Title fight ends in a draw - was the title defended? (Poll)

[MrBojan9les]

It's not even debatable. If you don't lose your belt you defended it. And then there is almost always a rematch, which is fair.

If you don't like it, look at it this way, it at least doesn't count as a "W" on their record..

[YHWH]

If a champion doesn't definitively lose the fight and the draw is a realistic result, then a champion successfully defended his title.

He didn't lose, so it stays with him. That is an old rule and everyone knows it. If necessary a rematch is held to determine a winner (as in Frankie/Gray 2 and 3).

[mmafan559]

Yes but a draw warrants a rematch.

Pretty much this right here.

[beastfracchia]

This is kind of like my topic i had earlier

I personally think it is kind of a to be continued story, I've thought about it all day and i think when you fight and it ends in a draw you havent succesfully defended the belt until you beat that person.

So with edgar and maynard after their first tilte fight ended in a draw the belt wasn't lost but it wasn't defended, it was kind of in a state of limbo until their third fight where edgar definitively defended his belt

[duallie]

Obvious example; Frankie vs. Gray 2 - did Frankie defend his title?

Personally, I find it hard to go either way;

If a champion goes in and comes out of a fight still the champion - they should have defended their title because they still own it...

BUT

How can a title be defended successfully if there isn't a conclusive ending to said fight(Win/Loss).


Discuss.

agree completely with your view of it.
this is why i think there should be no draws, most definitely not when it's a title-fight.

[colon98]

This is kind of like my topic i had earlier

I personally think it is kind of a to be continued story, I've thought about it all day and i think when you fight and it ends in a draw you havent succesfully defended the belt until you beat that person.

So with edgar and maynard after their first tilte fight ended in a draw the belt wasn't lost but it wasn't defended, it was kind of in a state of limbo until their third fight where edgar definitively defended his belt

That's exactly how I view it. As long as the ufc continues to always give title fight draws instant rematches, than I'll always view title fight draws as a continued story. That is until the rematch ends in a decisive fashion.

And even if they count draws as defenses I don't think they deserve the same credit as a win.

[JD1]

Did the champ ensure that the belt wasn't taken from him?

Yes, so it was defended.

So as long as the champion comes out with the belt - it was defended? Even if the champion ran for 5 rounds and did barely enough to get that draw (no one specific)?

Yes. As long as the judges decide that the challenger didn't WIN it was a defense.

I disagree. If the fight ends in a draw it's inconclusive and shouldn't necessarily qualify as a title defense because no one succeeded in anything progressive.

However the rules and the English language disagree with you.

[JD1]

agree completely with your view of it.
this is why i think there should be no draws, most definitely not when it's a title-fight.

What? So how do they determine a winner?

Bruce Buffer flips a coin? Or wait, do they just give it to the champ? But if he didn't earn the win, wouldn't that be THE EXACT SAME THING AS A DRAW?

[kingomegared]

yes, by definition.

[Blacklisted]

Am I the o ly person who thinks there shouldn't be an immediate rematch when it's a draw?

I mean when it's a really close fight and fighter A wins when everyone else thinks B won that makes sense.

But why should there be an immediate rematch for a draw? The challenger obviously didn't do enough to take the belt from the champion so the next fighter in line should try. Idk just my opinion.

[HeartOfMidnight]

If you go in and come out with it then yes you defended it.

As far the Britney Palmer Playboy pics they were not as good as I was hoping for. Arianny and Rachele's were better.

[Philson]

If it's a draw you "retained" the belt, not "defended" it.

There's a difference.

[duallie]

agree completely with your view of it.
this is why i think there should be no draws, most definitely not when it's a title-fight.

What? So how do they determine a winner?

Bruce Buffer flips a coin? Or wait, do they just give it to the champ? But if he didn't earn the win, wouldn't that be THE EXACT SAME THING AS A DRAW?

oops.
no, i think they should fight extra time to finalize it.
why can't a title-fight have an extra round if needed?
do they have to be out of the stadium by ten o'clock?
it's a championship fight.
i think they should end in a decisive conclusion.
what's the point of fighting if you are going to end in a tie?
so you both go to the hospital and yet it's like you didn't even fight.
it's a waste of everybody's time, it just means that they'll have to try again at a later date.

draws suck.
what if every time you had sex, she stopped you and said "oh, you can't finish"?

[MrBojan9les]

This is kind of like my topic i had earlier

I personally think it is kind of a to be continued story, I've thought about it all day and i think when you fight and it ends in a draw you havent succesfully defended the belt until you beat that person.

So with edgar and maynard after their first tilte fight ended in a draw the belt wasn't lost but it wasn't defended, it was kind of in a state of limbo until their third fight where edgar definitively defended his belt

Of course fans are going to "feel" that it needs to be continued... Just because you "feel" a decision is wrong, doesn't make it so...W's are W's, L's are L's, Draws in a title fight are considered "title defenses."

Boxing, mma, whatever, they still consider it a title defense..which is the same as "retaining" your belt. When they add up the # of title "defenses" when comparing champs, they still count them..although it would be better if they put an "*" by it and noted if there were any draws or "no contests."..which also count as defenses, just fyi.

Like I said earlier, this isn't debatable. It IS considered a defense. Fans will of course feel it's unfinished, as will the fighters...but the belt does not remain "in limbo." It remains hanging above the champ's fireplace.

If the champ walks in and then walks out with the belt, he has defended, and retained his title.

FACT.

[DPino51]

If it's a draw you "retained" the belt, not "defended" it.

There's a difference.

yea im not sure why anybody else has brought this up. when the results for UFC 125 are shown if it says anything it says Edgar "retained" the belt, not "defended" it.

and all wikipedia jokes aside, on the list of current champions page on wiki it lists edgar as having TWO title DEFENSES.