NSAC Considering Five Round Non-Title Fights
by Mike Fagan on Jul 27, 2009 4:53 PM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
According to MMA Junkie, the Nevada State Athletic Commission will be looking to fine tune their ruleset when they convene on August 17th. NSAC has provided a copy of the potential changes here. Among the changes, NSAC proposes to increase leniency with regards to length of bouts. Here's the text (bold indicates proposed change):
2. A championship contest of mixed martial arts or any other mixed martial arts contest or
exhibition which the Commission considers to be a special event must[be]not exceed five
rounds in duration.
I've written about my support for more five round fights before. Just within the past year, one only has to look at the Franklin/Henderson, Franklin/Silva, and Condit/Kampmann fights as examples of why the option for five round non-title fights is necessary.
Our quirky friends at Fightlinker disagree:
Five round non title fights? Say it ain't so, Keith! While I'm sure many people are high fiving over the possibility of fights like Anderson Silva vs Forrest Griffin or Randy Couture vs Big Nog going 25 minutes instead of 15 (and I say 'like' because these aren't in Nevada), just wait till the five round fight becomes the new three round fight. Anything that pushes MMA closer towards boxing's never-ending bout syndrome is bad fucking news. How about we add the option to stick another period onto hockey games while we're at it?
I'm not really sure how adding ten potential minutes to a mixed martial arts contest is pushing the sport closer to boxing, nor am I sure how that's inherently a bad thing either. With that said, what are the benefits?
- More decisive finishes - From my previous post on the topic, I showed that - in a limited sample size - five round title fights are finished 77% of the time as compared to the MMA average of 67% for three round affairs. More fights avoiding the mysterious hands of the judges the better.
- Less importance per round - In a three round fight, each round makes up 33% of a judge's score card. A round in a five round bout is only worth 20%. For example, in the Caol Uno/Spencer Fisher fight at UFC 99, if you score the first two rounds (which were very close) to Fisher, Uno has to win a dominant 10-8 third just for a draw. With two additional rounds, Uno would have ample time to make up lost ground (if not finish his opponent).
- More quality at the top of the cards - I'm an extremist. The more five-round fights, the better. I understand that's a minority position, and unlikely to come to fruition in the event that NSAC opens the five-round door. That said, if the UFC utilizes the five round fight for all main and co-main events, that's potentially 20 additional minutes of high-level MMA. Who can argue with that?
As a final note, I think it's important to take a look at the wording of the proposed clause (emphasis mine):
or any other mixed martial arts contest or exhibition which the Commission considers to be a special event
It looks like the NSAC is taking measures to ensure they have oversight over a promoter's wants.
303 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m all for it as long as they don’t go overboard on it. WIll all non title fights be five rounds in Nevada? If not how do you determine which fights get five round status?
I don’t like it.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
IMO..
5 round fights should be reserved for championships and main event non title fights only. I.E. UFC 103 Franklin vs. TBA (Tito)
Be a man, not a child-Phil Anselmo
by ANance on Jul 27, 2009 4:03 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
rec'd
for best idea ever. i’m sick of these 3 rnd fights that could have went either way (franklin/hendo, franklin /wandy, akayama/belcher etc.) and then having everyone agrue back and forth. 5 rnds would settle this matter imo. i have always been a proponent of this idea.
So, does this imply the possibility of 7 round title fights down the road? Dana is certainly for them, as I am (and we rarely agree, which bothers him tremendously lol). Let’s have fighters prove that MMA combatants are the best athletes in the world, including their cardio. Such a change would keep guys who couldn’t make it (cardio-wise) from being in the big show. Perhaps it would also make fighters cut less weight and make huge HWs want to trim down a bit…
There's a WAMMA belt in my Cracker Jacks!
Has Dana really come out in support? Link? I would love it personally.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Wut??
Have you seen scaling for finishing fights after the rounds progress? Seven round fights would be a disaster.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
actaully, i would love it like K1.. more 10-10 rounds and then have extra rounds if it a draw… just becasue it would fun.
"I’m not going to stop yelling because that would mean, I lost the fight!"-Kenny Powers
shooter/cutter for AllElbows.com
Fightlinker on Five Round Non-Title Matches
I think its a concern about a slippery slope. You make certain non-title matches five round fights, and perhaps over time folks will clamor for longer championship matches. Championship matches become seven round affairs, then folks see the next great non-title match and it occurs to them how much better it would have been as a seven round affair than a mere five round encounter. On and on it goes until you wake up one morning and HOLY SHIT MMA BECAME BOXING!
I would point out that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. In theory, sure, more MMA, more time for great fighters to compete in great matches is a great idea. The problem is that it won’t always work out that way. I’d argue that it would more often than not work out in the exact opposite way.
Plus, failing the extension of championship bouts, then we’re talking about blurring the line between championship matches and other matches. While it would add some intrigue to the main event of your run of the mill UFC PPV (in theory, anyway), it would reduce to some extent the intrigue of a championship match.
Or, for the short, short version: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
But Dana has already stated that he wants 7 round title fights, along w/some 5 round non title fights. I mean wouldn’t a GSP/Anderson fight- if it had to happen at a catch weight- merit 5 rounds? A hard and fast rule- such as all main events have to be 5 rounds- is not what we should be looking for here, but rather an option to do so.
There's a WAMMA belt in my Cracker Jacks!
Well, I’d prefer the hard and fast rule, I think.
If promoters, within the bylaws of the state’s athletic commission, can pick and choose which fights the schedule at five rounds, then I think it will open up a whole different can of worms. Not a big one necessarily, but it won’t be long before the screaming morons assault the message boards with decrying that their favorite fighter was robbed because his fight was not chosen to go five rounds.
Consistency makes more sense to me, and again, for me, the system as it currently exists works well. Why mess with it? Is a good three round fight in which the fighters could have gone longer that bad of a situation?
I can see why folks would want the change, but I don’t think it’s something that the sport is hindered without nor with would the sport be made significantly better (if better at all).
Has Dana really suggested that title fights should be seven rounds?
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
Couple things.
1) Even if the NSAC didn’t include their clause, power wouldn’t ultimately end up with the promoter. Each fighter still needs to sign individual bout agreements.
2) “Consistency makes more sense to me, and again, for me, the system as it currently exists works well. Why mess with it?” Except that it doesn’t. Just look at the examples I used in the article. More rounds = better decisions. Also, even if something “works”, if it can be improved, why would you be against it?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
In what way would more rounds yield better decisions consistently? You still have the human element of the judges to consider, and you still have an odd number of rounds. Another two, close rounds left in the hands of the judges isn’t a better alternative, it will just take longer to play out.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
Adding more trials = less variance. If you had a one round fight, almost every decision would be controversial. If you theoretically could have 100 round fights, the better fighter would win the decision almost every single time.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
We’re talking about judges like Cecil Peoples here, who may not be able to identify the man looking back at him in the mirror. You think giving them additional information will help them rather than convolute their decision making process further?
Let’s just say that you are far more pessimistic about MMA judging than I.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Jul 27, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Could you elaborate?
And do you mean “optimistic” instead of “pessimistic”?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Yeah, I absolutely did mean optimistic. I’m not sure how that happened, to be honest.
I’m pessimistic. You’re optimistic.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
I’m very pessimistic about MMA judging, which is why I think adding rounds would be a benefit.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Jul 27, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No, it’s that in 5 rounds, the odds of going to a decision decrease, especially if there is a considerable difference in cardio or durability. Therefore, the better conditioned athlete will win, hypothetically.
There's a WAMMA belt in my Cracker Jacks!
In theory. But when was the last time a five round fight ended in the “championship rounds?”
That’s a serious question, too. I recall having heard that no championship fight in the UFC had ever ended in the 4th or 5th round, but there might have been some qualifier to that (i.e. by submission).
I know the Varner v. Cerrone match ended in the fifth round due to injury, but that’s another circumstance entirely.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
Well, I believe this idea is of the sort that is forward, not backwards looking. As the athletes continue to get better and better at all aspects, and the weak are left behind, there could be more such finishes.
There's a WAMMA belt in my Cracker Jacks!
I think the key is that there “could be” additional finishes in the 4th and 5th round, but again, history indicates that there are not a great likelihood that there will be.
Submissions will becoming increasingly more difficult to secure as the fighters become more slippery while simultaneously tiring.
Knockouts could be argued either way. While a tired fighter would be less likely to land a punch squarely enough to drop their opponent, so to is is true that a tired fighter is more prone to being knocked down with both their cardio reduced and their hands dropping.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
I’d put fighter safety ahead of creating a much more definitive decision. I’m not in favor of adding two more rounds in non-title bouts because of that. The only way I’d favor this is if it was used sparingly with some sort of criteria. If they had a non-title bout at every UFC event with 5 rounds, it could eventually lead to more injuries and possibly a death down the road.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Jul 27, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, assuming that purses would be greater, it would be situational.
There's a WAMMA belt in my Cracker Jacks!
It also depends on the fighter though. I’d be very hesitant seeing two gassed out individuals slugging each other in the melons in the 4th and 5th rounds over and over again.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Jul 27, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Absolutely! I mean, imagine if Shogun/Coleman went on? Hide the belts and shoe laces! Clearly, there are factors that would have to be weighed and it would have to be on a case by case basis, which is why I argue against hard and fast rules.
There's a WAMMA belt in my Cracker Jacks!
If they’re so tired in the 4th and 5th the fight will probably end in the 4th or one of them will will do a better job trying to end the fight earlier.
That isn’t the issue. The issue is that over time, if someone is involved in a lot of these five round non-title bouts… safety becomes a factor. It probably won’t affect the current crop of guys, but the younger guys who will be in the UFC for quite awhile will be subjected to extra punishment to their skull if involved in quite a few of those types of attrition wars.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Jul 27, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I think this whole argument is an appeal to fear and also disregards the notion that fighters and their camps can make their own informed decisions about bout length.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I think this whole argument is an appeal to fear and also disregards the notion that fighters and their camps can make their own informed decisions aboutbout lengthsteroids.
Fair to say that’s your position as well?
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
That has no bearing at what we’re discussing, Sue-Bow.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
You seem to be arguing for fighters to have the freedom to make decisions that are increasingly detrimental to their long term health. I haz a pattern?
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I believe that people know what’s best for themselves.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
For money.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Like choosing a career where they get punched in the face for a living? Just sayin…
by Zack Gobie on Jul 27, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Without having read the sports medicine research on this, my prior is that Leland’s concern wouldn’t be quantitatively important. Still, I don’t think it’s an appeal to fear; it’s possible that he’s right. I just don’t put much weight on this argument at the moment.
You wrote, “I’m not arguing all non-title fights should be five rounds. There are safety concerns as you start to include additional rounds,” here:
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/2/16/761153/in-defense-of-the-five-rou
What safety concerns were you thinking about then that Leland isn’t talking about now?
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 3:20 AM EDT up reply actions
It’s pretty clear cut. If the UFC puts on five round battles on a lot of their event cards and those fighters involved are continually known to go through five round wars taking blows to the head… more blows over more rounds can lead to a definite cause for concern.
The sole reason MMA is different than boxing is that there isn’t a knockdown rule. If a fighter is down, one more punch for good measure is much better than allowing a guy to stand up, recover, then get pummeled longer like in boxing.
But… more rounds in boxing is also something that goes along with that problem. The more rounds you go, the more blows you take. Furthermore, injuries will increase for fighters involved in five round fights.
It may not be unbelievable significant right now, but the younger generation of fighters who are now coming into the UFC and other promotions may have problems down the road if involved in a lot of five round wars in which they aren’t finishers.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Jul 28, 2009 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not convinced, but you could convince me with a reasonable back-of-the-envelope calculation. Here’s what I’m thinking.
If you restrict the two round “extension” to elite fighters, say those who make main event, on average how many “extra” rounds would a a random up-and-comer fight in his career? My guess is that it’s a small number.
Say we restrict cases to those up-and-comers who are truly elite, the number of course could be bigger (more non-title main events). But would it be tremendously bigger? I doubt it. If you’re champ material, you’ll be in title bouts anyway, so there’s not much mileage here. If you’re just a pretender, how many times would you be a non-title main event? I think this is the most important category to look at. To my eyes, I don’t think the number of extra rounds would be enough to make a difference. I’ll admit that this is debatable.
Like I said, I can be convinced the other way, but you’d have to give me a setup where the “excess” number of rounds is big enough for me to worry about. I think it would have to do with the marginal cases (the last group of fighters in the paragraph above).
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m talking more about guys with less than 5 fights on their ledger. I don’t think there’s a significant safety issue for elite fighters.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
That’s a great point I had not heretofor considered.
MMA isn’t even sanctioned in all 50 states under the current rules. Perhaps rules that directly affect the way in which the combat will play out (i.e. increasing the amount of it) should not be altered at this time.
Which is to say, instant replay should still be added ASAP.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
Instant replay for what and by whom?
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Ak! You ninja’d me! Snuck in and posted it before I did!
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jul 27, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Ricco Rodriguez > Randy Couture
UFC 39 R5 3:04 (Submission: Elbow)
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jul 27, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
The only fight to ever end in the fifth.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks ANance, rzor, and themachiavellian.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
Added the statistics to the bottom of the comments, but 5 UFC championship fights have ended in the fourth round and 1 in the fifth.
by Graven Image on Jul 27, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, more trials is equivalent to more bouts, not more rounds.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 3:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Both work.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Jul 28, 2009 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I think about it in this analogy. You’re a research scientist and you want to test the effect of some chemical A on an outcome B. Consider the following setups: running a single trial for a long time (perhaps indefinitely) or running the same trial 1,000,000 times? Only the latter truly increases the number of observations. This is the precise way in which I mean more trials — and not more rounds — means more bouts.
Of course, in the real world only bout length can be varied. Once fighters have a bout, it can’t ever be replicated: time passes, fighters can rest in the interim, etc. Then the question becomes, “Can we reasonably believe that increasing bout length for a given fight is ‘close enough’ to increasing n?”
In some sports, I think it’s a reasonable fiction. Take golf for example. Even though players may have less energy for later holes of a round and later rounds of a tournament, it’s probably reasonable to assume that these later trials are “similar enough” as golf is a relatively low-impact sport. Intuitively speaking, what would be more surprising: a weekend player beating Tiger Woods in a 72-hole match, or if that weekend player beat him on one hole? I think it’s the former.
I’m not sure we can say the same thing about MMA. Consider extending fights from three rounds to five rounds. Working from the golf analogy, can we say that these later rounds are “similar enough” to the first three rounds for us to assume we’re increasing n (in the precise sense described above)?
I can’t say I think so. I’m curious what your line of thinking is.
by former tuf noob on Jul 30, 2009 3:50 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t care for this idea either. Some kind of change in scoring, that acknowledges draws, and possibly a sudden death round, is more my style. Even a five rounder can get a little tiresome if it’s like St. Pierre/Alves. Decisiveness of finish/scoring should be the focus, not just length.
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 27, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Umm
So you want to see like a maximum of like 3-4 fights per PPV card?
http://www.mmaforreal.com
Follow Me On Twitter@MMA4Real
by Kelvin Hunt on Jul 27, 2009 4:07 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
This is the argument that always gets up that boggles my mind. Just look at UFC 100. Two five round fights. Five fights scheduled on the main card.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
One fight went the full five rounds, and they still had to trot Fitch and Thiago out after the main event.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
by Brett Jones on Jul 27, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
They had to do that because Zuffa screwed up the show’s pacing. UFC 73 had two title fights and five main card bouts. UFC 92 had two title fights and five main card bouts.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I would suggest that if Dana and co. manage to screw up the pacing of UFC 100 (such that they did) that it would be unwise to give them opportunities to scew up the pacing of future cards.
Not that they won’t do still screw the pacing of cards up in the future, but if a non-title match as part of a triple main event were made into a five round bout, that could really mess with the pacing of a show.
...Behold, a pale horse. The man that sat upon it was Wieters, and hell followed with him.
"BJ on the BE" - Kierkegaard
Think about it this way
Now a card that you would, on average, see 5-6 fights on TV, you only get to see 4-5. I prefer 3 five minute rounds.
by GetItOn on Jul 27, 2009 4:09 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Why not have everything one round and put all ten fights on the card?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
BTW, some people pay for the fights to see the whole card and not just the Main fight
I’m sick of people complaining that they didn’t get their money’s worth because fights like the Silva vs Leites situation was boring. I enjoyed the rest of the card. Get over it!
Why not make a silly rejoinder to someone’s opinion?
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, why not do that?
I think this whole argument is an appeal to fear and also disregards the notion that fighters and their camps can make their own informed decisions aboutbout lengthsteroids.Fair to say that’s your position as well?
by subo
I was asking a question that could’ve actually had a yes or no answer, instead of just being a smartass. And he pretty much answered in the affirmative.
I think I care more about policies that protect the fighters more than most people – in fact, it’s why I love the UFC more than most people.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions
If you wanted to completely protect fighters, we wouldn’t even be discussing this.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Que?
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
If we were primarily concerned with the safety of the participants, MMA wouldn’t exist.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
And if we weren’t, they’d have axes and fight lions.
Surely, there is ground between the two.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree, but this empty “fighter safety” argument has no basis. People just throw it out there without any evidence (empirical or otherwise) and hide behind it. There’s no proof that a five round affair is significantly more dangerous than three.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Jul 27, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Then it sounds like your beef is with Leland, as that’s not why I oppose five round main events.
I just disagree like hell with you on steroids. I’ll try to keep that from seeping into other subjects.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. People are quick to toss out a statement like that and then hide behind it the rest of the discussion.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Jul 27, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t mind the main event being 5 rounds if there is no title fight on the card.
by steveoc24 on Jul 27, 2009 4:09 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I don’t like it because then the line won’t be drawn at just main events, then all fights will end up being five rounds, then they’ll make championship fights 7 rounds. Longer matches = less fights and shorter careers. I like the idea in theory, but who decides what fights are 5-5 and what are 3-5?
OK
I got a little heated and didn’t read the last quote, but I’m still leery about this. I guess I would like to see fights like Silva/Griffin or Franklin/Hendo five rounds but I’m not a fan of making all fights 5 rounds.
I don’t like the term “special event” or whatever, but I’m glad to see the option. The number of rounds should be determined the same way it is in boxing.
It’s ridiculous that two people fighting for Wild Bill’s fight night or whatever can go 5 rounds for a belt and Franklin Hendo has to be 3.
I read through the comments of the old post, and you had one of the best arguments in that thread. Guys fighting for a the PFC or MFC or Adrenaline title can go five rounds, but Franklin/Henderson can’t?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Forget PFC or MFC. I’ve seen fighters in their pro debut fight for belts on Inside MMA, it’s stupid.
Boxers start with a small number of rounds, then the best in the world end up going 12 rounds, mma should be the same way. (Not all the way up to 12, but a belt that may or may not have meaning is a terrible way to make the decision.
by Phildo on Jul 27, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Horrible idea. I think Fightlinker was on to something when he said that it’s possible “to have too much of a good thing.” Imagine all of the 25 minute fights where both fighters gassed in the 1st or 2nd round and we’re forced to watch something like the Shogun/Coleman (but for 25 minutes instead of around 13).
Somewhere Phil Baroni just collapsed upon hearing this possibility.
(formerly TheFightJournal)
And imagine all the three round fights where they haven’t gassed and we get really controversial decisions!
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Here’s my take on that (no evidence to back it up, just a little bit of what I think is common sense, but who knows if it makes sense).
If fighters know they can’t physically make it to the end of the fight and win a decision, they’ll try harder to finish the fight, which will make for more exciting (better IMO) fights.
there’s no point in winning the first 3 rounds of a fight if you’re going to gas and get KO’d in the 5th, so don’t try to win the first 3 rounds, try to win the fight before you get tired.
Bad idea...
Fightlinker rants about it, but they are pushing the wrong argument or not a clear one.
Five rounds will only allow those who can withstand the punishment and ability to not be knocked out more time to have more trauma to the head. Those fighters that can continuously go five rounds without being knocked out while withstanding more damage will likely result in some deaths due to head trauma down the road in a sport that has been lauded at having so much safety.
While the knockdown rule in boxing is clearly the reason why we have seen deaths in boxing, I wonder if adding rounds to non-title bouts could have the same effect without the knockdown rule.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Jul 27, 2009 4:21 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
The Poster Child for this
"He built his whole reputation (as a) waffle house chef. They've been serving him up ham and eggs with a side of canned tomatoes." - Don Frye on Fedor Emelianenko
Great idea
for main events. 3 round main events always feel anticlimactic when they go to a decision. I don’t know what fightlinker were thinking, maybe they thought all the card were becoming 5 rounds.
You don't look like a Tanaka.
This is great news. If Randy-Nog was 5 rounds I would be so stoked for that show.
As it is, in 3 round main events, you see crucially important fights often decided by one takedown. Fights end without anyone really winning. It’s much less likely in 5 round fights. You just have to trust Dana and co to only make 5 round fights when the fans would want to see it.
by Michael Rome on Jul 27, 2009 4:29 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I would prefer it only if both fighters were former champs. That sounds like the best standard to me.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
Again, what is the significance of a belt. Who determines what defines “champ.”
TUF Champ? Strikeforce 1 night tournament champ? American Steel Cagefighting Champ? Do they get to fight 5 rounds?
If you say only UFC champs, then you’re making special rules for the UFC. I say, if the promoter, commission, and fighters think a round should be 5 rounds, it should be 5 rounds. If they think it should be 2 rounds, it should be 2 rounds, etc.
That makes sense, but in terms of the UFC, I could see my criterion being a helpful one (of several).
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Jul 27, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess contender fights should be 5 rounds so that fighters get to train for and fight a 5 round fight. I imagine that having your first ever 5 round fight as a championship fight could create a few problems…?
I think announced contender bouts wouldn’t be a bad idea for five round candidates.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Jul 27, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
i’m in favor of non-title main events on PPV going for five rounds.
Quick list of headline fights that should have been or ought to be 5 rounds:
- Franklin-Hendo
- Franklin-Wanderlei (because really, who doesn’t like to see Silva get punched in the head?)
- Couture-Big Nog
- Franklin vs. Tito (if it happens)
*Fedor vs. anybody (assuming his opponent gets past the first round)
The hard part is that there are UFN fights I’d have liked to see go five rounds, too, like Sanchez-Guida. But I wasn’t expecting anything even close to that good. The fighters raised the bar and left me wanting more, which is probably a good thing.
by bobthewriter on Jul 27, 2009 4:39 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Instant Replay
While it doesn’t affect the “entertainment value” of the fights so much, I think the proposed change instituting instant replay is far more interesting.
Here's the thing
The first time this policy, if adopted, turns a main event into a five round war, it will be lauded as genius.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 4:44 PM EDT reply actions
I don’t like the policy, but if it’s instituted, it will only take one awesome fight that would’ve otherwise ended after three rounds to turn pretty much everyone that doesn’t like it around.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Griffin-Jackson if that’s your cup of tea
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, yeah…
Good thing those extra two rounds gave us the “definitive decision” that everyone wanted.
by madiq on Jul 27, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Torres/Mizugaki and…
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think a 50-45 fight can be considered a ‘war’.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
One score was 50-44
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
by ufc4 on Jul 27, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah. I didn’t see a 10-8 round in that fight. I saw five 10-9’s.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions
In a war, there are two armies fighting.
-Bill Hicks
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Rec'd
For Hicks.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Another Dead Hero
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jul 27, 2009 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions
And that was a controversial decision as well…
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jul 27, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Really? I thought Torres clearly won three rounds.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, totally. But it was great how it went to the last round. None of which were contested, in my mind.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Rather...
None of which were controversial.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Good point – I remember Torres winning 3 rounds, but tend to judge them internally with Pride’s system , so I can get confused over how I score them. Not that I favor Japan’s methodology, it’s just how I think.
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jul 27, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, cut that shit out. The name of the game is ‘rounds’.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I admit that I forgot about both of those (non-UFC) fights, because part of the argument has to do with people getting less fights for their PPV dollars. Those free TV WEC cards just went into the overrun, deeply if I recall, in a way that a PPV would never have been allowed to do. Plus, it’s telling that featherweights and bantamweights would produce 5-round wars that the fighters in the UFC couldn’t do this year.
I like the idea of 5/5 fights, but the main problem seems to be how to determine who gets it. It’s easy to say “main event” or “former champs”, but how would that have solved Sexyama/Belcher, Rashad/Bonnar, Forrest/Tito, Guida/Griffin, or Guida/Thomas? These are extremely close fights that no amount of prediction could have guessed how close it would have been. I would favor 5/5 only if every fight was extended, which is probably unfeasible.
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jul 27, 2009 4:44 PM EDT reply actions
Is that a list of who determines it?
My point (which I guess wasn’t clear enough) is that it doesn’t solve for fights no expects to be controversial but are, like the ones I listed. Each of those have definite supporters for either fighter winning, but most likely would have remained 3/5, solving nothing.
I say make them all 5/5, or just title bouts.
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jul 27, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm all for more MMA...
But I still prefer if the Title bouts were unique.
3 Rounds for Average fights
5 Rounds for super-fights
7 Rounds for Title fights.
I don’t like five round fights for every fight, but I wouldn’t mind five round fights for all main event headliners. Sometimes it would be nice to have the main event, when it isn’t a title fight, go five rounds. For example in hindsight, I would have loved to see Wandy/Lidell or Wandy/Franklin go a five rounds instead of three. Same goes for Franklin/Hendo. If they’re gonna do the five round non title fights, there should be a standard like only the main events of a card, or don’t have them at all. I don’t like the idea of picking and choosing which fights will be five rounds.
I love me some Sexyama!
makes sense
as long as it’s done in moderation, and doesn’t increase the risk of brain injuries later in life.
Someone said it earlier, why not just have PPV’s without a title fight have their main event a five rounder?
If the PPV’s not in Nevada, they can’t do it.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Something that hasn't been brought up is...
The fighter’s pay. If normally a fighter was going to make $100,000 for a 3 rd fight, shouldnt he be entitled to more money if he has to fight more rounds? Just a thought…
Be a man, not a child-Phil Anselmo
Does a fighter get paid more if he earns a title shot? And just because it’s scheduled for 5 rounds doesn’t mean they’re gonna fight 5 rounds, just ask Rich Franklin.
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
by ufc4 on Jul 27, 2009 10:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Title fights seldom end in the fourth or fifth
UFC 28 to UFC 93: 32% of fights ended in decision. That’s a 68% finishing rate.
UFC 28 to UFC 100: 26 championship (ie five-round) fights had no finish by the third round, and only 5 of them finished in the fourth round and only 1 in the fifth round (Couture v Ricco Rodriguez).
That’s a 19% finishing rate for the fourth round (5 of 26).
And a 5% finishing rate in the fifth round (1 of 21).
Obviously the sample size of five-round fights is rather small, but I wouldn’t expect more rounds to add many more finishes.
Not really perfect info.
26 didn’t finish by the 3rd, but how many were finished before the third round? The extra rounds will impact the way the first 3 rounds are fought, so it would be stupid to not count those finishes in your info.
Not trying to be stupid I just dont have that information. If someone knows how many championship fights there have been total, we could figure it out pretty easily.
by Graven Image on Jul 27, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Probably the best compromise is to do it K-1 style with judges being more comfortable to hand out draws (end the 10 point must system).
If its close, it goes to an extension round. If nobody dominates the extension, another extension. Then the decision determines the winner then.
^ Not this.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
This borders on the absurd, but...
How about fights that are ruled a split decision by the judges go to a 4th round.
And Title fights stay as 5 rounds.
It would be near impossible for a fight that is a split decision to be changed by a 4th round.
If it’s 29-28, 29-28, and 28-29, what can the 4th round do? It can either make the fight a draw, or it can make the guy who just got the decision win, unless the person who was losing wins 10-8 or something.
The numbers from above seem to show that there really aren’t a lot of finishes in the 4th and 5th round. It would be especially hard for people that haven’t trained for those extra rounds to do that.
My reasoning for the extra rounds is that it will lead to more finishes in the earlier rounds.
That’s an argument that’s kind of hard to quantify. I’d like to know if the fighters themselves place any additional pressure to try and end fights sooner based on the amount of rounds. GSP stated in his second fight against Penn that he wanted to wear BJ down for a couple of rounds before going in for the kill. Georges also stated he wanted to finish Alves in the Championship rounds but was unable to due to his groin injury.
So if you take the Belcher Akiyama fight..
30-27 Akiyama
29-28 Akiyama
29-28 Belcher
If Belcher wins the new fourth round 10-9, then Akiyama still wins.
Make the last round count for the whole ballgame. I don’t like it, but that would work better.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks, sadface.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
More rounds means more time to laynpray for fighters who dont mind winning by decision.
Better idea, 10 minute 1st round so fighters have more set up time for submissions and then 1 additional 5 minute round and judge the fight as a whole.
Worked for Pride.
How is Pride doing nowadays? That system also allows for less accountability from the judges.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
I hear their shirts are selling like hotcakes.
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
by ufc4 on Jul 27, 2009 10:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I always though a 10 minute first round, weighted 2x, for Championship fights only would be neat.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
The problem with this is that I’ve always thought those 10 minute rounds are all the evidence you need that PED use wasn’t just rampant in Pride, but absolutely necessary. That aside, I think it would be kind of cool simply because I tend to fall on the “prefer grappling” end of the spectrum.
by An Old Friend on Jul 27, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions
"Must not exceed"
The current wording allows for a a championship bout that is less than 5 rounds. I doubt this will ever happen at the highest levels, but it’s interesting that they’re being loose here. Do smaller promotions do 3 or 4 round championship bouts?
This document is full of good stuff
This is one of them
4. A referee may view a replay, if available, at the conclusion of a contest or exhibition
stopped immediately due to an injury to an unarmed combatant pursuant to NAC 467.718 in
order to determine whether the injury in question was caused by a legal blow or a foul.
People are suggesting that additional rounds bring about a greater opportunity to see a finish instead of deferring to the shaky judging. Not sure if it’s up there somewhere, but the Championship rounds rarely result in a finish. The fifth round has only resulted in one in the UFC, to my knowledge. I prefer three rounds to be judged than five, with the potential of two tired, plodding fighters having nearly undistinguishable 10/9’s in the remaining two rounds. I’d say that judging would have to be changed too (whole fights rather than round by round), but if they do that, this five round business is moot.
I have several other reasons beyond this that I won’t bother bringing up in detail (fighters being too gradually paced for fear of their tank spending, less fights on the card, the added allure of the five round title fight). My vote is an emphatic “no”.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
You can’t only count the number of fights that finish in the 4th and 5th rounds. To make any sort of statement like that you need to compare the decision rate from all 3 round fights to the decision rate for all 5 round fights.
I didn’t compile the numbers myself, but it slopes dramatically as the rounds go on. There’s no real argument here. Leland probably has them laying around somewhere…
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/3/19/803731/finishing-rates-by-round-a
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
The slope doesn’t matter.
The fact that a fight lasts 5 rounds can effect whether or not it ends in the first.
Of course it does
I argued against the idea that more rounds means the fight won’t go to the cards as often.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
But you aren’t taking into account the fact that 5 round fights finish more often than 3 round fights. that means they won’t go to the cards as often. Just because the fight doesn’t end in the 4th or 5th round doesn’t mean that the rounds are meaningless.
5 round fights probably finish more often simply because better fighters (championship caliber) are in those fights.
And we’re talking about fights with better fighters who don’t happen to be fighting for a belt in the current fight.
Are Tony Lopez and Chad Kerrick higher caliber than Randy Couture and Big Nog because KOTC has a belt to give the winner of that fight but Dana doesn’t have a belt to give to the winner of that fight?
I understand that.
Another thing mmalogic predicted was more weight classes. Wouldn’t those additional weight classes make this rule change moot? Wouldn’t Henderson-Franklin be a title match at 192lbs?
Maybe, but what about Nog/Couture? A few more weight classes would be welcome, but it shouldn’t (and I don’t think their planning) to turn it into boxing where every conceivable big match is for a belt because there’s always some belt to be put up for grabs.
It doesn’t matter how many weight classes there are, the fact that 2 guys fighting for buffalo bob’s belt get to fight more rounds than a #1 contender match in the UFC or 2 former champions is bogus.
Looking at the UFC roster, I believe dividing the weight classes will pretty solve the 5 round non-title fight issue. First, there won’t be many Nog/Couture non title matches. Second, almost every UFC event will at least have a title belt up for grabs, so hence why would they need the 5 round non-title fight to headline the card?
That is one of the better points raised against the idea.
I still think there’s little harm in putting the option on the table though. The UFC is pretty smart about matchmaking.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
Logic posted both of these a month ago
He said the UFC was pushing for 5 round non-title fights and that the weight classes are going to be divided. He said both ideas stemmed from feedback that non-title card events left fans feeling short changed.
Yeah and he’s been quite adamant in the last couple days that the weight divisions are coming soon. (Including shifting WW to 175 which will makes things nice and smooth)
I think the imminent reduction in the demand for 5-round fights is an important mitigating factor against the perceived necessity of increasing the supply of 5-round fights.
Of course, this doesn’t address the argument that good fighters deserve more than 3 rounds to play out a fight, which is one that I’m also sympathetic to.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
Than you are making a class distinction on fighters based on nothing that is tangible and transparent. 5 years from now we might be stuck with every match being 5 rounds because no one’s ego can accept being relegated to 3 round fight.
I’m not strongly in favor of 5-round non-title fights, I just don’t think it’s a terrible idea.
At any rate, the whole thing is intangible and opaque already.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
I will say that I think there could be issues with guys who get some 5 rounders and then end up back at 3 rounds—but people also end up at the ass end of divisions and outside of the UFC to boot. The UFC’s ego is biggest of all, and I imagine they will keep their talent in line.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
Well, if the fighter’s want 5 rounders, what’s the problem?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I’d rather watch four 3 round matches and main event in 3 hour broadcast than three five round matches.
If neither Henderson or Franklin have a belt (especially with expanded weight classes) than as a consumer I’m not particularly interested in watching there extra rounds.
So again, if the end goal is to cram as many fights into the broadcast as possible, why not go to one round fights?
The UFC’s also already shown that they can schedule two five round fights and guarantee three others multiple times, so this whole point is being way overblown.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
You mean most recently, when they had to scurry and put Fitch/Thiago on the back end? And GSP said he didn’t have enough time to do his pre-fight warmup (and that it may have caused his groin injury) and Fitch and Thiago were ready to go, but had to sit on it for an hour?
Seamless.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
by Blackout612 on Jul 27, 2009 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions
That was the UFC’s fault behind-the-scenes and had nothing to do with the structure of the card.
They also had two title fights at UFC 92 and UFC 73.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Splitting the weight classes won’t change the fact that there will be times that there is a definite #1 contender’s match that should be 5 rounds.
It’s not about giving good matches more rounds, it’s about giving the PPV card a feeling of having a legitimate main event to fans. If UFC has 7-8 titles you can bet every PPV will have at least one 5 round title match to make the fans feel they are getting there monies worth.
If that’s the UFC’s only reasoning, that’s really unfortunate.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
If the UFC has actual research that says that fans walk away feeling cheated because of 3-round main events, and that this would help resolve that, how would this reasoning be unfortunate? They’re trying to make fans happy by giving them what they want. What better intent is there really?
But is it the three-round main event, or the (1) lack of a title fight, and (2) lack of a finish? I’d submit that a clear 3-round domination might supply a satisfying ending, but still, a first round stoppage will likely be better received by fans than a five round 49-46 decision.
I agree there are nuances. Even before the event occurs, the presence of a title fight or a 5-round main event will present more value to the fans deciding on whether to attend or buy the PPV. How the fight plays out is almost a separate concept – that’s really in the hands of the matchmaker and the fighters.
Except that it does. Unless zero fights are getting finished past the third round (which isn’t the case) more fights will be finished.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I conveniently overlooked those numbers, because they weren’t included when I originally saw the break down. I still have a multitude of reasons not to be on board, not the least of which is that the judges hardly know what to do with three rounds, and five is just going to make them sit in their own shit 20 minutes in.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Explain how adding rounds makes things more difficult for judges.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Tired fighters make for closer rounds. Inactivity. You’re throwing two more variables into the equation.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Not really—either one fighter wins the round, or the round is a draw. Same as it is in an exciting but close round.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
Dude-
When is the last time you saw a draw in a round in the UFC?
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Scored
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Just to settle this…
Since the introduction of the Unified Rules, there have been 76 title fights in the UFC with 58 being stopped before final bell for a finish rate of 76.3%.
This is how they have been finished by round (while also showing the number of fights that have gotten to that point):
Round 1 – 24/76
Round 2 – 14/52
Round 3 – 14/38
Round 4 – 5/24
Round 5 – 1/19
Should be noted that 68% of title fights end within 3 rounds which is consistent with the standard MMA average. There’s a 11.7% increase in finishes between title and non-title fights.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
But only a marginal utility of 13.95%, as 37 of 43 extra rounds proved insufficient to produce a finish. That means that each additional finish “cost” us 30.83 minutes, or the equivalent of more than two full fights.
by madiq on Jul 27, 2009 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
Yep.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Ugh
I don’t like that idea as a regularity at all. Keep the five for title bouts.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Let’s get rid of all 5 round fights.
Wouldn’t want to waste any time after all.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
This kind of shit really pisses me off
We don’t want to make all the fights 30 seconds, and you don’t want to make them all an hour. Now let’s stop mischaracterizing people’s arguments and agree there is a happy medium between the two extremes.
They’re called ‘championship rounds’ for a reason. Keep them that way.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
“Championship rounds” would work if they worked it the way they do in boxing. where “world championship” fights go 12 rounds, while the WDSC Northeast Corner of Texas Super light middleweight championship fight can be less.
It makes no sense that a King of the Cage Championship match should have more rounds than Rich Franklin/Dan Henderson.
They’re called “championship rounds” because of the arbitrary nature of title fights/non-title fights. It’s not some inherent definition.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I grant your semantic point. I still like things the way they are now.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe you’re in pain over something else that happened in this thread, but not everyone is going to agree with you..
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Hey, I was just putting it out there. I’m rather ambivalent about having more 5-round fights myself.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
Comment seemed to denote a pretty clear stance.. Either way, I’m really against it. Or in rare circumstances. I don’t want one on every card, but then how do you decide in a way that seems official and not arbitrary?
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
The only way
Would be to say ‘main events are five rounds always’. But to do that you’d need to a) get every athletic commission everywhere to allow it and b) explain to fighters co-main eventing a title shot why they only get to fight three rounds.
I don’t like it.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s exactly what makes me ambivalent about it. There are sometimes fights where, at the end, I think another round or two could be interesting. Going in, it’s not so clear. Five round fights seem to be preferable for title bouts, but the logic is not particularly more clear than it is for why there shouldn’t be non-title 5-round fights. There’s pros and cons.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
Negotiations between the two camps and promoter with oversight from the AC. Why does there need to be some hard and fast rule?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Fighter safety :-p
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Because there is now and I like it this way. There’s already so much uncertainty that goes into judging these fights, and interpretations of rules. Do you really want to explain to a casual observer, who is already unsure of why those things are the way they are, that “this fight is five rounds because the fighters decided they wanted five instead of three”.
I’m all about more certainty, not less.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
How about “because it’s the main event”. Pretty simple, no?
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
If it's optional?
Then it’s arbitrary.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Do we really have to insult the intelligence of the viewing public? Do boxing fans go apeshit because an undercard fight goes six rounds and the main event goes twelve? You don’t need a dissertation to explain why a fight is five rounds.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Who's talking about boxing?
I’m talking about wanting consistency in mixed martial arts and retaining the five round title fight. I think the idea of fighters arbitrarily agreeing on a three or five round fight, if they’re in the main event, is totally ridiculous. What if they don’t agree with one another because one guy feels he has a better tank? Coin flip? Yeah, why not..
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Yeah
Let’s complicate UFC contracts and fight negotiations. Let’s have fighters turn down fights because they feel more comfortable with a three round fight than a five rounder, and thus, default to the next available challenger.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
by Blackout612 on Jul 27, 2009 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that would happen
You don’t think Tito would want every fight to go 5 rounds? He’d also be the 1st to dismiss a loss because the fight was only 3 rounds. We’d all start debating fight results based on the number of rounds, in 3 round fights fighter X wins, but in a 5 round format fighter Y would win.
I think that the debate is already at hand. From time to time we have fights that will have an important affect on a division involving experienced fighters, many of whom have already been in title fights. When these fights end inconclusively, the order in the division is unclear, and there is motivation for an early rematch. Five round fights could offer more definitive answers.
They might not, of course—I’m not convinced that the potential benefits outweigh the potential pitfalls. I simply think it is a tool that promotions, particularly the UFC, are responsible enough to wield.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
I wish I could recommend this comment more than once. Marginal thinking is essential in evaluating a change like this.
by former tuf noob on Jul 27, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. Moreover, saying that the percentage of title fights that end within 3 rounds is consistent with the standard MMA average, and then going on to make a big deal about how after 2 more rounds, those same title fights are being finished more often than 3 rounders – Mike, do you realize how obvious and meaningless a statement that is? I’m not sure how you can possibly use that in this debate.
So 68% of those title fights are finished by the 3rd round, which is on par with the average as you point out. If you now give them another few rounds to finish the fight, of course there are going to be more finishes – there sure as hell aren’t going to be less. To give that as a reason to go to more rounds is ridiculous. Why not 7 rounds then, or 9, you’ll get even more finishes. You either aren’t thinking through the meaning behind the statistics, or you’re purposely trying to manipulate opinion with them.
Relevant and suggestive, but not conclusive. You’re not comparing apples to apples. To be constructive, I think there’s a simple fix.
What you want is the effect of bout length (three vs. five rounds) on outcome (finish vs. decision). The problem is that title bouts and non-title bouts aren’t comparable. Five-rounders for the belt feature the “best” fighters; there’s no guarantee the three-rounders feature fighters of comparable quality. This selection bias contaminates the result.
What may be your best option is to compare the finishing rate for title fights vs. the finishing rate for non-title fights that are either the main or co-main event of the evening. In my opinion, this is an apples-to-apples comparison. (You could construct the counterfactual in other ways, but this one seems the most clear cut and easiest to defend.)
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
That being said, getting large enough n for the non-title main events could be an issue.
I still think this is the best alternative as of now.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m really not sure which way I lean on this issue but I think I’m more in favor than against for one reason, that being it gives more to the people who pay $200, $300, $500 or more for a seat to see an event in person that doesn’t have a championship bout. I think I’d be more inclined to buy a ticket to a card with no championship fight if I knew the main event could end up going 5 rounds and have a more decisive conclusion than, for example, Henderson-Franklin. That’s the one part that makes this seem most logical to me.
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
I don’t agree with that logic. You have millions of people at home and around 10k in the arena. Maybe if ticket sales were lacking, you could factor this into fixing the issue. But let’s be honest; I have friends that still don’t know which fight is going five and which is three. I guarantee that many of those people at the shows are in the same boat.
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
Really?
You don’t think the people shelling out hundreds of dollars for a ticket have a better idea what’s going on than those pitching in $10 for a PPV?
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
How on earth is that quantifiable?
"The reason a rabbit outruns a fox is because the rabbit is running for his life and the fox is running for his dinner."
You said it first not me, you should be asking yourself that question.
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
by ufc4 on Jul 27, 2009 10:27 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Really not sure about this rule change
Will the additional two rounds add some clarity to the fights? I think Henderson-Franklin is just as close in 5 rounds as it is 3 rounds. The additional 2 rounds didn’t help clarify the better fighter in Rampage-Griffin.
There’s also no way of knowing which fights will be close ahead of time. Sure, you could predict Condit/Kampmann as close, but Akiyama/Belcher or Guida/Griffin? Who would have said, “This fight might end in a tough decision, we’d better add more rounds.”?
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jul 27, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, of course a five round fight can still be very close but I think it improves the chances of giving it more clarity.
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
I mean that you can’t predict which fights will need clarity after 3 rounds. If you don’t know which ones will need 10 more minutes, how can you effectively use them? I’m for all-or-none for non-title 5/5. I like consistency.
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jul 27, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I like the idea of a 4th round sudden death if the judges agree it’s just too close to call. By sudden death, I mean whoever wins the 4th round wins the fight. Still, this would be in the case of 29-28, 28-29, 29-28 fight were the judges conclude one round was too close to call. There should be no extra round if the judges clearly feel a fighter won two rounds.
If the judges feel 1 round was too close to call they should have scored it 10-10.
Maybe I’ll bite to this sudden death round if the fight is already a draw, but if the judges pick a winner, it should stay. It would be so hard to write this down.
What if the fight is scored 30-27, 30-27, 28-29? now we go to a 4th round and that guy who got beat soundly on 2 cards and squeaked by on 1 only has to win one round to win the fight?
This rule change would give them more freedom to score a round 10-10. Right now there job is to come up with a resolution, if they are scoring a 10-10 in 3 round fight they essentially ruled it a draw. An additional 4th round to settle the fight takes some of the burden off there shoulders.
Obviously you didn’t read my example above, two 30-27 scores would declare a winner after 3 rounds.
Easy, sudden death round is only for fights that are scored to be within a 1 point difference (i.e. 29-28,29-28,28-29). If the scores are 30-27,29-28,28-29 then no sudden death.
Some people might say that winning a fight makes you a better fighter but I don’t agree with that.- BlueberryMuffin
by ufc4 on Jul 27, 2009 10:33 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
“how can you effectively use them?”
I’m still dumbfounded that this is a talking point.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Because...?
I’m saying it’s ineffective because you don’t know which fights need them. What did you think I mean?
Shameless self-promotion! http://twitter.com/scb0212
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jul 27, 2009 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions
You don’t need to know, you pick the fights with the fighters who you think deserve the opportunity to go 5 rounds. It’s not hard to pick, just look at the cards and think
UFC 101: Griffin vs. Silva
UFC 102: Nog vs Couture
UFC Fight Night: none
UFC 103: Hendo vs. Franklin
UFC 104: Carwin vs Velazquez or Okami vs Sonnen or neither
If the fights don’t go 5 rounds, who cares, if they do go 5 rounds, you get a better chance to see a finish, and you get more info for the judges to make a better decision on.
Yeah I don’t think it will hurt to give the the promotions the option to propose 5 round fights. If they overuse them, they will learn quickly from their mistakes—or at least I don’t doubt that the UFC will.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
That’s why the commission needs to have the final say. I said it was dumb at first, but I guess the wording “special event” works, but I just think the way it is now is silly.
People complain about this method being arbitrary, but isn’t letting any promoter who has a belt decide what fight is 5 rounds just as arbitrary?
I’m afraid this rule might get overused and later changed back. Could you imagine if Kimbo’s EliteXC fights were originally 5 rounds?
Also, lets pretend the commission denied Gary Shaw for such a proposal, than he’s walking around bashing the commission for discriminating against him while allowing another promotion to use the 5 round non-title fight to build up their fighters. This puts athletic commissions in the cross hairs of anyone stating they play favorites.
As much as I hate
5 rounds of lay n pray.
As much as I hate fighters gassing after only 2 rounds in a 5 round fight.
Definitely possible that there will be more 4 fight UFC cards, which would suck.
But in the end, the promotions should have the option.
A #1 contender match should be awarded the luxury of a 5 round fight.
I don’t like. A 5 round non-title fight could potentialy take away from other bouts, or an undercard bout. I would rather see more fights in a UFC Fight Night card. Think about it!!
Not in sports.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 27, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Would American professional football, baseball or basketball be better if there was competition for the top athletes? No.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 28, 2009 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions
But would prices be lower and supply be greater? That’s all madiq suggested, and all the basic theory suggests.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
It’s all about quality at the elite levels of sports, and that’s what monopolies like the NFL, NBA and MLB do – provide a quality product, regulated by a union of its athletes, in a marketplace devoid of competition.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 28, 2009 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not arguing that at all—monopoly isn’t a value judgment, it is merely an economic model, albeit one that in many instances reaches suboptimal price and supply levels. This can be overcome if the monopoly succeeds in addressing externalities that would not be captured by higher levels of competition.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
And one of the reasons why the economics of sport are complex is that the market is not devoid of competition: the members of each league compete against each other, and the leagues themselves are essentially in competition for buyers, capital, and athletes.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
Well, not so much under a salary cap, but I see your point.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 28, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions
subo, I think your point is overlooked in discussions on the UFC’s market power.
As an objective matter, I think one of the benefits of having a monopolist run MMA is that the power to “certify” (award the belt) would be centralized. Assuming the monopolist certifies only one champ per weight class, we would always know who’s “the best” within each weight class. Personally speaking, seeing the centralization in MMA vs. the chaos in boxing was one reason why I dropped boxing for MMA.
Of course, the monopolist can use his market power to do things we don’t like. But people always mention these things. I just think the gains from certification shouldn’t be ignored.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 3:40 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s assuming the monopolist actually certifies the best fighters. We’ve already seen with the UFC that the best fighters don’t always get the title shots.
Right, there’s no guarantee this would be true.
But, I think it’s within the realm of possibility at the very least.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Since the AFL/NFL merger (when you could say the monopoly started) the NFL has added 6 teams, extended the season by 2 games (and is currently looking to expand it further), and expanded the playoffs.
The NBA, NHL, and MLB have all continued to expand (some say too much), extend the playoffs, and extend the season as time has gone on.
most of the sports world is handled by monopolies, and there’s more supply than ever.
Again, I don’t think this is being approached with any grasp of econometrics. Time series data is notoriously difficult to interpret—for example if there remained two competing football leagues, might there have been even more expansion? The simplest theory says yes, but we’ll never know. There’s a ton of good reasons why the economics of sports work the way they do but to state baldly that they defy basic economic theory is just silly.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
I have to agree here. It’s going to be hard to argue against the model without a good counterfactual (i.e. data on supply of “sports” in the absence of monopoly).
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
??
There are peculiarities inherent in sport that preclude it from being characterized by basic ‘monopolist’ theory (particularly when considering multi-team professional leagues), but there is nothing that makes the basic tenets of monopoly theory inapplicable to sport in the abstract. That is to say, if a sport-entity was truly a monopoly, economic theory would suggest that prices would be higher and supply would be lower than would be the case if the entity was subject to competition.
I’m not sure how this relates to the subject at hand though.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
Didn't know this was considered a foul. See section 10 #31. Anybody know why?
31. Throwing in the towel during competition
I’ve always assumed that it’s a way to give cornermen the power to stop a fight if their fighter won’t agree. That would assume it’s grounds for disqualification, though, which it might not be.
by An Old Friend on Jul 28, 2009 2:38 AM EDT up reply actions
What is the finishing rate for main and co-main events that aren’t five round bouts?
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 3:03 AM EDT reply actions
The problem is that there is no way to tell for sure in advance which fights would ‘need’ the two extra rounds. Franklin-Henderson, Akiyama-Belcher, Franklin-W.Silva, Condit-Kampmann would have benefited from it, but then again, there will always be the kind of main events everyone thinks run too long – even if they were three-round matches.
If the promoters want more finishes, I believe some sort of a ‘finish bonus’ would help matters along much more than more rounds. (Yes, I know, the NSAC makes the rules, not UFC or any other promotion.)
I’m all for 3 × 5mins for every non-title fight. If the fight feels like it should have gone on longer, it’s just one more reason to have a rematch at some point down the road.
by Monday Morning Martial Artist on Jul 28, 2009 10:46 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
