1. The official Sherdog Store is back! Check it out! » Discuss it here! »

Would you favor or disapprove of the UFC adopting a policy of NEVER doing instant

Discussion in 'UFC Discussion' started by BigMuffler, Aug 21, 2015.

  1. BigMuffler Loli is love loli is life!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    Messages:
    27,166
    Likes Received:
    0
    rematches? The Cain vs Werdum, Hendricks vs Lawler, and Barao vs Dillashaw instant rematches all got a lot of flack from fans when they were proposed, although two of them didn't end up actually happening. Would you support a policy where any champion who loses MUST win another fight before getting a shot at redemption?
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2015
  2. Iron Leg Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Internet
    YES, except for when there's a draw or no contest.
     
  3. BigMuffler Loli is love loli is life!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    Messages:
    27,166
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah that would be the type of situation where an exception makes sense... although, that wouldn't involve a champion losing which is the main thing being addressed.
     
  4. soulsstealer Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Messages:
    11,822
    Likes Received:
    461
    Yes remove instant rematches.
     
  5. HockeyBjj Putting on the foil

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012
    Messages:
    21,207
    Likes Received:
    7,185
    Exactly this.

    Even after controversial/flukey decisions (Silva Weidman 1) there is NOTHING wrong with having the guys face different opponents and then coming back in the following fight.
     
  6. BringPrideBack Orange Belt

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    0
    Except Lawler Hendricks 2 wasn't really an instant rematch you know, with Lawler starching fools and everything.
     
  7. BigMuffler Loli is love loli is life!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    Messages:
    27,166
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was referring to the proposed Hendricks-Lawler 3 which got canceled.
     
  8. Luminaire Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2010
    Messages:
    10,527
    Likes Received:
    1
    Never? No... not NEVER...

    But for the most part they should avoid them... If the fight ends in a very controversial way, then maybe. Or if a long standing dominant champion is suddenly dethroned in a close or fluke-ish way then I could see that meriting a immediate rematch as well.

    But Cain v Werdum is none of those things... Cain has fought 3 different fighters total in the last FIVE FUCKING YEARS... let him fight someone knew... goodness.
     
  9. fightdonttweet Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,910
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. Everyone wanted to see Silva-Weidman II. Everyone will want to see Conor-Aldo II if Conor wins.

    This is a fantasy thread. The UFC isn't going to start adopting policies restricting itself from what fights it can make.
     
  10. Schatten42 Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    931
    Likes Received:
    3
    Less of it, not never.
    I think if a Champ has X number of title defenses (maybe that number is 4-5) they should be granted an immediate rematch, I feel they have earned that. If we are talking only having the belt for 1-2 fights, then no.
     
  11. Fbed Luna Belt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2014
    Messages:
    3,929
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    Japao
    Nah, some instant rematches are acceptable imo. I had no problem with Andy getting his.
     
  12. Kinger85 Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2001
    Messages:
    21,149
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    S'toon, Sask
    Nope.

    Every situation is different. There are times when an immediate rematch is the only way to go/the right thing to do.
     
  13. Malthian Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wouldn't say "never".

    If the fight is a draw or controversial or very close (split decision) I have no problem with a rematch.

    I also believe that if a champion has defended their title 5 or more times they should be entitled to a rematch even if they lose badly. 5 is a LOT of consecutive defenses. Given that anyone can have an off day, be fighting sick or injured or have an off day I think it's okay to cut a long reigning champion a bit of slack on a rematch.

    Look through MMA history. The list of champions that have defended their title 5 or more consecutive fights is pretty short.

    Anderson - 10
    GSP - 9
    Jon Jones - 8
    Jose Aldo - 7
    Demetrious Johnson - 6
    Ronda Rousey - 6
    Matt Hughes - 5
    Tito Ortiz - 5

    That's it. 8 fighters in the entire history of the UFC. If you make it to 5 defenses, I have NO problem with giving the champion a shot to redeem themselves.

    And who defended their titles only 4 times? Pat Miletich, Chuck Liddell, and Frank Shamrock.

    http://www.fightmatrix.com/ufc-records/title-defenses/
     
  14. SmilinDesperado Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    16,828
    Likes Received:
    3,311
    I don't really understand the logic behind letting long reigning champs have immediate rematches.
    What about respect to the new champ?
    The only time there should be an immediate rematch is when there is either a no contest, a draw, or something really weird happens like Anderson breaking his leg.

    Immediate rematches stagnate the division. If the champ wins the 2nd fight, then you have to do an immediate trilogy..and the belt just stays between 2 guys, even when there are deserving challengers waiting.
    You're basically giving the previous champ a redo. Let the new champ have a chance to create his own legacy, and let the previous champ prove that he still has what it takes to become the champ again
     
  15. Bren312 Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Messages:
    568
    Likes Received:
    155
    Location:
    Great Northwest
    Pretty much exactly how I feel. It's " you have to beat the man to be the man"; not "you have to beat the man then beat him again right after that."
     
  16. Reason Black Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Messages:
    5,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    sometimes its needed ala maynard edgar 1
     
  17. Bmurray Black Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    5,814
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Oregon
    What I came here to say
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.