Thread Tools

Display Modes

**slapshot** · 08-22-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

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...-title-fights/

dafunguru · 08-22-2009, 01:12 PM

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

**Davisty69** · 08-22-2009, 01:20 PM

Sweet stuff. I just wonder how the UFC will decide which fights to have as a 5 rounder?

Maybe they can get Nog vs. Randy as a 5 rounder before next weekend

pt447 · 08-22-2009, 03:58 PM

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...

**TraMaI** · 08-22-2009, 04:17 PM

It'd be great to see the Number One Contender matches go 5 rounds! Great preparation and insight into the contender being able to go 5 rounds or not.

**M.C** · 08-22-2009, 04:51 PM

Nice, I like it.

aimres · 08-22-2009, 04:55 PM

For co-main events and title fights this is a great idea.

For example. When a fighter reaches title contention and has never been able to fight five rounds he or she is at a great disadvantage. Fighters need to be able to test their conditioning prior to the championship fight.

**Freelancer** · 08-22-2009, 05:13 PM

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.

mrmyz · 08-22-2009, 06:24 PM

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

**Davisty69** · 08-22-2009, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freelancer

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.

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.

TUF Finale 17

UFC on FOX 7

UFC 160

UFC 159

MFC 37

UFC on FX 8

Register Now

Thread Tools

Display Modes