they were both poking from what I rememberThoughts on Stipe leading with his fingers first then thumbing DCs eye?
I explained my reasoning.So instead of giving the previous champion a rematch, you think it's better for the division to have DC vacate? I disagree completely. If a champ is willing to fight, no matter who he fights, it is worth doing rather than vacating the title.
I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. The point I'm illustrating is that this "most defenses" reasoning is complete and utter nonsense.Cain Valasquez, Brock Lesnar, and Tim Sylvia all had multiple defenses (not streak but still). But, what is your point anyway, do all these multiple-time world champions suck too much for you? Gimme a break
3 ppl have done it in history. I don't think that alone is enough, but it's one of the factors to consider since there are no other top HW contenders at the momentI'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. The point I'm illustrating is that this "most defenses" reasoning is complete and utter nonsense.
No one cared about 2 or 3 consecutive title defenses until the UFC had a champion who can sell a ppv to save his life.3 ppl have done it in history. I don't think that alone is enough, but it's one of the factors to consider since there are no other top HW contenders at the moment
Follower clout disses are for the cornball elite. DC is truly MMA's Corey Booker.
Especially when it's in response to a legitimate chirp.Follower clout disses are for the cornball elite. DC is truly MMA's Corey Booker.
Winning a vacated title is only marginally better than winning a title after the guy who beat you retires. In this current situation, at least there's a chance that the title continues to mean something. I disagree with your reasoning.It makes more sense for the UFC to NOT have Stipe fight Cormier again.
If DC wins and then retires there's a good chance Stipe could win the belt back after losing to the retired champ twice. In terms of their image, they should just write DC a cheque and say thanks for your work, this one's on us.
Okay, cool, at least now your reasoning seems clear to me.Winning a vacated title is only marginally better than winning a title after the guy who beat you retires. In this current situation, at least there's a chance that the title continues to mean something. I disagree with your reasoning.
I think we are both looking at it in terms of how the UFC should see it; I just wrote it from Stipe's perspective.Okay, cool, at least now your reasoning seems clear to me.
Whereas you're looking at it (at least that's how it's written) from the challenger's perspective, I'm looking at it from a broader one.
It's probably one of the reasons we disagree.
You're looking at what Stipe has to gain and I'm looking at it from what the UFC stands to lose vs what they stand to gain.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.I think we are both looking at it in terms of how the UFC should see it; I just wrote it from Stipe's perspective.
If the UFC decides to not book DC in a fight (which would be bizarre), they force him to vacate the tile. At that point, whoever wins it wins a title without beating the champion.
That's also the case if Cormier beats Stipe again, but if you book the fight at least you have a shot at having a legitimate title when DC hangs them up.
Also, Cormier has a bigger name than Miocic, so it makes immediate monetary sense to get another fight out of DC if he's willing to do it.
I just simply don't understand shelving one of the best ever in the name of protecting a title, when shelving him also devalues the title. If Miocic loses again and DC vacates, that's fine. You put two other heavyweights together for the title, book Stipe against a guy who is on his way up, and if Stipe wins that, you have him fight the new champion. Everyone knows that DC is one of the greats, so losing to him doesn't mean that Stipe can't be champ again.