SinCityHustler - How do you get them to commit to defending? What's the guarantee they will?
I'm all for that, I just don't see how it's enforced. By the time they refuse to defend it, they've already had their title shot and they won.
Very easy imo, as said above.
People have to understand that ufc is private. There needs be no board of elected officials. It's a private company. They can shut down anyone. I have that the ufc uses this for financial gain, but I love the idea that they can shut anyone off, at any time.
SinCityHustler - Target_the_Gash - SinCityHustler - How do you get them to commit to defending? What's the guarantee they will?
I'm all for that, I just don't see how it's enforced. By the time they refuse to defend it, they've already had their title shot and they won.
Easy.
Refuse to defend within 6 months, strip title. Maybe give 12 months for a legitimate Cruz-esque injury situation.
They should also make people wait to get PPV points until defense #1. You get a fat check and a belt for winning the title but you aren't really a reigning defending champ until after you successfully defend. Somebody who just manages to win the belt and then loses it again on their first defense was really only champ for a day anyway.
Whatever it is it should be a written policy so that everybody is on the same page to avoid favoratism and confusion. All champs should be treated equally in deference to the position and the most popular ones will get more money form selling more buys and probably more lucrative sponsorships and the like. It is important to put champions on a pedestal in my opinion as it is the lynchpin to the contender structure and also the thing that non-champion fighters aspire to acheive.
That's not easy at all. By the time you implement your suggestion, he's already competed for the title.
What does GSP care if they strip him? He has no intent on defending anyways.
GDR, she's going to drop the belt herself so she doesn't have to defend.
Boxing has mandatory defenses and champs dump the belts all the time.
You can't force people to fight. I love the idea, I'd just like to see a system that would produce actually results. Just look at boxing for the blue print of mandatory defenses failing.
You don't use boxing for a blueprint in anything MMA as they are nothing alike. You don't have 4 major organizations with 17 titiles each. You have 1 major organization that everybody universally recognizes as the only belts that matter. People aren't going to drop titles like they do in boxing as that's when you can actually make money in MMA.
darren534 - SinCityHustler - Target_the_Gash - SinCityHustler - How do you get them to commit to defending? What's the guarantee they will?
I'm all for that, I just don't see how it's enforced. By the time they refuse to defend it, they've already had their title shot and they won.
Easy.
Refuse to defend within 6 months, strip title. Maybe give 12 months for a legitimate Cruz-esque injury situation.
They should also make people wait to get PPV points until defense #1. You get a fat check and a belt for winning the title but you aren't really a reigning defending champ until after you successfully defend. Somebody who just manages to win the belt and then loses it again on their first defense was really only champ for a day anyway.
Whatever it is it should be a written policy so that everybody is on the same page to avoid favoratism and confusion. All champs should be treated equally in deference to the position and the most popular ones will get more money form selling more buys and probably more lucrative sponsorships and the like. It is important to put champions on a pedestal in my opinion as it is the lynchpin to the contender structure and also the thing that non-champion fighters aspire to acheive.
That's not easy at all. By the time you implement your suggestion, he's already competed for the title.
What does GSP care if they strip him? He has no intent on defending anyways.
GDR, she's going to drop the belt herself so she doesn't have to defend.
Boxing has mandatory defenses and champs dump the belts all the time.
You can't force people to fight. I love the idea, I'd just like to see a system that would produce actually results. Just look at boxing for the blue print of mandatory defenses failing.
You don't use boxing for a blueprint in anything MMA as they are nothing alike. You don't have 4 major organizations with 17 titiles each. You have 1 major organization that everybody universally recognizes as the only belts that matter. People aren't going to drop titles like they do in boxing as that's when you can actually make money in MMA.
The compulsory title defence and mandatory challenger idea would be easier to enforce in the UFC than it would in boxing because they are all under one banner and the champs don't really have the option to just drop the belt and challenge for the belt under another sanctioning body.
Conor has long since been stripped of the featherweight title.
Missing Bellator tournaments yet?
Not a bad idea. Love watching Conor fight, but it's a fucking joke they haven't taken the belt off him. He has no intention of defending it this year, if at all, so strip him of it and by all means say if he returns next year, he gets an immediate shot
newtotheinterweb - darren534 - SinCityHustler - Target_the_Gash - SinCityHustler - How do you get them to commit to defending? What's the guarantee they will?
I'm all for that, I just don't see how it's enforced. By the time they refuse to defend it, they've already had their title shot and they won.
Easy.
Refuse to defend within 6 months, strip title. Maybe give 12 months for a legitimate Cruz-esque injury situation.
They should also make people wait to get PPV points until defense #1. You get a fat check and a belt for winning the title but you aren't really a reigning defending champ until after you successfully defend. Somebody who just manages to win the belt and then loses it again on their first defense was really only champ for a day anyway.
Whatever it is it should be a written policy so that everybody is on the same page to avoid favoratism and confusion. All champs should be treated equally in deference to the position and the most popular ones will get more money form selling more buys and probably more lucrative sponsorships and the like. It is important to put champions on a pedestal in my opinion as it is the lynchpin to the contender structure and also the thing that non-champion fighters aspire to acheive.
That's not easy at all. By the time you implement your suggestion, he's already competed for the title.
What does GSP care if they strip him? He has no intent on defending anyways.
GDR, she's going to drop the belt herself so she doesn't have to defend.
Boxing has mandatory defenses and champs dump the belts all the time.
You can't force people to fight. I love the idea, I'd just like to see a system that would produce actually results. Just look at boxing for the blue print of mandatory defenses failing.
You don't use boxing for a blueprint in anything MMA as they are nothing alike. You don't have 4 major organizations with 17 titiles each. You have 1 major organization that everybody universally recognizes as the only belts that matter. People aren't going to drop titles like they do in boxing as that's when you can actually make money in MMA.
The compulsory title defence and mandatory challenger idea would be easier to enforce in the UFC than it would in boxing because they are all under one banner and the champs don't really have the option to just drop the belt and challenge for the belt under another sanctioning body.
I'm agreeing with you. Was disagreeing with sin.
choadler - SinCityHustler - How do you get them to commit to defending? What's the guarantee they will?
I'm all for that, I just don't see how it's enforced. By the time they refuse to defend it, they've already had their title shot and they won.
Very easy imo, as said above.
People have to understand that ufc is private. There needs be no board of elected officials. It's a private company. They can shut down anyone. I have that the ufc uses this for financial gain, but I love the idea that they can shut anyone off, at any time.
I'm with you they can shut anyone off at any time, look no further than when they sat Conor down and put him in time out while they did UFC 200 without him. But it didn't stop him from refusing to EVER defend a title. In fact now he's in another sport and White acknowledges he may NEVER compete in UFC again. Looks like GDR is doing the same dodging opponents. Bisping is doing the same. GSP intend on doing the sme if he ever wins another belt.
At some point, UFC needs to want to put a stop to it. They seem plenty in cahoots with the whole practice.
I agree that it should be in the contract to defend or be stripped. There should a drastic drop in pay if stripped of the title, heavy fines and possibly dismissal. Or as others have suggested, you get frozen until you come to your senses.
Champions need to defend the title vs top contenders period.