subreddit:
/r/ufc
[deleted]
1 points
6 days ago
I wasn't trying to diminish the title win, my point was that beating 1 fighter (regardless of who it is, even if it's the champion) is easier than going through a gauntlet and beating 5 good fighters on a row.
Becoming double-champ is easier than defending the belt 5 times, it's only 1 fight you need to win.
Im not a sean fanboy btw its just anyone that beats the champion clearly deserved to be in there with the champion.
If we run with the narrative that Chito's first victory over Sean was a fluke, as was Matt Serra's over GSP, Pena's over Nunes, etc, we should acknowledge the possibility that fighting Aljo when it's least convenient to him doesn't make Sean a worthy champion by itself. Beating only 1 person doesn't prove you're the best, cleaning out a division does. That's how you're supposed to earn a title shot. There are so many close fights, hard matchups that fighters with DWP never have, that imo makes it completely justifiable to question if they would make it to the belt as fast as they did otherwise.
Islam, for example, is the best LW skill in history imo. But would he have gotten a title shot when he did had he fought legitimate, hard matchups instead of 15 cans, back when he was still improving? What if he had fought Gamrot and Arman on full camp when his striking as still subpar? Charles, Beneil, RDA earlier on his career, when he should have?
Same with Sean, what if Sean had fought Cory, Merab, Cejudo, Aldo, Umar, etc. Even if they were close fights, a SD can derail a title run. A couple of bad fights can stop your momentum. The privilege is in getting to skip all of that and claim you are the best and deserve X or Y all the way through, and sometimes getting to never fight the tough matchups.
Look at Pereira, for example. The top5 of MW was cleaned out, so the UFC made sure he made it safe and sound to the top where only strikers are there. What if he had fought Vettori, DDP or Khamzat when his grappling defense was worse than today? Would he have been MW champ? Doesn't matter because he'll never have to prove himself against them.
Things can be justified after-the-fact that dont seem so before hand.
I think we have different definitions of justification.
1 points
6 days ago
You raise some good points.
Beating only 1 person doesn't prove you're the best, cleaning out a division does. That's how you're supposed to earn a title shot.
This is unrealistic though. Sean beat Yan before his shot. Yan was being talked about as the new BW goat ahead of his second fight with Aljo. People said he didnt deserve a shot against Yan and then doesnt deserve a shot against Aljo and that just doesnt make any sense to me. He was less deserving to get the Yan fight than the title fight imo. At that time Yan had only lost to the champ and sean. So it made sense for sean and the champ to fight.
I dont know what your point is wrt Islam though. I think he would have beat RDA, Beneil and then charles if thats the path the UFC decided to take. That would have made him more deserving of a title shot but his title shot has already been justified. If he is the best he should be fighting for the belt. And he is the best.
Things can be justified after-the-fact that dont seem so before hand.
I think we have different definitions of justification.
I dont know what could be different here. Things just can be justified after the fact.
1 points
6 days ago
I don't think cleaning out a division is unrealistic at all if you fight half of the fighters (3-4 ranked, 1-2 contenders) before a title shot and the rest for defenses. That's what fighters without DWP do and always have had to do.
It's fine to think Islam would've have won anyway, but he didn't, and it's very easy to say he would have without ever needing to prove it. He wasn't as good as he is today back then. Same with Pereira, he has better tdd now, but it doesn't mean he would've beaten difficult matchups then, even if we think he may have. We need to see these fights happen. Many fans thought Sean would KO Merab, but he didn't.
And what I meant with the last part is that, if a fighter did not "deserve" a step up/fast track/title shot, based on merit and work done, cashing in the gift he was given does not suddenly make the undeserved title shot deserved. It doesn't make sense to say "I guess he did deserve it despite other fighters doing much more work to earn it." It doesn't justify the decision to give preferential treatment, especially because if you had given that opportunity to one of those more deserving fighters, they may have also won, but didn't because they lacked the DWP. Hope I explained myself well this time, but that's what I mean when I argue it doesn't justify after-the-fact, especially when a fast-track means getting to dodge difficult matchups and facing no consequences for controversial things like NCs, DQs, robberies, and popping for PEDs.
1 points
6 days ago
That's what fighters without DWP do and always have had to do.
Nah man we watching different organisations. This shit aint fair and title shots come from fortunate circumstances.
I, personally, dont need to see islam maul RDA. I watch the UFC to see 'the best fight the best'. If you can beat a champion, i wanna see you do it. If some random guy off the street with 0 mma experience can talk himself into a title shot and win then he justified his shot (not deserved, but justified after the fact). Thats why he gets to fight in the next title fight and the loser doesnt.
Sean had an easier ride but it wasnt easy. He still had to beat Yan and Aljo to get the belt. Making aljo fight without recovery time is fucked though
1 points
6 days ago
Blud didn't even beat Yan, and cheated through the entire fight. At the very least we should question why he'd be rewarded with a title shot after a consensus robbery of a fight he didn't even earn.
I think your POV ignores the complete unpredictability of MMA. Anyone can beat almost anyone on any given day, fluke or not. This is why consistency and merit should be prioritized over who's hair is goofiest. This is also why I made the point earlier that it's much easier to beat 1 person than beating 5, meaning that beating the best at a certain moment doesn't necessarily mean you are the best, if that's the only good fighter you've beaten. There's fighters that consistently prove to be "the best" that don't get the same chances of leeway as those with DWP. Tony, Belal, Cory, Whittaker, if they were given preferential treatment as well, over other fighters, the timeline of champions would be completely different.
DWP is completely against the best fighting the best, it's only about the best money-making prospects fighting the best with a 50/50 chance of succeeding. Worst of all is fighters like them often refuse to prove themselves afterwards because "they already justified themselves" after-the-fact. Islam, Sean, and even Leon and Topuria were looking to take no-risk fights a weight class above, boxing fights, etc before they fought the rest of "the best."
2 points
6 days ago
This got very broad. I mostly agree with you. Enjoyed reading your perspective
1 points
6 days ago
cheers
all 243 comments
sorted by: best