Can we please stop pretending there is such a thing as a "UFC title"?

This discussion is still relevant: This transcript is from a congressional hearing that happened just a few days ago involving UFC Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and a congressman.

Congressman: “If the UFC is considered a professional sport, then it should be on a merit-based rankings system, when the fans know the No. 1 contender actually has a shot at the title. Because we haven’t seen that at middleweight. How did Dan Henderson – and I like Dan Henderson, this is no knock on him – but he wasn’t even in the top-10, and when was he last in the top-10? He got to fight Bisping for the title shot. Did the (No.) 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 ranked contenders refuse?

Marc Ratner: “When Dan Henderson fought Michael Bisping, it was a natural rematch from a fight four or five years ago,”

Congressman: “But then it wasn’t a title shot, but yet it was for a title shot. Then that means the world championship belt that the UFC has isn’t really a world championship belt. It’s really what (UFC Chief Operating Officer) Lawrence Epstein personally told me: It’s simply an award they bestow on the best fighter that night. That’s insulting to every professional athlete.”

“How did (Georges St-Pierre) get a fight for the title when he hasn’t had a fight in four years, much less at 185 pounds, where he never fought for the belt?”

Marc Ratner: “St-Pierre hadn’t fought in four years, you’re absolutely right,”

Congressman: “So how did he get a title shot?”

Marc Ratner: “St-Pierre was a former champion, a former pound-for-pound best fighter in the world, according to our...”

Congressman: “So he still didn’t fight for a title, he fought for an award bestowed upon the best fighter of the night.”

Congressman: “When you say boxers are treated like MMA fighters, clarify that statement that you’re talking about the health of the fighter, but not the professional ranking system, and not about the financial disclosures, because there are distinct differences,” said Mullin, who represents Oklahoma’s 2nd district in the house. “And the Ali Act is the backstop to boxers. There is no backstop for MMA fighter. It’s take it or leave it, and that’s why I say the UFC has become the Don King of MMA.”

Congressman: “What about Nate Diaz, who was dropped from the UFC because he was involved in contract negotiations? He was trying to negotiate with the UFC and they dropped him, is that true?”

Marc Ratner: “I don’t pay attention to the rankings, but I’m sure that...”

Congressman: “You are involved in it all the time. Was he not dropped from the UFC?”

Marc Ratner: “He’s still under contract to us...”

Congressman: “I’m talking about at the time.”

Marc Ratner: “I’m sure you’ll see him fight again.”

Congressman: “I know that, but the answer to that is yes. And we go back to the same thing. When you were saying that boxers and MMA fighters are treated the same way, what I’m trying to draw here is that they are not even close. When you make a broad statement like that, you are misleading Congress...”

Marc Ratner: “Not at all”

Congressman: “...and you are misleading the American people. When you make those statements, clarify specifically on what it is you are talking about, because once again you are talking about the health of the fighter. The Ali Act deals with the compensation of the fighter. It also deals with a merit-based ranking system.”

 
Hey GSP just beat the champ.

Don’t take that away from him bitch.
 
Well, that philosophy, none of sports is very "real." It's by name and definition a sport. It's for fun and entertainment. Sanctioning bodies just make sure things don't get too crazy.

The belt is as real as the sport is.

And the UFC is as real as it gets. Just kidding about that line.
 
So the TS quotes what Dana said about the title (13 years ago) and underlines it and then claims that the title doesn't exist.
That makes no sense at all.
 
The belt is a construct, a spook, a concept in our minds that's only kept alive by our belief in it.

Like money, private property, the state, the law, hierarchy.

I take UFC belts more seriously than those other things though.

You forgot to add gender
 
2004 called, they want the TS to understand that the UFC fight contracts have evolved considerably since then.

On another note, who quotes any article from 13 years ago and sets it out like it has any relevance today?
 
Full Contact Fighter article from 2004.



BJ Penn sued to get his "title" back from the UFC in 2004, and lost the lawsuit because the "title" is just a marketing gimmick. Its a trophy that the UFC creates and can take away. By White's own words the "title" is "purely ceremonial" There are no sanctioning bodies forcing you to defend the belt, no set rules on what keeps you champion or can get you stripped...nothing. Under any circumstance the UFC could award or strip the "title" in question to anyone they feel like. Why are we even discussing this "purely ceremonial" trophy if multiple guys won't even defend it?


Turns out your folding money isn't real either. But we all pretend it means something, but it really is just an I.O.U.


WHERE IS YOUR HEAD AT, TS ??



<{1-16}> .
 
seen 3 ufc titles/belts change hands Nov 4th.... JS
 
Ah OP it is not the title it's self but what the people and fighters attribute value to it. Technically that is both correct and isn't.
 
wwe-mcdonalds-championship.jpg
 
This discussion is still relevant: This transcript is from a congressional hearing that happened just a few days ago involving UFC Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and a congressman.

Congressman: “If the UFC is considered a professional sport, then it should be on a merit-based rankings system, when the fans know the No. 1 contender actually has a shot at the title. Because we haven’t seen that at middleweight. How did Dan Henderson – and I like Dan Henderson, this is no knock on him – but he wasn’t even in the top-10, and when was he last in the top-10? He got to fight Bisping for the title shot. Did the (No.) 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 ranked contenders refuse?

Marc Ratner: “When Dan Henderson fought Michael Bisping, it was a natural rematch from a fight four or five years ago,”

Congressman: “But then it wasn’t a title shot, but yet it was for a title shot. Then that means the world championship belt that the UFC has isn’t really a world championship belt. It’s really what (UFC Chief Operating Officer) Lawrence Epstein personally told me: It’s simply an award they bestow on the best fighter that night. That’s insulting to every professional athlete.”

“How did (Georges St-Pierre) get a fight for the title when he hasn’t had a fight in four years, much less at 185 pounds, where he never fought for the belt?”

Marc Ratner: “St-Pierre hadn’t fought in four years, you’re absolutely right,”

Congressman: “So how did he get a title shot?”

Marc Ratner: “St-Pierre was a former champion, a former pound-for-pound best fighter in the world, according to our...”

Congressman: “So he still didn’t fight for a title, he fought for an award bestowed upon the best fighter of the night.”

Congressman: “When you say boxers are treated like MMA fighters, clarify that statement that you’re talking about the health of the fighter, but not the professional ranking system, and not about the financial disclosures, because there are distinct differences,” said Mullin, who represents Oklahoma’s 2nd district in the house. “And the Ali Act is the backstop to boxers. There is no backstop for MMA fighter. It’s take it or leave it, and that’s why I say the UFC has become the Don King of MMA.”

Congressman: “What about Nate Diaz, who was dropped from the UFC because he was involved in contract negotiations? He was trying to negotiate with the UFC and they dropped him, is that true?”

Marc Ratner: “I don’t pay attention to the rankings, but I’m sure that...”

Congressman: “You are involved in it all the time. Was he not dropped from the UFC?”

Marc Ratner: “He’s still under contract to us...”

Congressman: “I’m talking about at the time.”

Marc Ratner: “I’m sure you’ll see him fight again.”

Congressman: “I know that, but the answer to that is yes. And we go back to the same thing. When you were saying that boxers and MMA fighters are treated the same way, what I’m trying to draw here is that they are not even close. When you make a broad statement like that, you are misleading Congress...”

Marc Ratner: “Not at all”

Congressman: “...and you are misleading the American people. When you make those statements, clarify specifically on what it is you are talking about, because once again you are talking about the health of the fighter. The Ali Act deals with the compensation of the fighter. It also deals with a merit-based ranking system.”


It took me a while to wrap my mind around but it is truly Sports Entertainment. here is an article that better explains it

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/8/23/12512178/why-do-boxers-make-more-than-mma-fighters

"Brand strength is not the only advantage the UFC has over boxing promoters. The business model for MMA, based partly on the pro wrestling model, is one that benefits them as promoters.

"Not even a promoter," Warriors Boxing executive Leon Margules explained to me. "They are a promoter, regulator, sanctioning body, everything."

According to long time boxing promoter (and brief MMA promoter) Gary Shaw, "Boxing purses are higher because we don't have a league. UFC is their own league and they appoint their own champion who is going to fight for the title. Everything is done within while in boxing we have different sanctioning bodies."

When Dana lobbied NY to get the UFC there he said it was Sports Entertainment not a legit Sport (of sorts).

https://www.cagesideseats.com/2011/...ts-entertainment-to-get-legalised-in-new-york
 
Last edited:
It took me a while to wrap my mind around but it is truly Sports Entertainment. here is an article that better explains it

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/8/23/12512178/why-do-boxers-make-more-than-mma-fighters

"Brand strength is not the only advantage the UFC has over boxing promoters. The business model for MMA, based partly on the pro wrestling model, is one that benefits them as promoters.

"Not even a promoter," Warriors Boxing executive Leon Margules explained to me. "They are a promoter, regulator, sanctioning body, everything."

According to long time boxing promoter (and brief MMA promoter) Gary Shaw, "Boxing purses are higher because we don't have a league. UFC is their own league and they appoint their own champion who is going to fight for the title. Everything is done within while in boxing we have different sanctioning bodies."

When Dana lobbied NY to get the UFC there he said it was Sports Entertainment not a legit Sport (of sorts).

https://www.cagesideseats.com/2011/...ts-entertainment-to-get-legalised-in-new-york

lol. the article is either lying or just fuckin stupid. the quote they reference does not say "sports entertainment". wwe is sports entertainment because it's scripted.

the sanctioning bodies are crooked too of course. and they don't just rank all fighters. they all have different sets of fighters.
 
lol. the article is either lying or just fuckin stupid. the quote they reference does not say "sports entertainment". wwe is sports entertainment because it's scripted.

the sanctioning bodies are crooked too of course. and they don't just rank all fighters. they all have different sets of fighters.
buzz off shill
 
lol. the article is either lying or just fuckin stupid. the quote they reference does not say "sports entertainment". wwe is sports entertainment because it's scripted.

the sanctioning bodies are crooked too of course. and they don't just rank all fighters. they all have different sets of fighters.
their first mistake was using BE as a source.
 
Back
Top