is a follow up to one made for 2023-2024 which discussed all title shots.

Although I did take a pre-emptive shot at Strickland incels in that thread too because their reaction was always going to be entirely predictable. He has the craziest fans in the game, if Poatan has the most embarrassing.

But not everything is about 'Sean'.

 

[Dave Poodle]

That fight did seem really close.

Then DDP went on to finish Izzy while Sean took a breeze fight against Costa, so that puts DDP in a firmly forward position.


Hey, I bang the drum all day for people who get robbed, but I never turn around and use that as logic for overrruling results or shoehorning rematches. Wins are wins, losses are losses, and bad decisions happen to everyone. If bad decisions are the problem, then the goal is to fix that, not to try and mulligan it until we get the result we want, and create a system that incentivizes fighters to sit and not take fights and stay highly ranked and squat based on their "good performances" in a loss. It's a FREQUENT story in the UFC.

Sean might not have deserved to lose, but he did, and has done nothing to put himself back there. To me, that's unearned.


I mean.. it concluded with a judges decision against him. If the logic REALLY held that a close fight warrants someone a rematch, then why didn't they do it immediately? Sounds like Sean should have been in there before Izzy and they should have run it back right off the bat, if "Oh boy, that was a close one" is reason enough


I think so, yeah. But I'm not him


Lots of fighters fight to fight (and also live in the delusion that they will be a serious contender again). If every fighter who was never going to be a champ should "just retire" because of it, this sport wouldn't have a lot of fighters.


You think the Rockhold fight mattered even a single iota?

So Shogun shouldn't have got a rematch against Machida?

 

[JBJ was here]

So Shogun shouldn't have got a rematch against Machida?

So Shogun shouldn't have got a rematch against Machida?

Shogun shouldn't have gotten a rematch against Machida, but he should have gotten a rematch against Jones. That's the logic of someone saying Sean deserves a title shot.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

you can't just shrug off a talking point that plooks your argument up the ass and out the mouth and just say "not part of my criteria. That's not how an objective fair debate works.

It's not a real argument. "I thought he should have won." Well, that didn't happen. If that's true, then shame he didn't. But ultimately he didn't, so it doesn't change the future. Grow up

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

So Shogun shouldn't have got a rematch against Machida?

Nope.

So by your logic, they should have done rematches after:
Condit-Lawler
Reyes-Jones
Rua-Randleman
Edgar-Bendo II
Woodley-Wonderboy II
Volk-Holloway II
Cejudo-Johnson II
Pena-Pennington
Fakhretdinov-Leal
Tomar-dos Santos
Hubbard- Figlak
Rodriguez - Dulgarian
Gane - Volkov
Bisping-Hamill
Taveres - Sidey
Sidey - Armfield
Haqparast - Gordon
Demopoulos - Ducote
Woodson -Caceres
Griffin-Wells
Fili -Swanson
Mariscal -Charriere
Gomis - Brito
Ramos - Culibao
Edwards-Pudilova
Marcos-Grant
Jenkins-Emmers
Brener-Tukhugov
Albazi-Kara-France
Alencar-Amanda
Mullarkey-Makdessi
Bohm-Kim
Demopoulos-Murata
Murphy-Santos
Nelson - Choi
Muniz-Park
Pinheiro-Waterson-Gomez
Swanson-Dawodu
Martinez-Nurmagomedov
Parkin-Machado
Pimblett-Gordon
Johnson-Zhumagulov
Arlovski-Collier
Rodriguez-Li
Cachoeira-Kim
Buday-Brzeski
Vergara-Rodrigues
Rountree Jr.-Jacoby
O'Malley-Yan
Vieira-Holm
Demopoulos-Frey
Mullarkey-Johnson
Molina-Zhumagulov
Negumereanu-Nzechukwu
Emmett-Kattar
Barber-Maverick
Elliot-Benoit
Romanov-Espino
Nicolau-Kape
Brown-Kamaka III
Saldana-Griffin
Aldrich-Casey
Parisian-Martinez
Kirk-Amirkhani
Roberts-Emeev
Felipe-Tafa
Lemos-Hill
Trizano-Klein
Grant-Sekulic
Pena-Munoz
Murphy-Lee
Ewell-Martinez
Ige-Barboza
Salikhov-Zaleski dos Santos
McKenna-Hansen
Paiva-Zhumagulov
Ziam-Mullarkey
Gadelha-Hill
Moises-Green
Zaleski dos Santos-Kunchenko
Edgar-Munhoz
Hooker-Felder
Magny-Martin

and a hundred other examples? Those should all have been immediately run back until we got a result we liked?

 

[Aurelian]

It's not a real argument. "I thought he should have won." Well, that didn't happen. If that's true, then shame he didn't. But ultimately he didn't, so it doesn't change the future. Grow up

This isn't particularly true. Dana White thought Strickland won, whose opinion matters, quite a lot here.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

This isn't particularly true. Dana White thought Strickland won, whose opinion matters, quite a lot here.

This thread is called unearned title shots. I really don't need to explain this, but if your logic that 'Dana says it, so therefore yes,' then no title shots were unearned because "In Dana's opinion.." they were all "earned"

Dana can do whatever the fuck he wants. He gives title shots to people off losses, but we all know that's stupid too, don't we?