Mixed Martial Arts Forum banner

NSAC adds 5 round non title fights.

1K views 18 replies 16 participants last post by  shatterproof 
#1 ·
Out of the blue today came news that the NSAC will be meeting on August 19 to vote on a number of proposed rule changes outlined in this document (.pdf). One of the more note worthy proposals in the document is a provision which would allow certain non-title fights to go for five rounds. The changes are italicized.

2. A championship contest of mixed martial arts or any other mixed martial arts contest or exhibition which the Commission considers to be a special event must [be] not exceed five rounds in duration.

There’s quite a bit of debate going on with this issue. Bloody Elbow and Cagewriter are both in favor of the change. They’re arguing there would be more decisive finishes, and for those bouts that still went the distance, there should at least be a more conclusive winner. Fightlinker on the other hand disagrees. They’re afraid if the commission allows promoters to book five round non-title fights, they would eventually become the norm which could lead to too many rounds like boxing.

Personally, I like the idea if it’s used appropriately. Two fights off the top of my head that should have went five rounds were Liddell-Silva and Franklin-Henderson. It wasn’t a big deal before Chuck and Wanderlei fought because everyone figured one of them would end up knocking the other out. That didn’t happen though. Instead, we got a three round war and both were still standing at the end. It wasn’t a title fight, but given the history between the two it kind of felt like it was, and really, who didn’t want to see two more rounds? Franklin-Henderson was a bit different in the fact that it was just a really close fight. It wasn’t the best fight in the world, but if it had been five rounds, maybe there would have been a more decisive winner thus sparing us from having to see it again in September.

If it’s used only in main events or co-main events on pay-per-views or other major events, I’m all for it. While they may not be title fights, some fights have a little more luster to them than your average undercard bout. This would be a great way to recognize that and give us fans who spend $50 for the pay-per-view a little something more on the shows that don’t have a title defense on the card. Plus, if it passes, the UFC could adopt the rule in the UK. I’m sure they would appreciate it. They’ve never seen a live five round fight that didn’t take place at five or six in the morning.

By the way, the NSAC will also be voting on limited instant replay for incidents where fight ending blows are suspected to be fouls as we saw in the Johnson-Burns and Cro Cop-Al-Turk fights.
http://www.mmaconvert.com/2009/07/28/nsac-looking-at-special-five-round-non-title-fights/
 
#2 ·
HOly Shit, this is awesome, but how its gonna affect fighters and their cardio? I mean most fights taht qualify as special will probably have fighters who have gone the distance but every one's gonna have to step up their cardio game if the UFC goes beast and makes all awesome matches going to decision to 5 round wars.

+ rep
 
#4 ·
Good idea, but is it a matter of "if it would end in a draw after 3, the judges ask for another round"? Otherwise we'll get too many 5 round draws and such. Personally, I'd have rather them gone to a PRIDE format, or at least allowed for it, where you get a 10 minute first round. Anyone who watched PRIDE knows how much of a different fight you get with a 10 minute round!

But, this could be good, only if it doesn't lead to 3 fight PPVs...
 
#8 ·
I'm against this. It will put fighters with great conditioning in an advantage over the less conditioned but more explosive or technical fighters. The pace will be slower, the fights will be more boring. It will ultimately lead to battles of attrition instead of battles of skill.

Instead I would allow an extra round if a fight is too close to call, similar to K-1 system.
 
#10 ·
I have two questions then.

1) would you rather title fights be 3 rounds then as well for the reason you listed? Why should a fight be leaning towards the fighter with great conditioning simply because it is a title fight?

2) Wouldn't you say that conditioning and strength are kind of two ends of the spectrum? The guy that is more explosive usually sacrifices conditioning and lasting power for the ability to finish the fight in the first round. To me, each fighter gears himself to how he wants to fight.
 
#9 ·
for normal matches it doesnt make sense, but I think it would be great for main events. There have been instances where a main event fight was a non title fight and it would have been a much better fight had they have gone the distance. One I can think of is rich franklin vs wandy
 
#18 ·
I like this. To me it does several good things.

1. It would force the UFC to declare number one contenders fights. They usually just throw them out there unofficially, but you can put just as much excitement around a number 1 contender as a title fight.

2. Unlike some, I think it would favor finishers over points fighters. Someone that lays and prays or dances around with little to no attempt to finish would have 10 more minutes to get dropped by someone who wants to end the fight. Prime example, Bisping VS. Leben... yes I know of Chris's bullshit, but think about it. Bisping flat out admitted he was out to outpoint Leben, who was clearly trying to end that fight... and I think could have.

3. I think every pay per view should have a five rounder on it. Which is why I've always pushed for a title fight on every pay per view, but this would serve just as well.


As far as the last paragraph, I hope they envoke this replay rule. A great example of that is Sodallah/Hendricks. They should have removed Mirgliblahblah and started that fight over from the time it stopped.
Good stuff, I hope it all goes through
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top