Which title shot method do you prefer?

[ShadowEdge 48]

Do you think the UFC has it right by sitting down with the powers that be and creating matches or do you prefer Bellator's style, where a fighter must win three matches in three months in a Bellator tournament for a shot at the title?

 

Bellator's style sounds like it's more fair-minded on the surface, but I bet there's more to it once you dig a little. I don't actually follow Bellator so I'm not sure. Sometimes I think the UFC's style works great because they've given us some amazing opponents that we wouldn't see without the match making process. Then again, a lot of times it comes to down to who can draw the biggest crowd and generate the most revenue, like when Brock Lesnar was pushed into the title fight as soon as he hit the scene.

[Gareth The Great 20]

I like that both of them go through a different process, since that might create more variety. In the end, though, I think both seek to put the most dazzling fighters in the ring who will bring in viewers and sell tickets. So maybe it's all the same.

 

I vaguely remember when Brock was pushed to the top. Brock is good on the mic, or at least he used to be. That talent and his football rep had to influence the decision.

[Greylien 17]

In this day and age, boxers are like wrestlers. It's not so much your talent as it is your sell-ability. (Is that a word?)

 

It's a show, so showmanship trumps talent.

[jack25 13]

I prefer Bellator's style, and there has been an argument that the stars involved are very much fan-oriented. Bellator keeps getting bigger, with fans witnessing great fights that wouldn't have been possible within the UFC.