You can look at it from different angles when it comes to a championship bout.

1 A champ needs to show he is a champ, so he needs to be active and the more dominating fighter
2 The challenger needs to show he really wants the belt and put all his heart into it and beat the champ with a big difference..
3 Consider it as a normal fight as soon as the bell rings.

There are good points for every angle. My heart says option 3 as that also kinda includes option 1 and 2.

If you compare it to other sports like for instance football, you can face the champ but the score starts at 0-0. If you look at K-1 they add another round when it is a close call. I like that in K-1 and would not mind seeing this in MMA. In MMA a judge needs to point out a winner per round but sometimes this is just ad random imo.

Considering Penn vs. Edgar, option 1 was a no no. Penn might have had the centre but did not really do a lot. No take down attempts, not many combinations, it was mostly jab and back off. Option 2 was a no no as well. There was no big difference but he did put all his heart in it. Option 3 is a yes. Overall I think Edgar just showed more to the crowd. He tried to take down Penn and even succeeded, used leg kicks and had some good punches as well. I think those take down attempts and the fact that Penn looked more hurt than Edgar gave him the advantage in the end.

Also just saw the prelims and Madsen looked rather well. When I looked at Al Turk my first impression was that he looked like a fitter fighter but when I looked at the stats I decided to go for Madsen in stead. Glad I did.

The Blackburn fight was another story. I liked the match but not the outcome. I picked Blackburn and it really looked like he was winning. 2nd round was awesome from his side. Then he made a huge mistake by going for the take down just when the 3rd round started. He should have kept it to a stand up as he was better there and maybe do a take down in the last minute. Great elbow by Johnson though after he did a wonderful reversal on the ground.

Story started very strong and showed tremendous strength. Halfway the 2nd round however he lost most of his energy. Nick should have pressured more at that moment but Rick also did a smart defence by clinching and grabbing Nick's legs to regain energy in the last round.

One match to go and Chris, it is a forum so we like to see all opinions. It is not called ranting in that case so feel free to post as much as you like

Agreed. Edgar did not dictate the pace of the fight, despite what Rogan and Goldberg repeated ad nauseum. This was a clear case of people being drawn in by the sheer volume of movement from one fighter (Edgar) and thinking that they are winning. Edgar's striking was not effective in the early rounds, but I think people overestimated his accomplishments because he didn't get murdered in the first 2 minutes.



While I agree it was not so egregious as to call it a "robbery," Penn did win this fight. I have to disagree about round 5 - that round was clearly Edgar's best of the whole fight.



I really don't understand this sentiment. Realistically there is no way to devise judging criteria that can be uniformly implemented to address this. What exactly defines "engaging the champ?" Edgar's strategy was to use high-volume movement and pick his shots, which he did. That is a perfectly acceptable strategy that will win fights if the other fighter chooses to play your game (which BJ did). Should Edgar have to stand in the pocket and slug it out with BJ to win the title? That is the quickest way to end up on BJ's highlight reel. At the top level you win fights with strategy. Standing center-cage and "engaging the champ" is not always the best way to beat them. You have to use tactics that match up well with your specific opponent. Edgar's strategy was brilliant, but I still don't think he won enough rounds to take the fight. Had BJ's shots early on not been the more effective of the two I would have no problem with Edgar getting the title.

Edgar was always looking for openings to land effective shots. The problem is BJ doesn't usually offer that opportunity, so you end up with what we got on Sat. Had Edgar taken BJ down and controlled from top position for the whole fight, but only landed a few good shots, would he not deserve the win? Would that not be considered "engaging the champ?"




While I don't like Anderson's behavior as of late, stripping him of the title would be absurd. He won his fight, so he should keep the belt. If we are going to call this a sport we can't go stripping titles just because we didn't like the way a fighter won his fight. Personally I didn't think this fight was as painful to watch as the one with Leites.

FWIW, I'm the "beat the champ" guy. I can't believe I'm the only guy who thinks that. I'm either the oldest UFC fan (watched UFC I on tape the day after it happened), or the youngest of the old school boxing guys...but....it's not like you get it or you don't. There is logic behind the theory, which is why it's been around for 100 years and nearly every experienced fight analyst will agree with it.

When someone takes the belt, the sport should move forward. Move on to a new era. When someone scrapes or squeaks by the champ, then typically you enter an era where the belt changes hands every 4 months until a real champ comes along.

I want epic battles with epic challenges, and you can't have that without epic champions. I want guys who take the belt and, in doing so, make an announcement to the world that,"I'm the new champ, and you want this belt, you're going to have be willing to die to get it!" That's what makes a great first title defense. And the outcome of that fight determines what kind of "new champ" we've got...and on and on it goes.

If Shogun had beaten Machida, did anyone really see any long reign at the top? My guess is that Machida-Shogun 2 will be a pretty good fight...Shogun is going to come out and act like he wants to be champ, and Machida is going to have to say bullshit, I still want it. But that fight doesn't happen if Shogun takes the belt on some squeak-through round-by-round ten-point must system job.

Maybe Frankie Edgar will be champ in a couple of years and we'll all be talking about who can possibly take it from him...but I doubt it. To his credit, Edgar did a better job than Shogun at "taking the title." But I do see an era of musical belt for the next two years.....sorry but those championship fights just don't mean as much as when BJ Penn defended aginst everyone in the world. And Edgar's huge upset wouldn't have been possible without BJ being such an amazing champion.

This talk about "once the fight starts, there is no champion" is ridiculous. The champ is the guy everyone loves or hates. He written about and talked about. And he's the guy everyone paid to see tonight.

Agreed. You can't strip the guy of his title.....but...you can punish the hell out of him financially because his fights aren't likely to sell. I guarantee you that it got Silva's attention when Dana White said, at the press conference, that the GSP fight was never going to happen. He also said Silva may be the first champ to fight in a prelim. It's not bullshit. Silva is endangers the PPV take of any card he's sold on, and White knows it. Silva may not fight on a prelim, yet....but I dare him to do it again. White will have no choice but send a message to every fighter....

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but watching MMA for a long time doesn't make this statement true. There was also "logic" behind people thinking the world was flat, and they did for many years. That doesn't make it true or valid. I also don't know how you can claim that "nearly every experienced fight analyst" agrees with this.



Welcome to MMA. We may never see the kind of title runs that you see in boxing because this is a completely different beast. There are so many more ways to win in MMA and it will be a rare athlete indeed that won't have his weaknesses exploited by someone with a good gameplan at some point. You do realize that this is a sport where Matt Serra can knockout GSP, right? Would you prefer something like boxing, where records are padded with a series of unworthy challengers?



So let's say Shogun wins a close decision 3 rounds to 2, what should happen? Do we throw the fight out? Pretend it didn't happen? I'm not sure what you want from these guys. This is a sport and they want to win the fight. If I'm Frankie Edgar I'm not going to stand in the center of the octagon and slug it out with BJ Penn just to satisfy a few fans' idea of what a good title fight is. I'm going to devise the best strategy for my specific opponent and execute the plan. Had BJ given him the opportunity, he would have tried to finish the fight, but that didn't happen. The problem with that fight was the poor state of MMA judging, not Frankie's strategy or performance.


Well, we'll see. That's why the guys fight, to see who the better fighter is. When have we ever had a period of a few years where the belt didn't change hands? BJ's had a good title run, but I think you're being a bit hyperbolic. BJ hasn't had the belt that long and he's looked best against challengers like Joe Stevenson and Diego Sanchez, who have serious flaws in their respective games. Are you not going to lay any blame at his feet for playing into Edgar's strategy?

Let's look at Fedor, who is considered one of the most dominant fighters in the history of the sport. Do you think he'd hold the UFC HW title until he decides to retire? It's possible, but I can just as easily see Brock Lesner putting him on his back and dropping an elbow to Fedor's paper-thin skin and winning via doc stoppage. Would that mean the fight gets thrown out because it wasn't "epic" enough?



Well, technically the champ is the guy who wins. People pay to see Randy Couture, most people love him, and he's written about and talked about despite having a lousy record and no significant title runs to speak of.

Look, I can appreciate your point of view. You want to see epic fights and epic champions, and I don't think anyone would say they don't. However for someone that's been watching MMA for so long I'm surprised you are clinging to this fantasy world where every title fight is an epic battle and champions reign for years.

Its an interesting argument G, but one I feel holds less merit in todays age of fighters and as each day passes will hold less and less.
The reason I think this is that the sport has evolved and continues to evolve such that the gaps between the top level fighters becomes less and less. There are current exceptions, such as Anderson, but it won't always be like that, and I dont see that as a bad thing.
I look forward to an age where championship fights are not easily predictable. I look forward to an age where there are 10 top level fighters in each division who are really strong multi-disciplined mma practitioners, capable of creating exciting fights withe one another

Theres nothing to say you cant have an epic fight between champion and challenger that is still hairline close of course....those are the kind of fights I want to see - wars that go back and forth.

The bottom line though, is that if its close,, but the challenger just peformed that little bit better, scored a few more decisive strikes, maybe got a couple more takedowns, tell me why he should NOT be given the title?
I cant see a valid argument anywhere to support awarding a fight to the loser, however close the fight was, just because he is the current champ.

(Note: I actually think BJ took that fight and deserved to win - i saw it very similarly to the fightmetrics system. It was very close though, since for some reason BJ allowed it to be, by fighting Edgars fight.)

Agreed - that's the hard part.


That depends on the champ in question. It's different when you come to take Brock's belt than when you come to take Lyoto's belt. As a challenger, you know that when you ask for the opportunity.



Agree that was his strategy, agree that he used plenty of movement, completely disagree that he did enough of anything besides running and dancing to win the belt. After several runs through, I see very few effective strikes from Edgar, I see one 'successful' shot that turned into absolutely nothing, and I see a whole lot of 'catch me if you can'. If he'd landed effectively and hurt BJ when BJ chased him, I'd feel differently.



Agree with all of this.



Again, agree. He tried a strategy that is sound (even though I hate it), and what happened in my book is similar, I think, to what happened in yours. As you said, he didn't find good shots, he didn't do anything to show he could impose his will on BJ... And yes, if he'd taken BJ down and controlled him and landed a shot here and there, I'd say he engaged and deserved the win... but that's exactly the difference I'm talking about. Engaging him, not dancing around him and seeing if he can catch you.

For the record, if Edgar was the champ and BJ was the challenger, I'd fully expect BJ to have to solve that problem -- that we should expect Frankie to be Frankie, quick, in and out, hard to catch, and that we should not give the belt to BJ unless he could solve that puzzle and impose his will in the cage. If Brock's style is to literally stand in the center of the ring and say "come and get it", the challenger should have to solve that problem -- the belt should not go to some very small heavyweight who comes in and makes Brock try to catch him for 5 rounds. When you come to take Lyoto's belt, you should fully expect him to fight like Lyoto and that you have to solve that problem to take his belt.

I'm ok with those who disagree with this line of thinking on championship fights, I get where you're coming from, I just don't agree. While I don't think every championship will be an epic battle, I do think it should be clearly a champion and a challenger.

+++ for maja
and about anderson beginning of the fight wow realy showed why he is the champion but his behavior must not be tolerated i think we will all lauch when he lose his belt Chame on you Anderson