With so many ways to lose a fight there is really no one fighter that is champion, some body has his number. In other sports like boxing I understand having championship belts, one boxer might fight everyone in his weight class and not get beat for a long time but not in MMA.
They should not keep records either, if a guy can fight and has a few loses to good fighters then keeping track of his record and showing it before each fight is meaningless. There is a lot of things he can learn to become a completely different fighter.
They should not have title fights, just a big trophy for tournament winners - Real MMA fans know who the best fighters are and who they want to see fight, no belts or records influence there oppinions at all - There are too many bad ass mother fuckers in MMA to call one guy a champ, half the fighters in there are champs.
No need for titles, just good fights.
I disagree. It, in many ways, gives fighters something to shoot for. I am all for belts.
MMA isn't on the same level as a gay ass karate tournament. Some fighters train for the belt and can think of nothing else, that is what drives them.
You would have some serious mix matches and people lying out the ass about their records, much like TMA ranks, without stats and records.
As far as not having title fights, that's dumb. These guys (at least most of them) bust their ass to get where they are at. Some newby shouldn't just have the right to come off the street and get a shot just becuase he knows a promoter.
What's the point of playing if your not going to keep score.
That attitude is of the loser mentality, were everyone shouldn't have to carry the shame of a loss.
Some guys get better and push themselves a lot harder after seeing that "L" on their record.
It wouldn't work, the same way integrated ability groups don't work in schools.
Dead weight hold's everyone down, it has no place in sports - especially this one, full of warriors.
Keeping score? this is a fight, real fighters want to fight. I think all the belt is for is to make more money for them, to call it a title fight. These guys are not just training for a belt, they're going to fight weither it's in the street or a cage.
Having two good fighters fight is good enough, you don't need a belt to make it more interesting. Matching up fighters by watching them fight is the only way to keep from having mismatches not by looking at their records, you can't tell how good a guy can fight by looking at his record, that's how mismatches are made.
Sitting around complaining about if a fighter deserves a title shot is just stupid, match the best fighters and let them fight, forget records. Great fights are all that matters not titles. Worrying about records & title shots just keep good fights from happening. There are too many good fighters out there for one guy to be called champion.
I just don't want to see MMA turn into boxing where the best fighters might meet once in a life time if we're lucky just because a stupid plastic belt is on the line.
"Carry the shame of a lose"
In this sport if you fight good and lose there is no shame. Why bring up how many loses a fighter has before each of his fights unless you show who he lost to and how good he did.
All that matters is who you fought and how good you did. keeping score will make some fighters fight easy opponents to get more wins on their record - Records don't mean shit in MMA.
All that matters is who you fought and how good you did. keeping score will make some fighters fight easy opponents to get more wins on their record - Records don't mean shit in MMA. jeebus....First, it's how well you did, not how good.Second, records allow people to determine worthwhile matchups. Without records....how does anyone determine who is going to fight who?
A belt doesn't necessarily make the champion. It only signifies the winner of that particular fight.
K roq, do you fight or is this the oppinion of a fan? From the comments you are makin you sound like a fan.
Belts are the shit. If you fight how could you not want one. It should be the ultimate goal of every fighter to one day hold a title or belt.
I don't want a belt. Belts are to hold your pants up...nothing else!
Belts are important. Not the belt itself but what it symbolizes. If you cant understand that than you dont understand what it takes to compete in a fighting sport.
K roq, if they don't keep track of any records, how would they know who the best fighters are? How would they decide?
You need records and belts to establish the best fighters. Even if the records weren't posted, do you think the fights would be determined any differently? The best fighters will always be the best fighters, it doesn't matter if you keep records or not. The fighters know their win-loss records, the promoters know the win-loss records, and all the fans know the win-loss records.
You said that all that matters in a fight is how well you did, guess what? If you did very well you get a tick in the W column, if you didn't do so well you get a tick in the L column. If you don't like it, go enjoy another sport.
A-Men, brotha.
JC will have a belt after friday
It's just a thought don't get all mad. Any how I don't like any other sports. Belts are not important, They are just for promoters. Hell, Dana looked way more excited about getting the belt than Chuck did = )
I think a lot of fighters get their experience in the cage during the fight not like boxing where a fighter can learn most everything he needs to know in the gym.
I think records in MMA can be deceiving. There are so many great match ups it seems making it a title fight doesn't make it any better.
ResidentEvil - yeah I'm just a fan, I'll fight one or two cage fights before I die just to say I did it and I won't be getting a belt but that is not why I'm bitching. It seems so many undercard fights are better than most title fights, belts don't mean much.
Maybe my thread does suck. I don't care, I'll just try to do GOODER next time.
I will be fighting this Friday for a belt. A belt gives fighters a goal to reach and a feeling of accomplishment (sp?). I think they are great for the sport. Sometimes amature fights are better than title fights but you still need amature and pro, correct?
What does a belt symbolize if your opponent is taking his second fight (and your next fight is in the UFC) or if you haven't defended the belt for 3 years?
its getting the belt that counts. Joseph, do you fight? If not you might never understand.
That's cool you're fighting friday, good luck - I'm sure the satisfaction of actually getting in there and fighting, win or lose, will mean more to you than the plastic belt.
Yes you do need amature & pro but a belt doesn't seperate the level of fighters. If boxing was like MMA a Tyson/Jones jr. fight would be on the undercard. I still say there are too many great fighters in mma to call one THEE CHAMP.....but I could be wrong
i don't know = (