I understand the UFC interim title and how it works (someone is holding an interim title until the actual champ returns, the two then fight, the winner is the undisputed champ). But I can't seem to find out how the interim champion is determined. Is there a draw of names and someone gets lucky or does the number one contender in that weight class get the interim championship?|||It's usually the 2 next in line for the Title,example: if Lesnar gets injured, Cain Velasquez will fight Junior Dos Santos for the Interim title,it's simple as that.|||The only reason an interim title is put on the line is when the champ gets hurt. They use the interim to set up the guaranteed #1 contender in theory. They did it with the heavyweight division after Lesnar suffered his injury.
Anyway, they don't have established or known contenders. It has much to do about who the person has fought, consecutive wins, and of course, who can generate the most interest.
For a list of current contenders and champs check out this post http://mmablaster.blogspot.com/2009/02/z鈥?/a>|||In theory, the two next contenders fight for the interim title.
Since there is not ranking system in the UFC, contenders are determined arbitrarily, and usually done by marketability.|||should really be the Number 1 and Number 2 contenders. Doesnt always work out like that though
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Which two F1 world champions NEVER led the championship before the race where they became champion?
A weird-but-true stat...
Two drivers' champions never actually led the points table at any point in their career until the race where they were crowned as champion - and neither of them ever led the standings again! Who were they?|||James Hunt and John Surtees ?
Confession, just guessing based on the statistics.
Two drivers' champions never actually led the points table at any point in their career until the race where they were crowned as champion - and neither of them ever led the standings again! Who were they?|||James Hunt and John Surtees ?
Confession, just guessing based on the statistics.
When a champion fights does he have to put his title on the line?
Can a fighting champion and his manager decide wether he would like to put his title on the line? Or is every fight that a world champion fights a title fight?|||you have to fight your way to that roy nelson was fighting for a title shot and lost
What's all this about being a multiple time world champion is an accomplishment?
All that (for example) 12 title reigns (HHH) or 16 title reigns (Ric Flair) signifies is that you lost the belt so many times because you never have been a good champion. Why don't people start looking at it properly and look at the combined days that these guys have held the title for? And what's funny and deluded is that the likes of HHH and Flair view their multiple world title reigns as an accomplishment.|||Completely 100% agree with you.
I'm really confused that everytime guys such as Triple H, Edge, John Cena, The Undertaker (just to name a few), Jim Ross or Michael Cole or any other commentators keep saying how many world titles they won. For example : "You look at the thirteen time world champion, Triple H."
I think there's no need to mention how many times champion they are, instead those commentators should say that they're great champions or they are former world champions.
Being multiple world champion isn't an accomplishment, just look at the boxing business.
I'm really confused that everytime guys such as Triple H, Edge, John Cena, The Undertaker (just to name a few), Jim Ross or Michael Cole or any other commentators keep saying how many world titles they won. For example : "You look at the thirteen time world champion, Triple H."
I think there's no need to mention how many times champion they are, instead those commentators should say that they're great champions or they are former world champions.
Being multiple world champion isn't an accomplishment, just look at the boxing business.
Can Glen Johnson pull a Hopkins and become the oldest 168 champion in boxing history?
42 year old Johnson would become the oldest 168 champion in boxing history if he can beat Carl Froch.|||What a world that would be...I give an even chance to beat Froch...When is the fight by the way? Cant find it on my lineup.Glenn does reach way down for a win you know.Look how he man handled Green.And they are good friends.The only thing i think could stop Johnson is Froch's ability to wear him down and tire him out early.And Froch could lose steam trying.|||I don't think so. Not everyone can be a Bernard Hopkins. I remember we had a dozen, or so, would-be George Foremans as well. I don't see Johnson beating Froch because Froch is simply too busy. He beat the already exposed Jermain Taylor on sheer will, in that 12th round. Johnson is strong but Froch can take everything Johnson throws at him, and fire back with more of his own.
I think it will be an entertaining fight but Johnson will come up short of a unanimous decision.|||The old Road Warrior has a puncher's chance to do it. I don't see him out-boxing the younger and more skilled and talented Carl Froch. His only chance is to knockout or stop Froch.|||Sorry... Froch by 12 round UD... i wish i were wrong|||NOPE!
Froch will whoop him and then Andre Ward is next lol!|||I'd love to see it, but I don't believe Froc will allow it.He's got his sights on the final.
I think it will be an entertaining fight but Johnson will come up short of a unanimous decision.|||The old Road Warrior has a puncher's chance to do it. I don't see him out-boxing the younger and more skilled and talented Carl Froch. His only chance is to knockout or stop Froch.|||Sorry... Froch by 12 round UD... i wish i were wrong|||NOPE!
Froch will whoop him and then Andre Ward is next lol!|||I'd love to see it, but I don't believe Froc will allow it.He's got his sights on the final.
In the WWE, What's the difference between WWE champion and heavyweight champion?
When I used to watch it, the more important belt was the "world heavyweight champion" and the lesser belt was called the "Intercontinental Champion".|||The WWE championship is their namesake title, the flagship title. It used to be on the Raw brand(Or the "A" show as insiders call it), now it's on Smackdown(the "B" show), currently held by Triple H. The World Heavyweight Championship aka The Big Gold Belt, now exclusive to Raw, is their second World title, currently held by CM Punk. It's recognized as a world title in the same vein as the WWE title, but it's not the company's flagship belt. Hope that makes sense.|||WWE championship shows like.. ppl who are like above all and WHC shows ppl who just want a title.|||The WHC is real title it about 100 years old and WWE title is joke now with the spinner|||i think its cause the world heavyweight title has been around alot longer then the "wwe" title. the world heavyweight title originally belonged to WCW and up until today its still the same belt.|||WWE champion is someone that is the champion of the WWE
WHC is someone that is the champion of the world in pro wrestling|||WWE is More Important %26amp; Is The Major Title for WWE
WHC is just the Sec World title of WWE|||when wwe split into two shows (raw and smackdown)
they needed seperate titles.
raw took the wwe championship
and smackdown took wcw's old title the world heavyweight championship.
same with the intercontinental championship and the u.s. championship|||ummmm.... they look different
The Spinner belt is retarded agter Cena lost it they should have changed it, the World title belt is the best design ever|||probably the ones in raw is better. like world heavyweight is better now cuz its on raw, mcmahons brand|||WWe champion is a supreme belt
Whc is a not|||The WWE Title is the same belt as when you used to watch it, it was just known as The WWF World heavyweight title.
This is the oldest belt in WWE history and the most prestigious.
The World Heavyweight Title was introduced in 2002 by Eric Bischoff when Brock Lesnar made the WWE title exclusive to Smackdown, it is the same Title Belt as the WCW Title but with a new history which dates From Triple H Sep 2002 to CM Punk Current. It also was the Main belt for Smackdown from 2005 (when batista got drafted) to 2008 (when Punk took it raw two weeks ago when he beat Edge)
A lso the intercontinental is the second tier belt for Raw and the US for Smackdown
WHC is someone that is the champion of the world in pro wrestling|||WWE is More Important %26amp; Is The Major Title for WWE
WHC is just the Sec World title of WWE|||when wwe split into two shows (raw and smackdown)
they needed seperate titles.
raw took the wwe championship
and smackdown took wcw's old title the world heavyweight championship.
same with the intercontinental championship and the u.s. championship|||ummmm.... they look different
The Spinner belt is retarded agter Cena lost it they should have changed it, the World title belt is the best design ever|||probably the ones in raw is better. like world heavyweight is better now cuz its on raw, mcmahons brand|||WWe champion is a supreme belt
Whc is a not|||The WWE Title is the same belt as when you used to watch it, it was just known as The WWF World heavyweight title.
This is the oldest belt in WWE history and the most prestigious.
The World Heavyweight Title was introduced in 2002 by Eric Bischoff when Brock Lesnar made the WWE title exclusive to Smackdown, it is the same Title Belt as the WCW Title but with a new history which dates From Triple H Sep 2002 to CM Punk Current. It also was the Main belt for Smackdown from 2005 (when batista got drafted) to 2008 (when Punk took it raw two weeks ago when he beat Edge)
A lso the intercontinental is the second tier belt for Raw and the US for Smackdown
What is ur opinion on the fact that a heel champion hurts ratings?
I dont know where do I read that but it says that a heel champion always hurts rating so what's ur opinion?|||Well I'd need to see the article to have a half decent opinion on this but i'll have a go anyways under the presumption that it's true.
A heel champion hurting the ratings isn't a bad thing if its short term, most people that are turning off during these title reigns are causal fans who will come back to see the face win at PPV's. The core of the WWE's audience is made up of causal fans and some of them wont want to see the bad guy winning, nature of the beast, but i can't see it being a meaningful dip. Vince knows he can do whatever he likes the fans will come back at some point because what else is there? Causal fans wont watch TNA, haven't heard of Ring Of Honor and so they will just watch the WWE when the heel drops the belt. Maybe it's also a reflection of the current talent, if the wrestlers where compelling characters the crowd would want to watch them get beat. Is that true of Orton, Edge and Batista for example? I'm not convinced a causal fan would be that bothered either way, Jeff hardy will always bring in a crowd so i guess Edge's current Program isn't effected by this. It isn't a meaningful drop and the likely hood that its just causal fans that will return so i don't think its that big of a deal.|||I don't think a heel champion hurts ratings I think a heel champion can bring up ratings when ratings are very low. For example orton, even though the fans in the audience boo him we still hear orton chants. Fans like unexpectedness and orton has alot of it plus heels mix it up alot rather then face who stick to the same schedule|||yes it dissappoints for those who are new watchers of wrestling
even me at first :) but not anymore|||Well it can bring ratings down because some fans like too see face champions more because they are just better than heels in their opinion. That's why I reckon they should have some heels go tweeter and just be in the middle of face and heel so that the fans who don't like seeing heel champions won't be bothered about it but still watch. If a heel becomes champion though, it has mixed reactions, some fans like it because it's entertaining and different than always seeing a face as champion. But some fans don't like it because heels are meant to be seen as a not liked character and fans want to see a champion who they like. It wouldn't hurt ratings drastically, but they may go down a little because more of the WWE Fans like to see a face as a champion so they have a champion that they like and respect and who they can cheer for.|||How does a heel hurt ratings? Over the past year or two every time Edge became champion the tv ratings went up! Why because the fans always want their "favorite" to beat him at the next PPV. A good heel like Edge draws heat.....on the converse a boring lame no talent "wrestler" like Khali will kill interest overnight.|||May be it affect a little..
But the interesting story-lines, good matches are much important than Faces' holding the title...
Anyways, it seems that WWE doesn't care much about ratings.. They are just trying to make more PPV buys...
If Orton and Edge holding the championships hurt the ratings, with Raw ending as Batista beating down Legacy, and SD! gonna end with Faces dominating(having read the spoilers), the Judgement Day PPV would get more buys, as fans will pay to see heels losing the championships(possibly, as faces have the momentum)... and that is what WWE wants...|||This isn't 100% true. It depends on whether the fans are interested in the heel or not. Ric Flair for the most part of his career in the 80's with the Horsemen, was a heel NWA World Champion...and he was the driving force along with the Horsemen behind the NWA's success back then. Bret Hart was a heel in 1997 when he was champ after defeating the Undertaker...and though WWF wasn't doing that great at that time, Bret didn't hurt the ratings during that time he was a heel champion. HBK was a heel champion after that with DX, and he sure didn't hurt ratings.
So it's not heels that hurt the ratings, it depends on whether the heel is a good heel or not. If something is interesting, whether the champion is heel or not fans will tune in.|||It's not really a heel champion that hurts ratings it's also who is the biggest face.
Sometimes heel champions could bring ratings up like if this particular face would get his championship back or other type of questions.
"Will the face get a championship title or would the heel champion prevail?"
It's all about the biggest face like in the 90s even if The Rock was the champion people tune in to watch how Stone Cold will get it back or something.
It's not the champion it's the predictability and lack of talent that hurts the rating|||I disagree cos wen edge won it in 2006 raw saw their highest ratings songs stone cold was champion|||No it doesn't hurt ratings. With a heel there will be no rko vs cena, edge vs hbk, hardyz vs edge n christian, etc.
If everyone got along. There will no disputeS. And no one will want to fight each other. They willl be all be friends
So if anything they bring up the rating, u feel me?
A heel champion hurting the ratings isn't a bad thing if its short term, most people that are turning off during these title reigns are causal fans who will come back to see the face win at PPV's. The core of the WWE's audience is made up of causal fans and some of them wont want to see the bad guy winning, nature of the beast, but i can't see it being a meaningful dip. Vince knows he can do whatever he likes the fans will come back at some point because what else is there? Causal fans wont watch TNA, haven't heard of Ring Of Honor and so they will just watch the WWE when the heel drops the belt. Maybe it's also a reflection of the current talent, if the wrestlers where compelling characters the crowd would want to watch them get beat. Is that true of Orton, Edge and Batista for example? I'm not convinced a causal fan would be that bothered either way, Jeff hardy will always bring in a crowd so i guess Edge's current Program isn't effected by this. It isn't a meaningful drop and the likely hood that its just causal fans that will return so i don't think its that big of a deal.|||I don't think a heel champion hurts ratings I think a heel champion can bring up ratings when ratings are very low. For example orton, even though the fans in the audience boo him we still hear orton chants. Fans like unexpectedness and orton has alot of it plus heels mix it up alot rather then face who stick to the same schedule|||yes it dissappoints for those who are new watchers of wrestling
even me at first :) but not anymore|||Well it can bring ratings down because some fans like too see face champions more because they are just better than heels in their opinion. That's why I reckon they should have some heels go tweeter and just be in the middle of face and heel so that the fans who don't like seeing heel champions won't be bothered about it but still watch. If a heel becomes champion though, it has mixed reactions, some fans like it because it's entertaining and different than always seeing a face as champion. But some fans don't like it because heels are meant to be seen as a not liked character and fans want to see a champion who they like. It wouldn't hurt ratings drastically, but they may go down a little because more of the WWE Fans like to see a face as a champion so they have a champion that they like and respect and who they can cheer for.|||How does a heel hurt ratings? Over the past year or two every time Edge became champion the tv ratings went up! Why because the fans always want their "favorite" to beat him at the next PPV. A good heel like Edge draws heat.....on the converse a boring lame no talent "wrestler" like Khali will kill interest overnight.|||May be it affect a little..
But the interesting story-lines, good matches are much important than Faces' holding the title...
Anyways, it seems that WWE doesn't care much about ratings.. They are just trying to make more PPV buys...
If Orton and Edge holding the championships hurt the ratings, with Raw ending as Batista beating down Legacy, and SD! gonna end with Faces dominating(having read the spoilers), the Judgement Day PPV would get more buys, as fans will pay to see heels losing the championships(possibly, as faces have the momentum)... and that is what WWE wants...|||This isn't 100% true. It depends on whether the fans are interested in the heel or not. Ric Flair for the most part of his career in the 80's with the Horsemen, was a heel NWA World Champion...and he was the driving force along with the Horsemen behind the NWA's success back then. Bret Hart was a heel in 1997 when he was champ after defeating the Undertaker...and though WWF wasn't doing that great at that time, Bret didn't hurt the ratings during that time he was a heel champion. HBK was a heel champion after that with DX, and he sure didn't hurt ratings.
So it's not heels that hurt the ratings, it depends on whether the heel is a good heel or not. If something is interesting, whether the champion is heel or not fans will tune in.|||It's not really a heel champion that hurts ratings it's also who is the biggest face.
Sometimes heel champions could bring ratings up like if this particular face would get his championship back or other type of questions.
"Will the face get a championship title or would the heel champion prevail?"
It's all about the biggest face like in the 90s even if The Rock was the champion people tune in to watch how Stone Cold will get it back or something.
It's not the champion it's the predictability and lack of talent that hurts the rating|||I disagree cos wen edge won it in 2006 raw saw their highest ratings songs stone cold was champion|||No it doesn't hurt ratings. With a heel there will be no rko vs cena, edge vs hbk, hardyz vs edge n christian, etc.
If everyone got along. There will no disputeS. And no one will want to fight each other. They willl be all be friends
So if anything they bring up the rating, u feel me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)