Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: UFC boss: Definitive loss leaves Benson Henderson's road back to title lengthy

Your Message

Click here to log in

What Is Quinton Jackson's Nickname?

 
 

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

HTML

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 09-02-2013, 05:11 PM
    rivethead
    Quote Originally Posted by Adambomb View Post
    So judging by the above criteria, yes Anderson does deserve an immediate rematch, but there's no way Benson will or should get one.
    Nobody is arguing that Benson should get an immediate rematch.

    The rest of your perspective is...subjective. You're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree with it.

    rh
  • 09-02-2013, 04:58 PM
    Adambomb
    A former champ getting an immediate rematch should depend on the circumstances. With that said, this is the criteria I'd look at:

    #1. What is the history between the new champ & old champ? Have they fought more than once before? If so, what's the record? If it's tied 1-1, then maybe a trilogy is in order. If they just had their first fight, then maybe a rematch is called for. If it's 2-0, then forget about it. Benson is out of luck here.

    #2. How dominant was the champion? GSP & Anderson have set records for title defenses & totally dominated their competition via stoppages or one sided decisions. Benson defended his title 3 times, all were decisions, & two of them were controversial split decisions. He was NOT a dominant champ by any stretch of the imagination.

    #3. Are there other strong contenders in the division? There could be a guy that just deserves a title shot ahead of the former champ because he has a strong resume. This is definitely true with someone like Big Rig, & maybe TJ Grant. At 185 the only guy you could say that about is Vitor, but Anderson recently defeated him embarrassingly easy. It's hard to justify anyone at 185 being better than Anderson.

    #4. How one-sided was the loss? Was it a close decision, an early stoppage, a flash submission or KO? Or was it a one sided beating or a decision that wasn't close? Benson hasn't been subbed since he fought The Rock's dad in 2007 (his third fight), so this could have been somewhat of a fluke. This works to his advantage. Anderson getting KO'd could also be seen as a fluke. I'm not saying these things were necessarily flukes, but both are very rare occurrences.

    So judging by the above criteria, yes Anderson does deserve an immediate rematch, but there's no way Benson will or should get one.
  • 09-02-2013, 03:41 PM
    rivethead
    Quote Originally Posted by Sniggles View Post
    Boxing had plenty of instant rematches for champions regardless of a round 3 KO or a UD loss.

    There are things that delegitimize the sport far more than a dominant champion getting an instant rematch. They will capitalize on star power whenever they can just like any other entertainment outfit.
    Boxing sucks. It has for a long time.
    MMA doesn't have to. But it sucks more than it should right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by stpierrecanada View Post
    See, you can't deny this for 1 second! Rivethead you are spot on here..


    Henderson shouldnt get an immediate rematch but one or two wins most from another crack, he did defend it 3 times..
    Thank you for actually focusing on my point, and not getting distracted into the Anderson's-diva-status-totes-earns-him-stuf bullshit.

    rh
  • 09-02-2013, 02:43 PM
    stpierrecanada
    Quote Originally Posted by rivethead View Post
    of course it is.

    ...and yet Anderson gets and immediate rematch...after his own annihilation.

    keep it classy and consistent dana. you the man.

    rh

    See, you can't deny this for 1 second! Rivethead you are spot on here..


    Henderson shouldnt get an immediate rematch but one or two wins most from another crack, he did defend it 3 times..
  • 09-02-2013, 02:26 PM
    Sniggles
    Boxing had plenty of instant rematches for champions regardless of a round 3 KO or a UD loss.

    There are things that delegitimize the sport far more than a dominant champion getting an instant rematch. They will capitalize on star power whenever they can just like any other entertainment outfit.
  • 09-02-2013, 02:05 PM
    rivethead
    Quote Originally Posted by travtera View Post
    Anderson Silva has gone 16-1 in the UFC, including 13-1 in his own division, if that isn't merit enough to deserve a rematch I really don't know what would be. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion but I'm going to go on a limb and say you're probably in the less that 5% percentile of fans that don't think Anderson deserves an auto-rematch. The other 95% that's A LOT of idiots.
    While I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from, there are a lot of idiots out there. How many people have to buy a CD before it goes multiplatinum? How many multiplatinum CDs does that beeber kid have?

    That being said, I don't think we're disagreeing as much as you'd think.

    For me, it breaks down into two schools of thought...there are people who think long-time champs should get immediate rematches--regardless of the outcome of the first fight--and there are those who don't. I'm one of the people who don't, specifically if the first fight ends in a decisive finish.

    I think I get what you're saying though and I've been echoing a similar sentiment all year. I know match making is difficult. I know they're running a business around a sport. In the end, all I'm really asking for is the illusion of legitimacy. At least pretend that they're trying to retain some sort of sporting credibility. Title challengers should at least be coming off of a win... Even if it's just one win! In 2013 if all goes to plan by years end, we'll have had 5 title fights where the challenger is coming off a loss. In the cases of Edgar, Diaz, Sonnen and Tate I found the decision to put them in title fights completely unacceptable.
    For me, the issue was that Anderson was getting the rematch regardless, before the opening bell rang. He got beat, cleanly and clearly. No controversy. If the fight was close, fine. But it wasn't.

    I think a case for an auto-rematch can be made under a few exceptions, however. A razor close fight or draw (Machida/Shogun, Edgar/Maynard), a rubber match where no other legitimate contender is a viable option (Arlovski/Sylvia III) or when a champ has been on as dominant a run as Anderson and Georges have been on, regardless how they lose. That's just my take.
    I'm fine with the first two...but the last one delegitimizes the sport. It's right up there with giving sonnen a title shot when he'd never won at 205. It's weak. If the champ gets finished, he's finished, and should earn the rematch. I can see taking a resume into case when the fight is close...maybe not as razor thin as Rua/Machida or Edgar/Maynard. But that's as far as it should go.

    rh
  • 09-02-2013, 01:59 PM
    The Return Of......
    The only reason Silva should get an immediate rematch is because Weidman wants to fight him again to cement his position and prove that it was not a fluke. For the record it was not a fluke it was a beautiful set up and KO. I am ok with the rematch not because I think Silva deserves it as much as I think Weidman deserves it.
  • 09-02-2013, 01:07 PM
    travtera
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donosaur View Post
    There are A LOT of idiots. Being in the majority doesn't make somebody smart. Name another legitimate sport where past championship glory gets you another championship opportunity?
    There is none. In all other sports I can think of, once the championship is awarded the quest for the next championship begins with a clean slate for all. Including Champion and Runner up. Obviously that is not how combat sports works, though, so that argument is irrelevant. There is no season, there is no rigid schedule that weeds out the strong from the weak and there is no play offs to determine each championship. Boxing and MMA are left on their own little island where fights are arbitrarily picked based on variable factors. It's a flawed system, for certain!

    Not sure if you read the rest of my previous post but I do agree the UFC did a poor job in 2013 at maintaining its sporting credibility. But based on the merits of Anderson's run I think he dominated long enough to make an exception. I stand with the rest of the idiots on this one.
  • 09-02-2013, 10:40 AM
    The Donosaur
    There are A LOT of idiots. Being in the majority doesn't make somebody smart. Name another legitimate sport where past championship glory gets you another championship opportunity?
  • 09-02-2013, 07:32 AM
    dimerules28
    Quote Originally Posted by BonesKnows View Post
    Well where do I start:

    - Anderson silva has had more title defenses than bendo has had ufc fights.
    - Anderson was clowning around - where bendo was not
    - Bendo was finished, after already having a loss on his record at the hands of Pettis only this time it was with a statement and in the first round
    - Anderson silva is the GOAT, bendo isn't even the best in his divison.
    - People want the rematch between Silva and Weidman, the same cannot be said about Bendo vs Pettis (one of the reasons being point #3)
    - Do I need to keep this going?
    - As I said before this is night / day
    - Apples to oranges
    - Hockey to football
    - etc. etc. etc. etc.
    You didnt even need to give this many points, its bendo and Anderson.. That should be enough said. But i agree with all of em... RH's response is weak at best..
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •