How should a UFC title change hands?
Say, the two guys are fighting in the cage, and the fight is very close almost the same amount of significant strikes, takedowns, and even control time. All those things are almost completely equal at the end of the five-round fight. Let's say that two of the judges gave it to fighter A, And the other judge gave it to fighter B., who do you think should win that fight? Now thinking of the same scenario what if fighter B is the world champion going into that fight, and fighter a with a challenger? Who do you think should win that fight now? Do you think the person who receives the decision should be the person who scored the most points in the three judges' eyes, or since fighter A only won by one point, should the CHAMPION keep his title. I hear a lot of people complaining that if the challenger wins a close decision, he didn't really "take the title away from the CHAMPION". I see their point in theory, but how will that look in reality?
If someone wins a fight by one point or by knockout, shouldn't he get the win either way? You can try as hard as you possibly can push the fight as hard as you can, put every ounce of power into your punches, and you still might win the fight by only one point, if you're fighting the champion, should you lose? What if it's a close fight and the champion loses by two points, should the Challenger get the title then, because the flight was close, should it always go to the CHAMPION, and if so, what is the definition of close? Does it have to do with how many points? Since close is subjective, there has to be some number of points that have to be awarded to the challenger to be able to take the title from the CHAMPION right? Unless the only way to win is by a knockout, since judging is so subjective, and so is the word close, at least that's one way to solve the issue without any doubts. I seriously doubt if the UFC will adopt that type of definitive clarification of a winner or a loser. And since the people that say "the challenger has to take the title from the CHAMPION, don't get me wrong, I agree with that statement 100%, my problem is enforcing it.
Since it is pretty obvious that the sentiment of taking the title is a popular one, but nobody can think of a way to do it, let me think outside of the box and come up with two ways to solve this long-standing quandary.
- If the fight makes it to the fith round, it has to end by KO, or at the minimum, TKO
- Give The CHAMPION three points handicap. He starts with three points, and they added to his final score. At least, then if the challenger wins, he hast to win by at least four points.
Well, I brought up the problem and a couple of solutions. What do you think about the state of judging in the UFC, and what can be done to improve it? Also, do you think the challenger should be able to win the championship Via split decision, or should it be much more definitive?
Well, thanks for your participation, and thanks for reading my rant. Stay safe, God bless, and don't let anyone take your lunch money.
