Three by Five: Decisions in the UFC (Part 1)
by Mike Fagan on Feb 24, 2010 12:25 PM EST
in MMA News
Email
Print
Last week, Mike Chiappetta examined the recent rise in decisions in the UFC. To wit:
MMAFighting looked at UFC stats dating back to UFC 100 in July. That covers 130 fights over 12 events, or roughly 10 percent of all fights in the company's history.
According to the numbers, UFC fights these days are most likely to go to the judges' scorecards. Sixty of the 130 bouts did so, with 41 unanimous decisions, 16 split decisions, one majority decision and two draws....
The interesting thing to note is the trend of more fights going the distance. Dating back to UFC 1, only 30.9 percent of all UFC fights in the organization's history have gone to a decision (a number somewhat skewed by the fact that early matches had no judges and were fought until a winner emerged). But during the recent 12-event stretch examined by MMAFighting, over 46 percent of match outcomes were decided by the judges.
My own numbers since UFC 100 indicate 62 decisions in 142 fights. I'm not sure what the cause of the discrepancy is, but the differences are negligible for our purposes.
So what's going on here? Chiappetta notes that historically, MMA fights only going to the scorecards 17 percent of the time according to the Sherdog Fight Finder. The intuitive explanation is that the talent gap between fighters outside the UFC is far larger than those in the Octagon. Taken a step further, it's also intuitive to believe that the gap between UFC fighters in the present day has closed considerably compared to just two or three years ago.
That doesn't necessarily mean that fights going to a decisions is an irreversible upward trend. Here are the decision rates in the UFC since 2004:
| 2004 | 26% |
| 2005 | 24% |
| 2006 | 33% |
| 2007 | 36% |
| 2008 | 32% |
| 2009 | 42% |
While this looks like a fairly clear rise, we need to account for an important fact: There were only nine lightweights fights between 2004 and 2006. Lightweights had zero fights in the UFC in 2005. And before you counter that the UFC didn't put on as many shows in prior to 2007 (which is true), lightweight fights comprised just nine percent of the total fights put on by the UFC, compared to an estimated 28 percent today.
Why is this important? Let's look at the UFC decision rates by weight class since 2004:
| LW | 43% |
| WW | 38% |
| MW | 31% |
| LHW | 34% |
| HW | 24% |
Here's the distribution of fights by weight class since 2004 in percentage form:
| LW | WW | MW | LHW | HW | |
| 2004 | 15% | 31% | 21% | 15% | 18% |
| 2005 | 0% | 31% | 33% | 19% | 18% |
| 2006 | 13% | 27% | 23% | 21% | 16% |
| 2007 | 31% | 25% | 16% | 18% | 9% |
| 2008 | 28% | 23% | 23% | 15% | 11% |
| 2009 | 27% | 27% | 18% | 17% | 11% |
It's reasonable to assume that part of the reason for the rise in decisions (especially since 2004) can be explained by the general shrinkage in the talent gap and the trend for the average UFC fighter to be smaller. In Part 2, I'll examine the prolificacy of individual fighters, their tendencies to finish/be finished, and its effects on the overall rate of decisions.
118 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And they can't even use the stats correctly
UFC fights these days are most likely to go to the judges’ scorecards. Sixty of the 130 bouts did so
That is: 60/130 = 46%
Thus 54% do not end in a judges decision.
Thus UFC fights these days are most likely to NOT go to the judges’ scorecards
by TheConcreteKid on Feb 24, 2010 10:19 AM EST up reply actions
I think the statement is supposed to read that UFC fights these days are the most likely they’ve ever been to go to a decision. That’s how I read it at least.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 24, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions
I think the statement is supposed to mean, “Out of every possible outcome, a decision is most likely.” It’s stating plurality, not majority, albeit in an unclear way.
I guess they are including all possible decisions (draw, majority draw, decision, split decision, majority decision, unanimous decision) and comparing all of these to number of KOs, or comparing these totals to the number of subs. Which is playing fast and loose with the truth (I think thats what politicians are saying these days)
by TheConcreteKid on Feb 24, 2010 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
When talking about going to the scorecards, why would they not talk about all possible outcomes? A draw, majority draw, split decision, etc…. are all decisions.
I’m talking about as it relates to the topic at hand, whatever the result, a decision is a decision and comes about from the fighters going the distance, correct?
They way you come about a finish is incredibly varied and different from case to case.
It’s an argument of semantics, but rather than saying most fights go to decision the correct statement would be more fights go to decision than any other outcome.
But the original statement by Mike Chiappetta from MMAfighting was that most UFC fights end in “decisions” but that is false; most end in, as Phildo said, “fInishes”
by TheConcreteKid on Feb 24, 2010 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
Are you suggesting that the LW division has a tighter ‘talent gap’; or that small fighters, by nature, have a harder time finishing other small fighters. Or both?
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
I think it’s part a lack of power than the heavier guys and part talent gap.
Breen made a relevant point on the radio recently. There’s a much wider gap between, say, the number 15 and 50 HWs compared with the number 15 and 50 LWs.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Feb 24, 2010 12:11 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
I suppose that's pretty sound...
155 pounds is a more common weight than 265 pounds. More fighters vying for the same small number of spots would make things substantially more competitive. I’m not sure I buy the power arguement as being all that important.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
But as your chart shows, lightweight fights have not increased since 2007. 2009 and 2010 is when we are seeing the huge increase in decision rates.
UFC Decision Rates by Weight Class (2007 – 2008 – 2009)
155 LW: 41% – 46% – 42%
170 WW: 31% – 39% – 50%
185 MW: 28% – 26% – 37%
205 LHW: 30% – 21% – 50%
265 HW: 56% – 13% – 26%
Increase in decision rates wasn’t from one or two weight classes. It happened in all weight classes except for lightweight. Lightweight+welterweight fights do not make up a larger slice of the pie in the past couple of years. From 2007 to 2008 to 2009, LW+WW was 55%, 51%, 53% of all UFC bouts.
You are suggesting in your article that the increase has to do with lightweights. I don’t see it.
www.tapology.com | twitter @tapology
Oops
I should have read more closely. You are just talking about the last three years.
Yeah, think that there isn’t such a large trend in those years, but as you add more lower weight class fighters (and remove heavyweight fights) you will see the decision rate continue to increase.
And I would say there hasn’t been that much of a trend the last three years in general. 36-32-42 isn’t world shattering.
36-32-42 is, i think, why people wanted to start discussing this though
www.tapology.com | twitter @tapology
I was speaking over the last five years as a general trend. I have some theories about the past 12 months, though I’m confident that it’s partly explained by variance.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Feb 24, 2010 10:32 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
yup I hear you.
I think lightweight fighters caused a shift from 2004 to 2006 or so, with the weight class coming back to prominence. But from 2007 to now, I don’t see data suggesting that lightweights caused the latest surge in decisions.
However when you talk about a shrinking talent gap and what you plan to cover in part 2… I agree completely and that’s where I suspect the real change is taking place.
www.tapology.com | twitter @tapology
the number that’s missing from this to help with this part of the discussion is what percentage of fights are form each weight class.
If there are more LW fights since 2007, the percentage of decisions in LW fights doesn’t need to go up for LW’s to cause the increase in decisions overall.
that’s the last table of data in Fagan’s article, and also referenced in my post above. LW is not a higher share of fights since 2007.
www.tapology.com | twitter @tapology
The greatest % of fights occurred in the LW and WW divisions from 2007-2009. The greatest % of decisions occur in the LW and WW divisions. Hence, the rise in decisions can be linked at least in part with an increase in the number of fights in the lighter weight classes.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 24, 2010 10:50 AM EST up reply actions
uh, no.
here it is again for you.
UFC Decision Rates by Weight Class (2007 – 2008 – 2009)
155 LW: 41% – 46% – 42%
170 WW: 31% – 39% – 50%
185 MW: 28% – 26% – 37%
205 LHW: 30% – 21% – 50%
265 HW: 56% – 13% – 26%
The increase in decisions in the past year is from every weight class EXCEPT lightweight.
www.tapology.com | twitter @tapology
Apologies, I was looking at the chart of distribution of fights since 2007 and comparing it with the decision rate since 2004, which isn’t quite accurate. Still, I think there is some merit in the argument that there are a greater percentage of fights in the lighter weight classes since 2007.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 24, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
there are not a greater percentage of fights in the lighter weight classes since 2007.
lightweight fights were 31%, 28%, and then 27% of total UFC fights in 2007, 2008, 2009, according to the last table in Fagan’s article.
www.tapology.com | twitter @tapology
Lighter weight classes = LW and WW
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 24, 2010 11:07 AM EST up reply actions
in that case see my original post in this thread.
From 2007 to 2008 to 2009, LW+WW was 55%, 51%, 53% of all UFC bouts.
www.tapology.com | twitter @tapology
You really don’t see any correlation between about half of UFC fights taking place in weight classes that have a proven tendency to go to decision? I believe that some of the increase can be explained by more competitive fights (explaining the higher decision rates at WW and LHW, the UFC’s two most stacked divisions), but I think a majority (however slight) of fights taking place at LW and WW does affect the overall dec. rate.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 24, 2010 11:16 AM EST up reply actions
Yes
And the numbers play out that the majority of fights in the last three years occur at 155 and 170, and that both those divisions, regardless of which direction the trend is moving in, have consistently higher decision rates than other divisions.
Ergo it’s a safe correlation to say that more fights at 155 and 170 means more decisions.
The decision rates at WW and LHW have gone way up...
I can blame GSP and Jon Fitch for the WW part, but that number at LHW really surprises me, especially considering the number of strikers at the top of the division.
I was referencing the couple decisions in his recent fights.
He isn’t a big part of it, but he has gone to decision in 2 of his last 3.
And there are numerous fighters that have gone to decision in almost all their fights, and fight with much more frequency then GSP, so explain to me how he is to blame as you put it.
Am I the only one..
who doesn’t care at all about stories like this?
Honestly why should we be worried about fights going to decision more often? Many of the best fights of last year went to decision and their entertainment value didn’t suffer at all because of it.
As long as fighters still step into the cage/ring hungry for the win there will always be exciting stoppages, so lets not whine too much about the ones that aren’t
He’s not whining. He’s examining a trend in our sport. And if anything he is saying that fans shouldn’t be alarmed by it.
Trend examination is a good thing.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 24, 2010 9:41 AM EST up reply actions 6 recs
Cheers!
Some of the best fights last year ended in decision.. Guida Sanchez, Couture Nogueira. And then this year with the Sonnen Marquardt and Sotiropolous Stevenson fights. Decisions mean that the fighters are getting better, and it makes finishes all the more meaningful.
Closer talent matchups also = decisions.
by Nick Thomas on Feb 24, 2010 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If this trend is correct, and I think it is...
eventually, nearly all fights will end in a controversial decision. I don’t think it’s too early to be thinking about what to do because a controversial decision is not good for the sport.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
Close fights also mean more controversial decisions, something that is not always wanted.
by sloppyknoll on Feb 24, 2010 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
Don’t care? Move on. Pretty simple solution to the problem because I can assure you these types of articles are going nowhere.
Follow me on Twitter: @MMANation.
by Luke Thomas on Feb 24, 2010 10:08 AM EST up reply actions
And actually I have a statistics article that will be up today or tomorrow also. So it’s REALLY time to move on if you don’t like trend analysis
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 24, 2010 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
I think we should statistically analyze the statistical trends of articles relating to statistics and trends and track the fan’s reaction towards them, statistically. Also, polls.
by TheConcreteKid on Feb 24, 2010 10:24 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The argument goes thusly:
Some percentage of MMA fans are short-attention span, ADD, instant gratification folks, who were driven away by the “boring” nature of other sports like boxing. For them, the quickness that fights occur is par of the appeal, and the proposition that a fight can end at any time starts to fall by the wayside if, practically speaking, most fights — especially high level ones — don’t. Then, potentially, those fans might start to find MMA fights “boring” and lose interest.
You might not be one of those, but depending in the size of that group, that could have ramifications for the future growth of the sport’s audience worldwide.
Whether or noth the fights go to decision shouldn't be a cause for concern.
Knowing that they are is a priority though.
This trend makes the need to improve judging more important. If there are going to be more decisions, we need better judges to make sure the results are determined accurately.
Ah, I think that by analyzing the number of comments posted on articles discussing controversial decisions, I can deduce a trend toward greater irritationand disagreement over these decisions among the Bloody Elbow community over the past year. And if this, the premier site for intelligent discussion of MMA in the known universe, shows such a trend, how about the wider fanbase paTROLLING various other sites. I do hope that there is a reevaluation of the scoring criteria and education of judges coming soon. There will always be controversy, but it’s definitely time, after the better part of decade with the unified rules and scoring criteria, to take another look.
by Kwisatz Haderach on Feb 24, 2010 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
Visualization
Something as simple as a plot graph would help make the trending data more immediate for a lot of people.
I have some ideas for more advanced visualization which I may work on and post.
In an ideal climate, more decisions are a good thing.
More decisions speak to more competitive matchups and evenly matched talent, essentially meaning that Joe Silva is doing his job well. However, with a heavily flawed judging system, more decisions should raise concern in a fan’s eyes, as that means more fights are being decided by judges who are notoriously bad at their job.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 24, 2010 10:55 AM EST reply actions
Most fights that go to decision are scored properly, though. It’s a relatively small number of controversial fights that get everyone fired up.
www.tapology.com | twitter @tapology
If you go with the assumption that more decisions comes about at least in part due to more competitive matchups, it would lead you to believe that these decisions will become closer and closer and thus harder to judge.
You’re a statistics guy, would you happen to have the stats on split decisions (ie are they rising or falling?)
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 24, 2010 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
I agree… fights definitely become harder to judge, and we could have more and more controversial results. And with higher stakes and more money involved too…
I don’t have split decision stats, someday soon we’ll have those, but possibly another site already has got that…
www.tapology.com | twitter @tapology
Even if most results are correct...
We do see a number of split decisions where the results should be one sided. Judging reform is a priority and more so when the the need for judges decisions increases.
Well, they were evenly matched weren’t they? Problem is that they weren’t of the high-caliber that you would generally expect from fighters in the UFC because Kimbo had a name. These guys should’ve been headlining a card in Alabama with DMX in the co-main.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 24, 2010 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
But even though they were evenly matched, fans expected one to finish the other in brutal and explosive fashion. Had that happened, one fighter would have gotten a bump in casual fan interest, and had a highlight to add to his promo reel. However, the decision, instead of facilitating the ability to sell either fighter as “not necessarily the most skilled, but definitely super-exciting,” the decision diminished both fighters in the eyes of casual fans.
Man, any time we can turn this around...
To find a way to blame Sean Sherk, Gray Maynard, and Tyson Griffin for making the sport more boring, I’m a happy man.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ.
I blog at TangleBones - you should follow me on Twitter here.
If you like it, you should put a rec on it.
Don’t forget Jon Fitch… He is on a juicey streak of decisions 6 decisions to match Maynard.
Is there a record for most decisions in a row?
I refuse to call Tyson Griffin and his 5 ‘Fight of the Night’ awards boring though
I'm not saying boring!
But when Ground ‘n Pound turns into Ground ’n Ground I get a little bored. There’s a reason I watch MMA and not amateur wrestling.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ.
I blog at TangleBones - you should follow me on Twitter here.
If you like it, you should put a rec on it.
This is why knees
to a downed fighter should be legal.
Confused... :S How do you go from
To find a way to blame Sean Sherk, Gray Maynard, and Tyson Griffin for making the sport more boring
to
I’m not saying boring!
to
I get a little bored
Easily!
I’m not saying that all of Tyson’s fights are boring – but are they more boring than a decisive finish? Sometimes. And on average, I guess yes. So the answer to your question is: it depends.
Clear?
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ.
I blog at TangleBones - you should follow me on Twitter here.
If you like it, you should put a rec on it.
I think it is about as clear as mud...
You are probably right though, 5 action packed Fight of the Night award winning battles and one KO in you last 8 fights is far more boring on average than most other fighters.
I admit that I don't make a lot of sense.
The real reason Tyson is on that list is that it works better with three names than two and and he gets a lot of decisions.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ.
I blog at TangleBones - you should follow me on Twitter here.
If you like it, you should put a rec on it.
The KO in his last fight is the important stat. I think that there’s no correlation between Fight of the Night award winners and buyrates. I think that the top draws in the UFC have higher finishing rates than average, and that the PPVs with the highest buyrates featured fighters that had more finishes between them than the average.
Perhaps the level in competition is closing in ???
It could be part of the evolutionary process in the sport that happens in all sports or competition once the playing field starts leveling out..
Where it was once a free for all.. Now the competitors are more evenly matched and the skill level is increasing as more and more athletes are joining the system..When you put two highly skilled and evenly matched competitors together, they will oftentimes cancel each other out.. Which results in unexpected outcomes.. The traditional midset is that when two highly skilled competitors are opposing each other, it ends in dramatic fashion by one or the other. The reality is that both sides are equally aware of the risks vs reward and tread a finer line than when matched with someone that poses leess a risk, less a reward..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
I think this may have some validity...
and with the assumption that the UFC usually aquires the best fighters in the business, overall, then a comparison to other promotions might show a disparity with more decisions in the UFC.
Just a thought, might be waaay off.
It's just basic logic really..
It’s not that fighters aren’t pushing for the finish or are trying any less than normal..
It’s more the gap has bridged tighter in competition, making it harder for finishes on a statistical level.. The odds are working against them more so now than in the early years..
Sure anything can happen in a fight, while oftentimes it does. But the odds have too many variables to be consistent and conclusive in this regard. Bascially, the argument can be made for both sides of this issue because it’s inconclusive either way.. Too many variables in the equation..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
by MMAuthority on Feb 24, 2010 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
Finishing bonus
Something like a $5k standard finishing bonus for any fighter that finishes their opponent may help bring this rate back down and encourage more fighters to keep pressing even if they know they have won the first couple rounds. It would also help out the newer guys that are lower on the pay scale. The only fighters that would then be exempt from this would be the KO and Sub of the night winners.
I like this...
Instead of taking money out of the fighter’s pockets adding some for a finish is a nice touch.
The UFC already has this.
Its called a win bonus and doubles your pay. I would be a free swinging mofo if I thought my check every Friday would double from KOing someone.
Not all fighters get win bonuses
Regardless, a finishing bonus will encourage someone to look for a KO or submission even if they are ahead on the cards. How often have we seen somebody win the first two round and dance around, sit still in the gaurd or hold someone against the cage for the entire third round. Too often for my liking.
Name 5 who dont?
We have SotN, KoTN, FotN, if these guys are not pumped by $40,000-$75,000 bonuses at EVERY event, shame on them.
that’s kind of bogus.
the people without win bonuses get a cut of the PPV. Putting on boring fights hurts their paycheck more than anyone else.
What is bogus. Are you saying people don’t ever cruise if they have obviously won the first two rounds?
The fact that not everyone gets win bonuses is bogus. Plus, it’s harder to cruise for longer, and it’s harder to go for 25 minutes in general, so more people will be looking to finish.
Win bonus or not, what is wrong with encouraging a finish?
Main event 5 round fighters are already making solid money, but some undercard fighters are scared to lose because they don’t want to get cut.
Throwing them an extra 5 grand for a finish will encourage action. It isn’t like the combination of a win bonus and a finish bonus is a bad thing.
What does 25 minutes have to do with anything?
I don't think a finishing bonus would do anything...
Look at the list of your biggest offenders: Sean Sherk, Jon Fitch, Gray Maynard, Chael Sonnen, Yushin Okami, etc. These guys aren’t good at finishing, it’s just not part of their WINNING game plan.
The secret to lowering the rate of decisions, is to make that style of fighter less likely to win.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
A finishing bonus wouldnt be some magic cure all, but it would have some impact. A fighter who had won the first 2 rounds might step it up a notch in the 3rd to look for a finish or a fighter hoping to score points and stay outta trouble coughBISPINGcough might take a bit more of a risky approach in formulating his gameplan.
A finishing bonus could only be a good thing imo.
Exactly my point
This would be true if it only worked as you say here, but right now you can get that same bonus by doing just slightly more than the other guy. Incentives to do more always bring the ones willing to work harder to the top, that’s management 101.
And while some fighters have very good defense and are difficult to finish the win bonus should not be taken away from someone who can beat them but not finish them, but the little extra might prevent good fighters with the ability to finish from playing it safe and coasting to decisions. And again that little extra might really help the lower level guys only making 8k to show and 8k to win have a little something left after their expenses.
by The Engineer on Feb 24, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed.
Why sit on a lead when you can earn an extra 5 grand (the amount doesn’t matter) for putting him away.
Awesome.
Really nice post, Mike.
The only thing that bothers me about a lot of decisions is that many times the decisions aren’t definitive. However, what would be worse for the sport are gimmicky attempts to cut down on decisions especially if the uptick can be explained by variance.
I love articles of this nature. Anyone who doesn’t should hang there head in shame.
by Cannon Jacques on Feb 24, 2010 12:05 PM EST reply actions
The spectre of five round fights looms…
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Feb 24, 2010 12:14 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I just see this is the natural progression and evolution of the sport at the highest level. Most elite-level fighters nowadays realize how much is at stake when fighting in the UFC. There are still a few guys out there who just go out and throw bombs but for the most part, it is becoming a more strategic game…at least at the higher levels.
So, if you have good match-making(which the UFC does) and two elite-level fighters who are well-prepared for each other, it only seems logical that 3 rounds may not be enough time for one fighter to gain a significant advantage over the other and finish the fight.
Of course, I would like to see all main event fights be 5 rounds which I believe would reduce the # of decisions we see. I would also like to see knees on the ground to prevent stalling and create another way for a fight to be finished.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Feb 24, 2010 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
i disagree that five round fights will lead to less decisions. I think it will cause fighters to take less risks, focus more on cardio, and i think the same amount of action occurring with 15 minutes will occur within 5. I like that you have to be at the absolute top of your game for a title fight. I would agree with a sudden death 3 or 5 minute round for 3 round fights fought to a draw if any were scored that way.
by Austin Martin on Feb 24, 2010 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
How so?
Do you have any statistcal proof of this? If anything, from personal recollection, few fights end in the fourth and fifth rounds. There is this assumption, that if a competitive three round fight were extended another two rounds, there would have been a finish. The game plan and pace for 5 rounders is usually different and would have led to a completely different fight. The logic of extending a three rounder would be the same if you were to call a five rounder after three without the contestants aware.
as of a year ago, 67% of 3 round ufc fights had finishes, while 77% of 5 round fights did
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/2/16/761153/in-defense-of-the-five-rou
by Phildo on Feb 24, 2010 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
From the same article, the guy who calculated these statistics said they weren’t quite comparable due to the difference in sample size (much, much fewer title fights than 3 rounders) and mismatched 5 round fights. He then went on to say that it seems that about a third of fights will go to a decision regardless of rounds, so all that adding rounds will do is create longer fights.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 24, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
No, that’s not what mike fagan said, the guy who calculated the numbers i posted.
That’s what someone who tried to use bogus numbers to argue that 5 round fights are bad was saying to try and stick up for his point after seeing better numbers.
Fair point on Fagan calculating the numbers, I meant Rami.
So do you think we can accurately compare a sample size of about 100 for title fights to a sample size of about 1200 and say definitively that more time = more finishes?
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 24, 2010 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not saying definitively, someone asked for evidence, there’s evidence.
Rami’s interpretation is just as valid as mike’s. To pick one over the other because of small sample size is dumb.
So both interpretations are valid, but my agreement with one makes me dumb? Interesting.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 24, 2010 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
I’m fairly certain Rami recanted this opinion. I can dig through my email when I get home.
Regardless, unless EVERY 5 rounder went to a decision once it goes by 3 rounds, 5 rounders will lead to more finishes. It’s basic logic.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Feb 24, 2010 6:19 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
While I would love to see more five round fights as well, without some kind of incentive to keep the fighters pressing for a win, we would just be subjected to watching a fighter that is clearly ahead on the cards sit back and play defence for 2 rounds instead of just one.
by The Engineer on Feb 24, 2010 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
The down side
The down side to more five round fights though is that the pay per view is only so long and that means less fights will be shown when fights do go to the cards.
Ding.. Ding.. Ding..
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
can you believe that we only got to see 5 fights the last time a card had 2 five round fights scheduled?
The Horror!!!!
What was that last line again.
And they both went to the cards didn’t they? That post was also more directed toward the notion of 5 rounds becoming the standard.
by The Engineer on Feb 24, 2010 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
I really don't ever see 5 round fights "becoming the standard."
There would have to be some sort of criteria established. I think there are a lot of matchups between very good fighters that warrant five rounds. I’d have to see some more arguments from both sides, and I feel like that is coming, but more 5 rounders seems like a logical next step.
by Cannon Jacques on Feb 24, 2010 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
This again? Decisions aren't a bad thing.
MMA people get so fixated on things sometimes.
by snakecharmer1340 on Feb 24, 2010 6:03 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
