would MMA and the fight game in general be a better product without BELTS and the BELT SYSTEM?

[skullmaskkid]

Now before you jump all over me, hear me out.

What is a belt? It's essentially a designation or a gimmick and ploy aimed at generating interest. The promoters put a belt on a fighter and all the sudden we are suppose to care because he's a champ. But fans don't work that way, people aren't automatons. Just because you put belts on people don't make people care about the fighters. That's why boxing is failing.

All belts do is create a distortion. Look at sherdog front page, everyone is talking about Tyron Woodley simply because he has the belt. So instead of discussing matchups like Lawler vs Nick Diaz or Lawler vs Wonderboy we have to put Tyron Woodley into these marquee matchups. But that doesn't mean people are actually interested in watching Tyron as much as we are the other guys, we simply feel obligated to because he has the belt.

That's the distortion, instead of letting the market of interest decide who is or is not deserving of interest, the belt is trying to do it. But doing so it's creating a dissonance or paradox, where you feel like you should be intereted in Tyron Woodley but you are really not.

Money fighters like Nick Diaz, Nate Diaz, Conor, are compelling regardless of whether they have the belt or not. IN a sport without belts, the money fights = the best available fight

 

[Sonny Qc]

A belt for guys who fight without pants wtf?

 

[Paradigm]

Belts are mainly for promotional reasons. As long as promoters exist in the fight game, belts will as well.

A belt for guys who fight without pants wtf?

Why not? Boxers wear silk shorts and fight for purses.

 

[skullmaskkid]

Belts are mainly for promotional reasons. As long as promoters exist in the fight game, belts will as well.



Why not? Boxers wear silk shirts and fight for purses.

it's an archaic way of promotion, in this day and age we get so much exposure to fighters that belts only create distortions

 

[biscuitsbrah]

Belts are mainly for promotional reasons. As long as promoters exist in the fight game, belts will as well.



Why not? Boxers wear silk shirts and fight for purses.

MMA fighters should be forced to wear manties and no pants allowed.

 

[Drofrah]

By that rationale though the money or marquee fighters still sell and champions sell because people want to see the champ

 

[Kelman]

No need to be so drastic.

The sport would be in a much better place if the UFC ran with some integrity.

Title shots should be earned, not handed out randomly to the person with more Twitter followers.

 

[Xenon_]

I'd like to qualify my post by saying that I'm a fantasist and romantic, and that my opinions have very little grounding in the reality we know and see before us.

Fuck belts. Fighter's reputation should be the be all and end all. Fighters should decide who they want to fight and who they don't want to fight.

I'm all for tournaments though....










...and fatalities : )

 

[Frank Edgar]

Every sport has some form of championship, it's not just MMA and boxing. Football has the Super Bowl, soccer has the world cup, baseball has the world series, all the individual martial arts have tournaments and/or are part of the olympics, etc.

Yes it is a prop, and yes holding the belt does not automatically make you the best, but a "championship" in some form will exist no matter what, whether formal or informal. Fans would still argue about who the best fighter is and use win-loss ratios and other stats to decide.

Even non-sports use "championships" like the Oscars in hollywood. It is a part of human nature to engage in competition, and a party of competition to crown a "champion" so it will never go away.

 

[Breaking]

No. This would be a dumb idea.

Why? Because a belt system ensures that quality competitors are always competing to be the best competitors they can be.

There is an independent standard of success that determines your basic value in the system.

Without an independent, objective, standard, shit talkers and hype jobs would dominate the sport, and main events would be freak shows and pointless match ups.

Sage would be getting curb stomped by McGregor every other month until people didn't want to see it again...

Spoiler

I, for one, would never get tired of it.

 

[Blackjack]

Now before you jump all over me, hear me out.

What is a belt? It's essentially a designation or a gimmick and ploy aimed at generating interest. The promoters put a belt on a fighter and all the sudden we are suppose to care because he's a champ. But fans don't work that way, people aren't automatons. Just because you put belts on people don't make people care about the fighters. That's why boxing is failing.

All belts do is create a distortion. Look at sherdog front page, everyone is talking about Tyron Woodley simply because he has the belt. So instead of discussing matchups like Lawler vs Nick Diaz or Lawler vs Wonderboy we have to put Tyron Woodley into these marquee matchups. But that doesn't mean people are actually interested in watching Tyron as much as we are the other guys, we simply feel obligated to because he has the belt.

That's the distortion, instead of letting the market of interest decide who is or is not deserving of interest, the belt is trying to do it. But doing so it's creating a dissonance or paradox, where you feel like you should be intereted in Tyron Woodley but you are really not.

Money fighters like Nick Diaz, Nate Diaz, Conor, are compelling regardless of whether they have the belt or not. IN a sport without belts, the money fights = the best available fight

If you're a UFC fighter and you don't want to be a champion, you're in the wrong business.

 

[Thy]

belts are great. champs not defending them is the worst.

Champs should be stripped if they don' defend within 5 months regardless to injury, doctor stuff, or whatever. the champ should be forced to fight atleast every 5 months, preferably every 3

 

[illegalnature]

Nah we need belts. Something to fight for besides just money and force people to take harder fights to climb the rankings to earn the bigger payday and exposure as champ.

Some of these money fighters wouldnt exist without belts. Mcgregor got most of his fame from flooring Aldo and winning the belt for example.

It also allows people to strive to earn the belt and set records like Silva.

 

[Crimson Glory]

1. How would you know who the best fighter in the division is if there are no belts to show it? I mean, I understand that sometimes we end up with paper champs, but at the end of the day, the guy who owns the belt is usually the best there is at his or her weight.

2. If we only make fights based on money, then we end up making fights due too a popularity contest, how would more deserving, but less popular fighters get fights? Guys like Nick Diaz and Dan Henderson get fights, not because they deserve it, but because it sells. And, while I understand that's part of a PPV driven sport, should not be the sole determining factor in making matchups.

 

[Crimson Glory]

As far as I'm concerned the UFC needs to figure out a way to make legit rankings and STICK TOO THEM!