Originally Posted by ArcherCC
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?
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'
Originally Posted by MikeHawk
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.