# The value of title belts



## brownpimp88 (Jun 22, 2006)

Alright guys, if I had the time, I'd love to have done a fully articulated post on this topic, but much like the reasons for me not posting here much, I just don't got the time. 

But really, what is the value of title belts?

Forget everything you know for a second. 

What is the purpose of title belts? Well, thats simple. For fans, it is a crown for the best fighter in that division. For promoters, it is a physical object that can be used as a marketing point and something that can be contested for to prove who is the "best". 

Would a fight between Anderson Silva and Vitor Belfort be less appealing for you if there was no title belt at stake, but(for the sake of discussion) they were still the number 1 and 2 MWs in the world?

What is my point? Well I have two. I think title belts are overrated in certain cases. I'm not going to say anything crazy like they should be abolished, but in a lot of cases, title belts are pretty meaningless. Fighters should be ranked/judged based on the fighters they have fought and their performances in the octagon. Not title belts.

Haven't the careers of guys like Tim Sylvia, Carlos Newton, heck maybe even Matt Hughes, been enhanced merely by the fact they held a belt?

Discuss.


----------



## alizio (May 27, 2009)

ive said it before, i think belts only have meaning when the other fighters consider you the best, like Fedor, Silva, BJ and GSP, whereas champions like Lesnar and Machida (because most fighters ive heard from think he lost to Shogun) it doesnt have asmuch meaning because others feel they are better or comparable. The belt is only a piece of gold unless the other fighers respect and recognize the guy wearing it as the sports best imo


----------



## kay_o_ken (Jan 26, 2009)

thought this was gonna be about like, how much money a ufc title belt is worth, thatd be somethign id kinda like to know haha


----------



## Mjr (Apr 22, 2007)

It depends on which division.

Obviously belts like WAMMA are a bit of a joke because the competition is so far spread around. However most of the UFC belts are in pretty deserving hands. The LHW belt changes hands like a game of poker and should have done so again last week. The HW belt however is a total joke and will be considered a joke until he defends it a few more times.

It really depends on the division and how the fighter earned it. Because the UFC don't run any sort of formal ranking system it sort of falls to whoever they see as marketable regardless of who they have fought.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

The belt doesn't always mean #1 in the division, but it helps to gauge where fighters are at sometimes.

Take Serra, for example. We all know he is and never was the #1 WW in the world, even though he had the belt. However, guys like GSP, Anderson, B.J, they are clearly the #1 guy in their division, as such, they are the title holder.

There are exceptions, such as HW belt for the reason of having not even been defended yet and the LHW belt because it changes so often. If Machida gets through Shogun in the rematch, then he is clearly #1 in that division (I already think he is, but that's a whole different issue).

Fedor's belt means more than people think. Fedor has already defended it twice, against two top 10, one of whom was top 5, fighters, and his next fight could be against Overeem, another top 10. This would not work in other divisions, of course, as all the best fighters except for LW and HW are in the UFC.

So, while the belts don't always say who the #1 guy is in a division, it generally does let you know who deserves to be on top and who the best is, and who the top guys (contenders) in the division are.


----------



## Mjr (Apr 22, 2007)

Michael Carson said:


> The belt doesn't always mean #1 in the division, but it helps to gauge where fighters are at sometimes.
> 
> Take Serra, for example. We all know he is and never was the #1 WW in the world, even though he had the belt. However, guys like GSP, Anderson, B.J, they are clearly the #1 guy in their division, as such, they are the title holder.
> 
> ...


With a few exceptions of course! Brock receiving the silver platter of Herring and Randy for his present. But agree with you it is usually a good gauge.


----------



## Bzaal (Sep 4, 2009)

Hm.. 
I think of the belts more as a prize, for beating possibly the best AT THE MOMENT, who has PROVEN that, by beating another one before. Just becouse you are the champ, doesn't mean you are the best - you haven't beat all of them, have you? Who knows, maybe the next contender will beat you, so yeah - I like to think it more like a prize.


----------



## BrianRClover (Jan 4, 2008)

The belts are far more important then most people think and always will be. There has to be a top to every mountain, and whether or not you agree with who stands there and how they got there, that person arguably holds the highest stock in their division.
Furthermore it determines the magnitude of the fight... sure Belfort/Silva would be amazing with or without a belt on the line, but the belt is what makes it a 5 round fight. The fact is, if you're a champion, you headline... that "meaningless" peice of gold, as some call it, is a ticket to the main event everytime you fight. That's what matters to the fighters, the spotlight... and rightfully so.
If the belts were abolished, it would be a very boring sport. It would be like having an entire NFL season without the superbowl, MLB without the world series, NHL without the Stanley Cup... you get my point.


----------



## TERMINATOR (Jul 6, 2008)

Good topic. For me I think the belt is a good idea. SOmething in your mind tells you to train your ass of for that piece of gold you can call yours.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

I agree that winning a belt massively overrates some fighters that really aren't that good. Newton was an epitome of this, but it also includes IMO Forrest, Serra, Rashad (to some extent), and Overeem. Most of these guys had ridiculously easy paths to their titles and then either fluked a win over a top fighter (forrest over rampage and serra over GSP) or beat an over the hill legend (Rashad with Chuck, Overeem with CroCop sorta). 

Overeem especially, I just can't understand why everyone suddenly thinks this guy is hot shit when he's been demolished by every top 5 fighter he's faced in his career. Is looking good against a washed up CroCop, subbing a one-dimensional kickboxer, and beating the likes of James Thomson and Tony Sylvester that impressive? Buentello is his only big win recently, and even he isn't top 20.

But on the flip side, the belt is really important in getting the point across to the usual MMA fan (including the so called knowledgable ones) that jump on bandwagons as soon as a title is won. I remember there were like 10 people on this forum that were bitching about Machida not getting a title shot for so long, while the rest thought he was overrated and boring. One title fight later, everyone hops on to the "Machida era" bandwagon with sigs and avatars to boot. Same with Lesnar ... he went from overrated WWE entertainer to the guy better than Fedor after one fight. Sometimes people will refuse to acknowledge raw talent until they see some gold around that waist.

So yeah bottomline I think they serve a big purpose, but I agree that records are what truly matter. Undeserving champs will only get exposed eventually.


----------



## Bertelicious (Feb 1, 2009)

Michael Carson said:


> Fedor's belt means more than people think. Fedor has already defended it twice, against two top 10, one of whom was top 5, fighters, and his next fight could be against Overeem, another top 10. This would not work in other divisions, of course, as all the best fighters except for LW and HW are in the UFC.
> .


I wouldn't say fedors belt is that much more respected cuz last nights bout was a 3 rounder which means the belt was not in contention. And if it was, then the Illinois athletic commission didn't/doesn't recognize the belt hence the three round match. 

Now, my question, how long do we have to wait for fedor(#1 ranked) to fight ovareem(strikeforce champ)??

And who wants to guess what happens in that fight??


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> I agree that winning a belt massively overrates some fighters that really aren't that good. Newton was an epitome of this, but it also includes IMO Forrest, Serra, Rashad (to some extent), and Overeem. Most of these guys had ridiculously easy paths to their titles and then either fluked a win over a top fighter (forrest over rampage and serra over GSP) or beat an over the hill legend (Rashad with Chuck, Overeem with CroCop sorta).
> 
> Overeem especially, I just can't understand why everyone suddenly thinks this guy is hot shit when he's been demolished by every top 5 fighter he's faced in his career. Is looking good against a washed up CroCop, subbing a one-dimensional kickboxer, and beating the likes of James Thomson and Tony Sylvester that impressive? Buentello is his only big win recently, and even he isn't top 20.
> 
> ...



I disagree with a lot of this.
*Here it is out of order:*
Forrest's win over Rampage was no fluke, and NOTHING like Serra vs GSP. Forrest won by great game planning, speed, and aggression.

I dunno if you meant Rashad beat Chuck for the title, that's sort of what it looked like you meant. But KO'ing chuck in the first round will never be an easy accomplishment, and there's no reason to cheapen in that much.

Rashad is a great boxer who knocked out the Iceman then TKO'd Forrest, let's not pretend he was a paper champion. He's a top 5 LHW.

Next, Overeem. Give me a break that you don't see how Overeem is impressive. This is well-rounded dude who's standup is the top of the division (and the division is stacked with strikers). He beat Badr Hari in the first round, won rounds against the almighty Remy Bonjaski, and defeated Peter Aerts. He's got a guillotine from hell that's great at neutralizing wrestlers, and his last six MMA fights were over in the beginning of the first round.

Although I do think certain fighters' records will always be exaggerated due to having a title (Hughes and Couture come to mind), the ones you listed aren't in that category - except possibly Serra.



Bertelicious said:


> I wouldn't say fedors belt is that much more respected cuz last nights bout was a 3 rounder which means the belt was not in contention. And if it was, then the Illinois athletic commission didn't/doesn't recognize the belt hence the three round match.
> 
> Now, my question, how long do we have to wait for fedor(#1 ranked) to fight ovareem(strikeforce champ)??
> 
> And who wants to guess what happens in that fight??


It was my understanding, as WAMMA sponsored and promoted the fight, that it was a 5 rounder for the title.


----------



## bbfsluva (Oct 18, 2009)

i thought it was supposed to go 5 as well. personally, i think all the belt signifies is the guy who was best THE NIGHT OF THE FIGHT won it. after that, it just means you were the best the night you defended it. aside from that, from a fighters point of view, i agree with the poster who said it gives them a reason to train hard, cause generally, money follows title belts.


----------



## jmacjer (Mar 23, 2009)

kay_o_ken said:


> thought this was gonna be about like, how much money a ufc title belt is worth, thatd be somethign id kinda like to know haha


 I was thinking the same thing when I read the title. I'm also curious as to how much the belt is worth lol.


----------



## Bertelicious (Feb 1, 2009)

khoveraki said:


> It was my understanding, as WAMMA sponsored and promoted the fight, that it was a 5 rounder for the title.





bbfsluva said:


> i thought it was supposed to go 5 as well. personally, i think all the belt signifies is the guy who was best THE NIGHT OF THE FIGHT won it. after that, it just means you were the best the night you defended it. aside from that, from a fighters point of view, i agree with the poster who said it gives them a reason to train hard, cause generally, money follows title belts.


I coulda sworn the announcer announced it as a 3 round fight. Maybe Im wrong. IDK. And can anyone confirm if Strikeforce recognizes the WAMMA belt? I read a couple places that they didnt.


----------



## BWoods (Apr 8, 2007)

I think a lot of times people confuse the title holder in a weight class for being the best fighter in his division. While this is true in some cases (Anderson Silva and Georges St.Pierre) this isn't an absolute law of combat sports. It simply means that the guy who owns it is the king of the mountain.

The champion is someone who found a way to beat the previous champion (or contender) on that given night. He may not be a better fighter overall but he found a way to win and continue winning. At least that is what the title is supposed to represent, the guy who has come out on top of all of the others in his division.

I have a problem with the WAMMA title in general. I don't really believe its a legitimate title or should be acknowledged by the commissions. It would have a much greater significance if it was the reward for a giant tournament but it was only presented to two fighters and since only 4 fighters have been given the chance to earn it (Fedor, Arlovski, Sylvia, and Rogers) 

Its not that I deny that Fedor is the best heavyweight fighter in the world, but his belt is a paper championship designed for him to carry around. It has no real meaning because most of the best fighters won't have a chance to earn it. For the fighters who do have a chance to earn it, its pretty much an equivalent of a "beat Fedor" achievement for an XBox game. 

"I beat the Last Emperor, but all I got was this belt and a handshake."

The tl,dr version is that belts signify who's on top, not who's best. While sometimes the best do hold the belt, its not an absolute law that they always have it.


----------



## The_Senator (Jun 5, 2008)

There were many cases when a belt didn't mean much. For instance, Serra, Griffin and Evans were champions once, but it didn't mean they were the top fighters in their division when they grabbed them. Now, Lesnar is the champion, but his biggest victory was at Summer Slam when he beat The Rock. I personally don't see any glorious accomplishments in UFC. Of course, Dana White keeps pushing the idea that Brock is the best, but it doesn't make it true. Now, the most important thing in MMA is your MMA record and especially big names on your list of victims - Shogun never had any belts, Cro Cop never had any belts, and fights of those guys, for me, are more interesting than any fight in LW division including for the LW belt.


----------



## GMK13 (Apr 20, 2009)

for the most of us it doesn't matter, but it does help attract fans and help this sport grow.


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

khoveraki said:


> I disagree with a lot of this.
> *Here it is out of order:*
> Forrest's win over Rampage was no fluke, and NOTHING like Serra vs GSP. Forrest won by great game planning, speed, and aggression.
> 
> ...


Completly agree with statements regarding overeem and Chuck (except Rashad Ko'd Chuck in the 2nd :thumb02: )

Belts give fighters something to strive for. And with top fighters always striving to take the belt it normally gives an accurate discription of who is on top of said division (with a few acceptions of course)


----------



## The_Senator (Jun 5, 2008)

If I were UFC CEO I'd push the idea about tournaments for the belts like in PRIDE. 16 guys, 1 title. If someone got injured and couldn't continue, then it's his problem. This system truly keeps interest maintained. In those cases nobody would dare to question someone's victory, because you cannot win the tournament accidentally. 
In UFC you get a title shot for just being a former WWE star, beat Randy Couture and become the champion. And we all remember UFC 69 as well, a fluke.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

khoveraki said:


> I disagree with a lot of this.
> *Here it is out of order:*
> Forrest's win over Rampage was no fluke, and NOTHING like Serra vs GSP. Forrest won by great game planning, speed, and aggression.
> 
> ...


hmm must've missed this reply a month back but since the thread is resurrected, might as well respond.

First of all, your point on Overeem is completely invalid... ALL of those wins are in Kickboxing, which is a COMPLETELY different sport. It requires zero TDD which allows you to throw all kinds of flashy stuff that is completely impractical in an MMA fight. Not to mention it is far easier to take risks because of the lower KO percentage with those giant gloves, and defence is far easier with those gloves as well. I don't disagree with ranking him high in kickboxing, but we are talking about MMA here if you were confused. Otherwise Schlit would be ranked higher than Fedor right now. Overeem has gotten destroyed by any top 10 MMA fighter he has faced in his entire career, and that hasn't changed recently (CroCop is no longer top 10, and Buentello might not even be top 20). 

Forrest's win over Rampage is debatable... for one it was a split decision, for another, I think his aggression is overrated. Really, every fight I watch him (including his last one against a washed up Ortiz), all I see him is get raped and bloodied up badly. But he makes it to the scorecards where his flurry of pillow punches and kicks inevitably gets him the higher score. I have never seen him DEAL OUT MORE DAMAGE in any fight against a top 10, all he does is win on the judging criteria, on tons of split decisions, and I think that's a bit of luck.

Rashad KO'd the Iceman in the 2nd btw. And the Iceman has been KOd in the FIRST by Rampage and Shogun in his other two fights during that time and even Jardine beat him. He is 1-4 in his last 5 fights ... I don't think Chuck will ever be a total chump, but at this point in his career he has sadly slipped to B level. So yes, Rashad's KO over him doesn't prove much, and I already explained how Griffin himself is overrated. Rashad has no other legit top 10 wins (he basically lost to Ortiz if not for the point deduction). 

After all that, you make the ridiculous statement that the few guys that actually DESERVED the title were the overrated ones. Please, Hughes was the most dominant WW of his time, he smashed the likes of Sherk, Sakurai, Trigg (in his prime), Newton, and even once each over GSP and BJ, two of the top p4p fighters to this day. Overrated he was not, cocky and dislikable maybe. 

And Couture? He smashed the likes of Belfort, Ortiz, Chuck, Sylvia, Gonzaga, Randelman and Rizzo. Not only did he smash them, he smashed them at the points in their career when EACH ONE OF THEM was basically considered invincible and #1 in their division in the UFC, if not the ENTIRE WORLD. How can you even compare that to the likes of Forrest eking out split decisions and Rashad beating ONE of the guys that Couture beat, YEARS after his peak? Guys like Couture and Hughes have tons of legit top 10 wins at their time, the likes of Griffin, Rashad and Overeem have NONE, none that are decisive or at legit points in their opponents careers anyway. Oh and they actually successfully DEFENDED their belts? Multiple times? Remind me if Forrest and Rashad were even able to adjust their straps before it was rudely taken from their unconscious bodies.

I mean damn dude, do you even watch MMA or just moon over TUF and kickboxing and form your opinions? EDIT: nm just realized whose post it was lol... man khoveraki usually you make good posts, but this one hmmm :thumbsdown:.


----------

