What exactly is a "paper champion" and some notable examples?

Davidjacksonjones said:
Yeah some people say Jones is paper champ and Francis is lineal and true champ
Lets say that is true. But for how long will Francis be the true champ? What if he never fights in the UFC again? Are all future UFC HW's paper champs
Click to expand...
No, when you beat a paper champ, you become the real champ, because you restored justice. I think.
 
Paper Champ defined
<{Joewithit}>
Tito during his reign was simultaneously the OG needlemover and paper champion. Tito defended his title 5 times against cherry picked competition, his most impressive performance being to win the title against Wandy. Tito’s best friend and bodyguard was none other than Chuck Liddell, who had a ridiculous strength of schedule during the same span. Chuck knocked off top contenders, while Tito’s defended against a career WW, natural MW, guy with a .500 record, washed Shammy, and a janitor. Meanwhile Liddell had faced Randleman, Monson, Metzger, Bustamante, Suloev, Vitor, and Babalu, it was a complete farce and the original work courtesy of the UFC. Once Tito faced Chuck and began fighting top guys he went 2-7-1 over his next 10 fights.
 
simple answer. if you win the belt by any other circumstances besides earning a title shot and beating the champ...you will be considered a paper champ.
Serra: beat the champ...but didnt earn his contender status to begin with. Jennun: won by basically tournament luck due to everybody else being injured. Vitor: won because Randys eye got scratched. Some may argue Grasso in this category currenty due to only keeping the belt due to the judge fixing his scorecard to guarantee a tie. But since she did previously beat Valentina fair and square I dont see it that way.
 
A paper champ is someone who is believed (with some degree of reason) to either not be the best, or not have proven themselves to be the best.

  • Usually it's a non-lineal champ. An interim champ (Colby) or vacant title (DC while Jones was on the shelf), someone who didn't win the belt from a defending champion (Sherk).
  • It's a champion who is not percieved to have "won" their last fight whether it's because a lot of people disagree with the outcome (Jones vs Reyes) or how it was stopped (Aljo vs Yan 1)
  • Sometimes it's because there's a fighter precieved to be better fighting elsewhere (Some people considered Bader or Nemkov to be better than UFC's last few LHW champs)
 
A champ who only has the belt because the top guy doesn't want it.

DC at LHW; Jones was clearly the better man at that weight, and potentially even at heavyweight. We can argue all day about why that is, but the outcome remains the same.

Jones at HW; He relinquished his 205 belt and wanted nothing to do with fighting until Ngannou had left the promotion, and his only win at HW is against the guy that Ngannou already beat.
 
Surprised nobody mentioned losing a non title fight making for a paper champ.

In pride Gomi, Wanderlei and Henderson all list non title fights and retained their belts at their own weight class. All great fighters but they sure felt like paper champs to me until they got their redemption
 
Benoitthegr8 said:
Paper Champ defined
<{Joewithit}>
Tito during his reign was simultaneously the OG needlemover and paper champion. Tito defended his title 5 times against cherry picked competition, his most impressive performance being to win the title against Wandy. Tito’s best friend and bodyguard was none other than Chuck Liddell, who had a ridiculous strength of schedule during the same span. Chuck knocked off top contenders, while Tito’s defended against a career WW, natural MW, guy with a .500 record, washed Shammy, and a janitor. Meanwhile Liddell had faced Randleman, Monson, Metzger, Bustamante, Suloev, Vitor, and Babalu, it was a complete farce and the original work courtesy of the UFC. Once Tito faced Chuck and began fighting top guys he went 2-7-1 over his next 10 fights.
Click to expand...
There is a whole lot of missing context here
 
All technical definitions aside, to me it's just someone who isn't really taken seriously as Champion, and seem like they fluked into a Championship, and is looked at as a guy who is just keeping the belt warm for the top talent. Forrest Griffin kind of fit that mold. I don't think anybody really ever thought he was the best, and more just got on lucky streak against some notable fighters who were not in the best of shape.
 
Benoitthegr8 said:
Paper Champ defined
<{Joewithit}>
Tito during his reign was simultaneously the OG needlemover and paper champion. Tito defended his title 5 times against cherry picked competition, his most impressive performance being to win the title against Wandy. Tito’s best friend and bodyguard was none other than Chuck Liddell, who had a ridiculous strength of schedule during the same span. Chuck knocked off top contenders, while Tito’s defended against a career WW, natural MW, guy with a .500 record, washed Shammy, and a janitor. Meanwhile Liddell had faced Randleman, Monson, Metzger, Bustamante, Suloev, Vitor, and Babalu, it was a complete farce and the original work courtesy of the UFC. Once Tito faced Chuck and began fighting top guys he went 2-7-1 over his next 10 fights.
Click to expand...

This dudes been holding onto for quite some time. "Come on perfect thread where are you at?, bingo!"
 
I would say one who wins the championship via a fluke, controversial decisoin, and then immediately loses the title.

or who cherry picked opponents after winning the championship. not many examples of this in the UFC.
 
Barring a technicality like an injury stoppage (the aforementioned Vitor Belfort vs. Randy fight, being one prime example), as far as I'm concerned if one fighter beats the champion in the ring, then they are the legitimate champion. I don't have to like them, and it doesn't matter how much of a "fluke" or "gift" the so-called fans may call it. Serra, Bisping, etc., were the legitimate division champs for the time they held the belt.
 
BisexualMMA said:
https://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/Griffin-Snatches-UFC-Title-with-Controversial-Win-13564
https://sports.yahoo.com/dm-ufcscoring070708.html
Click to expand...
From this source:
"In those situations, boos are always louder than cheers, but this was very clearly a decision most of the crowd agreed with, no matter how it may have sounded on television."
"Those who complain make the most noise, but a Wrestling Observer Web site poll after the fight had 47.5% saying Griffin won, 27.6% saying Jackson won"
I won't consider that sherdog article, it was written by an idiot.
 
For me, if you didn't defend your title you're also a paper champ. If you have the belt but never fought with it and never put it on the line you were just a champ on paper. Conor f.ex. is just a paper champ, he never defended it.
 
Davidjacksonjones said:
Yeah some people say Jones is paper champ and Francis is lineal and true champ
Lets say that is true. But for how long will Francis be the true champ? What if he never fights in the UFC again? Are all future UFC HW's paper champs
Click to expand...

Francis is 100% the lineal champ. There is a direct lineage that starts with Royce and absorbs the UFC superfight championship, UFC championship, Pride championship and Strikeforce championship and still ends up with Francis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MarioLemieux
Do you still consider Jones a "paper" UFC HW champion?
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
3K
JudoThrowFiasco
JudoThrowFiasco

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,264,815
Messages
57,305,520
Members
175,632
Latest member
zvornu

Share this page

Back
Top