Would having a clear title shot policy improve the UFC, or be a restriction?

Kelman

Kelman

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
6,990
Reaction score
0
Say the UFC laid down a title shot policy, and made this public.

Would this improve the organization, or would it soon become a troublesome restriction (much like Bellator's tournament structure) that would prevent fights being made?

Here's an idea for what this policy could be...

In order to gain a title shot, a fighter must either:

- have beaten an official top 5 ranked fighter in his previous fight

- be on a 7-fight win streak

- have lost the title in their previous fight after having made 5 or more successful defences



Thoughts?
 
Just don't think it would work,

the UFC and DW make snap decisions on things
 
I'd prefer it. Why even have a ranking system if its not a clear path to championship fight. But I don't see them changing anything.
 
Kelman said:
Say the UFC laid down a title shot policy, and made this public.

Would this improve the organization, or would it soon become a troublesome restriction (much like Bellator's tournament structure) that would prevent fights being made?

Here's an idea for what this policy could be...

In order to gain a title shot, a fighter must either:

- have beaten an official top 5 ranked fighter in his previous fight

- be on a 7-fight win streak

- have lost the title in their previous fight after having made 5 or more successful defences



Thoughts?
Click to expand...

No.1 n 3 seem good, no.2 is so so. Fighter needs to beat top guy to earn a ts, beating 7 cans isn't the same
 
They'd just end up making a million exceptions
 
I think your criteria are far too high for many UFC divisions. Seven fight win streaks don't grow on trees. Also, having had to fight a top five in your last fight would deter guys on the cusp of a title shot like Frankie Edgar, from taking any filler fights while waiting in line.

There have been some poorly earned title shots, but I think it has been rather over-stated on Sherdog. Bethe Correia didn't have a particularly strong case to contend for a title, but Rousey has already beaten nearly everyone in the top tier of that division. The Holm shot people are complaining about is a very sensible fight to make, the only real problem was publicly announcing that Tate got the next title fight (and then not talking to her first when they changed that).

McGregor's much maligned title fight with Aldo was better earned than any other fight with Aldo in the UFC.
 
this is a business, 99% of the time the titleshot is okay

EVEN HOLM is an ok decision to titleshot, Miesha already lost twice and was dominated TWICE.
 
Injuries make that impossible. Plus we see better fights this way. I am ok with not seeing robbie rest his nuts on big rigs head again. Condit will put on a way better fight.
 
I think for the legitimacy of the sport there should be clearly defined rules on rematches and title shots.

I think it could be simplified to:

- No immediate rematch on a loss unless caused by injury, draw, no contest or judge robbery
- Title shot can only be given to the #1 ranked fighter in the division. If #1 ranked fighter is unavailable due to injury or other reasons, it goes to #2. If #2 is unavailable, you go to #3.

Would the UFC ever do this? Hell no.

In any other sport does the #10 ranked person or team play for a title? Do the Yankees get to rematch the World Series if they lose simply because MLB wants them to win?

UFC gets away with a lot of shady stuff and it's close to the equivalent of fixing fights. I'd love to see the Athletic Commissions put rules in play to force them to be legitimate. UFC wants to pretend like they are a real sport with rankings and a uniform but then doesn't follow the rankings. You can't have it both ways.
 
Metallicalabran said:
EVEN HOLM is an ok decision to titleshot
Click to expand...

I have a real problem with a fighter with zero top 10 wins getting a titleshot. I just don't think it's right.

But I admit I have no problem with a proven elite fighter like Condit getting a title shot even when only on a 1-fight streak against a non top 5 fighter, so my own criteria probably isn't perfect by the purist viewpoint either.

I guess there is no right answer here.
 
1 top 5
2 top 10
2 top 15

would be enough to fight for the title and yes it would make UFC/mma more legit as a sport.
 
Senzo Tanaka said:
- No immediate rematch on a loss unless caused by injury, draw, no contest or judge robbery
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't like this at all. I think that if a champion has made a long string of defences (7 or more), he should be due an immediate rematch, as everyone can have an off-night. If he loses again, he goes way back in the queue then. JMO.

I think Cain getting an immediate rematch against Werdum is silly though, 2 defences is not a long-term champ who deserves an immediate shot at the belt following a loss.
 
The only rule that should never be broken is: someone coming from a loss is not eligible for a title shot.

That means no more immediate rematches of people dropping a weight class and getting a title fight.
 
Kelman said:
Personally, I don't like this at all. I think that if a champion has made a long string of defences (7 or more), he should be due an immediate rematch, as everyone can have an off-night. If he loses again, he goes way back in the queue then. JMO.

I think Cain getting an immediate rematch against Werdum is silly though, 2 defences is not a long-term champ who deserves an immediate shot at the belt following a loss.
Click to expand...

I agree with a rematch with a long term champion that lost for the first time.
 
Senzo Tanaka said:
I think for the legitimacy of the sport there should be clearly defined rules on rematches and title shots.

I think it could be simplified to:

- No immediate rematch on a loss unless caused by injury, draw, no contest or judge robbery

.
Click to expand...

lol what, who decides what a "judge robbery" is? Sherdog? Dana White?

Immediate rematches can go to long-term title holders (+5 defenses or so) who:

lose to a close decision (lets say split decision for example, or only on 1 round off).
Or, who have competed before, had 1 win against the person, then just loss.

I don't think a clear-title shot policy would exist as the above poster said. From a pure entertainment perspective, it would be horrible. We would see Meisha vs Ronda 26. Or maybe they can impose a time limitation if you already had a title shot. Still, I see a lot more people going for safe decision wins by L&P until the decision system punishes stalling. I am so fucking happy Johnny Hendricks isnt fighting for the title right away, a title policy would probably work perfectly for him.
 
Kelman said:
I have a real problem with a fighter with zero top 10 wins getting a titleshot. I just don't think it's right.

But I admit I have no problem with a proven elite fighter like Condit getting a title shot even when only on a 1-fight streak against a non top 5 fighter, so my own criteria probably isn't perfect by the purist viewpoint either.

I guess there is no right answer here.
Click to expand...

There really isnt man. The best thing you can do to maximize your enjoyment of the sport is just disregard rankings and enjoy the fights. If you like charts and standings, there are other sports that are better suited for that.
 
I like it the way it is. Entertainment first, sport second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,043
Messages
55,463,490
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top