Question:
Non Title Matches
This may not be a popular suggestion, but in my opinion the UFC should, like Pride, have some non title matches when the champions are involved. It seems every time some guy fights the champ the title is on the line. I think the first fight between champ and no 1 contender should be non title, if the challenger wins, next fight be title fight.
Here's why...
1) If you're the champ and you face someone you've never faced before and may not know too much about their background or fighting style, and they've studied all your matches and have a precise gameplan, you're at a disadvantage.
2) You've worked your ass off to be champ, one bad day and the rug's pulled from under you and you're no longer the man? Come on. Just because someone's had an amazing day and you've had a bad day, it doesn't mean he's better than you. It could be a fluke. But if he beats you 2 times, then well, he's probably the better man.
3) You have the pressure on. He may have no pressure at all. It may affect the way you fight. Let's say he beats you one time and the next fight be the title fight, you may not have that much pressure since you already lost to the guy once, plus you're better prepared and learned from your first fight.
4) It makes the title fight situation more equal. Both guys probably know stuff about the other, already having faced and familiarised with the others style somewhat, both guys probably have the same amount of pressure, one coming off a victory over the champ and maybe expected to win, and the other with the title on the line wanting to prove the first fight was a fluke.
Champ can beat anyone, anywhere, any time.....
Champions are champions because their the best in the division, non-title fights in Pride {correct if wrong!} are only in grand prixs!
if the champ loses the warm up fight, the challenger would claim to be the uncrowned champ!
i just bought the pride heavy weight grand prix which was over 3 events, think that could be an avenue the ufc could take, enter the champs in that as non-title bouts maybe!
ps the final was such a disappiontment!! NC due to fedor getting a cut to the forehead via clash of heads!!! ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!
Champions are champions because their the best in the division, non-title fights in Pride {correct if wrong!} are only in grand prixs!
if the champ loses the warm up fight, the challenger would claim to be the uncrowned champ!
i just bought the pride heavy weight grand prix which was over 3 events, think that could be an avenue the ufc could take, enter the champs in that as non-title bouts maybe!
ps the final was such a disappiontment!! NC due to fedor getting a cut to the forehead via clash of heads!!! ridiculous!!!!!!!!!! Actually Gomi's had a bunch of non-title fights, most recently the Nick Diaz fight. Gomi lost...but is still the champ
oh right...
Actually Gomi's had a bunch of non-title fights, most recently the Nick Diaz fight. Gomi lost...but is still the champ .. that just goes to show that non title fights are not a true reflection of the champs ability. nick diaz isnt even a second rate ufc fighter, 6-4, and no where near a ufc title shot, yet he beats gomi????????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7eFsJ7AuVo
non title fights are BS man
if your the champ you should have to prove it everytime you go out there.
non title fights just discredit the belt
i mean if i was gomi i wouldnt even want the belt after losing twice with it.
just staring at that belt must remind him daily of what a paper champ he is
This may not be a popular suggestion, but in my opinion the UFC should, like Pride, have some non title matches when the champions are involved. It seems every time some guy fights the champ the title is on the line. I think the first fight between champ and no 1 contender should be non title, if the challenger wins, next fight be title fight.
Here's why...
1) If you're the champ and you face someone you've never faced before and may not know too much about their background or fighting style, and they've studied all your matches and have a precise gameplan, you're at a disadvantage.
2) You've worked your ass off to be champ, one bad day and the rug's pulled from under you and you're no longer the man? Come on. Just because someone's had an amazing day and you've had a bad day, it doesn't mean he's better than you. It could be a fluke. But if he beats you 2 times, then well, he's probably the better man.
3) You have the pressure on. He may have no pressure at all. It may affect the way you fight. Let's say he beats you one time and the next fight be the title fight, you may not have that much pressure since you already lost to the guy once, plus you're better prepared and learned from your first fight.
4) It makes the title fight situation more equal. Both guys probably know stuff about the other, already having faced and familiarised with the others style somewhat, both guys probably have the same amount of pressure, one coming off a victory over the champ and maybe expected to win, and the other with the title on the line wanting to prove the first fight was a fluke. 1) That would be your own fault, they studied your style, and they beat you because they where more dedicated to winning, as a fighter you should do everything you can to win, which means study your damn opponent.
2) I agree, but it should still be a title fight, why should you be champion when you lost, if you lose on an off day you will get a rematch pretty damn soon, if you lose like in the GSP vs Hughes fight where GSP controlled then you deserve to lose the belt, but if it went your way Hughes will still be champion and GSP challenging again which he might lose and would have deserved to be champion...
3) Pressure is a part of any sport, if you are a true champion you wont let it get to you.
4) Like I said, studying your opposition is a part of any sport, if you don't do it you don't deserve to hold the belt. The first fight was a fluke, how do we know the second fight with the champion winning wasn't the fluke? We don't we put the title on the line, then if it looked like a fluke we have pretty close to automatic rematches.
Personally I rather how the UFC puts the title on the line all the time, however in some situations it shouldn't be, such as Gomi/Diaz, but hey it probably should have been then too, would serve Pride right for trying to make a joke out of an American fighter to make themselves look better.
I hate non-title fights, and the idea to have every number 1 contender basically have to beat the champion twice to win a belt is a little ridiculous.
It's alot ridiculous. What's the point of having titles if nobodies gonna defend them. Maybe in WWE you can beat the champ non tile then get a shot, but this is real. You're not gonna fight anyone as a champ that doesn't have some sort of record/tape you can study. So if you lose because they studied up on you, then you deserve to fukin lose for being a dumbass.
This may not be a popular suggestion, but in my opinion the UFC should, like Pride, have some non title matches when the champions are involved. It seems every time some guy fights the champ the title is on the line. I think the first fight between champ and no 1 contender should be non title, if the challenger wins, next fight be title fight.
Here's why...
1) If you're the champ and you face someone you've never faced before and may not know too much about their background or fighting style, and they've studied all your matches and have a precise gameplan, you're at a disadvantage.
2) You've worked your ass off to be champ, one bad day and the rug's pulled from under you and you're no longer the man? Come on. Just because someone's had an amazing day and you've had a bad day, it doesn't mean he's better than you. It could be a fluke. But if he beats you 2 times, then well, he's probably the better man.
3) You have the pressure on. He may have no pressure at all. It may affect the way you fight. Let's say he beats you one time and the next fight be the title fight, you may not have that much pressure since you already lost to the guy once, plus you're better prepared and learned from your first fight.
4) It makes the title fight situation more equal. Both guys probably know stuff about the other, already having faced and familiarised with the others style somewhat, both guys probably have the same amount of pressure, one coming off a victory over the champ and maybe expected to win, and the other with the title on the line wanting to prove the first fight was a fluke.
Answer:
Champ can beat anyone, anywhere, any time.....
Champions are champions because their the best in the division, non-title fights in Pride {correct if wrong!} are only in grand prixs!
if the champ loses the warm up fight, the challenger would claim to be the uncrowned champ!
i just bought the pride heavy weight grand prix which was over 3 events, think that could be an avenue the ufc could take, enter the champs in that as non-title bouts maybe!
ps the final was such a disappiontment!! NC due to fedor getting a cut to the forehead via clash of heads!!! ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!
Answer:
Champions are champions because their the best in the division, non-title fights in Pride {correct if wrong!} are only in grand prixs!
if the champ loses the warm up fight, the challenger would claim to be the uncrowned champ!
i just bought the pride heavy weight grand prix which was over 3 events, think that could be an avenue the ufc could take, enter the champs in that as non-title bouts maybe!
ps the final was such a disappiontment!! NC due to fedor getting a cut to the forehead via clash of heads!!! ridiculous!!!!!!!!!! Actually Gomi's had a bunch of non-title fights, most recently the Nick Diaz fight. Gomi lost...but is still the champ
Answer:
oh right...
Actually Gomi's had a bunch of non-title fights, most recently the Nick Diaz fight. Gomi lost...but is still the champ .. that just goes to show that non title fights are not a true reflection of the champs ability. nick diaz isnt even a second rate ufc fighter, 6-4, and no where near a ufc title shot, yet he beats gomi????????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7eFsJ7AuVo
Answer:
non title fights are BS man
if your the champ you should have to prove it everytime you go out there.
non title fights just discredit the belt
i mean if i was gomi i wouldnt even want the belt after losing twice with it.
just staring at that belt must remind him daily of what a paper champ he is
Answer:
This may not be a popular suggestion, but in my opinion the UFC should, like Pride, have some non title matches when the champions are involved. It seems every time some guy fights the champ the title is on the line. I think the first fight between champ and no 1 contender should be non title, if the challenger wins, next fight be title fight.
Here's why...
1) If you're the champ and you face someone you've never faced before and may not know too much about their background or fighting style, and they've studied all your matches and have a precise gameplan, you're at a disadvantage.
2) You've worked your ass off to be champ, one bad day and the rug's pulled from under you and you're no longer the man? Come on. Just because someone's had an amazing day and you've had a bad day, it doesn't mean he's better than you. It could be a fluke. But if he beats you 2 times, then well, he's probably the better man.
3) You have the pressure on. He may have no pressure at all. It may affect the way you fight. Let's say he beats you one time and the next fight be the title fight, you may not have that much pressure since you already lost to the guy once, plus you're better prepared and learned from your first fight.
4) It makes the title fight situation more equal. Both guys probably know stuff about the other, already having faced and familiarised with the others style somewhat, both guys probably have the same amount of pressure, one coming off a victory over the champ and maybe expected to win, and the other with the title on the line wanting to prove the first fight was a fluke. 1) That would be your own fault, they studied your style, and they beat you because they where more dedicated to winning, as a fighter you should do everything you can to win, which means study your damn opponent.
2) I agree, but it should still be a title fight, why should you be champion when you lost, if you lose on an off day you will get a rematch pretty damn soon, if you lose like in the GSP vs Hughes fight where GSP controlled then you deserve to lose the belt, but if it went your way Hughes will still be champion and GSP challenging again which he might lose and would have deserved to be champion...
3) Pressure is a part of any sport, if you are a true champion you wont let it get to you.
4) Like I said, studying your opposition is a part of any sport, if you don't do it you don't deserve to hold the belt. The first fight was a fluke, how do we know the second fight with the champion winning wasn't the fluke? We don't we put the title on the line, then if it looked like a fluke we have pretty close to automatic rematches.
Personally I rather how the UFC puts the title on the line all the time, however in some situations it shouldn't be, such as Gomi/Diaz, but hey it probably should have been then too, would serve Pride right for trying to make a joke out of an American fighter to make themselves look better.
Answer:
I hate non-title fights, and the idea to have every number 1 contender basically have to beat the champion twice to win a belt is a little ridiculous.
Answer:
It's alot ridiculous. What's the point of having titles if nobodies gonna defend them. Maybe in WWE you can beat the champ non tile then get a shot, but this is real. You're not gonna fight anyone as a champ that doesn't have some sort of record/tape you can study. So if you lose because they studied up on you, then you deserve to fukin lose for being a dumbass.