A few points:
1. Almost word for word.
(poss in part 2, at work and the computer here has no speakers so I can't be sure)
Also: "almost word for word" is not a complement.
2. Making one round 2.5 or 1.5 minutes doesn't make things better it makes them worse. If Joe Wrestler is dry humping his way to a decision and the third round is only 90 seconds, if he can secure 1 takedown, the round is his.
3. ALL fighters should be able to sustain a 5 round fight. If Machida, Shogun, Diaz, and Edgar can do it. Anyone can, the only excuses for not being able to is lazy training, or a lack of cage discipline.
The point about Griffin/Bonnar and Garcia/Zombie are legitimate. I won't take that away from you. And I also disagree with the 5 round main events. But making a fight shorter won't make it better. It will make hump-athons even more common. IMO the change in round length is one way the UFC is trying to effect change in this way, and also because someone, somewhere in power pays attention to internet forums.
IMO its not going to solve any problems by making main events 5 rounds. A change in the rules, whatever that change is (I'm not selfish enough to think I know the best way to balance a massive sport like MMA) the only real way to solve any problems.
However, when one starts to change the rules of a sport, where do you draw the line? Combat Sports in the Olympics are a perfect example of what happens when the micro-management of rules gets out of control.
Personally, I would prefer things stay exactly as they are, because any change, whether its the round length or the rules on stand ups/takedowns/stalling, its a hair's bredth from perfect to sport-ending.