Randy Couture had 3 MMA fights (2 of them in one night) under his belt when he got his first shot at the heavyweight belt vs Maurice Smith.
Maurice Smith had 2 MMA fights before getting his shot against Mark Coleman for the UFC heavyweight belt
Mark Coleman had five MMA fights (3 in one night) before he was given a shot at the title.
BJ Penn had 3 MMA fights before he was given a shot at the Lightweight title.
Tito Ortiz was 4-1 in MMA fights (2 of them in one night) when he was given a shot at the title.
Kevin Jackson had 3 MMA fights ( 2 of them in one night) before he was given a title shot.
If your so appalled that Brock was given a shot with a 2-1 record in MMA fights you really should have been crying a long time ago because its hardly a historical precedent.
IMHO its just the bashers finding something new which isn't new at all in fact to propagate their hate with.
Noobs do yourself a favor and don't heed these uninformed clowns.
There is a differnce in that all of those examples you cite were several years ago and there were far fewer athletes competing.
Gently place Brock's Balls into your mouth and HUMMMMMM
Morgz is 100% correct. I have nothing against Brock. I was always one of the people defending him and would bring up his real wrestling credentials as opposed to his fake wrestling credentials but your examples and the time period in which there werent any real experienced mmaers, compared to today, makes no sense.
good points on both sides..
what were the records of couture, penn, smith, coleman, ortiz, and jackson before they got the shot? did any of them have any defeats? IIRC ortiz lost once to mezger?
How about Randy getting an immediate title shot at HW after getting KO'd the previous two outings at LHW?
Lots of things don't make perfect sense regarding rankings in the UFC, but they have to do what they have to do in order to keep the fans interested and keeping mma mainstream. There was really no better alternative unless they kept Randy waiting another 6 months for Nog.
bodybag76 - Morgz is 100% correct. I have nothing against Brock. I was always one of the people defending him and would bring up his real wrestling credentials as opposed to his fake wrestling credentials but your examples and the time period in which there werent any real experienced mmaers, compared to today, makes no sense.+1
Also, if he wasn't a suitable opponent, then he wouldn't have won.
There are 60 threads saying the same thing, but since you obviously can't read them I'll go ahead and shut this one down.
1) Brock fought great, he deserved to win, no question about it. So this isn't some anti-Brock propaganda.
2) None of the fighters you mentioned were given a title shot based on "marketability" or "drawing power." Their marketability for the most part came much later. The sport was young and they were the best available, not the most marketable available. In most every competitive sport, championships are PURELY MERIT-BASED. No one gets an automatic superbowl berth or world series berth because they have a lot of fans. That calls some of the integrity of competition into question.
3) Just because the sport did things one way in 1997 means NOTHING. The sport has evolved by leaps and bounds. And you know what? That's a good thing. The rules are better, its safer, its more uniform, and so on. Progression is good. These days, you really have to earn a title shot with performance in the ring. That is a good thing. We shouldn't justify things with "the sport used to do it." Otherwise, what's wrong with fence grabbing, no drug testing, and groin strikes?
4) If MMA is to move to the next level in competitive sports, it needs to remove some of the clouds of integrity issues that hang over combat sports. By putting a fighter in a title fight partially because he's highly marketable (which is undeniably part of the reason he was in there), you aren't reinforcing that this is purely merit-based competition. That is a dangerous concept to introduce into sports, because once people think that its not all settled on the field or in the ring they can lose interest, or never develop interest.
Ze Dano - good points on both sides..
what were the records of couture, penn, smith, coleman, ortiz, and jackson before they got the shot? did any of them have any defeats? IIRC ortiz lost once to mezger?
Kevin Jackson had one or two fights, Randy had about 2 or 3 fights. I dont remember all the rest. It was a new organization. They couldnt have had that many fights, with the exception of Smith who also had Pancrase experience
Why the hell did Tim Sylvia get a title shot based on beating Cabbage?That was it.
Royce Gracie had two mma matches (both earlier in the night) before being given a shot at the title.
David Terrell and GSP were two young unproven fighters given title shots recently with under 10 fights.
Savitar,actually Royce had 3 matches earlier in the night not 2.
voorhees - Why the hell did Tim Sylvia get a title shot based on beating Cabbage?That was it.Within the UFC itself, but he was 13-0 and won the Superbrawl "next big thing" tournament first.
If you really want to look for an example of someone getting a fast title shot - Hayato Sakurai was given a title shot against Matt Hughes with NO fights in the UFC and no contact for any more fights either.
Probably 80% of the people watching that fight didn't even know who he was.
Thank you sslt75.
mad xyentist BJ Penn, Tito Ortiz and Randy Couture were all give shots on marketability.
Tito was the controversial bad boy. BJ Penn was the incredible superstar with striking and submissions and Randy beat Vitor which no one thought was possible at the time.
As far as the UFC of 1997 having changed to 2008 I agree but that was of their own accord not because you feel they should.
In other words Zuffa has given fighters in the past with relatively short records in the past title shots and they did it in Brock's case because they can if they want to.
Whether you like it or not they are a private company.
I meant to add that I am not all that upset that Brock got a title shot.
I am amazed at what an athlete the guy is.
With that said, it just seems a little weird that he is now the Heavyweight Champ of the sport and we still don't know how much of a "Mixed Martial Artist" he is.
"4) If MMA is to move to the next level in competitive sports, it needs to remove some of the clouds of integrity issues that hang over combat sports."
Numbers one through three are spot on, IMO. Completely agree. Hell, I think this topic has it's correct points as well. I just want to post why it will never change, or is at least unlikely to.
"By putting a fighter in a title fight partially because he's highly marketable (which is undeniably part of the reason he was in there), you aren't reinforcing that this is purely merit-based competition."
True, and a lot of people don't necessarily care. If fights were scheduled based solely on wanting to see the best guys fight the best guys, Roy Jones Jr. wouldn't have been boxing Joe Calzaghe this month. But RJJ/Calzaghe will sell more than Calzaghe/anyone else. It's not because in 2008 Roy Jones Jr. is the absolute best contender.
Some fights will always have dollar signs around them. The bright side with the UFC is that you get 7 or 8 fights before that main event to hopefully establish guys in their division, whereas with boxing you wouldn't see any other very meaningful fights.
But at the same time, you revert back to old #1 where it's pointed out that Lesnar obviously wasn't a guy brought in to make Randy look good. Was it put together because it was the biggest $$$ fight? Absolutely. But on the other side of the fence it's not too disgraceful considering the guy was able to finish off the champ.
VectorWegaLives -Morgz - There is a differnce in that all of those examples you cite were several years ago and there were far fewer athletes competing.
One could easily argue that there are still very few top athletes competing in the HW division. This is one of the reasons Lesnar has been able to rise to the top so quickly.
Yes if you look ONLY at the UFC heavyweight division. I'm speaking in general across the world...from the UFC down to the grass roots level. I don't have the exact numbers handy, but I'm pretty sure it is widely accepted as fact that there is a significantly larger pool of athletes to pull talent from now than there was even in 2004 -- even more-so compared to the mid to late 90's.
I DEFINITELY agree that putting popular fighters in title fights is good for business in the short-term.
I am NOT CONVINCED its good for business in the long-term.