MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos

MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos (http://www.mmaforum.com/)
-   UFC (http://www.mmaforum.com/ufc/)
-   -   Is two belts per weight class the answer? (http://www.mmaforum.com/ufc/104271-two-belts-per-weight-class-answer.html)

RearNaked 08-13-2012 12:09 AM

Is two belts per weight class the answer?
 
I know I know, you all hate boxing and everything about it.

But if there were two belts per weight class in the UFC, and two distinct champions, would that basically fix all the problems?

Not a champ and an interim champ. Two separate champs.

That way when one champion is injured or doesn't want to fight for 6+ months at a time, there'd be a different champion to do it instead.

And there'd be no, 'oh so and so has no chance to dethrone the champ' because there'd be two champs. And in order to stay relevant champions would pretty much HAVE to fight, or just get forgotten.

Also with two belts, it would be a lot easier to strip champions imo since there'd be two of them anyway.

I'm sure this suggestion will get a lot of counter arguments, so I'll wait for the specific counter argument to crop up, before I explain why this would be better.

BigPont 08-13-2012 12:11 AM

Worst thread EVER.

RearNaked 08-13-2012 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigPont (Post 1614624)
Worst thread EVER.

Yeah because no fight sport in history has ever had two different champions at the same weight class.

Oh wait...

PRIDE GP champ and world champ.

StandThemUp 08-13-2012 12:14 AM

If there are too many fighters in one weight class, the answer is, you make another weight class.

A lot of 155'ers could easilly fight at 145, but not so many at 170lb, but they are big for 155. So maybe a 165 or something like that.

RearNaked 08-13-2012 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StandThemUp (Post 1614626)
If there are too many fighters in one weight class, the answer is, you make another weight class.

A lot of 155'ers could easilly fight at 145, but not so many at 170lb, but they are big for 155. So maybe a 165 or something like that.

That's a good alternative.

I like either solution.

ArcherCC 08-13-2012 12:32 AM

Two belts, really two friggin belts, that would mean people like Fitch would have been considered a 'champion'.

Plus seriously how do you determine who the real best in a divison is, do you let them fight and unify the belts? Is one the CHAMP and the other the Sorta Champ? Do you have to beat the Sorta Champ to fight the CHAMP?

MikeHawk 08-13-2012 12:36 AM

Why not 3?

Life B Ez 08-13-2012 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RearNaked (Post 1614625)
Yeah because no fight sport in history has ever had two different champions at the same weight class.

Oh wait...

PRIDE GP champ and world champ.

I can name only two. Boxing, which has been on rough ground since there has been more than one belt and professional wrestling.

So short answer no. Long answer HELL NO.

RearNaked 08-13-2012 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcherCC (Post 1614631)
Two belts, really two friggin belts, that would mean people like Fitch would have been considered a 'champion'.

Plus seriously how do you determine who the real best in a divison is, do you let them fight and unify the belts? Is one the CHAMP and the other the Sorta Champ? Do you have to beat the Sorta Champ to fight the CHAMP?

Nope.

Two distinct belts.

Remember when Wanderlei Silva was the PRIDE champ and Chuck Liddel was the UFC champ?

That was a lot more fun imo.

It stirs debate/controversy. It makes things more exciting.

It leads to more compelling forum shit-talking.

Two champs is better imo. I don't need one supreme champ, especially if he only fights twice a year and hand picks his opponents.

Having two different champs would force champs to fight, and to fight legit competition because otherwise everyone would say 'meh, who cares about X, Y is the better champ anyway'

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeHawk (Post 1614632)
Why not 3?

Not enough fighters in each division for 3 champs imo, but maybe one day.

Hey guys, novel idea, how about you actually put forth some counter arguments like STU or Archer instead of just going the Bill O'Reilly route?

But it's up to you how you want to answer at the end of the day.

Life B Ez 08-13-2012 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RearNaked (Post 1614635)
Nope.

Two distinct belts.

Remember when Wanderlei Silva was the PRIDE champ and Chuck Liddel was the UFC champ?

That was a lot more fun imo.

It stirs debate/controversy. It makes things more exciting.

It leads to more compelling forum shit-talking.

Two champs is better imo. I don't need one supreme champ, especially if he only fights twice a year and hand picks his opponents.

Having two different champs would force champs to fight, and to fight legit competition because otherwise everyone would say 'meh, who cares about X, Y is the better champ anyway'

Because they were in different organizations. It was all about who would win, why have two guys that could be matched up with one another not fight for the sake of the talk.....

I don't usually say things like this but this is easily one of the dumbest ******* ideas that has ever graced this forum.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.8 , Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2