• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

What's the difference between cleaning out a division before and after the belt

biscuitsbrah said:
More on the line. 5 round fights, etc
Click to expand...
What if he fought a lot of 5 rounds fight night main events? or better yet finished his opponent within 3 rounds, is "more on the line" the only argument?

would that undermine title defenses of past legends who didn't really have much on the line compared to today, as UFC was much less famous and the pay was less.


Does that make McGregor the goat? since he fights with more things on the line than any other fighter
 
Last edited:
markg171 said:
If this were happening across MMA history you'd have some examples of it.
Click to expand...
There have certainly been a number of contenders that were doing more of a job defending the division than the champ has. It's hard to have a large list, when the the number of title contenders with streaks is already not that big
 
Pious Augustus said:
What if he fought a lot of 5 rounds fight night main events? or better yet finished his opponent within 3 rounds, is "more on the line" the only argument?

would that undermine title defenses of past legends who didn't really have much on the line compared to today, as UFC was much less famous and the pay was less.


Does that make McGregor the goat? since he fights with more things on the line than any other fighter
Click to expand...
Wtf are you talking about 😂

More on the line is when fighters give their best or worst performances because it’s for being the best in the world, the world champion, with a belt on the line. There is inherently much more pressure.

5 round headline fights is close, but it’s not the same. But yes, if someone beat all their opps or finished them in 5 rounds and the champion only fought half the level of comp and did worse, then I would expect the challenger to be the favorite.

Idk what you are asking or trying to get at bro. You asked for the difference and I told you, and then you made up some weird Mcgregor = goat argument when I didn’t even know we were arguing
 
The manner of the win is just as important to consider. Finishes vs decisions. Also, defences are typically against top ranked opponents. Also, 5 rounds are theoretically tougher than 3 rounds. Merab isn’t the best example because he’s not in a lot of 5 round fights and he doesn’t finish his opponents within 3 rounds.
 
Mohawk Banditó said:
There have certainly been a number of contenders that were doing more of a job defending the division than the champ has. It's hard to have a large list, when the the number of title contenders with streaks is already not that big
Click to expand...
So no, you're also not going to provide examples of this happening.
 
Mohawk Banditó said:
If Belal beats Leon, he'll have wins over a third of the rankings. Leon has wins over 2 ranked fighters.

Sometimes people just run the rankings, and then fans don't count anything until they're defenses. Pretty unfair, if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Good point. I think if a guy is finishing fights, people are paying better attention. It’s a much bigger statement and part of that statement is “I didn’t need 5 rounds. Hell I didn’t need 3”. Example: Shavkat finishing the opponents vs Garry going to decision. But yes if historians are glossing over the numbers, title defences automatically stand out over ranked wins on way to title shot. I think part of that is because in theory a title defence is supposed to be a challenge from the highest ranked opponent available. Thats why I think someone like Aspinall is getting shafted by Jon Jones who is holding the belt and handpicking his opponent. It essentially flips that idea of “best fighting the best” on its head, and calls into question the legitimacy of both the “title” and the “defence”.
 
Last edited:
markg171 said:
So no, you're also not going to provide examples of this happening.
Click to expand...
Already have, but of course you missed it like you do most things. Here's another one. TJ was briefly the champ, only lost a very close decision to Cruz, then he took the next two first contenders while Cruz was taking fights down the rankings because of the 'storyline,' so TJ had to rematch Cody after knocking him out, because TJ had beaten 4 of the top 10 by that point, with almost all the others off a loss or booked, short of Jimmie Rivera and an injured Caraway
 
Last edited:
markg171 said:
So no, you're also not going to provide examples of this happening.
Click to expand...
If Aspinall beats Blaydes, he'll have the beaten the entire top 5 except for Gane(who's already gotten 2 title shots and lost), so really nobody to defend against unless it's a rematch or Gane gets a 3rd title shot. Jones has only fought 1 guy and his next fight is planned for a guy outside the top 5.
 
Cleaning out the division is kinda your job as a champ, no?
 
Pious Augustus said:
What's the difference btween a fighter who wins a title fight, clean out the division afterwards, and a fighter who cleanse out the division then win the belt afterwards.


Is there a legit difference other than Dana putting a belt on him after the fight?
Click to expand...
Yes. More people are studying the champion long term, trying to figure him out. As opposed to just another opponent.
 
There's a lot more burden being champion due to the stakes at hand. The longer you are as champion, the heavier it becomes imo

And In theory in a ranking system vacuum, the champion should be fighting the best contender available at their peak.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,259,753
Messages
56,985,991
Members
175,486
Latest member
DaCrippler

Share this page

Back
Top