Talk:List of UFC champions/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Page Name
- 2 Reorganziation
- 3 Official
- 4 Title defenses?
- 5 Missing Tournaments?
- 6 Like the new layout?
- 7 style
- 8 UFC 39/41 tournament
- 9 Protection
- 10 Heavyweight Situation
- 11 Section titles and WP:OVERLINK
- 12 Section titles
- 13 Jens Pulver
- 14 Question on the Heavyweight Division
- 15 Chronological vs Reverse-chronological
- 16 UFC Title
- 17 Fixing The Weight Classes
- 18 Interim Titles
- 19 Recent edits
- 20 UFC/WEC Merger
- 21 Cain's flag
- 22 Jose Aldo
- 23 BW Champion
- 24 Something wrong with coding in LHW?
- 25 Josh Barnett
- 26 new layout
- 27 Pictures
- 28 Frankie Edgar/Dominick Cruz
- 29 Titles by Nationality
- 30 Non-Title Fights
- 31 Frank Mir Interim Title
- 32 Grid Misaligned
- 33 WT:MMA#RFC
- 34 Mention of Strikeforce Title Merger
I like the creation of this page but I think it should be called List of UFC champions. This is the naming format used for the boxing titles. MLA 15:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, you sound correct.Could you give me time to think about it because if the name of this article was changed I also would have to change the names of lists which I had made in Japanese wikipedia.I have already made the lists of title holders of some MMA and boxing organizations. Oh my buddah!
Yappakoredesho 02:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- Instead of changing names in the Japanese version, could you not just use redirects? MLA 21:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Redirects?Which one?Yappakoredesho 11:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
In the coming days, I'll be changing the page so there is a distinction between the weight classes pre-UFC 31 and post UFC 31. Smoltz 22:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ken Shamrock was the first UFC World Heavyweight Champion, why are we not listing him? Dan Severn followed Ken thereafter.
- I think there was something lost in translation when the Superfight championship became the heavyweight title. Or did it? I would guess so, Shamrock claimed he was the first hw champ. I wouldn't object to putting Shamrock in there, although ideally there should be a source for the superfight title becoming the hw title... --hateless 06:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- While I don't know how popular the idea might be, it might be interesting to have the super fight list over the heavyweight to illustrate the trasition. Johnkinze 05:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Does "title defense" mean the number of times a champion has successfully defended his title? Or does it mean the number of times a champion has fought, and defeated, an opponent? There is a difference - especially in the case of Matt Hughes. Hughes won his first championship at UFC 34, and defended his belt five times after (Sakurai, Newton, Castillo, Sherk, Trigg). He lost his belt at UFC 46, and regained his belt at UFC 50. Since that time, Hughes has only defended his title one time - against Frank Trigg at UFC 52. Hughes' other fights - Joe Riggs at UFC 56 and Royce Gracie at UFC 60 - were not title defenses. They were not championship matches.
I have changed Hughes' record to fit with my interpretation. A "title defense," in my opinion, should only be reserved for champions that defend their title in a championship bout, and I don't believe the term can be used for non-title bouts. A non-title fight doesn't add championship title defenses to a fighter's record. --Wyldephang 05:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Gee how long did it take for you to figure that out? Obviously if a fight isn't advertised as a "Championship Fight" then it's not going to be considered a title defence.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, a title defense is a concluded fight with the title on the line, where the champion retained the title. This counts for draws as well, e.g. Edgar vs. Maynard at UFC 125. I don't know whether No contest results should count. I am inclined to think they should. Terilbah (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
For some reason the Ultimate Ultimates and The Ultimate Fighter winners have been left off. I've added them to what seems the most logical spots to me. Johnkinze 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why does UFC 9 List tournament winners? I thought it was a nontournament event.Johnkinze 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Like the new layout?
I for one like it but I had to add a little centering to it, it looks and flows much better now. Johnkinze 05:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer the non-centered layout. The centering weakens the grid for me, and my eye jumps around too much going from entry to entry, it looks chaotic with especially with the flags not aligned on a common edge. I think it helps scanning by keeping things justified to a single edge on the left side, especially the name column. The dates and locations are secondary info, they are probably fine being centered however. hateless 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Glad someone likes what I did (I made it that way). I'm also not a fan of the centered stuff, that's why I made it the way I did.-- FPAtl (holla) 02:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- The page has definitely been improved, nice work to all, but I agree that everything in the grids being centered is not good. SubSeven 03:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Glad someone likes what I did (I made it that way). I'm also not a fan of the centered stuff, that's why I made it the way I did.-- FPAtl (holla) 02:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- i really agree -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't. Reason being that most fighters now days do not have one style, most of them are good at different styles. Especially the champions. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely a bad idea, considering it will cause clutter and edit warring when people start debating what style a fighter really has. hateless 09:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
UFC 39/41 tournament
Please discuss the issue before the page is protected for edit warring. Thanks. hateless 01:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- If he wants to make a lil note between the events. Feel free, but it does not belong directly in the winner/loser categories. Swampfire (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- How about you get rid of that messy looking text that reads "finals" and "semi-finals", it is not needed. UFC 41 is obviously the finals where as UFC 39 would be the semi-finals, others have agreed with me on this issue (please view the edit made by East718 on August 15 at 01:01 and compare it to the previous edit made by Swampfire on August 15 at 00:38). Also the description was placed there to inform the users of wikipedia, and to give more explanation as to what happened in the tournament finals. The description belongs there. Descriptions can be found all over the list of champions, this is no different. And I will not make a "lil note" between the events, because it is ONE event... one cannot place a description between one event.18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- The bottom line is In the Winner and runner-up category, a disription of it being a 4 man tounrey does NOT belong there, Hateless even removed iot before I did. Also East718 did not agree with you that it belonged, what he was talking about was <'small'> he even stated such. So you aare wrong. But infact when pointing out such things EAST718 in affect pointed out WP:MOS which again backs up the removal of such nonsense with in the winner runnerup category. Finals and semifinals can be removed, However the only thing that is going to be in the winner runerup category is the names. as shown in every other event. Swampfire (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- If East718 did not agree with me then why did he undo your edit to look like mine by erasing the small text (finals and semi-finals) in the event section and placed the description back where it was. The actual bottom line is that this tournament is different than every other event because there was NO WINNER AND NO RUNNERUP, therefore it cannot be shown like in every other event and therefore an explanation is needed. So the description is in no way nonsense. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, ok at least we can agree to disagree. But what if we just make the row look something like this.....
|Lightweight||B.J. Penn drew with Caol Uno.**||February 28, 2003|
B.J. Penn drew with Caol Uno in the final match of the 4-man lightweight tournament. (<--- this will go at the bottom of the list, as like a little note) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Bottomline NO descriptions with in the winner runner up category explaining how it was a tournament, That is just pure nonsense, as the reason it is within the section at all is becuase it is a tournament. The categories are for winners and runner ups, I personally do not think either 41 or 39 should be listed, as neither was a TRUE tournament style event. Swampfire (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Swampfire, do not drag me into your pointless squabble. The main reason for my edit was to simplify the "UFC 41 (started at UFC 39)" phrase, which was unnecessarily wordy. I thought "in the final match..." phrase was a bit unnecessary but respect that someone may have a difference in opinion here. Otherwise, it seems we're even further from consensus now since the protect, 67 has offered to compromise and you refuse. That's something we do not tolerate on Wikipedia. hateless 00:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with 67's idea. i don't think that the words "finals" and "semi-finals" should be placed in the events section, it looks to messy that way. to tell you the truth, i actually like the original version (the one that 67 was fighting to keep) the one with the description, i understand what he was trying to do. it did inform me when i first saw it and i actually believe that it looks better 67's way. "NO descriptions" is not the bottom line, like swapfire said, i believe it looked better with the description 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
For the last several days there has been a slow moving edit war on this page between Swamp and 67, and this talk page has not been used as a forum to end or prevent this edit war, so I have full protected the article for 2 weeks to encourage the parties to use the talk page to collaborate on a stable version of the article. MBisanz talk 02:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Can someone tell me what we are going to do about this Couture/Lesnar/Mir/Nog situation? Can we discuss this.... Dana White discribed the situation as a heavyweight tournament, do we count it as a tournament?? And what if brock wins, is he the new champ? What is Mir wins, is he the new interim champ? How is this going to look in the "list of champions" format? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Explanation of HW title situation
Heres whats going on. Randy is the ufc champ and Nogueira is the ufc interim champ like it has been all along. Randy will fight Brock in a 5 round title fight, and Nogueira will do the same with Mir. Then the winners of those fights will meet to determine the undisputed heavyweight champion. Everybody is saying it should be Nog vs Randy. Well Nog is filming a reality show that ends in him vs Frank Mir for the title in december. So the earliest Randy vs Nog could happen is march. The ufc is not going to let their 45 year old champ sit out another 6 months, he only has so much time left and he's getting older. Also everyone is talking about Werdum getting screwed. Well Werdum is fighting next month at 90 so he cant fight at 91. Dana has said all along that Werdum is guaranteed a title shot, if he beats Dos Santos next month as he should than he will fight the winner of the "tourney". The issue with Brock getting a title shot is a another one. Nog Mir and Werdum are all fighting already. Brock just beat Heath, who just beat Kongo. Gonzaga lost to Randy in Randys last title defense. The only other option to fight Randy in november would be Cain Velasquez, who hasnt fought the level of competition Brock has. When they were in negotiations to get Randy back, they probably had to agree to keep him as heavyweight champ and give him the fight he wanted to come to an agreement. In the end were gonna see 3 title fights in this "tourney" followed by another one with Werdum. Sounds great to me.
- is wikipedia going to put it in the tournament section? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
K, well why don't we do some side by side thing. Since the titles have been defended individually we can't have them one after another like it is now. I say we create two columns then merge them once Mir and Lesnar fight each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, thats a stupid idea. But im all for putting this in the tournament section. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- It shouldnt be listed as such, It was never a tournamentt as the recent events made it seem like that. Couture was champion, Nog was interim, Mir won the interim and Brock won the Belt....Brock beat Mir earning the undisputed title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punisher88 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Section titles and WP:OVERLINK
To the editors who are attempting to add the weights into the section headers: you are breaking hundreds of links that link to those subsections directly, which are written without those weights in the subsection titles. Please stop ruining all of these links.
Also, please go read WP:OVERLINK. It pretty clearly states that there should only be one link per article to any given article. That means that Tokyo, for example, only gets linked the first time it is used in an article.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the WP:OVERLINK but do you understand that you are making irresponsible changes to this list, for example you claim that Tokyo should only get linked once however in your "cleaned up" version of this list Tokyo is not linked once in the entire page. Also if this rule states that there should be only one link per article on any given article then why are there still multiple links to fighters that have been champions on several different occasions (for example, Randy Couture). Another issue is that you change the section titles, i understand what you are trying to do but i propose that you do this a different why due to the fact that your weight description is looking very messy compared to what it looked like before, also people are becoming upset because you deleted the description under the light heavyweight section that described the title unification bout claiming that it was not relevant, when this is clearly a huge deal in the championship history. Also when you removed this description you left an almost identical desciption under the middleweight section, they are both relevant and belong there. I believe that these problems and possibly more, along with your extremely irresponsible edits, are causing alot of people to become upset and undo your edits. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Then the correct response would be to link Tokyo one time, not to link all them all over again. And edit the weight descriptions instead of adding them back into the section titles. As for the belts, the change in the Middleweight belt was a UFC issue. The PRIDE unification has nothing to do with the UFC. If someone added that info back in I wouldn't revert it, however. But when it is reverted with everything else I am going to put the article back where it belongs.--2008Olympianchitchat 19:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? i do not care about the link to tokyo, what i care about is how perfect this page used to be. What i am saying is that if you are going to attempt to "clean up" this list using your rules, then do it the right way. Take away ALL the links that are used a second time, this INCLUDES the fighters name, if they win a title a second time. Also what is possibly wrong with puting the weight in lbs and kgs in the section titles?? It was like that for years and it has never been a problem until you started crying about it. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree almost 100% with this user 207 guy above me, if you are going to do this WP:OVERLINK thing then do it, but do it the right way and stop changing the other features of this list like the section titles. the titles of the sections looked fine before you had to F with them. Also stop removing the descriptions, that was needed above the lightheavyweight list. I have been watching this list develope over the past weeks and in my opinion this olympian guy has done more harm than good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. now that this olympian guy is making all these changes the list look messy as hell- all black and blue, blue and black, black and black, other than before when the list was all matching and color coordinating.
- Sure, I'll remove all the extra links. These aren't "my" rules, it is policy at WP:OVERLINK. You say that you have no problem with the policy, so why not help me get this article into compliance instead of just reverting and complaining?
- As for the weights in the section titles, there are too many other links in other articles that link to these subsections the way they are written. See UFC 97: it links to the Middleweight Championship at List of UFC Champions#Middleweight Championship, without the use of the weight. To ask everyone to remember the exact weights when they are typing the wikilink is too much. No one has those weights memorized. So that breaks the link so that it only links to the whole article instead of to the specific section that they were targeting. Also, look at all of the succession boxes at the bottom of every UFC title holder. They link to the section without using the weights. Do you understand now?--2008Olympianchitchat 08:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, just edit the list using the rule, but stop messing with everything else like the descriptions you keep deleteing. And stop saying you'll undo my edits because they are wrong, if you keep editing irresponsibly then i will undo your edits 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK is NOT meant to be applied to tables. See Wikipedia:OVERLINK#Link_density. In particular:
In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following: * where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first. * where the first link was in an infobox or a navbox, or some similar meta-content. * tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own.
- To be fair, the discussion above took place in January, and it was easy for people to miss that point since it was first inserted around the same time. That said, it does appear you are right and this is the way the article should be formatted. hateless 07:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also, please read WP:MOSHEAD: "Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones that link only part of the heading; they will cause accessibility problems."--2008Olympianchitchat 05:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- There is no need in an article titled List of UFC champions, to then have titles that read UFC Heavyweight champion, UFC lightweight champion, etc. First, it is redundant: of course they are the UFC champion, it says so right in the title. Second, and more importantly, it breaks all the incoming links to those sections. I'm talking every title event and every title holder in the history of the UFC. Why should we change all of those links that are perfectly fine just so that you can have the word UFC in them? It doesn't make any sense ans all you are doing is creating tons of work for no reason just so you can fiddle with the article. --2008Olympianchitchat 22:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It does not show who Jens defeated when he won the lightweight championship (Caol Uno). Also my IP's been on a continuous ban. I don't know if this has been properly fixed since I'm editing this page but if someone could check, thanks. - Guest Feb 02 2009 4:26pm
Question on the Heavyweight Division
Who is the real champion at that weight class? Is it Lesnar or Mir? It's confusing to an MMA neophyte like me to see both men's pages listing them as champion of that weight class. Mir's says "interim", but why is there a need for an "interim", when Lesnar's says "Heavyweight Champion"? Unitanode 22:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- While Couture was unable to fight, the interim championship was created to keep things moving/interesting. Mir defeated Nogueira who had that championship. When Couture came back, the logical thing would be for him to immediately fight the interim champ to unify the two titles, but that didn't happen so we still both of them. So to finally unify them Mir will fight Lesnar to determine the "real" champion, discontinuing the interim title. If you really want to name one of them the "most real" champ I'd say it has to be Lesnar since the interim title was created between the #1 and #2 contenders while he fought the actual champ, but it's all just technical BS so none of it really matters. What's important is Mir—Lesnar to determine the real champ. Hope that helps :) --aktsu (t / c) 22:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting, to be sure. I'd think that they would just dissolve the "interim" championship, and have Lesnar defend the "real" title against the top contender. But as that would be Mir anyways, it seems, I guess this "unification" bout serves the same purpose. Thanks for the info. Unitanode 23:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Chronological vs Reverse-chronological
I'm not a UFC fan, so forgive me, How does UFC have a Heavyweight Champion, and a Interim Heavyweight Champion? I've looked at the Lesnar and Mir articles, I am still confused. Can anyone explain this? Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Like you, I am not a fan, just someone interested in MMA. But from what I've gathered, the former UFC Heavyweight Champion Randy Couture left UFC while he was still champion over a disagreement. So now without a championship, UFC created the Interim Championship which Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira won. Then Mir defeated him to become champion. After Couture returned, Lesnar defeated him to become champion. Now they are going to unify the belts.--WillC 04:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. with respect to UFC fans, that is the gayest idea... Thanks for the explanation. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Randy Couture never lost the UFC Heavyweight Championship but then it's not Nogueira's fault that he came back and Nogueira never lost the championship either so how could you strip either one. Admittedly they could have faced each other but a tourney sees a better box office return. That being said the way the table runs at the moment looks odd, it looks as if Brock's a two time champion. Also are the defences listed somewhere officially by UFC because unless they state otherwise I would call his match against Mir a defence. But then I'm no more than a fairweather fan of MMA. Tony2Times (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. with respect to UFC fans, that is the gayest idea... Thanks for the explanation. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Fixing The Weight Classes
Would Someone make a link form Georges St-Pierre name to his profile page. Like it was done for all the other fighter. GSP is a legend and possible the best mma fighter in the world. I think he deserves at least that. Thank you. GSP-Rush (talk) 2:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- It was linked under the defeat by Matt Hughes. I removed that link (since it was tiny) and added it to the next instance of his name. In the future, you are welcome to do this yourself. Wperdue (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
- Ok Thank for fixing it and for the part about me doing it. I would of if i knew how to do it, that why i ask or else i would of just fix it myself. GSP-Rush (talk) 2:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok thank, well i had somme spare time so i fix the whole welterweight divison added link to all the fighter and added on every fighter who they beat to get the title. If you guys have any free time please do the same whit the other weight classes it make it look cleaner and more professional. GSP-Rush (talk) 2:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The other weight classes appear to have been set up with the notion that it is assumed a new title holder defeated the previous title holder unless there is a note indicating who they did beat and why the previous title holder was not involved. I actually think that way is simpler and cleaner, myself. Senor Vergara (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
18.104.22.168 - Please don't remove the information regarding these titles. It has been restored by undoing your changes (not by me). While it looks like you may have contributed some useful link and other misc cleanup, the interim info removal was not a good idea. Normally, removing correct information requires more prudence than adding information or grammar/syntax issues, and will often require discussion first. In this case, reading above sections, you can see that Interim titles have previously been discussed here and a number of people had expressed confusion over the Interim Title lineage. I had the same problems after reading this article, which is why I decided to research the history and try to clarify the situation. If you have a reason for objecting, discuss it here and see what people say. I think the new information is helpful in reducing the confusion expressed earlier and is formatted consistantly with other explanatory notes within the tables. Senor Vergara (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not think this is a good idea, the list is pretty self explainitory and you are contantly added info that is already present that is ruining the flow of the chart. your way looks extremely messy and no one had a problem with it before you came along. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I know, i have watched this senor vergara asshole single handedly destroy this list over and over again. this was never discussed and i don't know were you think you can just add all this useless crap. and thats exactly what it is - useless carp, it is not needed and should not be added. if you are having trouble understanding the interim title then you are probably the dumbest person on the face of the earth. and you don't have to put who they beat for the title every single time, thats just idiotic.
-removing your info/crap is a good idea, and im glad someone did it.
-your "contributing" is what should require some discussion.
-who are these people having trouble reading the list?, besides your dumbass?
-you in no way clarified the situation.
- Please watch the name calling. However, I agree that the information might be useful to some people and a consensus needs to be reached before removing large chunks of sourced information. Please gain that consensus before making further changes. Further, you might want to read WP:OWN as it seems like this is a clear case of it. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with 126.96.36.199 (talk) and that other angry guy. when i first say the list, in no way did i find it confusing. there is no reason to ruin the page with that filth. its fine how it is and it was fine every other day it has exsisted before it was messed with a couple of weeks ago. if you don't understand, well im sorry, then you're like that angry guy said before, you're dumb. i DO NOT agree with you changing the list like your trying to do. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Calling people dumb is not a good plan. If this kind of behavior continues, it will result in warnings being given. Please keep it civil. I understand that "someone" agrees with you, however, it takes more than that to form a consensus. I'm not sure why removing valid and sourced information is the key to "fixing" this table. I did make one small change. As it was requested that a link to Georges St. Pierre be put on the list, I linked the first large-type instance instead of the first small-type instance. On some monitors this small type is very hard to see. This is perfectly acceptable, so please don't nitpick this single edit. Wperdue (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
What I've added is not self-explanatory, unless your reading as a long term ufc fan or are referencing external sources then the creation of interim titles does not seem to have any explanation (e.g. interim title fight soon before Mir stripped of title, Lesnar fighting two unification bouts within 1 year). My aim in this edit was to include a reasonably clear and concise history of the heavyweight champion and interim titles which could be understood by someone who was not already familiar with UFC/MMA history and which might help fulfil Wikipedia's function as a reference tool. If there is already some article on the history of the heavyweight championship (which is a pretty big subject in itself) then maybe it's more appropriate to link to that. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we list the WEC history of the UFC Featherweight/Bantamweight belts?
The championship is the exact same, just renamed. The name itself is pretty irrelevant, but they obviously needed to be renamed to UFC titles. It seems kinda lame to just wipe out their history because of a technicality. SixT-4 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- No we shouldn't. The titles are not simply renamed. They are new UFC titles and the champions are promoted to these new titles. And in LWs case it's a simple unification bout.
- Besides the history is not lost, it will be retained on the WEC champions page. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, it is considered a new belt therefore the history does not follow. also, is it possible to leave the bantamweight championship blank due to the fact that there is no definite ufc bw champ yet? Dominick Cruz still has to defend the wec belt at wec 53 and the winner of that fight then gets promoted to ufc bantamweight champion. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to not to have the section at this point? It's fairly certain that there will be a BW champion soon-ish and the UFC recognizes this belt even though the champion has not yet been named. Sure it won't bring any information really, but it isn't wrong in any way and it's nearly 100% sure the section will need to be there at some point. Seems like a waste of effort to keep removing it every time someone re-adds it. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- As he has said several times, he describes himself as Mexican and not Mexican-American or anything else but Mexican plus in México you receive the nationallity if your parents are Mexicans and his parents are, so he is Mexican. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
He may say he is mexican...but he is by fact American until he denounces that citizenship and applies for Mexican citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
On the UFC's main wikipedia page under the heading Current Champions and on this page, Jose Aldo's date of introdution to the Featherweight title has two opposing dates: October 28, 2010, November 20, 2010. The First date was the announced merger of the WEC and UFC with the addition that Jose Aldo would become the first UFC Featherweight Champion. The second date was the presentation of Jose Aldo receiving the Featherweight Title. One page should be edited so they complement each other. If this is up for discussion i'll leave the editing up for option. - Unregistered, December 08, 2010. 2:04 AM.
The fight between Dominick Cruz and Scott Jorgensen was a fight under the WEC banner and for the WEC Bantamweight Champion . It was only after the event and the end of the promotion that the title was upgraded to the UFC Bantamweight title. Therefore the fight was not technically for the UFC title but actually the WEC title that would later become the UFC title. In conclusion, Cruz was simple promoted to UFC champion in similar fashion as Jose Aldo. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- thats a very good point, i guess ur right. it is exactly like jose aldo. the jose aldo fight winner was promoted to ufc champion just like in this case. ThatOneGuy 207-67 (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- The fight actually was for both of the belts, UFC and WEC. Cruz was awarded both belts at the end of the fight and was announced as the UFC champion. Therefore he was not promoted like Aldo, he won the belt from winning the fight. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- This ^^^ - The fight was both a WEC Championship defense and a fight for the vacant UFC belt. Cruz wasn't promoted. Jorgensen wouldn't have been promoted had he won the fight. --User:GavinBrash (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2010 (GMT)
- Do you have any sources to verify this? I watched the event and Bruce Buffer clearly announces Cruz as the UFC champion after the fight. The WEC belt is not actually even mentioned after the fight, someone just hands it over to him unannounced. There was no promotion ceremony (like with Aldo) at all. The UFC belt was rewarded similar to it being a vacant belt. This evidence points at the UFC belt being on the line directly. If you have more credible citation than the broadcast, please point to it. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It annoys me that this edit is constantly made. The fight was a WEC Bantamweight Championship defense and was also to determine the inaugural UFC Bantamweight Champion. Because Cruz won, it's considered a "promotion" much like Jose Aldo, but if Scott Jorgensen had won I guarantee you that all this "promoted to undisputed champion" crap wouldn't be noted. The fight was for the VACANT UFC BANTAMWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP. Therefore, the article should read Dominick Cruz (def. Scott Jorgensen). /rant --User:GavinBrash (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2010 (GMT)
If jorgensen would have won he would have been the final wec champion and promoted to ufc champion. cruz won the wec belt, and with that came the ufc belt after the fact. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Something wrong with coding in LHW?
I didn't see Jon Jones listed as the current LHW champ so I went to edit the article and in the editor, the info is in there where it's supposed to be, but it's not showing up on the main page. Anyone know what the issue is? Ikilled007 (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Josh Barnett not having recognition as an official Heavyweight Champion, I would like to leave an open conversation regarding this topic.
It is to my understanding that the current format of his listing may be the correct one, but I believe that under past circumstances Barnett is officially recognized as a Heavyweight Champion. Within the UFC website Josh Barnett has his own created fighter profile that can be accessed through his previous opponents. Within his profile it states under UFC History "UFC 36: Worlds Collide - New World Heavyweight Champion Josh Barnett TKO 2 (strikes - 4:35) Randy Couture". 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in some slight reformatting to add pictures of the champions where available. Even small photos could be used to provide extra context and a more interesting visual presentation. I could certainly do the work myself, but I thought I'd throw it out there in case anyone who's spent a lot of time on this strongly disagrees with the idea. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Frankie Edgar/Dominick Cruz
The "def. BJ Penn" text is pretty irrelevant. The other champs only have who they defeated listed because they were all fights for vacant championships.
As for Cruz, this is an outstanding issue mostly reverted by morons. Cruz's fight with Jorgensen was both a WEC Title defense and vacant UFC Title fight. Thus, there was no promotion.--GavinBrash (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Epic moron fail? Edgar beat Penn twice. His second win was a title defense. Don't throw stones when you own house is made of glass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Titles by Nationality
Numbers seem wrong. Canada has not had 8 different title holders in UFC history, Japan only had 2, Russia 1, and UK has had 3 TUF winners. If we're including title defenses then Brazil and Belarus numbers are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The numbers are wrong, someone continues to add the numbers for all UFC tournament Runner-ups and The Ultimate Fighter tournament Runner-ups. By definition, runner-ups are not champions and should not be included in this tally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that for Frankie Edgar it has an asterisk for his draw with Gray Maynard because it is not considered a title defense. I was wondering if it would be relevant to add the two (or more?) instances where the fight was for the title but was changed to non-title because either the champion or challenger did not make weight. The two instances I can think of at the moment are Matt Hughes vs Joe Riggs at UFC 56 and Anderson Silva vs Travis Lutter at UFC 67. The fights could be included with the other defenses but not be given a number, instead just an asterisk. Also, the two fights where Anderson Silva fought at light heavyweight in between his title defenses would not be relevant to add since he moved up a division and the fight was never for a title. Trunks8719 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Frank Mir Interim Title
I erased "def. Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira for interim title" from Frank Mir's title defence in the Heavyweight Championships categorie. This shows that Frank Mir took the title from Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira like it should instead of it being a new separate Interim title being formed. If this is to anyones debate please voice your opinion.126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Once all this mess with Title, Interim title and Undisputed title is already solve, I think it's time to organize the page so anyone can understand it.
- I suggest a new line under "13 Randy Couture (3)", explaining that Randy Couture didn't want to face Minotauro (as seen at UFC 81 Wikipedia Page #1 Reference) and an Interim title was created. Then, it would appear the next actual line "- Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira", but and a new "14(a) Brock Lesnar", whitout citing any Title defense.
- Below this last one, it would be inserted a line whit something like "Once the UFC Interim Title wasn't unified by that time, Frank Mir took it from Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira at UFC 92 co-main event."
- At last, it would be created a "14(b) Brock Lesnar" line, just like the actual one, but citing at Defense collumn that the fight hold at UFC 100 was for the Title Unification.
- What do you think about it? Does anyone has other suggestion to finally set it up? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that currently there is a way to properly organize the page more efficently to accommodate the interm titles. But, the fact that the Frank Mir/Nogueira interm title is listed as instated seperate from the original Sylvia/Nogueria iterm title is misrepresented and should be addressed. Perhaps a short explanation of the application of the interm titles in the chart may be applied within the championship history heading.184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Mention of Strikeforce Title Merger
Since there is a comment mentioning the "perhaps unoffical" merger of the Strikeforce 155 pound title, shouldn't there be a mention of the perhaps unofficial/official merger of the Shooto 155 pound title when Caol Uno fought Jens Pulver. It seems to me that was just as significant of a moment if not more. Or maybe they should be disregarded altogether as maybe insignificant filler. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The Shooto title shouldn't be listed because Shooto did not recognize the UFC title as a unified title (i.e. Pulver was not considered by Shooto to be their lightweight champion). Caol Uno officially vacated the Shooto title when he left the organization to compete in the UFC, a new Shooto champion was crowned and the Shooto lightweight title continued on, thus they weren't "unified". In the cases of both Pride FC and the WEC, those individual titles no longer existed after their unifications. You're speaking more along the lines of "lineal titles", which can be a grey area.
The only reason the Strikeforce "title merger" kind of works here is because Strikeforce was owned by the UFC's parent company Zuffa and was absorbed into the UFC. Essentially the two organizations merged. However, unlike the Pride and WEC bouts, this fight was never officially billed as unification bout, so it probably should not be mentioned here (though I really really wish it had been, and from a marketing standpoint I don't know why it wasn't). 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)