Not sure if pressing "ignore" will help me to forget this thread.The champion should be a man or woman that decisively, unquestionably, won a title fight.
Sean Strickland won the title decisively against Izzy. He left no doubt. It was a schooling from beginning to end.
The champion deserves the benefit of the doubt, such as Jones has gotten numerous times in his career, or GSP against Hendricks, etc.
This is extremely sad and Strickland's life will change dramatically without the belt.
i am in complete agreementIf we're going by strike count then get rid of judges and use their strike counter. The judges don't have access to that info so right now it means nothing. If we aren't going to take into account the nuances of a fight then we should boil it down into a sterile math equation.
Did anyone else notice how contradictory this is?
If a champion should be the person who "decisively, unquestionably, won a title fight" then the champion should not "deserve the benefit of the doubt," since they did not win "decisively" and "unquestionably."
The only way this makes sense is if ts meant for the title to change hands, but that is not what is said.
Champion is already protected if the fight goes to a draw. Why should the #1 fighter be protected with a safety net? The champion should prove dominance and superiority.
As the champion you're supposed to be the clear cut #1 fighter. You're already protected if the fight goes to a draw. Not allowing the challenger to win a split decision is an arbitrary rule that is completely unfair. In any other scenario split decision wins are possible, but when you're facing the champion you're automatically locked out of a win condition? Complete nonsense.Why should the challenger be given a safety net? The champion deserves it more because he unquestionably won the title.
It means don't think too hard about it.Tf does "Benefit of the doubt" even mean in this situation
It's actually one of the sillier threads I have ever seen.As the champion you're supposed to be the clear cut #1 fighter. You're already protected if the fight goes to a draw. Not allowing the challenger to win a split decision is an arbitrary rule that is completely unfair. In any other scenario split decision wins are possible, but when you're facing the champion you're automatically locked out of a win condition? Complete nonsense.
Not the first one either. Imagine winning the belt so you can become immune to losing close fights.It's actually one of the sillier threads I have ever seen.
Lol a fighter could theoretically lose a bunch of fights in a row but still be the champion for some reason.Not the first one either. Imagine winning the belt so you can become immune to losing close fights.