5 Round Non-Title Fights Still a No-Go in the UFC?
by Brent Brookhouse on Aug 31, 2009 1:57 PM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
MMAJunkie with the quote worthy goodness from Dana White:
"I was saying [last week] I wish this was a five-round fight, Nogueira and Couture, and there's been other fights, too, that I've wished were five rounds," White said prior to UFC 102. "But I'm a purist, man. Title fights are five rounds. When you fight for the title, it's five rounds."
Of course this has to be seen as a major disappointment to MMA fans who want to see big main events without a title on the line get more time but a fight like Nogueira/Couture has to change White's mind right? Wrong:
"You know how many times I've been ringside and said, 'God, I wish this was a five-round fight,'" White said after UFC 102. "I did it [on Sunday]. (UFC heavuweight champion) Brock (Lesnar) and I were watching the fight together, and we both said we wish that fight with Nogueira and Couture was five rounds.
"But, I think that's what's so special about fighting for the title. You fight for the title, and it's a five-round fight; you don't, it's a three-round fight.
I've always been very strict about the terms under which I'm willing to accept a 5 round non-title fight. My personal stance is only in "numbered event" (UFC 101, 102, etc) main event fights. This way you retain the "special" feeling of a five round fight as the vast majority of contests continue to operate as three rounders. Despite what anyone in the community wants to see it is quite clear that we won't be seeing a five round non-title fight in the UFC for a while. Even Keith Kizer of the NSAC said that the UFC has already told the commission that they're not interested in making a change, so don't hold your breath.
87 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It looks like you have over tens balls.
for all intents and purposes, just consider all my posts as works of satire.
by Bandaka on Aug 31, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with Dana
I like the “idea” of 5 rounders.. But it’s always hit and miss in a fight with how back and forth it can actually go..
To inconsistent IMO to offer it..
Plus it makes the title fights more special..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
Maybe they could impliment "extra periods" in a closs entertaining fight ??
That would make more sense.. But to just offer a 5 rounder because the names look good on paper isn’t very consistent IMO.. What if you declare a 5 round and it’s a dud ?? But it looked great on paper ?? Or you have one guy winning the fight and decides to stall or take a round off because he now has those extra 2 rounds ??
I think the idea of adding sudden death rounds so to speak would be more appealing.. In which case the Nog/Couture fight would have fit into it.. Or only making the “headline fight” a 5 rounder…
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
It's just hard...
to tell people “train for all fights like they’re 5 rounds” when it could go 3.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Aug 31, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
And it’s also not fair. What if it’s an exciting fight, but one guy is ahead 30-27 on all cards? What if he gets KO’d or subbed in the extra rounds. no way, rules need to be established in the beginning.
Absolutely
Can’t change stuff in the middle like that.
but I would definitely love it if some fights (like Randy-Nog) could be set up to be five rounders in advance.
weoweoweo is the best… and I <3 Vera cause he is pogi.
Every time this comes up I will sing the same song. It makes no sense that the #4 and #5 HWs in the world can’t fight for 5 rounds but 2 randoms fighting for billy bob’s cage fighting can fight for 5 rounds because Billy bob has a belt to give his guys and the UFC doesn’t have a belt to give Randy/Nog
The skill of the fighters should determine the fight length, not the presence of a belt. Especially with how arbitrarily belts and title shots are awarded in MMA.
Did you mean 5 round non-title fights still a no go?
weoweoweo is the best… and I <3 Vera cause he is pogi.
shut it up you!
…fixing now
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Aug 31, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Dana's both right and wrong
Dana’s wrong here because, simply put, too many MMA fights end inconclusively. Often times after 15 minutes is finally when the superior fighter is starting to dominate the fight and wear the other guy out. But instead the fight ends, and very often the guy who was taking control loses a decision. It becomes a contest to see who can control 3 rounds, rather than a contest to see who can break the will of their opponent and decisively get a victory. Having more 5 round fights would significantly help solve this problem.
Dana’s right here because you don’t mess with success. Things are going pretty damn good for the UFC right now. Why stick your hand in and start messing with the formula? They’re trying to build a sport and an industry, and adding more 5 round fights isn’t going to help them do that right now. Leave it as it is and focus on other issues.
Example… Dan Henderson vs Rich Franklin. Dan Henderson fairly won the decision based on what happened in those 3 rounds. But no doubt that Rich Franklin was starting to take over the fight, was starting to pick Dan apart, and had more left in the gas tank. 2 more rounds and I’m confident Rich takes the fight – if not finishes it before the distance.
Instead Henderson wins based on controlling Rich for the first couple rounds, despite not coming close to finishing it or doing any major damage. Franklin loses but he was the one ready to put the spanking on Dan after 3.
Part of the reason for the 3rd round reversal was because both Rich and Dan knew that Dan was up on points. Rich knew he needed the knockout to win. Dan knew he only needed to avoid getting knocked out. Both fighters played their parts accordingly. Dan succeeded in not getting knocked out, and won the fight.
Had this been a 5 round fight, things would have been different. Dan’s two round lead would not have meant as much, as there are still 3 rounds to go. Dan would not have shifted to a “avoid getting knocked out” strategy. Additionally, Dan might have better cardio, as the cardio needed for a 3 round fight is different from that of a 5 round fight.
by sbNationReader on Aug 31, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Second example
That fight was also really, really dull. Would you have been happier if it had been five rounds? I probably would have because I could have had another beer and a smoke on the patio whilst waiting for the next fight, but that’s not what I’m throwing down fifty bucks on a PPV to do.
I finish beers at 1:55.
I don’t know what fight you were watching but the fight was 1 round each going into the third and last round between Hendo and Franklin. This is probably the worst example of a fight ot choose to ask it to go 5 rounds instead of 3, Couture/Nog was great but 3 rounds was enough to get a clear winner just like in most fights no reason to change things when they are working.
I disagree – I thought Dan was up two rounds – and so btw, did Rich’s corner, who told Rich he had to go for the knock out. Goldberg noted, “Thats a friendly way of telling Rich he is behind on points”. Rogan agreed, and neither objected to the conclusion.
by sbNationReader on Aug 31, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I am not a big fan of the 5 round fight. If a 3 round fight is inconclusive, it is probably because the fighters are near equal in skill. Adding two more rounds will not necessarily resolve the skill question as much as it will resolve cardio question. That is not the resolution we want.
Also, 5 round fights are not entertaining when:
- both fighters are gassed and don’t have the energy to knock each other out.
- the fight is generally boring. Bad enough we have to sit through 3 rounds, 5 rounds is even worse.
- the basic narrative of the fight has been determined, and just gets repeated every round. Think of a GSP fight. He takes the guy down and grounds and pounds. Thats ok for 3 rounds, but gets old in rounds 4 and 5.
by sbNationReader on Aug 31, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
You're all wrong!
All fights should be no time limit death matches!!! Gracies ruuuuuuuulllle!!!!
by casey manrique on Aug 31, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
This would require bigger changes than just allowing non-title fight 5-rounders, but I have thought for a couple years that non-titles should be 5 4-minute rounds and titles should be 7 4-minute rounds.
I’ve thought about the 4 min round thing also. Maybe having 5-5-5-4-4 fights or alternatively having 6-6-6 fights for non titles, which gives you 18 minutes of fighting instead of 15.
But an issue with a 4 minute round is the impact it has on grappling. It takes time to get an opponent to the ground and it takes time once on the ground to set up and pull off a submission. Moving towards shorter rounds helps strikers and wrestlers and hurts submission guys. Consider the difference in outcomes between the Japanese 10 minute first round, and the American 5 minute first round. In Japan, especially in the Pride days, you would have long, strategic grappling-oriented matches which were often very exciting and produced stunning submissions. This was enabled by having a 10 minute round for these guys to work their magic.
Now, 10 minutes might be overkill, but I’d be concerned that reducing round lengths below 5 minutes would further marginalize the strengths of a good submission artist.
“I’ve always been very strict about the terms under which I’m willing to accept a 5 round non-title fight. My personal stance is only in “numbered event” (UFC 101, 102, etc) main event fights."
That seems short-sighted since Dana is obviously going to have to mix up the way they handle events if they get a network deal…
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ.
I blog at TangleBones - you should follow me on Twitter here.
Right...that was always my understanding...
and anyway 3 round non-title makes sense for network TV. 5 round non-title only really works for me on PPV honestly
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Aug 31, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions
How do you think the 5 round fights flow in the wec title fights? is it the commercials that bother?
The problem there is that the show is scheduled for 2 hours and ALWAYS goes long. ALWAYS.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ.
I blog at TangleBones - you should follow me on Twitter here.
If they mde non title fights five rounds, befoe you know it, we will have 12 round MMA fights with GASSED out fighters. Lets not get boxxing eny.
for all intents and purposes, just consider all my posts as works of satire.
In all fairness...
…ALL fighters should train for five rounds if they want to be champion someday.
I finish beers at 1:55.
That does not follow. If a fighter has a 3 round fight, why should they train for 5 rounds?
Fight training is a limited resource. The more you train for skillset A, the less you have to train for skillset B. Extra time on the treadmill versus extra time for striking, etc. It makes no sense to train for 5 rounds if your only going to be fighting for 3 rounds. You could used some of the time to train other skillsets.
by sbNationReader on Aug 31, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
12 round boxing = 36 minutes of fighting
5 round mma = 25 minutes of fighting
12 round MMA = 60 minutes of fighting
awful big leap you’re making
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Aug 31, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Just another point, I don't want 5 round non-titles because it eats to much time.
12 round boxing = 48 minutes of live time
5 round mma = 30 minutes of live time
12 round MMA = 72 minutes of live time
Wouldnt that be
12 round boxing = 47 minutes of live time
5 round mma = 29 minutes of live time
12 round MMA = 71 minutes of live time
yes, but I was using fuzzy math. would be longer if they showed the walk out and post fight stuff. My point is I would rather have more fights over having longer fights. cised about the spike undercard though.
i think this argument would be solved better by not having a 3 round must system, and if the match is ruled a draw then have a fourth round determine the outcome.
by Austin Martin on Aug 31, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
MOST 5 ROUND FIGHTS DO NOT GO THE FULL 5 ROUNDS
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Nothing like a good ol’ slippery slope argument.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
five round fights means less fights broadcast on tv, i agree with dana and believe five round fights need to be reserved for championships
by cookiemonster1508 on Aug 31, 2009 2:22 PM EDT reply actions
Well, let’s not pretend that making fights five rounds automatically solves any problems either. Griffin vs. Jackson was a hotly contested five round-er that went to the judges and people still argued that decision for weeks after.
Championship fights are five rounds not because it makes them more “special” but because it requires fighters to step up their games and prepare to fight longer and harder than they would normally have to. Five rounds is about proving you’re championship material and deserve to wear the strap that proves it.
Making fights more than three rounds on an arbitrary basis is just a bad idea, IMO. When there’s nothing on the line for the winner (except for undisclosed “locker room” bonuses if the fight is any good), what’s the point of it?
I finish beers at 1:55.
That's why I'm saying...
only for numbered events with non title fights as the main event. Not just “whenever we feel like it”
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Aug 31, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Why numbered events and not Fight Night cards? I don’t see the logic in that. Kampmann was headlining a Fight Night card against a valid contender not too long ago and now he’s fighting another valid contender at 103. What makes his fight versus Swick worthy of five rounds but not the fight versus Condit? And – more importantly to me – how does making Swick and Kampmann fight a potential two extra rounds (using your criteria) make the PPV price any more appealing than it already is (or isn’t)? I’ll buy the fight anyway, but the prospect of a five round fight doesn’t make the main event anymore intriguing than it already is.
IMO, if the UFC wants to push more PPVs headlined by non-title fights (especially those that command lesser salaries than the big UFC stars), they should add more bouts.
I finish beers at 1:55.
You act like it’s not arbitrary right now.
What’s to stop Dana (or any other promoter) from seeing any fight right now, saying its for a title (or an interim title) and making it 5 rounds anyway?
The “arbitrary” argument is useless, because the current system is about as arbitrary as you can get.
And what if the champion retires or is injured?
What if they decided to make a new weight class? Who determines what a champion is.
It makes sense for De La Hoya and Pacuqaio to fight more rounds than 2 guys fighting for the Southwest Corner of Upstate New York Championship, why can’t we do the same in mma?
I still don't see your point
If a champion retires then the bout is assigned five rounds because it’s a championship bout.
If an interim belt is created for whatever reason, it’s still a championship bout.
If it’s a new weight class, then the open title rule is in place.
These make sense and don’t seem “arbitrary” to me at all – these are established principles. Five rounds with nothing extra to show for it doesn’t make sense at all.
I finish beers at 1:55.
Why does the King of the Cage Champion get to fight for 5 rounds, but 2 MMA greats don’t?
That’s the point.
Well, the obvious answer is
…neither of them is the UFC champion? Using this logic, most of the fighters in the UFC are leaps and bounds ahead of KotC fighters. Should we now base the number of rounds on whether you’re fighting in the premiere leagues or the regionals?
I don’t get why everyone is salty about the fact that it was a three round fight between Randy and Nog. The fight was thrilling and ended on a high.
Two more rounds would have made it better, but what if the fight had been a snoozer? Would we still be having this conversation?
I finish beers at 1:55.
We’ve been having this conversation for a long time.
5 round fights are better than 3 round fights. I don’t see why we can’t have more of them.
Agree to disagree :)
I prefer three round fights, unless it’s a title match. If it ain’t broke…
I finish beers at 1:55.
The “If it ain’t broke…” defense is so juvenile it needs to go away.
We should be looking at this as if we were laying the ground rules of the sport. It’s summer 2000, what’s the best round/minute structure?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Does Swick vs. Kampamann warrant five rounds? According to Brent’s criteria it does. If that’s the case, why did Kampmann vs. Condit (a former Zuffa champion, no less) not warrant five rounds also following the same criteria?
It’s not the summer of 2000, it’s almost fall of 2009, the existing rules have worked fine and I don’t see any reason to fuck with a structure that has served the sport well. What’s “juvenile” is that the most compelling argument made in favour of non-title five minute round fights is the hindsight view of “wow, that fight was so good I wish it could have gone on for five rounds instead!”.
I could name plenty of ’headlining fights" that would have been five rounders under the “numbered marquee fight” suggestion above that would have been snoozers or pointless being five rounds anyway. I think Joe SIlva has enough to worry about without the added hassle of “is this guy ready for a five round fight and will it be any good?”
I finish beers at 1:55.
Go back through the archives. I’ve articulated numerous arguments for five round fights outside of hindsight and retrospective.
And any fight with Martin Kampmann should be five rounds.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I guess that’s where we’ll agree to disagree.
When the PFC champion gets to fight for 5 rounds but 2 top 10 guys in the UFC don’t, I think it’s broken.
That doesn't make any sense
The lower-tier promotions are just following the established ruleset. 3 for a non-tile bout, 5 for a title-bout. Three rounds for top guys is arguably more of a battle in the UFC because the quality of competition is better.
I finish beers at 1:55.
It makes perfect sense.
5 round fights are harder. The better people should be doing them.
I know people hate comparisons to boxing, but this is one thing they have right. Beginning fighters right 4 rounders, and work their way up to longer fights.
When they become PPV superstars, they can fight 12 rounds. It doesn’t matter if the fight is for 18 different belts or for none. The best fight longer fights because they are better.
Not exactly apples to apples
Three rounds for two top guys in PFC or whatever your regional of choice may be is not necessarily equatable to three rounds for two top guys in the UFC.
The level of competition is what matters, not how long they fight. Facing a better fighter is more important than how long is on the clock.
I finish beers at 1:55.
Imagine the shit storm if that was a 3 round fight. It SHOULD have been a draw (Round 1 and 3 to Page, Round 2 10-8 to Forrest), but Forrest would have won as two of the judges (I believe) gave round 1 to Forrest.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Also…
Making fights more than three rounds on an arbitrary basis is just a bad idea, IMO.
Three rounds are an arbitrary basis.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Well, they were at the time
Now they’re an established, effective structure that every subsequent Western promotion follows.
I still haven’t seen a good argument for changing that. shrug
I finish beers at 1:55.
I’d like to see your refutation for the numerous points listed by mmalogic in this thread and me in past articles.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
My stance:
If a fight is important enough to main event then its important enough to be 5 rounds… what makes a title fight special is that its a title fight.
Dana is just afraid that then title fights will wind up being 7 rounds and then theres also pay issues. so when he says then theres no “difference” with title fights… he means “then fighters will want to get paid like their in title fights”.
The fights should never get to 7 rounds because then it will become boxing in how cards turn out very top heavy.
UFC has excitement over boxing but it lacks the potential drama… 5 rounders help produce more closure to the “story” and develop the drama. The beginning of the main event is created with the promotion (countdown, weigh ins, interviews, etc…) the middle of the story and the ending takes place during the fight and post fight interview. Sometimes there’s no closure on a 3 round fight and its a shame. Like an interesting movie that abruptly ends.
Even if a 5 round fight goes to decision it produces alot more closure and there’s better chance for the “drama” to unfold..
nice bit of mmalogic
that’s right logic. It’s the making of a champion that makes the title fight special. 5 rounds are neccessary to give each fighter every opporitunity to show that they have the skills and stamina to be champ. The main event of a numbered UFC is alwayscomprised of 2 high calibre seasoned fighters who also deserve those 2 extra rounds to overcome adversity and reduce the judging irregularities etc.. The main event of a numbered UFC card (especially if it is a PPV) should distinguish itself from the other fights in more than just advertising hype. BOth of Saturday’s competitors would have been happy to go 5 rounds. Their greatness demands it. Besides, it would give the title challenger some much needed experience in 4 and 5th round action.
what about co-main events?
And for main event fights, I’m just worried about the three round decisions that are already boring that will just be stretched out. I think fighters will be too tentative if they need to preserve their gas tank. To be a title holder, you must go 25 minutes. Thats 67% more then they are asked to already. In some situations it would work, but in others perhaps the person who wins two out of the first three in incredible fashion but then succumbs to exhaustion might have the fight taken in the last two boring rounds.
by Austin Martin on Aug 31, 2009 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
you're right , i'm sure there would be some negative reprecussions .
but these are guys who want their next fight to be for the title so some experience in later rounds could benefit them too. I was kinda pissed at Dana’s stubborness about this but I guess it doesn’t matter that much. I just look at Franklin v. Hendo and Franklin v. Wandy, couture v. nog and see great 5 round fights.
I’ve already done a few posts on it. I’m currently database-less, so I can’t do anything else at the moment. From the small sample size though, championship fights are finished at the same rate through 3 rounds as normal fights. The added two rounds had them finishing at like 77% total. That’s why this whole, “OMG, 5 round fights take away from seeing others fights” argument is to me.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
It’s such a lame argument. It’s so easy to see all the fights we want to see anyway. it’s not like a few years ago where there was 1 UFC card every few months and it was impossible to see whatever they didn’t show on PPV.
Between the UFC vault and other assorted methods, I don’t see how that argument can hold any more weight.
Makes me feel like Allen Iverson at times.
“We talking about Herman/Simpson? Herman/Simpson? We got Nogueira and Couture in the main event, and you want to talk about Herman/Simpson? C’mon, man. Herman/Simpson? We talking about the sport I love, and you wanna see Herman/Simpson?”
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Big John tells why and how they should exist
I interviewed Big John Saturday and we talked about 5 round non-title fights. One of the things he thought was that legends, or ex-chaps should have that option and if both fighters agree then they take that to the commission
www.mmagospel.com
www.blogtalkradio.com/MMAGospel
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.
