In Defense of the Five Round Non-Title Fight
by Mike Fagan on Feb 16, 2009 9:03 PM EST
in MMA News
Email
PrintFightlinker posted an e-mail conversation with Rami Genaur of FightMetric. He said:
I saw your post that pointed to the Five Ounces article about adding more rounds. I hope I can provide some numbers that will prove that this is a very bad idea. In fact, it’s so bad that it will almost certainly have the opposite effect: By adding more rounds, you are guaranteeing more decisions, and therefore, more controversial decisions. Check this out:
Before any fight starts, there’s about a 32% chance that it will end up going to a decision.
Once Round 1 ends without a finish, the fight now has a 52% chance of eventually going to decision.
If Round 2 ends without a finish, the fight now has a 79% chance of going to decision.
In championship fights, if it goes to Round 4, there’s now an 83% of a decision.
If the fight makes it all the way to Round 5, there’s a 94% chance of it going all the way. Only one fight in UFC history has ended in the fifth round (Ricco vs. Couture).
Unless every MMA fighter drastically improves his cardio, this can’t work. Guys lose their finishing ability as the fight goes on. Giving them more time just means more chances to throw weak punches and half-hearted submission attempts.
Rami's a smart a guy and I think he's doing some phenomal work with FightMetric. However, I'm not sure I agree with his logic here.
For starters, he fails to mention a key fact in his e-mail. Three-round non-title UFC fights are finished at a clip of 67% (720 instances, all since the introduction of the Unified Rules). Five round, championship UFC fights, however, are finished 77% of the time (74 instances). With 68% of title fights ending before the fourth round, extra rounds DO add more opportunity for the fight to finish. Looking at it round-by-round like Rami doesn't really prove anything because title fights as a whole are being finished in greater numbers.
Adding more rounds also softens the impact of judging mistakes. The value of one round drops with each additional round you tack on. Combined with the idea that title fights are finished more often on average, this directly contradicts the notion that five round fights will introduce more controversial decisions.
I'm not arguing all non-title fights should be five rounds. There are safety concerns as you start to include additional rounds. I do think that all non-title main events and all number one contenders fights should be required to go five, and the option should be available for two sides to agree to a five round fight.
Update: Rami sent me an e-mail. He was kind enough to allow it be reposted here.
You’re right to question the logic of the numbers I gave FightLinker. After thinking about it some more, I realized that those don’t prove anything and already sent Ryan a retraction. If anyone asks, I blame it on eating a bunch of chicken wings.
Now that I’ve given it some more thought, I’m left with the conclusion that adding more rounds won’t have any effect on the percentage of fights that go to decision. You can’t really prove anything from the number of championship bouts in UFC history because the sample size is too small and I have a feeling there’s a bias in the sample toward mismatches. A better example is to look at the history of Pride. Pride fights went 20 minutes (albeit within three rounds) and those fights finished with exactly the same proportion of decisions as UFC fights. In fact, the proportion of decision vs. finishes is remarkably stable across a huge sample. For some reason, it seems that about one third of fights go to a decision, no matter how long they are. This leads me to believe that adding rounds wouldn’t matter at all as far as preventing decisions, it would just make that 33% of fights take longer to watch.
Rami's correct about the Pride numbers, but I took it an extra step. I looked at the Bushido and non-Bushido fights separately and came up with this:
Finishing %
Non-Bushido Events: 72.5%
Bushido Events: 58.2%
I'm not sure why the Bushido fights have such a low finishing percentage (a few theories: Pride's matchmaking, Pride's rule set/elbows outlawed, and lighter weights finish fights less. It might also be an aberration.), but the non-Bushido fights would suggest that there is an increase in finished fights as you add time somewhere between 3-5%/5 minutes.
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
There needs to be more rounds for title fights. What a seven round title fight? Come on, Its fine the way it is. Think of all the extra damage that will be done to the fighters if the all start fighting 5 round wars. Its too much. There is a reason that title fights are five rounds. Cause you have to be a camp to do it.
Nobody is asking for every fight to be five rounds, at most this might make 2 or 3 fights in someone’s career that is a 5 round non-title fight. How many main events aren’t title fights? Out of the last 5 UFC’s only one had a non-title main event. It is only going to affect a handful of fights a year.
So what if they aren't finished?
Even if it goes to a five round decision, wouldn’t that be more satisfying than having a fight like Franklin-Henderson where many people thought it could have been scored a draw? If a fight is a main event it is very disappointing to see it end in a split decision, how many five rounders end in a split decision? I would rather have a definitive winner in a main event. Adding more rounds gives a fight a much better chance of having a clear cut winner, whether that be by stoppage or a decision.
I’d like to see five round fights just to further punish people with bad cardio.
And he speaks about decisions like they are a bad thing, I’ve seen lots of fights go to decision that were enjoyable to watch.
At the same token, if all fighters were always fighting 5 round fights, the championship fights would be a lot more exciting, as everyone would be training and fighting 5 rounds all the time, so you would not see so many gassed challengers.
Also I think there would be LESS controversial decisions, because the longer a fight goes, and the more rounds it is, the easier it is to see who has won the fight, as well as not allowing people to “ride out” the rest of the third round for a decision victory.
The extra time would give people a chance to rebound from 2 lost first rounds and still win the fight with a great comeback performance, if the victor of the first two rounds blows his gas tank.
Either way, hard to say that longer fights equates to more boring fights, but definitely would be more injuries due to harder training & longer fights.
No thanks...
5 non-title fights (3 rounds) locked in for a broadcast = 75 minutes
3 non-title fights (5 rounds) locked in for a broadcast = 75 minutes
Add in a title fight and we’re guaranteed to get nothing but 3 fights promised per PPV. And I’m sorry but one of our sport’s draws over boxing is that you get more fights for your money. Yeah, as long as everyone is finishing fights it wouldn’t be an issue. But people are going to stop paying for shows as soon as they drop $50 and get 3 lackluster fights that all go to decision and last 25 (or even 35 for a title fight) minutes each.
It’s better business to leave it alone in my eyes.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 16, 2009 9:13 PM EST reply actions
I'm talking...
for Major events. Like say a major show where there are nothing but “elite” fights at the top of the card where each would have to qualify for the 5 (or 7 if a title fight) treatment (see UFC 100). Sure those fights may be all great, but if they all go to a lackluster decision…it’s a bad thing
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 16, 2009 9:16 PM EST up reply actions
I’m confused, as I remember it the conversation here consisted of only main event non-title fights being extended to 5 rounds, now they are calling for 5 rounds to all fights? That is definitely a bad idea.
If it is main event only...
that is fine. If it is all “high level” fights…I’m against it.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 16, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, but you’re assuming that all the fights go to a decision. 7/10 fights don’t (almost 8/10 five round fights). Either way, you’re still getting the same amount of action, so you’re not really losing any “bang for your buck.”
Unless one of the extra five rounders goes the distance, in which case it would eat up 167% of the time of a three round decision.
by Derek Suboticki on Feb 16, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions
Also, under the logic of “we want more fights,” we should reduce every fight to one five minute round.
Perhaps there is a number between one and five…
by Derek Suboticki on Feb 16, 2009 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Let me ask you this Mike...
what do you think the reaction by everyone will be if Machida wins the title and people have to watch 35 minute fights? I love Machida and think he is thrilling to watch…but when he doesn’t finish people he gets accused of running..etc.
If you have Machida doing that and Bisping going to a 25 minute decision right before it on the undercard. I mean. It’s just asking to hurt the sport.
One of the most common “Pro-MMA points” when people talk about why they like MMA over boxing has been the “a bad MMA fight goes 17 minutes, a bad boxing fight goes for 39 minutes” (talking non title 3 round MMA bout vs. non title 10 round boxing bout).
Yeah, ideally it has no impact…but we both know that the shows will happen where we get three decisions and fans are lost. I’m very much in favor of keeping things how they are now.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 16, 2009 9:46 PM EST up reply actions
Why are we insinuating that decisions are always boring? You could have an event in which all three five round fights go to a decision and they could all be exciting.
The odds of three five round fights going to the cards is so minuscule (about 1.5%), however, that we really shouldn’t be discussing it anyway.
It's not...
that they’re all boring. But it’s not out of the question. I am just much more in favor of “all main events and title fights are 5 rounds” than the simple "all fights deemed worthy are 5 rounds.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 16, 2009 10:48 PM EST up reply actions
I think Machida would finish more if his fights were 5 rounds personally.
But I agree with your point. Why fix it when it isn’t broken right now?
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
I think three is fine. It even pushes the cardio machines. And making title fights five rounds makes sense because they should be the cream of the crop and be able to put on a five round fight and not a 2 round fight and a three round “stall cuz Im gassed”. We are taking stats from fights where both fighters are deemed worthy of fighting for a belt, its a little scewed.
I only suggested non-title main events and number one contender fights be 5 rounds. These would be the “cream of the crop” as you suggest.
But that adds subjectivity to the rules of MMA. Calling a fight 3 or 5 round based on the fact that the promoter wants it to be a 3 or 5 round fight. As others have said, just because there is a fight between two top guys doesn’t make it a lock that it is or is not a number one contenders fight. Factoring injuries and guys on different trajectories (Rampage v Jardine for example) and it is all left to the promoter. Giving a promoter a hand in rule making leads to some shady stuff. Like making a BJ Penn v. anyone with carido a three round fight even though if BJ wins he gets a title shot. It has more of an affect then everyone is taking into account with finishing stats and length of show argument. It affect matchmaking, what can be a main event, how guys fight a five rounder. And I don’t buy that five round fights = more borring fights. I could watch GSP destroy Fitch for five rounds every day. But do you want to see a Bisping v. Evans five rounder? They were not near a title at the time and would have been a long five rounds.
The titles are promotionally controlled, so you already have the promoter’s hand in the current way of doing things.
Also, the promoter wouldn’t have complete control at all. The fighters still have to sign bout agreements.
UFC is doing about 20 shows a year and they have 5 titles. They had, off the top of my head 13 title bouts last year, including two for the interm HW title. You are talking about adding one five round bout to every show (at least 7 although some shows had two real title bouts so maybe more) and about 13 for number one contender matches. There is some overlap there where number one contender matches and main events are the same match so we will say 16 additional five rounders. Plus one off fights like Jackson Jardine where Jackson’s resume is complete for a title shot if he wins, but Jardine still needs a few more wins. So we will say 20 additional five rounders.
Now what do you do with Machida if he were to fight before Jackson (like he just did at 94). He fought with the basic condition that if he won and Jackson lost then he gets a title shot, but if Jackson won then Jackson gets the next shot. Do you make both matches title bouts? It is just not clear cut, which the current system is. It is clean and you know when the fight is three or five rounds.
I think there’s merit in what you’re saying, don’t get me wrong. But I don’t see what the problem with putting on five round fights if both fighters agree to it. I’m sure someone will come out and say, “Oh, well the UFC could pressure a guy into accepting a five round fight,” but they can already pressure a guy into accepting a fight with someone. There’s no mandatory challengers to the belt and no ranking system published by the UFC. So why not allow the option for non-title fights to go two more rounds?
As for the numbers about non-title five round bouts…the UFC is running 20 shows, but you’re including Fight Nights and TUF Finales in there as well. Those shows in all likelihood wouldn’t have potential five rounders on it. The UFC is only running 11-12 PPVs a year. Only two PPV’s lacked title fights last year (UFC 88 and UFC 85).
So what you are saying is that you want a window opened up in the unified rules to allow for five round non-title fights. There is what I call the WAMMA loop hole to do just that. You can call anything you want a “title” bout. The UFC could create a xyience belt and just call the main event a title fight. Sort of like a super fight that you hand out some bogus title for.
I for one, don’t think it is warrented to change the rules to extent bout length, but you are entitled to your opinion. I like the three round dynamic. The extra rounds for title bouts places a “specal” tag on all title fights. What they need to address is the flaws in the ten point must system. I was thinking about it and I like a nine point must system. Where the winner gets 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 points and the loser gets 4, 3, 2, 1, or 0, respectivly in the round. The judge must award 9 poins in a round or some other odd number to show how difinitivly the winner won the round. Just a thought and not a completely developed one, it is late.
The judges are just starting to understand the difference between 10-9 and 10-8 rounds, and you want to award them more subjectivity?
Seems crazy, right? I know. It just doesn’t sit right with me that they award 3 of the possible 11 point values in the system. Giving them more subjectivity is in line with Pride judging and total fight winner and not just round winner. But the seemingly random point system is an effort (maybe a poor one) to add transparency to how the rounds were scored. Take Franklin v. Okami for example. 5-4 franklin, 5-4 Franklin, 6-3 Okami (maybe even 7-2). Okami wins 14-13 on my score card.
I mean judging is inherently subjective and I don’t think we can get around more education for judges, but the ten point must really hides the issue I think.
I am in favor of keeping things the way they are. The current system adds a different feeling, pacing and preparation for title fights, favors the belt holder (giving him extra time to make up for a slow start, making him lose three rounds instead of two, etc) and places an absolute premium on cardio at the top echelon of the sport.
That being said, Hendo v Franklin would’ve made an interesting five round fight. But I think title shots are sacred, so I’m against fucking with it. One fight in history has ever been finished in the fifth.
by Derek Suboticki on Feb 16, 2009 9:27 PM EST reply actions
“One fight in history has ever been finished in the fifth.”
There’s huge sample size issues with this. I was going to discuss it in the main article, but edited it out. There’s only been 18 fights (out of 74) that have gone into the fifth round. You can’t extract any meaningful conclusions from that.
I disagree, one out of eighteen shows a very noticable trend, if two guys are even enough to make it to the fifth round then most likely it’s going to make it to the end of that round.
Yes, there’s a very clear trend that as the fight goes on, it’s likely to be finished less.
However, there’s a couple points to make here.
First off, the amount that finishing ability is diminished cannot be determined by 18 fights. Like I said, we were likely robbed of a finish at UFC 94. That would have lowered the percentage from 94% to 89.5% by itself.
Second, it’s not looking at things correctly anyway. Title fights are still finished at a MUCH HIGHER rate than non-title fights; almost 15% more fights get finished than a three round fight.
I think there should be more options for round length.
it’s ridiculous that titles are the determining factor for round length is whether it’s for a title or not, it should be based on skill level.
Boxers begin with 4 round fights and work their way up to longer fights when they get more skill.
It’s stupid that a PFC/Battle at the Barn/Super Cage Fighting Championship (or any other smaller org) can have a 5 round fight while Henderson and Franklin can’t.
For example, De La Hoya/Pacuiao was not a title fight, yet it was scheduled for 12 rounds. While two people fighting for a regional boxing belt would fight for less rounds.
In MMA, the regional belt fight is 5 rounds while a fight like Hendo Franklin is only 3. This is one situation where boxing has it right.
I disagree, because with boxing it’s completely arbitrary. You can make a fight as long – or short – as you like based on the fighters, and that reeks of favoritism to me.
by Derek Suboticki on Feb 16, 2009 9:52 PM EST up reply actions
To me this just sounds like adding an 11 to your amp
Guys will start be more conservative, energy wise, in rounds 1 and 2 because they might need to go 5.
It will be the same thing, just stretched out more.
@ Mike Fagan
Three-round non-title UFC fights are finished at a clip of 67% (720 instances, all since the introduction of the Unified Rules). Five round, championship UFC fights, however, are finished 77% of the time (74 instances).
Championship fights are likely finished more often due to the skill and cardio possessed by the combatants. They can fight a good fight for 5 rounds and for the those rounds, can use the skills they need to finish a fight.
Forcing relatively-unskilled fighters to fight 5 round fights would be disastrous.
What are your thoughts on this idead: all main event fights are 5 rounds and that if a main event isn’t a title fight that it has to be between two fighters who have previously fought for a title?
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
First of all hello :).
68% of the fights are finished before the forth round, in other words could say within three rounds as not a lot of fights were finished in between. And for almost 1OO times the same amount of fights, three rounds fights are also finished with the nearly exact same percentage. Meaning aproximatively 70 percent of mma fights are done within 3rounds regardless.
About five rounds fights, adding two rounds adds only 9 percent of odds to finish the fight. So more than 9 times out of ten it doesn’t change much regarding the fact of it going the decision or not.
I think the most important things are of course the fighters themselves and matchs-up. Some will likely go to decision whether it be 3 or 5 rounds.
But it’s not only about finish, having a clear winner is more important. It is probably going to change with the evolution of the sport, but wether it occures to be a good or bad idea, i also opt for more 5 rounds fights. As i think It will help taking another step forward to better athlete in mma. Maybe, as said before, for people before challenging a title and then also for former champions and challengers ? As long as they are revelent at least :p.
Alright see you later and pleased to meet you all. Pretty late here now sleep time !
"68% of the fights are finished before the forth round, in other words could say within three rounds as not a lot of fights were finished in between. And for almost 1OO times the same amount of fights, three rounds fights are also finished with the nearly exact same percentage. Meaning aproximatively 70 percent of mma fights are done within 3rounds regardless.
About five rounds fights, adding two rounds adds only 9 percent of odds to finish the fight. So more than 9 times out of ten it doesn’t change much regarding the fact of it going the decision or not."
Technically, your math is off. It’s actually an increase of 15% of fights being finished. Regardless an extra one in seven or ten fights being finished is a significant amount of fights. There’s a big difference between 68% and 77%.
“I think the most important things are of course the fighters themselves and matchs-up. Some will likely go to decision whether it be 3 or 5 rounds.”
This isn’t the most important thing, but it is definitely a factor in why certain fights go the distance. It’s also reasonable to say that most guys in title fights are better equipped to handle 25 minutes than others.
Just to clarify the math portion. You have to divide .77 by .68 and subtract one to get the actual increase in percentage form.
To make it more basic, think of it this way. There are 720 three round non-title fights, of which 484 get finished. We have 74 title fights, with 57 getting finished. If you had 720 title fights, you would have 555 finished fights. Subtract 484 from 555, then divide by 484 to get the actual percentage increase (it’s the same as the .77/.68 method above).
I think most of us would have liked to see Franklin-Henderson go for five rounds – although with Hendo’s eye poke at the end of the third round, he would’ve probably finished Ace very soon in the fourth.
However, there is no way to tell in advance what matches would ‘deserve’ the two extra rounds. Even a match that looks like fireworks on paper could end up being a snoozer just because it happens to be one of those days for one or both fighters. Also, having this match run three rounds while that match gets five raises all kinds of issues with fair and equal treatment of fighters. Expect a lot more bitching about favoritism if this ends up being changed around.
The current system of five rounds for title fights and three rounds for everything else is by no means perfect, but it is simple, clear, unambiguous and leaves no room for arbitrary decisions concerning match length. I think it is best to leave it well enough alone.
by Monday Morning Martial Artist on Feb 17, 2009 3:10 AM EST reply actions
Is it the skill level or the rounds?
With 68% of title fights ending before the fourth round, extra rounds DO add more opportunity for the fight to finish.
Do we know this is based on the fact that it’s because it’s 5 rounds or the talent level in those 5 round fights is so high. I’ll side on the talent level.
“Technically, your math is off. It’s actually an increase of 15% of fights being finished. Regardless an extra one in seven or ten fights being finished is a significant amount of fights. There’s a big difference between 68% and 77%.”
Yes this is indeed not accurate. Didn’t know this, was nice to be corrected, made me reflect about it.
“Just to clarify the math portion”
I stopped reading here.
“This isn’t the most important thing, but it is definitely a factor in why certain fights go the distance.”
? I take this as an opinion, no more no less.
“It’s also reasonable to say that most guys in title fights are better equipped to handle 25 minutes than others.”
—→ "I think the most important things are of course the fighters themselves and matchs-up."
Looking at this from a stastical point of view is the wrong way of viewing it. Just use past history to determine the future.
How many UFC non-title fights (and were at least co-main events) since the start of 2007 went to a decision….
2007
1. Josh Koscheck vs. Diego Sanchez – BORING FIGHT
2. Rich Franklin vs. Yushin Okami – BORING FIGHT
3. Rashad Evans vs. Tito Ortiz – BORING FIGHT
4. GSP vs. Josh Koscheck
5. Michael Bisping vs. Matt Hamill
6. Keith Jardine vs. Chuck Liddell – BORING FIGHT
7. Jon Fitch vs. Diego Sanchez
8. Tim Sylvia vs. Brandon Vera – BORING FIGHT
9. Rashad Evans vs. Michael Bisping
10. Chuck Liddell vs. Wanderlei Silva
Of those 10 fights, only a few were exciting. And half of them were very boring, only to be worse if 5 rounds.
2008
1. Cheick Kongo vs. Heath Herring
2. Lyoto Machida vs. Tito Ortiz
3. Patrick Cote vs. Ricardo Almeida – BORING FIGHT
4. Brock Lesnar vs. Heath Herring
5. Kenny Florian vs. Roger Huerta
6. Keith Jardine vs. Brandon Vera – BORING FIGHT
7. Michael Bisping vs. Chris Leben – BORING FIGHT
8. Thiago Alves vs. Josh Koscheck
9. Dan Henderso vs. Rich Franklin
3 of the 9 were boring. Florian/Huerta, Lesnar/Herring would be pointless to go 5 rounds as they were dominations.
So from my research, which is more credible then pure numbers…. I think adding 5 round non-title fights to cards does MORE HARM then good. It means less fights, and for only a few more potentially exciting fights a year.
I would have loved to see Franklin/Henderson be 5 rounds, but not at the expense of ruining so many cards to find a needle in a haystack.
To further my comments…. For the individuals who think having 7 round title fights is a good idea. This is a horrible idea.
With the exception of Couture/Ricco, none of the title fights have really been determined on the 4th or 5th rounds. Typically, it just prolongs the beatings. I still think title fights need to be 5 rounds just in case. At the same time, 7 rounds is the worst idea ever.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Feb 17, 2009 9:16 AM EST up reply actions
The excitement level of a fight has no bearing on why I think they should go X rounds. A Spurs/Pistons NBA Finals isn’t exciting, but a 7 game series is much better than a 5 game series.
Last time I checked, all NBA games are the same length. And making every single MMA fight the same length would be horrible. So you are comparing apples to oranges.
While this is a sport, the excitement level comes into play. The same reason why a 24 second shot clock was introduced into the NBA. The same reason why the 3 point line was introduced. It had to do with viewership.
The entertainment aspects must be considered. Without it, the sport suffers. And to me, if a fighter can’t shine enough during 15 minutes, he should be at the mercy of the judges. Adding 10 extra minutes to certain fights would reduce the number of ights per PPV, and likely making the fight cards more boring.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Feb 17, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t think main events and co main events should automatically be for 5 rounds, unless it is only about important fights regarding rankings.
I agree that i wouldn’t want to see all being 5 rounds, but then have to choose which fight go 5 or 3 with no clearly define rules and it wouldn’t be fair regarding fighters.
I also agree that, as of right now, i do not want see 7 rounds title matchs. Besides Dana white i don’t know many people that are for 7 rounds and 5 rounds fights. It’s not like if he is an average joe though…
Should be carefull with this, may look like more decisions as in boxing otherwise.
Completely missing the point here...
Almost everyone is missing one major undertone to changing fights to 5 rounds and championships to 7 rounds… especially if you’re a calculated point fighter. Injuries.
If each fighter has to go through 5 round wars in order to reach the pinnacle of a division, then to hold the title, they have to endure 7 rounds, injuries will increase significantly.
Furthermore, if you are going to institute the rules on major promotions, regional promotions will want the same type of rules. As we know, that’s where all the terrible refereeing happens. Add 5 rounds to smaller matchups and somebody is eventually going to get killed in this sport due to the excessive beatings they will no doubt take over their lifetime.
I think, ultimately, it shortens fighters’ careers and produces more injuries in the long run. It also will make us endure “hugfests” when both men are gassed after two rounds.
Statistics are pointless in this manner. Instead of thinking about "borefest’ fights and how boring this and that fight are, why doesn’t anyone talk about the major impact it has on fighter health. This is ridiculous. I wrote one article regarding fighter health, and I figured somebody else should likely mention it, and we get nothing but an earful of how it would make everything boring. It’ll make half these guys sit on the sidelines a lot longer, that’s what it’ll do.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
One hell of a good point, Mr. Roling. Having seven rounds for title fights would probably have the most impact in the regional promotions – and since very few of them can have the kind of resources (medical and otherwise) UFC or Strikeforce has, it would only lead to fighters’ careers and health being hurt in the long run.
Even in the major promotions, seven-round title fights would mean having no more careers like Couture’s. No man could take the beating of that many title fights. It’s hard enough as is.
by Monday Morning Martial Artist on Feb 17, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions
Has anyone seriously been arguing for seven round title fights in this thread? Cause I haven’t seen it.
I’ve read multiple instances, not necessarily in this thread although I didn’t care to read any of the statistical assessments because I think it’s pointless to argue over when fighter health is likely the reason why a commission would kick this type of thing down a stairwell.
I believe the original article at FiveOuncesOfPain.com mentioned 7 round title fights, which is absurd. The only real way to curb fighter health problems when increasing the rounds is to engineer these guys to end fights quickly, and it just doesn’t happen when YOU want it to.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Feb 17, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
Not sure so much people were even looking into it as majority do not want it. Not the point here imo. Also i don’t know who is everyone here as like two people talked about it and the two didn’t say a word about borefest, on 7 rounds fights.
Besides : “It also will make us endure "hugfests" when both men are gassed after two rounds.”
“It’ll make half these guys sit on the sidelines a lot longer, that’s what it’ll do.”
Looks like you are one of the people that when you say " health" answer “boring”.
The comission is there to adapt the time frame rules etc on level and age of the fighters.
Average athlete isn’t authorized to do the same amount of things in competition as very high level athlete. As in boxing 12 rounds non titles fights, which do not exist on smaller promotion as you suggest.
Nevermind, as i said i’m not in favor of 7 rounds either, and true , even for top competition , it would be healthy seeing how things are right now. Definetely the more and more rounds the less security about fighters health. But it isn’t what is debated here either, rounds were previously reduced for a reason so it is not the idea to jump back in time.
What’s the percentage of fights where fatasses gas by the second round? Cause that’ll be great to watch for 25 minutes…
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
another reason to stay w/ current round system...
….If there are 5/7 round fights that means less fights per show, which means more events per year which, imo, would not be a good thing.
I think it would burn the general public out in a hurry, 7 round fights. YIKES.
Hell just picture 2 more rounds of Yuki v. Lister
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
