+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: UFC instituting time restrictions on interim belts

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    18,549

    Default UFC instituting time restrictions on interim belts

    http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news...interim-belts/

    UFC President Dana White revealed today that he intends to introduce term limits whereby if the champion doesn't return, the interim champ will become the undisputed division champion:

    "We have thought about it, and we will do it," White said on Monday. "We're probably going to do that soon."

    "This is one of those situations where, Dominick Cruz is a good kid," White said. "He's a great champion. He was supposed to fight Urijah Faber at the end of that season of The Ultimate Fighter. He's a champion, he gets a piece of pay-per-view. That fight was supposed to be on the Anderson Silva vs. Chael Sonnen card, which was a home run for him. It's literally a lottery ticket.

    "It's a combination of me feeling really bad for him, and him being such a good person. ... Do I think we let it play out too long? Maybe. But if I look at who the champion is, then I say no. I feel bad for the kid."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    california
    Posts
    2,876

    Default

    Ive been saying this for years. If you cant defend your belt in a 1 year period, then you should be stripped of your title.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 0mega1 View Post
    Ive been saying this for years. If you cant defend your belt in a 1 year period, then you should be stripped of your title.
    Honestly I think a year is too short. Aldo, GSP, Cain and several others would have been stripped of their titles. So we strip champions just to have to fight for the belt on their return? What is the point of that. The only time I think a guy should be stripped is if there is a question he will ever fight again (Mir).

    Also stripping Cruz now is pointless. Barao and Cruz will fight in early 2014 and it will be Barao's next fight. So we are going to strip Cruz just to have him fight Barao for the belt? So if Cruz wins he can call himself a two time BW champion even though he never lost the belt?
    Dude, Iím a wrestler. Iím the best wrestler in MMA. Wrestling IS, was and always has been the most dominate form of mix martial art on the planet. Thatís all there is to it. We all know it, some people want to fight it, some people want doubt it but wresters rule the MMA world. -
    Ben Askren

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    california
    Posts
    2,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Masscore View Post
    Honestly I think a year is too short. Aldo, GSP, Cain and several others would have been stripped of their titles. So we strip champions just to have to fight for the belt on their return? What is the point of that. The only time I think a guy should be stripped is if there is a question he will ever fight again (Mir).

    Also stripping Cruz now is pointless. Barao and Cruz will fight in early 2014 and it will be Barao's next fight. So we are going to strip Cruz just to have him fight Barao for the belt? So if Cruz wins he can call himself a two time BW champion even though he never lost the belt?
    The point would be to not hold up the title... and this BS called an interim belt/Champion would come to an end. When the former champ is able to fight again then they get first crack at the belt. Seems reasonable and simple to me.

    If he wants to call himself a 2-time champ... doesnt matter anyways. Barao is going to smash Cruz if Cruz ever fights again. ;-)

  5. Default

    All for a time limit a number has to be set and don't see a problem with a year as the set point. It's got nothing to do with you like or dis like a champ. If you want to be respectfull rules need to be set and followed not bent cause he your fighter/ buddy or what ever.

  6. #6

    Default

    I've also been an advocate for stripping titles if they aren't defended on a yearly basis. Minimally, I feel champions should be defending every seven to eight months. On that schedule--and I really feel that is being generous--if they have an injury, that would still give them 4 or 5 months to rehab.

    Very simply, belts should be defended.

    I think they should resolve the anomaly with Cruz and then institute a rule. Barao has been boned for too long now. In terms of activity, he's been interim champ longer than Cruz has, and with as many title defenses. They're both phenomenal athletes--without a doubt, both are better p4p than Jon Jones, and more likeable--and I don't have anything against either guy...but to hold a title hostage for over two years? C'mon.

    rh
    Last edited by rivethead; 10-08-2013 at 12:50 PM.
    All manner of men came to work for the News: everything from wild young Turks who wanted to rip the world in half and start all over again -- to tired, beer-bellied old hacks who wanted nothing more than to live out their days in peace before a bunch of lunatics ripped the world in half.

    Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
    The Rum Diary

    wait....did you just say Genki Sudo unretired?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    california
    Posts
    2,876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rivethead View Post
    I've also been an advocate for stripping titles if they aren't defended on a yearly basis. Minimally, I feel champions should be defending every seven to eight months. On that schedule--and I really feel that is being generous--if they have an injury, that would still give them 4 or 5 months to rehab.

    Very simply, belts should be defended.

    I think they should resolve the anomaly with Cruz and then institute a rule. Barao has been boned for too long now. In terms of activity, he's been interim champ longer than Cruz has, and with as many title defenses. They're both phenomenal athletes--without a doubt, both are better p4p than Jon Jones, and more likeable--and I don't have anything against either guy...but to hold a title hostage for over two years? C'mon.

    rh
    Holy Shit! Me and Riv agree on something

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rivethead View Post
    I've also been an advocate for stripping titles if they aren't defended on a yearly basis. Minimally, I feel champions should be defending every seven to eight months. On that schedule--and I really feel that is being generous--if they have an injury, that would still give them 4 or 5 months to rehab.

    Very simply, belts should be defended.

    I think they should resolve the anomaly with Cruz and then institute a rule. Barao has been boned for too long now. In terms of activity, he's been interim champ longer than Cruz has, and with as many title defenses. They're both phenomenal athletes--without a doubt, both are better p4p than Jon Jones, and more likeable--and I don't have anything against either guy...but to hold a title hostage for over two years? C'mon.

    rh
    I think Cruz hasn't been stripped yet because Dana kind of feels like he owes it to Cruz since he was hurt on the TUF. If it wasn't for him coaching TUF he would have fought Faber in April or May 2012 before he blew his leg out.

    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.
    Dude, Iím a wrestler. Iím the best wrestler in MMA. Wrestling IS, was and always has been the most dominate form of mix martial art on the planet. Thatís all there is to it. We all know it, some people want to fight it, some people want doubt it but wresters rule the MMA world. -
    Ben Askren

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,578

    Default

    The title should be defended 2 times a year with or without the champ.
    USA! USA! USA!


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    9,040

    Default

    I've always been a fan of stripping the title after 12 months and offering it up for grabs to a 4-person "tourney." Top 3 contenders and the incumbent champion if he/she can go. If not, top 4. The "champ" waits his/her turn just like any contender who suffered a similar fate.

    It's not the kindest/gentlest approach but it keeps things moving and makes for interesting matchups with real implications.
    And the piano, it sounds like a carnival
    And the microphone smells like a beer

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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