Gee whiz, what’s a guy gotta to do to win a belt around here? Well, we’re here to try and paint both sides of the picture on this polarizing, yet very important debate.
Anyone who’s familiar with the UFC has not only heard, but has personally experienced this question before – what exactly do you have to do to win a title fight in the judges eyes if you’re the challenger? We’ve seen it go both ways before, such as Robbie Lawler’s close win over Carlos Condit earlier this year, or, of course, Jon Jones’ incredibly controversial split decision win over Alexander Gustafsson at UFC 165. Conversely, we’ve obviously seen the other side of the coin with Dominick Cruz vs TJ Dillashaw earlier this year in January.
In the former examples, the champ edges out a razor-thin decision, just barely squeaking out the win and retains his belt. In the latter, the challenger does just enough to best the champ and earn the nod from the judges.
But enough chatter, let’s break this debate down and analyze both sides of this long-standing unwritten rule that the challenger must decisively beat the champ in order to be the champ.
The post The Great Belt Debate: What It Takes To Be A UFC Champion appeared first on LowKick MMA.