Should all title fights simply be the best two out of three?

I believe if a fight ends in judges decision then sure have the rematch. If the fight ends with a TKO or KO then no instant rematch.

Agree

I voted no. A 30/27 does not deserve a rematch.

Was there not a fight not too long ago, a 3 rounder, that if the judges called it a tie, it would get a forth round? I can't remember what fight that was amended to?

Why not have a tie breaker round?
A 'Sudden death' tie breaker round!!

I don't believe in an automatic rematch ever. I don't care how horrible the judging is. If you could not finish the champ or beat him outright in the judges eyes, you should have to fight minimum one other fight before getting another title shot.

The only time I would make an exception would be for an early dr stoppage or something (think Belfort over Couture).

No. Not at all.

I don't even understand the thought process of this idea. Why would you want that to happen?

I was thinking about this before and i was thinking that if a champion defends his title 3-5 times before losing it then the former champ gets a rematch. example if jones,gsp or silva loss there titles they should get a rematch cause they stayed on top and defended several times before losing.

If guys were fighting every few weeks I would have no issue.
I just hate when the #2 contender has to wait the better part of a year so a loser can get have his "respect" and get a rematch. Especially true if the rematch ends up on the otherside of the judges scorecards. Now you need to have a stupid rubber match too.

I voted no...but I guess alot of it has to do with the talent pool and how many potential threats to the champion there really are in the division. There are others that have the chance to prove they're champion material too.

No ,but I think the champion should get one when dethroned if he's defended it at least once.

A proven champion should get his rematch if beaten. A contender should not. If he loses by anything other than an illegal blow then I don't care what the reasoning is.

wha?

Not sure if this is serious or not, but just in case it is I will vote definitely no. It would ruin the sport for me.

Every challenge could potentially be locked up for close to a year.

I put if it ends in a judges decision... but it should be if it is a CONTROVERSIAL DECISION not a Unanimous Decision where there is a CLEAR WINNER.

Only if it's surrounded in Controversy.