Topic: UFC Discussion
GSP Vacates UFC MW Title
Anonymous Mode
You are not logged in to Tapology. When browsing anonymously, profanities and images are automatically removed from the forum.
12.07.2017 | 11:32 PM ET
Story
GSP is an absolute beauty! In his statement,
“My fight at UFC 217 was one of the greatest nights of my life but I now need to take some time to focus on my health. Out of respect to the athletes and the sport, I don’t want to hold up the division. I will be giving up my belt and once I’m healthy I look forward to working with the UFC to determine what’s next in my career.”
*looking at you Conor*
Hopefully, he has a speedy recovery and then decides what he wants to do next.
GSP is an absolute beauty! In his statement,
“My fight at UFC 217 was one of the greatest nights of my life but I now need to take some time to focus on my health. Out of respect to the athletes and the sport, I don’t want to hold up the division. I will be giving up my belt and once I’m healthy I look forward to working with the UFC to determine what’s next in my career.”
*looking at you Conor*
Hopefully, he has a speedy recovery and then decides what he wants to do next.
"I think Gayffy suits you better, because you are gay." - Nomad
Responses
12.08.2017 | 12:09 AM ET
Sucks that GSP had to vacate. Still, this was probably going to happen sooner or later, either by him dropping the belt and going down a division or Whittaker beating him for it. As for where GSP goes from here, once his bout with ulcerative colitis is over, I think GSP is going to get prepared to move back down to welterweight and get back his belt.
"..."
12.08.2017 | 8:10 AM ET
Good move. He is mot arrogant about it and does not want to hold up the division.
"The only thing predictable about MMA is that it is unpredictable."
12.08.2017 | 3:27 PM ET
Glad he made the decision now instead of stringing us along for six months. Division can move on. Hopefully all the divisions start getting back to some semblance of normalcy. If McGregor really is considering another boxing match, strip him, promoter Ferguson and be done with it. Put Conor in one-off superfights without belts attached.
"When a game cannot be won, change the game."
12.08.2017 | 4:31 PM ET
Yeah props to GSP for doing this and not tying another ******* belt up.
Hoping Whittaker makes a nice string of title defenses now!
Hoping Whittaker makes a nice string of title defenses now!
"“All of a sudden, he was shooting for a takedown, and I’m like, ‘Oh, you’re a wrestler now? Remember, I’m the black belt in jiu-jitsu. And you’re shooting on me now? This is a wrap." - Nate Diaz"
12.08.2017 | 5:43 PM ET
Props? He totally ruined the linear MW and WW title, he's a title destroyer
This user is suspended from posting until 4 years, 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, and 29 minutes from now.
12.08.2017 | 6:01 PM ET
@mikeyg
So what? The whole concept of "linear/lineal championships" is antiquated, dumb and, to be quite frank, pure mental masturbation. Either you have the belt or you don't, plain and simple. Do you think any fighter, when the cameras are off and they are not in promo cutting mode, takes pride in the argument of "Well technically no one ever beat me for the belt, so therefore I'm the champ despite not having the actual belt?" No. The physical belt always means more, because it is a physical symbol that you are the best in your division and you get paid as such. In my opinion, when you are stripped of the belt or you vacate you lose your claim to the title. The lineage sticks with the belt, unless there has been a documented unification of belts.
So what? The whole concept of "linear/lineal championships" is antiquated, dumb and, to be quite frank, pure mental masturbation. Either you have the belt or you don't, plain and simple. Do you think any fighter, when the cameras are off and they are not in promo cutting mode, takes pride in the argument of "Well technically no one ever beat me for the belt, so therefore I'm the champ despite not having the actual belt?" No. The physical belt always means more, because it is a physical symbol that you are the best in your division and you get paid as such. In my opinion, when you are stripped of the belt or you vacate you lose your claim to the title. The lineage sticks with the belt, unless there has been a documented unification of belts.
* Edited at 12.08.2017, 6:02 PM ET *
"..."
12.08.2017 | 7:09 PM ET
No, now there's no clarity, GSP never defended the undisputed WW and MW belts, that's an issue for someone who's a big fan of belt prestige and I don't find it dumb at all xD
This user is suspended from posting until 4 years, 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, and 29 minutes from now.
12.08.2017 | 7:47 PM ET
@mikeyg
No clarity over what, lol? Whittaker is the champ, because GSP can't physically compete, thus not being able to fulfill his duties as champion. The idea that there is some dispute over who is "the real champion" is asinine. The real champ is the man who has the belt and defends his title in fights. If you can't defend the belt when you are expected to, your claim to be the champion is over at that point, in my book. Would you say that the winner of the Super Bowl is not actually champion because they didn't beat the previous winner, and as a result the new winner of the Super Bowl gets an asterisk? Of course not. So why should it be different in MMA?
No clarity over what, lol? Whittaker is the champ, because GSP can't physically compete, thus not being able to fulfill his duties as champion. The idea that there is some dispute over who is "the real champion" is asinine. The real champ is the man who has the belt and defends his title in fights. If you can't defend the belt when you are expected to, your claim to be the champion is over at that point, in my book. Would you say that the winner of the Super Bowl is not actually champion because they didn't beat the previous winner, and as a result the new winner of the Super Bowl gets an asterisk? Of course not. So why should it be different in MMA?
* Edited at 12.08.2017, 7:49 PM ET *
"..."
12.08.2017 | 8:05 PM ET
Nobody knows who Whittaker is and only the hardcores even follow what we follow, let's not be naive, people know GSP and Bisping, and now neither of them is champion, creating a gap, like how WW had a huge gap after GSP left WW. I don't like these gaps and you're not going to convince me otherwise. Rob's champ because GSP relinquished another belt, this isn't rocket science here, GSP tarnished these belts and for someone of your intellect to miss that is strange. It does matter, this isn't the superbowl, your analogy is flawed to no end. Under that logic we should just create new champs every year, no, **** that.
* Edited at 12.08.2017, 8:08 PM ET *
This user is suspended from posting until 4 years, 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, and 29 minutes from now.
12.08.2017 | 8:31 PM ET
@mikey
I think it's dumb because it provides an easy out for people to make excuses if someone doesn't like the current champion or the fighter they like had to vacate the belt. It's similar to why I don't like pound for pound. It opens up the opportunity for people to dismiss fighters by trying to measure their accomplishments up against people that aren't in their division. That's my thoughts on the matter at least. Does it look good that GSP has had to vacate two belts now? Of course not, I would never say it doesn't hurt the prestige of the title. However, to have him retain the belt when there is no definite time table for GSP's return looks worse than if he just vacates it, because then you have a division hanging in limbo fighting for what is essentially a #1 contender's belt. Plus, the UFC already suffers from overuse of interim belts as is and constantly having to do that devalues what it means to be a champion.
I think it's dumb because it provides an easy out for people to make excuses if someone doesn't like the current champion or the fighter they like had to vacate the belt. It's similar to why I don't like pound for pound. It opens up the opportunity for people to dismiss fighters by trying to measure their accomplishments up against people that aren't in their division. That's my thoughts on the matter at least. Does it look good that GSP has had to vacate two belts now? Of course not, I would never say it doesn't hurt the prestige of the title. However, to have him retain the belt when there is no definite time table for GSP's return looks worse than if he just vacates it, because then you have a division hanging in limbo fighting for what is essentially a #1 contender's belt. Plus, the UFC already suffers from overuse of interim belts as is and constantly having to do that devalues what it means to be a champion.
"..."
12.08.2017 | 10:39 PM ET
lol thats what you're arguing for, a superbowl style of champions where the UFC is sick one champ the first day and likes one the next. It's has no clarity, we'll have to agree to disagree.
* Edited at 12.08.2017, 10:47 PM ET *
This user is suspended from posting until 4 years, 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, and 29 minutes from now.
12.08.2017 | 11:09 PM ET
@mikey
Don't put words in my mouth. My point with the super bowl analogy is that lineal championships are dumb because they invalidate the whole point of having a belt in the first place. You would never say that the Patriots aren't really the 2003 Super Bowl champs because they never played the Buccaneers in the playoffs. If the person who holds the belt isn't "really the champ" because he didn't have the chance to fight the guy who vacated it, then what is the point of having championship belts in the first place if they aren't as valuable as the non physical title that is still in the possession of the "real champion"? At that point, you might as well get rid of belts and just hand out cash prizes and trophies.
Don't put words in my mouth. My point with the super bowl analogy is that lineal championships are dumb because they invalidate the whole point of having a belt in the first place. You would never say that the Patriots aren't really the 2003 Super Bowl champs because they never played the Buccaneers in the playoffs. If the person who holds the belt isn't "really the champ" because he didn't have the chance to fight the guy who vacated it, then what is the point of having championship belts in the first place if they aren't as valuable as the non physical title that is still in the possession of the "real champion"? At that point, you might as well get rid of belts and just hand out cash prizes and trophies.
* Edited at 12.08.2017, 11:11 PM ET *
"..."
12.08.2017 | 11:12 PM ET
Your analogy fell flat and you're saving face, the sports are not analogous, let it go.
This user is suspended from posting until 4 years, 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, and 29 minutes from now.
12.08.2017 | 11:14 PM ET
The point of keeping it lineal is that the last champ beat the champ before him, if you keep having new champs who never beat a champ before him THAT waters down the belts, I can't believe you don't get that. The fact that you keep using football as an analogy kinda proves you don't see the differences here. Nobody cares if the Pats play in the playoffs if they go 8-8 the next season, it's a team sport with a different structure, end of story.
* Edited at 12.08.2017, 11:15 PM ET *
This user is suspended from posting until 4 years, 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 15 hours, and 29 minutes from now.
12.09.2017 | 6:19 AM ET
Hopefully for our enjoyment the champ will be back....One day!
" “To see a man beaten not by a better opponent but by himself is a tragedy.” – Cus D’Amato"