I agree. I like Cruz, and it would suck for bad luck to impact him...particularly when he was on a tighter title defense schedule than many fight-just-once-a-year champs.
Originally Posted by Masscore
And it isn't Cruz holding the title hostage, it is Dana and the UFC. I would never expect a fighter to say "hey sure strip me of the belt." That is up to the higher powers in the company.
I look at it like this: if Jake Shields or [God forbid] Jon Fitch were to have beaten GSP for his belt, and then couldn't fight for a couple years, they're not going to get the love that Cruz has been shown.
I'm a huge fan of tourneys. I'd even settle for the one-night 2 rounders that the CSAC was willing to do a for SF.
Originally Posted by SimpleJack
Did anyone say they knew what Cruz was going through?
Originally Posted by BonesKnows
probably. But just as many people would be OK with it if it was a less charismatic fighter like Fitch, or Tim Sylvia.
Had the UFC stripped Cruz of his belt because of said rehab and injury it would be a slap in Cruz's face for everything he has done for the company in such a short time frame. I have no problem with interim belts, or interim champions.
Except money. Lots and lots of money.
IMO the term "interim" doesnt take away anything from the fighter who is holding the belt.
Is Condit any less of a champion because he didnt beat GSP for it?
I dunno, maybe you should ask the tons of sponsors who aren't sponsoring him because he isn't a "real" champ. Maybe you should ask Pederneiras how much money he's losing.
Is Barao any less of a champion because he hasnt beat Cruz?
Of course, there isn't any reason to take his word for it, he's just imbedded in the actual situation, and not as clued-in as a guy who once rehabbed a knee surgery.
Your answers are wrong.
My answer to those questions are no - not at all.
Find me one person who says Condit was as great a champion as GSP. One who's last name isn't Condit, anyway.