MMA Underground Forums

PPL called Pride a freakshow, look at UFC ! !

IMO when guys like Cote and Serra got title shots that they clearly didnt deserve it shouldnt be for the belt unless you earn the title shot

Mad Xyientist - 
Gullivers Travels - but you would never see top of the line boxers fight more than once in a single night, or any contact sport for that matter.

 Is this a joke?  There's this small little kickboxing promotion called "K1" that puts on some of the biggest combat sports events on the planet.  K1 World Grand Prix champions win 3 bouts in a night.  I'm pretty sure that's a contact sport.  In fact, its pretty much a requirement in kickboxing to be win multiple bouts in one night to ever be called "great"

Wrestling and grappling tournaments also have multiple bouts in a day.

Sounds like you're a real "contact sport" aficionado.


I am. Obviously K-1, Strikeforce and others have had tournaments recently, but that doesn't mean it's good for the sport or athletes. I would much rather see 2 top fighters in a weight class have a full training camp and fight each other fresh, than go through 1 or 2 fights earlier in the night. BTW we saw how well pure K-1 strikers did in the last GP. And grappling and wrestling are completely different than boxing/mma in terms of damage sustained.

 Both orgs are/were about making money over everything.

funny how people still talk about whether or not people deserve title shots, if the guy wins the belt he obv deserved the belt. so who cares? he won!

Gullivers Travels - 
Mad Xyientist - 
Gullivers Travels - but you would never see top of the line boxers fight more than once in a single night, or any contact sport for that matter.

 Is this a joke?  There's this small little kickboxing promotion called "K1" that puts on some of the biggest combat sports events on the planet.  K1 World Grand Prix champions win 3 bouts in a night.  I'm pretty sure that's a contact sport.  In fact, its pretty much a requirement in kickboxing to be win multiple bouts in one night to ever be called "great"

Wrestling and grappling tournaments also have multiple bouts in a day.

Sounds like you're a real "contact sport" aficionado.


I am. Obviously K-1, Strikeforce and others have had tournaments recently, but that doesn't mean it's good for the sport or athletes. I would much rather see 2 top fighters in a weight class have a full training camp and fight each other fresh, than go through 1 or 2 fights earlier in the night. BTW we saw how well pure K-1 strikers did in the last GP. And grappling and wrestling are completely different than boxing/mma in terms of damage sustained.


You obviously have no idea what your talking about.

Remy Bonjasky is a pure k-1 striker and he won the last GP

PembrokePinesVillain - funny how people still talk about whether or not people deserve title shots, if the guy wins the belt he obv deserved the belt. so who cares? he won!


Somebody winnings a title has nothing to do with if they earned it


"Somebody winnings a title has nothing to do with if they earned it"





That's exactly right.  There are many people who may dethrone a champion on a given night, but that doesn't mean they've earned the belt.  MMA is idiosyncratic by its very nature, and sometimes guys win in one manner or another that they can't replicate or in a fight that is above their level.  GSP/Serra is a great example.  The only way you insure that the integrity of the championship is maintained in that environment is by ASSURING that your contenders have absolutely EARNED their place there.  Otherwise, the idiosyncratic nature of the sport will make the championship look like a popularity contest.  If they guy in the title fight has always earned his right to be there, then no matter who wins, the integrity of the championship is maintained.



That has nothing to do with Pride or UFC, and both have manipulated contendership for popularity, but its a terrible practice that should stop.  But the idea of "he won, therefore he must have deserved the fight" is a fallacy of logic.



And that's another reason I love tournaments.  Say what you will about brackets or injury substitutions, if a guy makes it from the first round to win the championship fight, there is NO denying that he earned his way in the fight and earned the belt.  Look at Wanderlei in 2003, Shogun in 2005, hell even Mousasi last year.  You can't argue that the DREAM MW belt is around the wrong waist, because Mousasi had to beat the field to earn it.

CRBMoney14 - 
PembrokePinesVillain - funny how people still talk about whether or not people deserve title shots, if the guy wins the belt he obv deserved the belt. so who cares? he won!


Somebody winnings a title has nothing to do with if they earned it


so wat earns a win? i though a KO, decision, TKO or sub earned a win? if fighter A beats up fighter B he earned the win....its not like they toss a coin and say ok you got heads so you win, no, you fight, and the winner EARNS the belt. that simple...

No.  Part of earning a belt is making your way through a contendership process.  If you are legitimately the #1 contender through merit, get a shot at the title, and win the fight, you have EARNED the belt.



If you get inserted in a title fight because of a reason other than MERIT, are not legitimately the #1 (or close to it) contender, and win the fight, you have not EARNED the belt.  That is a quick way to dilute the value of your titles.



 

i just think since its 1 on 1 then if u win u win, i see what u mean by earning the shot, but whatever, there is no way to 100% tell if a certain person is THE #1 contender. there will always be debate over who is the next in line, i just look at every fight by itself, if the guy wins he wins in my book. plus with all the different organizations who can really say who is next in line?

"Say what you will about brackets or injury substitutions, if a guy makes it from the first round to win the championship fight, there is NO denying that he earned his way in the fight and earned the belt."



So Crocop vs Minowa, Yoshida, and Wanderlei was just as hard a road as Barnett vs Aleksander, Hunt, and Nogueira? Each guy equally earned his way to the final? While Crocop was fighting a crappy 185er, a crappy LHW/HW, and a top LHW, Barnett was fighting two guys who had beaten Crocop plus Aleksander. Did Crocop prove he was better than Barnett by beating him, even though earlier in the evening Mirko had breezed through a one-sided beating of Wanderlei while Barnett went the distance with the former champ, the #2 HW in the world who had submitted Crocop?



Tournaments are exciting but they are horrible for determining who is the best and the champ of the division should never be in them.



 

 Yes, Crocop proved he was better.  When he finished Barnett.



That alone is all you get in an individual fight.  Two fighters, one guys wins. 



In a tournament, you get that conclusion on top of Mirko and Barnett taking out the rest of the 16 man field before the culminating conclusion where Mirko beats Barnett.  No question who won.



Finishing your fight isn't randomly having an advantage bestowed upon you, it's EARNING an advantage.



Barnett made it tougher for himself than Mirko did by not finishing the fight.  You can't fault Mirko for fighting ~8 minutes less because he got a KO, of a fighter who deserved to be there by KO'ing Fujita.



And the format is not a secret to anyone.  If you don't have the endurance to fight 2- 20 minute fights than you may not have what it takes to win the tournament.  Just like in the UFC if you can't go 5 - 5's you might not have what it takes.  The difficulty of the task validates it. 

orcus - Tournaments are exciting but they are horrible for determining who is the best

 


 Of the Pride Grand Prix's



2000 (OW) - Coleman (Successful)

2003 (MW) - Wanderlei (Successful)

2004 (HW) - Fedor (Successful)

2005 (MW) - Shogun (Successful)

2005 (LW) - Gomi (Successful)

2005 (WW) - Henderson (Successful)

2006 (OW) - Mirko (Successful)

2006 (WW) - Misaki (Unsuccessful)



I would say in Pride, they were 7/8 for determining who the best fighter in the field was at the time.  You can't rationally argue with any of the winners given their performances, except Misaki due to the situation with Filho.



DREAM has done 2 and I would say they're 1/2 in determining who is the best.

Sengoku is 2/2.

Strikeforce is 1/1



So of the major tournaments put on in MMA since the turn of the millenium, 11/13 have been successful in that the winner truely earned his championship.  That is 85%, and that's about as good as anything gets.

"In a tournament, you get that conclusion on top of Mirko and Barnett taking out the rest of the 16 man field"



Crocop didn't "take out" a single top 50 heavyweight, but somehow beating Barnett (again) proves he was "the best in the field"?



How is Crocop fighting shitty 185er, shitty heavy, and good lightheavy to "earn" the belt and your acknowledgement that he was the best in the division any different than Serra beating some B-guys and KOing GSP to win the title? Between him and GSP, they "took out" the whole division (nevermind that GSP, like Barnett in the GP, did all the heavy lifting while Serra fought some also-rans).

orcus - "In a tournament, you get that conclusion on top of Mirko and Barnett taking out the rest of the 16 man field"

Crocop didn't "take out" a single top 50 heavyweight, but somehow beating Barnett (again) proves he was "the best in the field"?

How is Crocop fighting shitty 185er, shitty heavy, and good lightheavy to "earn" the belt and your acknowledgement that he was the best in the division any different than Serra beating some B-guys and KOing GSP to win the title? Between him and GSP, they "took out" the whole division (nevermind that GSP, like Barnett in the GP, did all the heavy lifting while Serra fought some also-rans).


I completely agree the Serra/CC comparison is definately a valid one.

Thoguh up until that point in there careers, CC had a much more impressive resume.

GP's are best suited imo for sorting out divisions with no clear rankings, and divisions with a lot of no-names or up and comers

Thats why I wouldve loved to have seen the UFC have a GP when they broguht 155 back, or when Couture vacated the HW belt

PembrokePinesVillain - 
CRBMoney14 - 
PembrokePinesVillain - funny how people still talk about whether or not people deserve title shots, if the guy wins the belt he obv deserved the belt. so who cares? he won!


Somebody winnings a title has nothing to do with if they earned it


so wat earns a win? i though a KO, decision, TKO or sub earned a win? if fighter A beats up fighter B he earned the win....its not like they toss a coin and say ok you got heads so you win, no, you fight, and the winner EARNS the belt. that simple...


Oh, I see your trolling

CRBMoney14 - 
PembrokePinesVillain - 
CRBMoney14 - 
PembrokePinesVillain - funny how people still talk about whether or not people deserve title shots, if the guy wins the belt he obv deserved the belt. so who cares? he won!


Somebody winnings a title has nothing to do with if they earned it


so wat earns a win? i though a KO, decision, TKO or sub earned a win? if fighter A beats up fighter B he earned the win....its not like they toss a coin and say ok you got heads so you win, no, you fight, and the winner EARNS the belt. that simple...


Oh, I see your trolling

ahh i see, u were just looking for any excuse to say "trolling" even tho im not. i get it.

Ok than your just an idiot.


You obviously dont know what it means to earn a title shot

 Tournaments are exciting but they are horrible for determining who is the best and the champ of the division should never be in them.





I can't agree with this enough...



The finals of these tournaments are just for shits and giggles....it's never a fair fight....



I always wanted to see a titleholder in K1 and title defenses along with tourneys every now and then....


 "GP's are best suited imo for sorting out divisions with no clear rankings, and divisions with a lot of no-names or up and comers"



Exactly.