Originally Posted by OU
I couldn't disagree more. Wrestling is a sport and you don't play wrestling. You win and you advance, nothing subjective about it.
I also completely disagree about your views on who should fight for the title. If Jon Fitch proves over and over again he is the #2 in the division then he should get multiple title shots, regardless of the outcome of those title fights. In the cage accomplishments and the actual outcome of fights should never be trumped in favor of style matchup or marketability. That makes the belt hollow. You prove you are the best by constantly beating the best in your division. That's how it should work. Popularity should never be a factor. The fighters want the fights to matter. They are fighters. It doesn't matter if they have personality, it matters if they can win fights.
Nate diaz vs ben henderson stunk and nate earned the shot, rashad evans vs jon jones stunk, dan hardy earned his shot and that stunk and rashad earned it, shogun vs machida was awesome and shogun didn't earn it. And what sport has different rules based what side of the planet you are on? soccer kicks and knees on the ground are allowed in japan and brazil off the top of my head but not in england america and australia and parts of canada. In sports if your team goes 3-13 your whole team doesn't get cut you try again next season in the fight business you lose 2 straight and you could be gone for good. Then there's the business side the fight business always was and is built on what match ups appeal to the biggest crowd of fans and at the end of the day if you aren't appealing to the fans with favourable match ups then your business and company fails and then no one is happy. Hell pride thrived as well on fights that made no sense everyone knows that and so doe sboxing.