You get to keep the belt, but you didn’t win.
Not sure technically but I would say no myself. It only stays with u cuz no one won but you didn’t beat the challenger.
i have been asking myself this
i suppose yes since she fought and kept belt
Technically yes. The title never changed hands, so it is a defense.
You didn’t add a win to your record so no
I remember when Wonderboy and Woodley had the draw they never said he defended the title…they always said he “retained” it
It’s better than losing!
Yes, the title was retained, not defended.
Does anyone here actually know formally or are talking out their asses like usual?
This sounds logical.
If you think about a king and his castle; people may come to take it and all he has to do is repel them in order to be the king. That’s what the belt represents. So I say yes, it’s a successful title defense.
The “title” is just a belt around one’s waist. At the end of the day getting the Win is what matters most and neither fighter got the win. The fight was a waste of everyone’s time since there was no true victor. Both fighters wasted months of time training for this fight and the fans who paid money to be there wasted their time and money
Dustin Poirier, despite never being an Undisputed belt holder, ranks higher than Conrat McTapper on the all time list. That’s because his resume of wins is far better than Conman’s is, despite conrat holding two belts
Ok. Does anyone actually know? Opinions are nice and all. We all have one.
According to Grasso’s wiki, not an official source but concurs with the above where it would normally say “defended” but it only says “retained.” Alexa Grasso - Wikipedia
If you’re asking if I’m the official UFC record book does Alexa get a “title defense” from a Draw, the answer is No
But I think you mean a retention but not a defense which makes sense.
And who determines the rules here: UFC or AC?
Probably the AC right? This has to have happened in boxing more than once.