Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

That way, Dan Henderson, Johny Hendricks or Weidman would get title shots within a year?

Or is the current system fine?

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

UFC is a law to itself..... no way it will have outsiders tell it what to do

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

your damned if you do and damned if you dont. the mma environment is so liquid its really hard to have concrete answers to issues of contendership

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

what would the point be? the ufc would just make the list itself....its like the WWE only with real fights.

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

:good

Personally, I have no problem with the lack of a mandatory contender. As far as I'm concerned, if you want a shot at the title - kick the door down. Fight harder. Generate more excitement and interest. Turn yourself into the guy that the fans want to see have a crack at the champion. Or turn yourself into the guy that the fans want to see get destroyed by the champion. It's a business and I have no issue with popular, entertaining fighters getting precedence over lesser-known, less dynamic fighters. :conf

:hat

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

there should be but there never will be as dana and co wont be able to cash in on shite fights like sonnen v jones

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

Given the subjective nature of each fight and no set calender of match ups, the way the UFC does it works i.e. Diaz lost but that is an opinion and its a fight people want to see.

In other sports, wins are often more conclusive but when there is controversy you know the next match up and that the opponents will meet again i.e. Arsenal vs Chelsea or Federer vs Murray.

The way the UFC do it will work so long as the best fight the best. As soon as that stops, the sport will rapidly decline like boxing.

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

People seem to think title shots should be given to those most deserving.
It's a business, title shots go to those that make the most sense in terms of maximizing revenue.

Which is fine by me, because matchmakers will usually make the effort to please crowds for highest possible PPV numbers, and that usually is good for us.

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

No, keep the current WWF system.

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

Ranking is required...I thought this was supposed to be a sport ?

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

MMA is the sport. The UFC (like Bellator, Strikeforce, Pride, etc...) is just a league.

Personally I'm thankful we don't have the equivalent of the IBF, WBA, WBO, WBC, IBO, etc... clogging up MMA with 5 champions and super champions in each division.

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

No, there will always be a p4p fighter out there stepping into the mix. Hendo and Weidman haven't fought in close to a year.

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

Mixed feelings on this one. As someone already said, if the UFC set the rankings, and therefore who is in the mandatory position, they can control the matchupsjust as they do now anyway.

Probably the less they copy of boxing the better. Look at the mess boxing is in.

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

Yes but we have joke of a fighter getting title for popularity reason, wich is total BS IMO

Re: Should there be manditory contenders in MMA?
 

Nah bro that's how you sell a super fight. Chael Sonnen is a solid competitor, and an even better shit talker.