Bellator Adding Rematch Clause To Championship Fights...

After the November 2011 instant classic between then-Lightweight Champion Eddie Alvarez and Michael Chandler, there was an immediate cry for a rematch and in most MMA universes, that would be a no-brainer.

However, Bellator's reply was simple: Alvarez could get the chance to avenge his title loss to Chandler but would have to win the next lightweight tournament to do it. The decision was unpopular and with Alvarez expected to sign with the UFC, fans may never see the rematch of that bout.

On Monday, Bellator CEO Bjorn Rebney announced a change to their championship title shot policies, one that leaves them a Mack truck-sized loophole to grant rematches:

"I am proud to announce that driven by your input; we will implement a championship fight rematch clause as we move into 2013 and our launch on Spike in January. When a fighter’s earned a shot at the world title by winning The Toughest Tournament in Sports and competes in a title fight that knocks fans like us back in our seats (win or lose) delivering an incredible fight, when a rematch is called for, we will deliver it.

Championship fights give us some of the greatest moments in MMA. And, re-matches of incredible championship fights will give fans like us more of those electrifying moments, while staying true to the world’s best fighters having had to earn their way to those title shots. "

The key, of course is "when a rematch is called for". While Chandler/Alvarez II would be an absolute must-have, what about when Jay Hieron went to a split decision against Welterweight Champion Ben Askren in October 2011, a fight many thought Hieron won?

How the rematch clause is used will be something to watch, but regardless, the promotion has ensured they will have the ability to deviate from their strict title shot philosophy should the opportunity present itself.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/11/26/3693424/bellator-mma-bjorn-rebney-rematch-clause-to-championship-fights-eddie-alvarez-vs-michael-chandler

I really dislike this, rematches ruin the contention ladder.

AudaxSmoke wrote:I really dislike this, rematches ruin the contention ladder.

i agree with you...it has to be a special ocation, for example the wiuff case....

It makes sense in situations like Wiuff/M'Pumbu and Hieron/Askren but could you imagine if this happens in their featherweight division? It'll be backed up for two years.

Shlemenko had to win two fucking tournaments and still isn't champion so fighters like Alvarez or Hieron who think they're too good for another tournament don't deserve such a clause just so they can be babied for because of self entitlement.

Granted I like Alvarez as a fighter and believe he's paid his dues but come the fuck on, no need and it's just stupid to change the rules for fighters who have or have shown intent on leaving for Zuffa eventually anyways.

I do like this. I have been hoping they would make this change for a while. Alvarez should have got an immediate rematch with Chandler. This rule would have allowed for that. It will come up again in the future as well I'm sure.

I think there is a good case for the Hieron fight also being a rematch but Alvarez/Chandler for sure.

They also should make it so that the only non-title fights with their champs are cross-promotional super fights only to prevent problems like Wiuff/M'Pumbu from happening.

I think there is a place for rematches, but in unique situations.

Bellator should scrap the format where only the tourney winners get a titleshot. If someone deserves a titleshot he should get it right away without going through a tournament. This way they could skip the superfights and have titlefights every time.

Lofgren wrote:Bellator should scrap the format where only the tourney winners get a titleshot. If someone deserves a titleshot he should get it right away without going through a tournament. This way they could skip the superfights and have titlefights every time.

I tend to get the impression that Bellator is still evolving. I can see a potential case where, if they get big enough, the tournaments may even act as a ranking system of sorts.

They have encountered problems with their system as they have grown. The champions losing in 'non-title fights' was perhaps the first most obvious instance. Another on-going issue (which the 'non-title fights' probably aimed to partially address--although they did so poorly as they were intended as essentially tune-ups) was the issue of the champion being left on the shelf, while the future challenger had to run the gauntlet of a busy tournament, capped off by a title fight.

I think that there are a lot of very transparent issues which result from the Bellator format. I tend to see a lot of good in it as well. I think that for Bellator though, the tournament system is essentially their bread-and-butter, the thing which sets them apart. They aren't going to abandon it easily. I think that they will attempt to slowly reform it though. If the promotion is still successful some years down the line, it will probably be organized rather differently.

Lofgren wrote:Bellator should scrap the format where only the tourney winners get a titleshot. If someone deserves a titleshot he should get it right away without going through a tournament. This way they could skip the superfights and have titlefights every time.

Yeah, I agree. They love marketing "where title shots are earned not given" to be different from the rest and unique so not sure how flexible they will ever be on this. Title rematches that make sense are a good start for them.

nodogoshi wrote:

Lofgren wrote:Bellator should scrap the format where only the tourney winners get a titleshot. If someone deserves a titleshot he should get it right away without going through a tournament. This way they could skip the superfights and have titlefights every time.

I tend to get the impression that Bellator is still evolving. I can see a potential case where, if they get big enough, the tournaments may even act as a ranking system of sorts.

They have encountered problems with their system as they have grown. The champions losing in 'non-title fights' was perhaps the first most obvious instance. Another on-going issue (which the 'non-title fights' probably aimed to partially address--although they did so poorly as they were intended as essentially tune-ups) was the issue of the champion being left on the shelf, while the future challenger had to run the gauntlet of a busy tournament, capped off by a title fight.

I think that there are a lot of very transparent issues which result from the Bellator format. I tend to see a lot of good in it as well. I think that for Bellator though, the tournament system is essentially their bread-and-butter, the thing which sets them apart. They aren't going to abandon it easily. I think that they will attempt to slowly reform it though. If the promotion is still successful some years down the line, it will probably be organized rather differently.

Yup, real good points.

Great, now give Megumi her rematch