Should title shots ALWAYS be determined by where a fighter is in the rankings?

I shall wait a respectful period before putting forth my own opinion...

I think there will always a time or a place for a Rocky scenario, but not often. Boxing could use one right now... Im lookin at you Kimbo.

I said no. If you always give it to the top ranked guy, then it's going to be like boxing where the same to guys fight over and over again.

Best case scenario, imo, is to see as many different matchups as possible.
It doesn't have to be a cinderella man, but I don't mind going down the rankings to find a guy that the champ has not faced yet.
For the same reasons, this is why I do no like rematches (ever) unless there are at least two fights between them and it is necessary to determine a champion or title shot.

Yeah, I agree with stock.

Sometimes the guy who just lost to the champ is still the 2nd best fighter in the division. So do you keep giving him a shot over and over again until either he beats the champ or someone somehow overtakes his spot at #2?

You gotta spread it around a bit. Just try to keep title shots to the current top 5 or 6 fighters is all I would suggest.

The one thing I do disagree with is the fact that under the rankings determining the challengers is that the champ is ALWAYS fighting the number one guy. His fights are always the toughest fights and guys on the ladder don't have to fight the toughest guy all the time to climb the ladder.

I picked the Cinderella man scenario cause I love the underdog (most of the time) which is why I only have 277 cash.... sigh

WOOOOOOT 278

I think its important to use the rankings to determine title fights, however also feel its completely irrelevant due to the fact that any fighter can come along on any given day and be granted a title shot for whatever reason Joe Silva deems acceptable.

The idea of the rocky story scenario or a similar one brings the Jon Jones situation to my mind,
I honestly didn't even know what happened to give Jones the shot at Shogun for the title before Rashad. Last I had heard was that Rashad and Shogun were going to go at it, then next thing I hear is its Jones and Shogun; wtf happened.

If the rankings are not going to be used to determine the title fights then what is the point of having them period? So there would be the champion and everyone else under the champion in the division who would all be possible title contenders?

I do understand that it can get really automated with the top 3 guys being in the title picture constantly. But that is the reason why I believe if you lose to the champion your not #2 anymore, you should fall in the rankings as low as justifiable; and work you way back up, not necessarily fighting guys ranked above you but 3 or 4 fights to get back into the title picture is reasonable imo.

A perfect example of the scenario of losing to the champ and remaining a clear #2 in the division is Gray Maynard; especially having a record of 1 - 1 - 1 against the current champ all time. With that being said the LW division is a crazy place where anything can happen in any fight so it may not be so cut and dry as I initially had thought for Gray.

A neat topic though which is bound to lead to great discussion on the matter.

Krieger wrote:

The one thing I do disagree with is the fact that under the rankings determining the challengers is that the champ is ALWAYS fighting the number one guy. His fights are always the toughest fights and guys on the ladder don't have to fight the toughest guy all the time to climb the ladder.

I picked the Cinderella man scenario cause I love the underdog (most of the time) which is why I only have 277 cash.... sigh

I 100% back you up and is why i am left 224. I remember on the old board i joined up right before gsp and serra 1 and i made a killing on serra. I dont think that will happen again unless Bisping beats silva for the title by KO in the 2nd round.

Yeah that being said, your probably right on that it will probably never happen again.