The Five Rounds Debate: Fighter Safety & Casual Fan Interest
by Leland Roling on Jul 28, 2009 11:18 AM EDT
Email
Print
Yesterday, our own Mike Fagan posted an article reporting that the Nevada State Athletic Commission will decide on some new rules for MMA on August 17th. One of the rule changes set to be voted on by the NSAC is to increase rounds within "special events" to five rounds at the discretion of the NSAC. This will most likely be in response to a request from the promotion. The criteria for which a bout falls under the "special" criteria has yet to be mentioned by the NSAC.
While Mike has his own view as to why five rounds should be considered, I have a different view of the situation. Most notably, I think five rounds is the wrong way to entice casual fan interest. I also believe that fighter safety can become a huge problem if five round battles are created for nearly every single UFC event. Injuries could increase if five round bouts become common. Furthermore, excitement, something the casual fan craves, drops off dramatically after the third round in most cases.
Most of us are hardcore fans, but many fans throughout the blogosphere don't have a great grasp on what casual fans actually want. Most would argue that friends love what you love, but that's really only a small portion of all the fans out there. Casual fans don't want five round fights, and they probably don't want fewer fights on a UFC pay-per-view that they paid some solid dough to watch. For championship bouts that have meaning, I think it's easily understandable that casual fans can see why these rule changes are made for those types of battles, but there haven't been many bouts that have been finished in the "championship rounds".
It was pointed out in the previous article that 68% of five-round title fights end by the third round. Why increase the rounds to five when almost 70% are ending by the third round? Furthermore, conditioning becomes a factor as well when we consider five-round match-ups, and the more tired fighters get in the cage... the higher chance of a serious injury.
The one area that I feel is ignored in the argument of 3 rounds vs. 5 rounds is fighter safety. While it may not be a problem for the current roster of fighters in most of the divisions, I'm fearful that younger generations of fighters that move up into the UFC may be subjected to five-round fights more than the current roster. It'll probably help their training routines as they'll have to prepare more for these battles, but I'm more fearful that those fighters that lack the unbelievable finishing ability of a guy like Brock Lesnar or Drew McFedries will be involved in epic slugfests to the final bell.
In that case, five rounds isn't a good idea if trying to continue a career. Fighters like Lyoto Machida, Anderson Silva, and Fedor Emelianenko are some of the most elusive fighters on the planet, thus my argument really doesn't apply. Fighters like Scott Smith, Chris Leben, Wanderlei Silva, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira, the list goes on... I have some serious doubts about continually putting into five-round battles. Granted, Leben won't be a guy seeing those types of battles, but the up-and-coming crop of fighters could most definitely see that type of fight.
This isn't an argument completely against five round bouts. I wouldn't mind seeing some special events promoted with a five round limit, but I would like to see some restraint from promotions to think about the fighters they are sending into the Octagon to do battle for five rounds. I'd also urge promotions to keep track of who they are continually sending into these wars. Generally, fighters climbing their way up the ladder are willing to fight more per year than champions, so I'd encourage those fighters to also think about the ramifications of taking blow after blow for five rounds.
The ultimate debate here, in my mind, is casual fan interest vs. hardcore fan interest. Most would say casual fans want the blood, the knockouts, the quick finishes while hardcore fans just want to see the best vs. best match-ups. Five-round fights could provide some very entertaining fights on UFC PPV events, although it could limit the amount of fights shown on the PPV.
The big question to ask is what do casual fans actually want. They want excitement. There is a good chance a five- round fight can provide that, but I'll go with the stats. Four and five round finishes are rare in championship bouts, and excitement goes downhill as fighters begin to get tired. Casual fans don't want that kind of fight. Keep the championship bouts at five rounds, continue using a three-round format. It works. Sure, we have some crappy decisions every now and then, but I still feel that comes back to poor judging. Education of those judges needs to fix that, not adding more rounds for more decisive finishes.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
190 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
“Sure, we have some crappy decisions every now and then, but I still feel that comes back to poor judging.”
This isn’t true at all. Go back and look at the fights I mentioned in the first article (Henderson/Franklin, Franklin/Silva, Condit/Kampmann, Uno/Fisher). The problem wasn’t bad judging at all; no one got robbed. The problem is that one or more rounds were so close that it’s hard to say definitively that X was better than Y.
On fighter safety, from the last comment thread:
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.
“…there haven’t been many bouts that have been finished in the ‘championship rounds’.”
25% of fights that go past the 3rd round have been stopped.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
This is true. One more round would have definitely matter, although judging could have been better in any of those instances.
Basically, we’re going to be in disagreeance on this topic. I disagree that fighter safety isn’t an issue. Most people throw the whole “Well, nothing has happened yet” argument, and “there’s no proof” argument into my face regarding this… but it’s pretty obvious that taking more blows over time isn’t good. More five round fights makes this happen. Period.
Furthermore, most five round fights past the third round still go to decision. Casual fan interest is the entertainment factor, and as you and WKR have been talking about on twitter, I still think he’s right. Entertainment is sport. Casual fans win over our actual opinions, and they don’t want to see more five round fights. Unless you’re going to throw Guida-Huerta in there every time, or some other barn-burner match-up, I think it’s a bad idea.
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 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t understand this argument. Why is it it’s safe for champs to fight 5 rounds, but ex-champs are in danger of injuries? Most main eventers are ex-champs. They can definitely take care of themselves.
You’re arguing as if 5 round main events will almost always end in 5 rounds. I don’t have the stats with me, but most championship fight not fought by GSP are ended in three or less. The 5 round fights are just insurance. Furthermore, to think that 5 round fights will force the promotion to show less fights overall is erroneous. If and when fights end early, the promotion will continue to show under card fights. This will not change.
Sure, we’ll get some bad fights. However, the great 5-round fights will more than make up for it. However, great match ups deserve 5 rounds.
Ex-champs wasn’t a part of the equation. There has been no criteria deemed correct yet. I wouldn’t be against ex-champ vs. ex-champ going 5 rounds.
Ended in three or less, so why not just maintain the three rounds then?
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 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
“Ended in three or less, so why not just maintain the three rounds then?”
This has been addressed over and over.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Honestly
It needs to be the responsibility of the fighters to end the fights. When it goes to the judges score cards, anything can happen. Giving them an extra round or two is no guarantee at a better conclusion. I for one seriously, seriously hope they don’t try and add any rounds to fights. Good article Leland.
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
by funnytiger on Jul 28, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
I’d like to see it limited to 5 round non title main events. These are often contender match ups and if you are in a position to be in the main event then you should be able to handle a 5 round fight. This won’t hurt the up and comers and won’t significantly effect the PPV’s. The only exceptions I could get behind would be TUF coaches show downs and Fight night main events so long as they are contenders matches.
The problem I have with the 5 round fight is how do you decide if it should be 5 or 3. With the way it is now only title fights have 5 rounds. Thats pretty solid. How would you decide on a rare or special event that should go 5 rounds? How about 5 round fights for rematches only. If the first fight goes to a decision then the next meeting of those fighters should go to 5 rounds. That might be a good rule of thumb.
The general consensus is that co-main events and main events should be 5 rounds, so ultimately.. the UFC would decide which fights to do as five rounds. I’m sure the NSAC would have no problems approving those fights… unless maybe Coleman tries to apply for a five rounder.
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 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Having many 5 round fights would do the following:
1. Create a lot of boring fights.
2. Shorten fighters careers substantially.
3. Hurt the sport in the long run.
I wouldn’t mind seeing an occassional one. And what I mean by occassional is perhaps 4 to 5 fights TOPS in the UFC over the course of a year that are non-title and 5 Rounds. Fights like Franklin/Henderson and Franklin/Wanderlei come to mind.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Jul 28, 2009 10:50 AM EDT reply actions
Why should Franklin get special treatment? Yes his style is better for 5 rounds but its his fualt that he is no longer champion to do so.
It’s just not Franklin. He just happens to be in 2 fights recently that could (but didn’t need to be) scheduled for 5 rounds. Other fighters are worthy as well. I just don’t want to see Lauzon/Stephens as a UFC Fight Night main event getting 5 rounds. That is no good.
I made a post a while back outlining a bunch of fights that before they happened could have been up for 5 rounds. The majority of them would have been pointless to go an additional 2 rounds….
by AlwaysRelaxing on Jul 28, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
This is generally my view.
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 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think you’ve established 2.
I think a convincing argument requires more than the assertion… something like a back-of-the-envelope calculation (like BJJDenver does below) would be better. It crystallizes the debate and is easier to argue about.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I disagree completely.
1-Boring fights are going to be boring, this won’t create them. I think for every fight taht would be 5 bad rounds, we would see some that were exciting for 5 rounds. And how many 5 rounders actually go the full 5 rounds?
2-No it wouldn’t. It wont always be the same fighters, it will add only 10-15 fights per year at most, imo. so if a fighter fights 2 extra rounds per year, that is going to significantly shorten their career?
3-How would it hurt the sport? I think it would help it, by making the UFC or whomever, make contender fights clear to the fans.
I would say only superfights like Franklin/Wandy, Forrest/Silva, GSP/Penn, etc… and fights noted as top contender or eliminator bouts.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
Umm…I don’t decide and neither do you.
My best guess is that the promoter would decide and then submit it to the commission for approval.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
That came out kind of awkward. What I was trying to say is that the fans don’t decide.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
I understood. I like that idea but it worries me i dont wanna see fight nights with 3 fights or ppv’s with 4 fights. Too many factors to account for
No, I agree completely with that.
I doubt if we would see a 5 rounder on a fight night , and rarely on a ppv, though 101 is perfect example of where it might have happened. 100 wasn’t hurt by having 2 title fights, so I think it is just a matter of them doing a good job scheduling. And I think we should probably be sure to consider how many 5 rounders go the full 5.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
It would hurt the sport when you have less fights per PPV…. Or more boring fights that would just make the PPV drag on.
For every Franklin/Henderson that we wish could go longer… There are 3 Florian/Huerta’s that have little purpose of going 5 rounds. It would have proven nothing. Only made the fighters potentially have more injuries.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Jul 28, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
How is there going to be less fights on ppv?
It would be very easy to tighten the broadcast, there probably wouldn’t be that many fights that go the full 5 rounds and so on.
There is no proof that 5 rounders cause more injury. I could sit here and say that 3 rounders cause more injury because fighters are more willing to take risks before time runs out, etc…
And again on the fights per ppv. I dont think a promotion is going to add 2 or 3 to each ppv. You are looking at the rare occasion that more than 1 would be on the ppv.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
"There is no proof that 5 rounders cause more injury."
Not directly, but there is proof that the more fatigued a person is the more likely they are to get hurt…
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
You’re right about the effect. However, you’ve mistaken the cause. 5 round fights don’t cause injuries; out-shape, unprepared fighters cause injuries. However, fatigue usually end fights fairly quickly before any injuries set in.
When you have 10 minutes longer to punch, kick, knee, takedown, etc…. And do that after 15 minutes of action….. Injuries are more prone.
That has nothing to do with out of shape athletes. That has to do with the human body being able to only take so much.
A lot of fighters have come out of 5 round wars VERY BADLY. Franklin against Louiseau. Couture against Ricco. Faber against Brown 2. The list goes on and on. And even if the injury was created in the 1st round, having a fighter go 4 more rounds with that injury only makes it worse.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Jul 28, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
So you’re basically saying that MMA is dangerous so we should limit the number rounds for fights? Why not just make it 1 round so that injuries are even less severe? Why not just ban MMA altogether because the sport is inherently prone to injury?
If you argue that 5 round fights make MMA less exciting, I’m with you. However, to limit rounds because of the potential for injury for a sport whose sole goal is to injure the other guy so he’s KO’ed or he quits is a bit silly.
This is my problem with the safety argument as well. If 5-round fights are significantly more dangerous for the fighters than why have them at all. Their is a question as to where to draw the line.
by Graven Image on Jul 28, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Because the argument isn’t that they are more dangerous right now, the argument is that five round battles over time to a fighter’s brain are more dangerous.
I’m not arguing against five-round bouts if they are used rarely and the fighters within those fights are competent conditioning wise. I’m against any five round fights in which a fighter has been in a plethora of those battles. I stated this all above in the article.
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 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t get me wrong, I tend to agree that if ALL fights were 5 rounds we would see some different long term effects. However, the number of 5 rounders added would be very, very minimal and thus the effect of a handful of fighters fighting approximately an extra 2 rounds per year would be minimal. To me there is NO safety issue in having a limited number of 5 rounders per year. And I doubt there are very many 5 round fights that are sustained back and forth exchanges, whereas with a limited 3 round fight, there is more pressure to get the fight “finished”. Additionally, wouldn’t the prospect of having a 5 round fight, force the fighter to come in at optimal condition, thus lessening the possibility of injury? There are just a bunch of views you can take on this and skew it however fits your view, but realistically this is a microscopic issue, imo.
By using the safety argument, wouldn’t we then want to limit the number of title defenses per year? Maybe BJ Penn is on to something, lol.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
Title defenses are already limited. Most title holders only fight twice, maybe three times in a year.
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 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Am I missing something? Where is written that a title can only be defended X amount of times? I think the only reason they are defended that number of times is due to the limited slots available and because fighters that are titleholders, generally have reached a point in their career where they only want to fight 2-3 times per year.
I don’t think this has anything to do with it being 5 rounds, but maybe I am wrong?
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
It isn’t in writing, but generally.. title holders only defend twice to three times a year. They could go more if they wanted. And I don’t think it’s because of limited slots. I think they generally want to hype those fights for a longer period of time. Slots are becoming an issue though, so I think you’re partially right.
You may be right, it may be the fighters simply saying that they only want to fight 2-3 times a year.
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 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes its other issues that reduce the number of fights for the champ: being financially stable enough to take some time off, never taking fights on short notice, contenders being available in the division, coaching TUF, not having anything to prove…
by Graven Image on Jul 28, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The thing I don't get about all this injury talk
Is if it’s so dang dangerous then why are championship fights 5 rounds? Eliminate it all together if they are so dangerous.
I’m not sure whether they’re more dangerous or not, but considering how precious title shots are, we understand why a fighter would “gut out” rounds when a title is on the line. Jon Fitch might have been done by round 3, practically speaking, but because he never quit, we admire his grit and warrior spirit, even though we know those extra 10 minutes weren’t likely to change the outcome. That said, he earned the right to try.
But a random contenders bout? Its job is to develop a hierarchy for the division, and once one fighter establishes that he is better than the other, the “extra” ten minutes only serve to subject the losing fighter to more punishment, and deprive other fighters in other fights from receiving our attention, as they attempt to establish their hierarchies. It’s a cost-benefit thing, as 10 minutes of title fight are more marginally useful in the narrative of fighters’ careers than 10 minutes of undercard fight. However, the cost in punishment are the same. So you sacrifice one of those in order to preserve the other.
I see your point once again but what happens if one fighter doesn’t establish that he is better than the other in the three round fight for a shot at the title? That’s where the other two rounds come in to play. For me, once again, I don’t mind the extra rounds, nor do I need it to be changed to the extra rounds. The way I look at it now is if there is a controversial decision it’s almost like the losing fighter didn’t lose and the winning fighter didn’t win. So it can either set up a rematch between the two….oops got to go. Pick this up tomorrow. Sorry.
Bad Idea
This is a terrible idea and a potential cost cutting move for promotions.
As it stands we are seeing most cards with 10+ fights per card. Extending this to 5+ rounds will be an easy excuse to drop down to 7 or 8 fights per card.
6-8 less fighters getting paid per event. Less fights on a PPV broadcast. Less fights on normal “Free TV”.
What was the upside of this for the fan exactly?
" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "
Wait, you’re saying: let’s deprive us of great 5 round fights so that we can be spared from boring fights?
I think it should be in reverse: We’re willing to put up with bad fights just so we can get to watch the epic 5 round fights. We watch MMA fights for the great epic fights. 1 epic fight more than make up for 3 bad fights.
From a hardcore fans perspective, that makes sense. But this sport is built on a casual fan base. This will drive away a good amount of casual fans.
And I know people will start to say: “This is sport, and it should be about finding out who the best is”. True, but every major established sports league in America has changed rules in order to please the fans.
The NBA put in the 24 second shot clock and 3 point line as two great examples.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Jul 28, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t have stats to back me up, but I’ll bet anything that 5 round fights tend to end early not later due to the high level of athletes fighting in them. Early finish = more exciting.
Everyone who’s a detractor on 5 round fights are arguing on the premise that 5 round fights tend to be boring. I disagree until someone has the stats to back it up.
The percentage of fights that end in the first three rounds is virtually identical for championship and for non-championship fights.
by Graven Image on Jul 28, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
There were 24 or 26 title fights that made it past the third round (Fagan’s and my number, not sure which is right).
5 fights have ended in the fourth round.
1 fight has ended in the fifth round.
by Graven Image on Jul 28, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions
What Fagan wants 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 his 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. (One could construct the counterfactual in other ways, but the way I described seems the most clear cut and easiest to defend.)
It’s possible there may not be enough fights in this new comparison group to estimate this (i.e. small n problem). But this approach accounts for the selection bias that was erroneously ignored.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Just wondering
Is it your belief that title fights (by having the best fighters) are more likely to be finished or less likely?
by Graven Image on Jul 28, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s a good question. (I think there are interesting questions in this area that the data could possibly speak to.)
Both seem plausible. It could be that as “elite-ness” increases, offensive skill increases. As offensive skill increases, the probability of a finish increases. And you could tell the same story for defensive prowess, with the end result being a lower probability of a finish.
I’m really not sure. What do you think?
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that the probability of a finish is MORE of a question of the GAP in abilities between the two fighters. Thus, roughly speaking, an elite fighter is more likely to finish a non-elite fighter than another elite fighter, and one non-elite fighter is less likely to be finished by another non-elite.
Admittedly, though, the UFC seeks to avoid mismatches, and one can argue that comparable finishing rates in title and non-title fights (although I wonder about finishing rates in Undercard vs. Main Card fights) proves that most fights in the UFC are fairly evenly matched.
That’s better than what I wrote.
I’m not sure how you could test the evenly-matched vs. mis-matched hypothesis, but I think it’s interesting. Will think about it. Might have to reformulate the hypothesis to get a good treatment-comparison thing going.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions
A database with pre-fight odds may be best.
by Graven Image on Jul 28, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions
If we’re not looking at outcomes, this would be the best pre-fight measure I could think of. It’s imperfect, but it’s pretty good.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed on the gap being more important
I also wonder how much of a mental game the title shot is. The challengers I would guess are feeling a lot more pressure, they know they’re not expected to win, they were given a career opportunity, they may not have fought a 5-rounder before, and they often seem like they just want to survive and not embarrass themselves.
People don’t seem to do well when they’re fighting their idol.
by Graven Image on Jul 28, 2009 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Evidence that this will drive away casual fans?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
What I don't understand about the "boring" argument is
there have been so many boring three round fights. What should we do? Cut the fights down to two rounds? Throw some rabid weasels in the cage? Have run ins in case it gets to boring? We are going to have boring fights either way. If there is a possibility of a boring five round fight don’t order the ppv.
If it's a choice...
Between a boring 15 mins and a boring 25 mins…
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
by funnytiger on Jul 28, 2009 5:57 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
But there are 10 or 11 fights on the card. If probability says that two or three of those fights will contain 10-15 minutes of uneventful action each, then the other 8 or 9 fights could contain enough eventful action between them to balance out the 30-45 minutes, even assuming they’re all finished in the first round.
However, PPV audiences don’t see the whole card, and the REAL question comes down to whether, in the 75 or so minutes of bell-to-bell action that is aired on the broadcast, more of that action will be meaningful and eventful, or unexciting and uneventful. ONE 25-minute fight accounts for potentially 33% of the conclusion, one way or the other. That means that one boring fight hamstrings not just fans’ perception of the show, but the rest of the card’s ability to overcome it, because TWO 25-minute fights represent 2/3 of the broadcast bell time, but not 2/3 of the overall bell time. Even if the rest of the fights are exciting and entertaining, those fights have to be crammed into the remaining 25 minutes.
Now contrast that with five 15-minute fights. Sure, the upside is lower (only 15 minutes of exciting action, rather than 25), but so is the downside. So the risk of any ONE fight sinking the card is lower, as long as you believe that MOST fights are exciting and entertaining. One bad fight, one mediocre fight, one great fight, and two good fights still ends up with the PPV rated favorably by fans, even if that bad fight is the main event.
I see your point but isn’t there always a chance of a boring championship fight as well? I’m basing my argument for five round fights for JUST a main event of a PPV card that has no title bouts or for a surefire #1 contendership. The question is should Kampmann/Swick be a five rounder? According to what my criteria are it should be. What does everybody else think? I think it’s funny that this whole argument has denigrated to this side vs that side without anybody realizing that there could be a middle ground. Both arguments have points of merit and both argument have flaws. I’m for 5 round fights if it’s done judiciously. If it gets out of hand I will not like it one bit though.
If it’s done sparingly, I’m okay with it. My problem is this:
UFC is doing around 18 numbered events a year, and giving us between 12 and 15 title matches in that time frame. If they wanted to do three 5-round main event non-title matches, that seems fair enough. But I’m concerned about encroachment, the UFC doing 9-12 title matches, and 6-9 nontitle five-round non-title fights, while charging the fans PPV prices for all of them. I’m also concerned that more than just the main event gets 5 rounds, because it’s a Title Eliminator, so we’re now getting 12-15 nontitle five-rounders, which means a few four-fight cards, all of which go for $49.95.
Once each fight crosses the $10 threshold for me, I start to feel like I’m not getting value for my dollar. If I have to spend another $25-30 on UFC On Demand to see the PPV, I’m feeling even more of an encroachment. I know that inflation is inevitable, but I’m cool with right now getting 5 or 6 fights for my PPV price (and would probably pay $75 to see the entire card live on TV, to be honest).
The argument that “for every X fight there’s 3 Y fights” is grating.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
It’s also very true.
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 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
No one’s provided any proof, it’s just conjecture.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
If you made a list of every championship fight, you’d have a vast majority of fights that went beyond three rounds ending in a five round decision. That means, for every extra finish you get because of the extra two rounds, you have to endure about another thirty minutes of fighting.
That’s a fact, and it clearly means more to some of us than it does to you, but it’s one of the main reasons why I like the current way things are done as-is.
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 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
This is where the disparity in views probably really is. Some aspects to the arguments mean more to others while the same argument might not mean squat to someone else.
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 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, it’s all about personal preference at this 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 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
If you feel like you have to “endure” rounds in a championship fight, you might want to find another sport.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
A) That was pretty pissy
B) If you feel like decisions are bullshit, you might want to find another sport
C) A championship fight is the only place where I’m willing to endure them
D) Just because a fight is for a belt doesn’t mean it won’t or can’t suck
E) All of the above
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 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
The argument that "for every X fight there’s 3 Y fights" is grating.
No one’s provided any proof, it’s just conjecture.
Actually, YOU provided proof for this when you stated that ‘25% of fights that go past the third round are stopped.’ That means that 75% aren’t. For every X fights (a five rounder that goes past three and ends), there are three Y fights (five rounders that go to decision).
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 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s misrepresenting what people are saying. The argument is that “for everyone bout like Guida/Sanchez that people would want to see two more rounds, there are 3 more like Shogun/Coleman that people don’t want to see.”
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I’m talking about what you’re saying – no one else. And you said that an argument that you provided direct, incontrovertible evidence in favor of is ‘grating’, then accused those of peddling the statistic that you introduced of lacking ‘proof’ and operating on ‘conjecture.’
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 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions
The argument is that "for everyone bout like Guida/Sanchez that people would want to see two more rounds, there are 3 more like Shogun/Coleman that people don’t want to see."
That is what I meant by this:
The argument that “for every X fight there’s 3 Y fights” is grating.
The 25% datum has nothing to do with the above.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Weird – it neatly dovetailed into my argument that it’s not worth six rounds of decision fighting to see one finish. For the record,
For every X fights (a five rounder that goes past three and ends), there are three Y fights (five rounders that go to decision).
Is my problem with more five round fights.
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 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
when you do this math, you don’t take into account how many fights that end in the first 3 because there are 5 rounds.
Example. 5 round fight. Fighter A loses rounds 1 and 2. Fighter A has been beaten so badly that he knows he can’t win a decision because he is too gassed. Fighter A then decides to go balls out, and either wins in round 3 or loses in round 3.
I don’t have any specific fight this happened, I don’t have any numbers to back me up, but this scenario makes sense, and this scenario is why the 25% number is a useless stat when having this discussion.
The number that matters is that a higher percentage of 5 round fights have finishes than 3 round fights. In my mind, the point of MMA is to finish your opponent, this helps achieve that goal.
Dude, your logic is ridiculous. Remember Guida-Huerta? Third round of a 3-round fight, and the fighter down 2 rounds to none knows that he has to finish the fight IN THAT ROUND to win, and does so. In a 5-round fight, there isn’t the same sense of urgency, and even if it happens in the fifth round, when he’s down 4 rounds to none, it should have happened ten minutes sooner.
And you have to make a Marginal Utility argument somewhere, because it’s entirely possible that 7 round fights might be finished more often than 5 round fights; if we only cared about finishes, we wouldn’t have time limits at all. What people are arguing is that if we get similar results from more 5 round fights, we’d need 30 additional minutes of action to produce one more finish. Many of us would rather trade that one finish for the chance to see 2 or 3 additional fights.
The point of MMA isn’t to finish your opponent; it’s to defeat your opponent within the the confines of the rules, over the course of an allotted time. If you can’t finish your fight, you can still win. However, as a fan, I want to see guys who are motivated to finish fights sooner, not bolstered by the freedom to “take rounds off,” or “pace themselves,” in order to finish fights later, or ride out a decision.
First off
A fight like Coleman/Shogun would never get five round approval from DW. Do you guys think he’s stupid? Don’t answer that. He’d never do a five rounder for a fight like that. He’d be more inclined to do a five rounder for Franklin/Hendo or Franklin/Wandy. Fights like that. I think it should be reserved for only #1 contendership and the main event of a PPV in which there is no belt on the line. And it should be brought up in bout negotiations and agreed to by all parties.
This was kind of unnecessary.
subo’s comment was reasonable. He’s just thinking on the margin. And he (and your colleague Leland) already pointed out that the evaluation is very much a matter of taste.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Count me against 5 round fights outside of Championships
First, it makes Championships special.
Second, it doesn’t necessarilly answer the problem that people have with fights that don’t seem to have had the time to come to an ultimate conclusion. Those fighters just need to learn to finish and keep it out of the hands of officals. How do we know that the strategy in those fights wouldn’t have simply been different with fighters choosing to fight more conservatively in order to have the energy to go 5 rounds.
Third, no number of rounds is going to change the need for more educated judging with probably a more appropriate scoring system.
by Razreshat on Jul 28, 2009 10:57 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Poll Results
Those poll results are misleading, “5 Rounds in Championship Fights Only” and “Keep It The Same” are the same response, so it makes it look like that answer is less popular than it actually is.
Does it have to be 5-minute rounds?
I’m all for 10-5-5, myself…
Sergio Non,
MMA writer, USA TODAY
http://mma.usatoday.com
There is something I don’t understand about the poll. Do the championship fights design main events or fight for the title? I root for 5 rounds main events but I don’t see this option in the poll.
You don't look like a Tanaka.
Titles
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 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the best way for MMA to consider 5 round fights for “Special Events” should somewhat mirror what boxing does.
Usually in boxing most the fights you see are 12 Rounds as they are for a title. But most of the fights that aren’t for a title but may be a special event (ex. Pavlik/Hopkins) are 12 rounds. But there are a lot of 10 round and lesser bouts for lesser fights in boxing all the time. I think MMA and the UFC can do much of the same.
I’m all for 5 round bouts when it is necessary and I do think there is a way to decide which ones are deserved. Super fights (Penn/GSP2 and Silva/Griffin) and Title Eliminator bouts are the two types of fights that would be most beneficial. I think everyone can agree BJ Penn didn’t deserve a title shot but no one wanted a 3 Round fight. This is where the 5 Round “Special Event” would factor in.
by MatteoFC on Jul 28, 2009 11:19 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I could be wrong, but aren’t the 10 or 12 rounders based on where the fight is held? And low round fights based greatly on experience/level of the fighters?
I think this is where the commissions would have to determine whether or not to approve the fights as 5 rounders.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
by BJJDenver on Jul 28, 2009 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is the way it should be.
People say no to 5 round fights because it’s “arbitrary” well, what’s more arbitrary than a belt the way they are handed out in mma.
I will always say yes to more five round fights.
The only way you can convince me otherwise is if you can give me a reasonable reason why Abel Calum vs Ryan Diaz should be five rounds by Nog Couture should only be 3.
Because that fight is expected to anchor a card for a specific organization, which has determined that those two men should be fighting for that promotion’s title. The fans for whom that card is being performed are paying money primarily to see that fight.
Next thing you know you’re going to ask why Gina Carano vs. Cyborg will be 25 minutes, while Shields-Lawler was slated for 15 minutes.
We hear this too much, boxing ain’t 100% bad or it would be dead already.
You don't look like a Tanaka.
It’s a good thing no one’s suggesting 12 3-minute rounds then.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I say fight until it's finished, you know, like they do in prison...
I’m kidding, of course.
I think all headlining events should be 5 × 5. Unless it’s a co-main event. Like at UFC 102 I’d only like to see the Couture – Nog fight go 5 rounds. I don’t think Jardine – Silva will get past the 2nd round anyway. Basically whoever gets the bigger picture on the promo poster should be in the 5 rounder.
by Screwface on Jul 28, 2009 3:50 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I’m entirely against five round fights in non-title situations. First of all, yes, there has to be a consideration for fighter safety. Five round fights can be brutal and they should not be just thrown around.
Second of all, I think it devalues title fights to have non-title fights go five rounds. The five round rule makes title fights special, makes them different and have more meaning. I don’t care how close Silva-Franklin or Sanchez-Guida was, if there is no title it should not be five rounds.
by mason_beer on Jul 28, 2009 11:27 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I wouldn’t mind seeing Silva/Griffin or Franklin/Hendo being five rounds, but I think it should be only for the marqueest of marquee of fights, and not just because a fight is a main event.
I’m just kind of unclear why you’re saying “hardcores don’t know what casuals like”, then coming out and telling us what casuals like in the last paragraph. You’re a self-admitted hardcore fan, so how do you know any better than anyone else?
Anyway, I’m with Fagan, for the most part. I’ve been arguing for a superfight exemption for a long time, but it has to be used very carefully. Not every main event should go 5, and definitely not just anyone should be allowed. # 1 contenders matches, battles between former champions (or current ones in other weight classes) and obviously title fights. Any more than that is overkill. The injury thing is being overinflated here, but if 5 rounder are used this way, it’s much less of a concern.
http://www.fourouncestofreedom.com
by Tim Burke on Jul 28, 2009 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I never said hardcores don’t know what casuals like. I said that most hardcore fans don’t have a grasp on what casual fans like. I don’t feel I fit that group. I think I have a solid grasp on what most casual fans enjoy.
And I’m not against the idea, but I think it should be used on rare occassions only.
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 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s kind of…elitist of you, but okay. Why do you think you have a solid grasp of something most people here don’t?
http://www.fourouncestofreedom.com
I never said MOST people HERE. This site doesn’t exactly encompass the entire hardcore fanbase. Most of you are pretty inteliigent when it comes to hardcore vs. casual. I’m saying that a large number or most hardcore fans don’t have a solid grasp. They could have an idea, but I’ve read countless articles in the past making some assumptions that casual fans wouldn’t mind decision match-ups in a five round format. I don’t agree at all.
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 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess I misconstrued the statement. Since you are writing it for us (the readership of the post is pretty much all hardcore fans), I made the wrong assumption of thinking you were talking about us. My bad.
http://www.fourouncestofreedom.com
I generally think the community here is fairly on top of casual fan views. We have the occassional person who is out of his mind (i.e. Coleko) but for the most part, I think everyone knows what casual fans want to see.
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 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I never said that at all. I said MOST hardcore fans. You can consider yourself in the know of casual fan interests if you like or not. I’m saying that I think casual fans want more quick finishes than decision battles. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s the beauty of opinion.
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 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m of the opinion that most casual fans 1) won’t know about the change to five round non-title fights and 2) won’t care one way or the other.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
And I’m of the opinion that they probably won’t know the change, but will care when they lose a potential added fight on a PPV or have a two boring decisions in a row due to a contender and title bout.
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 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
^^ 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 28, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
The casual fans that I watched UFC 100 with thought that GSP’s destruction of Alves was boring and thought he did nothing but lay on him. For some reason they also thought he was a douche. I think most casual fans just want to see bad kickboxing in all honesty so if somebody doesn’t get ko’d it’s boring to them. This is just my observation being around the casual fan. I personally don’t find hardly any fights to be boring. I can find the beauty in almost any fight nowadays.
Yeah, don’t underestimate how important Finishing Fights is to casual fans, far more so than “Dominance.” Lyoto Machida gained traction in his career when he busted out two devastating stoppages. However, Anderson Silva’s 25-minute snoozer, even after a run of impressive stoppages, has hampered his drawing ability.
Georges St. Pierre, for all of his marketability, might see his popularity suffer if the script for his fights reads “At least three rounds of takedowns, ground control, and ground and pound, en route to a late stoppage or decision.” Predictability is the antithesis of what the UFC is trying to sell, and even GSP’s workman-like efficiency will grow tiresome if casual fans start zoning out in the first couple of rounds of his fights.
I’m on the fence about this fighter safety issue in longer events. 2 tired guys sloppily hitting eachother doesnt exactly sound that brutal to me.
Hitting each other in the head over and over again does.
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 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
This is MMA, not Baseball.
One of the best thing about MMA is that you can sit down to watch a fight, and you know for a fact that something is going to happen in the next 15 minutes. Someone is going to win. Even if the fight is kind of boring, you know it will be over in at most 15 minutes. If the fight is a war, it is easier to go balls out for 15 minutes.
If I had to watch the Shogun/Coleman fight, for example, for 25 minutes, I would have poured my whiskey in my eyes and put my face through a window.
If two guys are gassing in the 5th round, but a title is on the line, the fight doesn’t lose anything.
Furthermore, how many times have we seen someone (TIM SYLVIA) “win” the first three rounds, and then play keep-away for 10 minutes? No thank you.
by P4P is a stupid concept on Jul 28, 2009 11:43 AM EDT reply actions
Nobody wants to see boring fights, whether 3 rds or 5 rds. Why would Shogun/Coleman be 5 rounds? I think this is what people are missing out on. This isn’t going to be an every fight deal, only in high level special fights and number 1 contender fights, or something along those lines.
Maybe they should also do the opposite and make some title fights 3 rounds? I could sure live without 5 rounds of Silva vs Leites, lol.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
I love people cherry picking the worst fights of the past year and saying, “ZOMG I WOULDN’T WANT TO SEE THIS GO 2 MORE ROUNDS,” while ignoring fights like Condit/Kampmann and Guida/Sanchez.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Kind of like cherry-picking the 2 good fights?
it cuts both ways. Those two fights you mentioned were great, so why change them?
by P4P is a stupid concept on Jul 28, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Those two fights would have been epic 5 rounders. The two boring fights would have been 5 rounders regardless. Either way we end up with 2 boring 5 rounders or we could have had 2 boring 5 rounders and 2 epic 5 rounders which had a higher probability of finishing within 5.
I’d say that is actually a good thing for both hardcore and casual fans.
How do you know that those
“epic fights” would have been ended in the addtionally rounds? They could have continued as is and still ended with contested decisions.
Hell, with increased fatigue, I am inclined to believe that they would have a higher likelihood of going to a decision the longer they go. Even more, they could have gotten a hell of alot more boring because those fighters might have felt the need to pace themselves over 5 rounds as opposed to going all out for 3.
Assuming more rounds will equal more awesome is possibly some very flawed logic.
I don't
However, I do know they’d be epic regardless. There’s always a chance of it ending within 5. Epic 4-5 rounder that finish or an epic 5 rounder decision? The point is there are two more rounds of fighting with or without a chance of finish. That has to better than not having the chance for two more rounds?
How many 5 round fights have you seen that starts off a barn burner end up slowing down in the last two rounds? Assuming that championship-caliber fighters will slow down in round 4 and 5 is also very flawed logic. The fact is we don’t know. In one scenario, we get to find out. In the other, we’re robbed of that chance.
Robbed until someone suggests 7 round fights.
Eventually we will get to 12 rounds of jabbing and dodging.
Adding rounds doesn’t change the problem that people are seeing.
5 Round Title Contender Match Only
That is my only real wish for more 5 round matches. The promotion designate it as a “Title Contender” match. Meaning the winner is next in line for the title, thus having them fight in a 5 round match makes sense, because it’s leading to a 5 round title fight. It also, in theory, gives the fans more of an outline to whom the promotion thinks is a title contender maybe? IF the fighter has never fought 5 rounds before it would also possibly give them that experience prior to fighting for the title and maybe even make the title fight better because of that. Thoughts?
How many times have you seen a promotion say a fight is a #1 contender match?
There are some good reasons they never come out and say it, even if it is true. So making #1 contender matchs 5 rounds would probably still lead to no 5 rounders.
See, I am on the other side here. I think enabling promotions to have 5 round contender fights, would make them declare the fights as such and probably spark more interest in them.
Example: Kampmann vs Swick. This fight is getting little publicity, but is probably going to result in the winner getting the next shot at GSP. I also think this is a fight that could be amazing to watch. It would be a perfect example of a fight that could be put at 5 rounds, though it is highly unlikely that it would go the distance.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
I think for contender fights like that match-up, it wouldn’t hurt to use a five-round format. I’m just generally against excessive use of it and pushing the same fighters into those fights, especially if two guys who basically decision battles all the time are involved.
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 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I hear what you are saying Leland. Though that fight is in Texas and we wouldn’t have to be using 5 rounds anyways.
I think though that the promotion having to actually designate such a fight as a Title Contender match might lessen its usage. If the UFC say thought two fighters might be in-line for the next title shot but also thought going 5 rounds with them might be boring, they don’t have to denote it a Title Contender fight, they could just keep it a 3 round fight. I would think this rule would only be used if the promotion wanted it, not every time two fighters might be in-line for a title. If that makes sense.
Oh I agree, but with the new rule the athletic commission would have to stipulate such, that the next fight the winner fights in is for the title, if they want that fight to be five rounds. Obviuosly barring injury to the winner. If the promotion doesn’t wanna do as such then having more five round fights won’t be an issue. If they don’t want to follow the rules of that commission so be it. They can always continue going on naming title contenders the same and have them fight 3 round fights.
I can potentially get behind that idea.
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 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d say…
5 rounds for title fights as well as any main event on a “numbered show” there is really no reason to not have a main event of a numbered show at 5 rounds. I don’t want it for any other fights though. I stand firm on not wanting to bog down shows with undercard fights going 5 rounds unless they’re title fights.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Jul 28, 2009 12:37 PM EDT reply actions
oh...
and fight night main events remain 3 rounds.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Jul 28, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a decent solution
But I prefer to keep title fights special.
Hopefully we can get more divisions so that all numbered events get title fights in the near future.
'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
by Well Read Idiot on Jul 28, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Title fights are special. There’s a belt on the line.
"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 28, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Titles are arbitrary fabrications of promoters. I don’t care if Rampage and Rashad lack gold belts to lug around, I want to see them fight five rounds of MMA. They’re elite athletes in the sport.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Titles are a little more than that. I think fans value having a hierarchy and identifying champs (if we can avoid the glut of boxing sanctioning bodies). I haven’t thought this out, but I also think it’s important for expanding the market for MMA.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
It also gives fighters an identifable goal for their career.
As opposed to fighting just to fight. Titles bring alot to the table for a sport like MMA.
I’m not arguing that they don’t have a purpose.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
If they have a purpose, then there must be legs to the argument that having 5-round non-title fights in some way makes title fights less special.
This is one reason why I think I’m against 5-round non-title fights. I think there’s something to the notion that you should “earn” the right to championship rounds, whatever the origin of championship rounds is.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
The term “championship rounds” only exists because of the arbitrary nature of the current set up.
If five round non-title fights had been sanctioned from the start, would people be clamoring to remove them to add luster to title fights?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Maybe not. But I’m not arguing on the basis of some fundamental truth of the sport. We’re here by accidents of history and arbitrariness. It can be argued that the rules are arbitrary and some judging criteria are subjective. But, we live with them because we’re willing to make some compromises so that, for example, MMA won’t be banned and matches won’t go on forever.
Just because the way the sport is now is somewhat arbitrary, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t valued by fans now or that fans don’t care about the setup now. I think it can be argued that rules, consistency, and hierarchy matter, and they are reasons for the sport’s success.
In the end, this argument may boil down to whether or not your proposed change advances the sport (e.g. increases its popularity). In this case, your point about the origins of the current system may not matter much.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
But they weren't
If Goldberg had never announced a UFC fight, no one would be clamoring for him to be hired.
So it goes.
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 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow
Titles are also the most coveted thing in the sport BY THE FIGHTERS.
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 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Rampage aside, I think a lot of fighters would rather have the title. The title brings money with it, ya know. Endorsements and such.
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 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we can all agree
That there is a fight here and there that would likely be better as a five round fight.
The way I see it from the comments here, the issues stem from:
A – Devaluing championship bouts
B – The arbitrary nature of a fight being scheduled as a 3/5 round fight
C – More potential for injury
To some degree, B & C are linked in that if too many fights or the wrong fights become scheduled for 5 rounds, then the scope is there for injuries to increase unnecessarily.
The questions become: Do we trust the promotions/commissions to make the correct bouts 5 round bouts? Is seeing the odd fight worthy of a 5 round bout worth devaluing the sanctity of the 5 round title fight?
I personally fall on the side of preferring clear cut rules rather than ambiguity, and I love the fact that title bouts are special; A resounding NO from me.
'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
by Well Read Idiot on Jul 28, 2009 12:38 PM EDT reply actions
"I think we can all agree That there is a fight here and there that would likely be better as a five round fight."
Not me.
Learn to finish or be prepared for the judges. No amount of adding rounds is going to fix the root issue being discussed here.
The better angle to approach this is the work on both the scoring system and the quality of the judges.
Regardless, 3 or 5 rounds, some fights will end with decisions that people don’t agree with and leave fans wanting “just a little more time” for THEIR fighter to finish the other guy. The more time you add, the less chance there is that any fighter will successfully finish the other through any means other than injury and corner stoppage.
Re: Fighter safety
I looked at FightMetric’s numbers for fights that went 5 rounds. I found 8*. Here’s some data.
Average blows landed to the head – 72.875
Average blows landed to the head in rounds 1 through 3 – 46.375
Average blows landed to the head in rounds 4 and 5 – 26.5
*Fights were:
St. Pierre vs. Alves
Jackson vs. Griffin
St. Pierre vs. Fitch
Couture vs. Ortiz
Couture vs. Rizzo
Sylvia vs. Couture
Hughes vs. Sherk
Silva vs. Leites
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I’m with you on fighter safety right now, but these numbers won’t get you there.
They show that there are less blows on average in the extra rounds, but it’s hard to understand what the value of those strikes is.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
The solution to close decisions is to grant more draws. Franklin v Henderson, for consideration. Draws are unsatisfactory imo in title fights. Hence two more rounds.
As for fighter safey, if it is agreed that five-round fights are significantly more dangerous for a fighters long-term health, then the fourth and fifth round should be granted only in cases where the title fight is too close to call after three. Did we really need to see BJ get 89 more strikes to the head in the fourth round after watching him get steamrolled the first three? What if his corner or the ref hadn’t stopped the fight then. Was a fifth necessary to see who was the champ?
One calculation that might help
I don’t have the data, but if I did I would tally for each fighter:
(a) The number of times he’s been in the main or co-main event
(b) The number of times his main or co-main event fight was for the title
I think it gets at the effect Leland is after (long-run implications of extra rounds for fighter health). If (a) – (b) is small, then it suggests Leland shouldn’t be so worried. If (a) – (b) is large, then it suggests that Leland’s concerns might be justified.
It’s just a first step and I haven’t thought it through. But I think it could get us somewhere.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions
This wasn’t aimed at current fighters though. Most current guys aren’t going to be affected by this as much as fighters beginning to come into the UFC under that 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 28, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
The thing is, 5 rounders won’t effect most fighters. It will only be the ones who are successful enough to get title/superfights/contender fights. Then, it won’t beuntil that time in their carrer where they are at the top, which in most cases is a very short window.
Again, i think the number of fights/fighters involved in the 5 rounders is being greatly blown out of proportion.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
Unless you’re in a situation like the WW or MW divisions where the same contenders continually pop up at the top of the division, and they’re all young.
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 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
But I also think having clear contender fights will eliminate some of the confusion over which of the X amount of contenders is up next. For instance, Maia/Marquardt is apparently not for a title shot, so it would be a 3 rounder.
And don’t forget Leites, who got a shot, then if he lost his next fight, was going to be gone, so I’m not completely sold on this idea.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any guys who have fought in contender fights multiple time in the past couple of years in those weight classes. And I don’t think you need to fight in one to get a title shot. In other words, 2 guys fight and if one wins, he gets a title shot, but if the other wins, that is not necessarily the case. Again, just going off of the top of my head.
Contender fights would be defined as the winner gets the shot. Again, I think the number of instances of the 5 rounder coming into play, is being overestimated.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
You may be right. If it wasn’t that often per fighter, I wouldn’t be against it.
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 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem you are going to continue to run into with this thought process is
that no sane promotion is going to say outright that any given match is a lock solid #1 contender match. They have too much to lose. Injuries, poor performances, out-of-cage incidents, etc…are all reasons they dont’ want to hang their next title match on the outcome of another match that they haven’t seen yet.
Of course it’s not perfect. I’m just trying to suggest a way to get a ballpark figure to advance the discussion.
The idea is to estimate and then extrapolate. Qualifying the results is always part of the exercise.
If there’s a better alternative, I’m all for it.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
re: safety
if a proposed 5 round main event option were put into place i’d imagine the following scenario:
at least 1/3rd of UFC events every year have a title fight on it anyway as the main event. And there’s usually 12 events a year so maybe we have 9 other fights a year where we have a 5 round main event.
they aren’t exactly putting the same fighter in every main event month to month, rich franklin will probably main event a single non-title fight a year. are we really worried about giving him 2 more rounds a year?
by nastyem on Jul 28, 2009 2:17 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I wouldn’t worry if it was at this pace. That’s basically what I’m trying to convey. If it wasn’t over the top, I’d be for contender five-round fights.
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 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
This is the kind of back-of-the-envelope calculation I said would help settle the debate.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Pretty much.
Instead of a new post, this could have been settled in the comments in Fagan’s last post.
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I am all for having some larger fights go 5 rounds. Anyone sane wanted to see two more rounds of Franklin/Wanderlei.
The other fights that need to be 5 rounds are the ones like Swick/Kampmann. Making this fight a 5 round fight will potentially give the winner some very valuable experience past the 3rd round.
Right now for a fighter who has never been in a 5 round fight, going up against someone who has been in many like GSP is a big disadvantage.
I dislike Matt Hughes and Twidder.
It was a disadvantage for him too until he won the title.
And it can easily become a disadvantage for him soon through accumulation of mileage.
Breen’s talking about this on his show right now. He’s 100% behind it, obv.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Well, if Breen’s behind 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 28, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Some people may not be able to hear the broadcast while wanting to know what his thoughts are.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I don’t care if the Pope is behind this. That’s not how I determine what I think.
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 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s fine. Other people may be interested.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Champions fight 5 rounds
Most other fighters can’t. 25 minutes is a long time to work, and I don’t think every MMA fighter could do it, or would want to without the prospect of a title. I think the ultimate benefit of having to go 5 rounds is that if you win, you’re a champion.
Now this is just me personally, maybe the fighters think otherwise.
No one is suggesting that every fighter go 25 minutes.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Can we just call this the "Clay Guida Rule"?
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 28, 2009 5:01 PM EDT reply actions
Can anyone who is against this explain to me why they think it’s ok for the Rage in the Cage champion to fight 5 rounds but it’s not ok for Nog and Couture to fight 5 rounds?
I don’t see any logical reason why a fight shouldn’t be 5 rounds if the fighters, promotors, and commission all think that the fighters can and should go 5 rounds.
The argument isn’t about individual fights. It’s about the the best rules for the set of all fights across promotions.
One logical reason I can think of is consistency. It’s reasonable to think that fans value a level playing field, that every competitor needs to follow the same rules, which includes bout length. It’s also reasonable to consider the possibility that a promoter (i.e. the UFC) may not be consistent in pushing the 5-round option for non-title fights. Would he always use it for, say, number one contender bouts? Perhaps not. One reason could be that the promoter cares about performance in that bout (e.g. level of excitement) because it could affect the marketability of the resulting title fight. In that case, we might expect the promoter to inconsistently apply the 5-round option, i.e. he’ll apply it only when he thinks it’ll be profitable and not when it’s too “risky” (e.g. a boring fight) from his perspective. I’m sure other, better examples can be cooked up.
You might not be convinced, which is fine. But is the argument completely illogical?
by former tuf noob on Jul 28, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Fine, I’ll make the argument:
Both Randy Couture and Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira were stopped inside of two rounds by their previous opponents. Neither fighter should have the opportunity to fight a five round fight again until he demonstrates that he can go 3 rounds.
Presumably, the King of the Cage champion fought a 5 round fight in his last fight, and the challenger has won enough fights to be awarded that title shot. In that case, the promoter is reasonably sure that both his fighters are capable of fighting at a high level for 25 minutes.
Done and done.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
![The Master Cleanse.
– Is Nick Diaz looking for another cleanse "ritual"?
– "He was surprised he tested positive," Gracie said. "He does the same ritual every fight for the last five years. He stops it in time and he cleanses his system, works out like crazy, drinks a lot of water and purges his system of it" [Cesar Gracie] via bloodyelbow.com
– Is "NickDiaz209" really Nick Diaz's YouTube account?
Here's a video of MMA Fighting's Ariel Helwani asking Diaz about the account.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33UO_ksPgkY
– starts @ 09:57
via YouTube [NickDiaz209]](http://cdn2.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/240628/gzHF_small.jpeg)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
