The Pros and Cons of Five-Round, Non-Title Fights - Page 2 - MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos
UFC The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is a U.S.-based mixed martial arts organization, recognized as the largest MMA promotion in the world. The UFC is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada and is owned and operated by Zuffa, LLC. This promotion is responsible for solidifying the sport's postion in the history-books. UFC is currently undergoing a remarkable surge in popularity, along with greater mainstream media coverage. UFC programming can now be seen on FOX, FX, and FUEL TV in the United States, as well as in 35 other countries worldwide.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 22 (permalink) Old 06-23-2011, 11:50 AM
Megaweight
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,499
                     
When the idea was first proposed I was actually opposed to it. But after talking with some friends I think this idea has quite a bit of good and very little bad.

I think this system will give guys with years worth of cardio (Diaz brothers, Guida, Edgar, Fitch, etc) a boost as these guys usually look better in the 3rd round than they do in the first.

I think it gives strikers a better chance against wrestlers. If Kos had gassed himself trying to hold down Daley then his TD's would be easier to defend and Daley could have tried to finish it with his fists. (An example, I think this fight could have gone 100 rounds and it would have been the same result.)

I think it forces guys like Rampage, T.Alves, BJ Penn, etc, to have better cardio.

One of the big cons for me, and it has been pointed out, is that it kind of blurs guys records. Fighter A fights in 8 fights, 4 of them are main events thus 5 rounds, he finishes all 4 of them in the 4th or 5th round. Fighter B fights in 8 fights, all 3 rounders, goes to 8 decisions. Assume they are the same caliber fighter fighting same caliber opponents. Chances are Fighter A gets the bigger fights or championship fight and gets known as a 'finisher' while Fighter B gets known as a guy who always goes to decision. There records are only comparable in the sense that 'as of 3 rounds all 16 fights were decision fights'. It doesn't make for a compelling argument.
cdtcpl is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 22 (permalink) Old 06-23-2011, 04:32 PM
Welterweight
 
Sambo de Amigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Land of Truth
Posts: 2,311
                     
Pro's

5 rounds really do prove who the better fighter is.

An exciting fight will now be on for longer.

Possibility of more finishes.

could be used a preparation for a 5 round title fight instead of jumping straight in their when the title fight comes around.

Con's

Could be 5 rounds of snoozefest ?( then again that applies to 3 rounds so depends how you look at it. )

Fighters who dont have good cardio may pace themselves thus leading to slower fights.

Bisping Fan extraordinaire

Velasquez will be back

Sambo de Amigo is offline  
post #13 of 22 (permalink) Old 06-23-2011, 04:49 PM
"Focus"
 
Life B Ez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 10,099
                     
Here's my thoughts on the whole five round on title fight. I think Title fights should stand out from all other fights, but at the same time I understand that when people pay for a PPV and the main event is lackluster it makes people angry or discourages another buy when no title fight is present.

I've seen people say add a sudden victory round after three for main events, but this would change almost nothing, because a split decision is still a decision and despite the couple we've had recently draws are rare.

Also, since I think title fights should be longer, that means going to possibly a seven round title fight, which I'm not too interested in.

I say main event, non-title fights should be four rounds, that way we don't need to sit through an extra round of two guys who have no business going five rounds shuffling around the cage exhausted and gasping for life. But in the event of a close fight we get more rounds. Also, with four rounds a 10-8 doesn't all but end your chances of going home with a draw or loss.

At this point, if you've kept reading I'm assuming you're saying "well then there will be draws like crazy and you cause more of a problem." Here I say pull it from K1. Sudden victory round in the event of a draw in a four round fight.

This way there is no chance it's a five round snoozefest of one guy laying on someone for five rounds as it's over after four in that case. But if there is a close fight and someone came on strong late, you get that extra round.

Another things, this bullshit about just make it four rounds it will make guys try to finish the fight is garbage. Everyone is trying to finish at all times, but when you fight some of the best in the world, guess what it's pretty hard to finish those guys. All making it only four rounds does is cause even more problems. Four rounds requires a sudden victory round in the event of a draw. I'd rather not see twenty non-title fights in a row go to draws.

Think. It Ain't Illegal Yet
"Discipline Hurts Less Than Regret"
Life B Ez is offline  
post #14 of 22 (permalink) Old 06-23-2011, 05:11 PM
MMA Fanatic
 
OasisSupersonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 60
                     
The thought of seeing Jon Fitch in a 5 round fight makes me die a little inside. Although overall I'm going to accept the 5 round fights, it shows that the sport is developing if anything.
OasisSupersonic is offline  
post #15 of 22 (permalink) Old 06-23-2011, 08:08 PM
Welterweight
 
Sambo de Amigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Land of Truth
Posts: 2,311
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by OasisSupersonic View Post
The thought of seeing Jon Fitch in a 5 round fight makes me die a little inside. Although overall I'm going to accept the 5 round fights, it shows that the sport is developing if anything.
Why ? because he will expose one dimensional fighters who can't stop his TD's ?

Bisping Fan extraordinaire

Velasquez will be back

Sambo de Amigo is offline  
post #16 of 22 (permalink) Old 06-23-2011, 08:16 PM Thread Starter
The Avy Slut
 
Indestructibl3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,342
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sambo de Amigo View Post
Why ? because he will expose one dimensional fighters who can't stop his TD's ?
Thank you. It's not Fitch's fault that he exposes and exploits others weakness (which happens to be wrestling). I love watching Fitch fight.

Thanks to limba for this AWESOME sig
Indestructibl3 is offline  
post #17 of 22 (permalink) Old 06-23-2011, 08:18 PM
Welterweight
 
Sambo de Amigo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Land of Truth
Posts: 2,311
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indestructibl3 View Post
Thank you. It's not Fitch's fault that he exposes and exploits others weakness (which happens to be wrestling). I love watching Fitch fight.
Its no different from someone who is just a pure striker except Fitch is actually very good at what he does.

I also enjoy his fights.

Bisping Fan extraordinaire

Velasquez will be back

Sambo de Amigo is offline  
post #18 of 22 (permalink) Old 06-23-2011, 08:42 PM
Flyweight
 
Chewy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Nor*Cal
Posts: 217
                     
Think about how many times Fitch will get placed in a main event.

Chewy is offline  
post #19 of 22 (permalink) Old 06-23-2011, 11:59 PM
Flyweight
 
zath the champ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 314
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pound&Mound View Post
Pros: Fights like BJ Penn vs Jon Fitch


Cons: Jon Fitch
I lol'ed

Always supporting:
Forrest
Machida
Wandy
Velasquez


Anderson Silva vs. Jon Jones is the best match-up the UFC has ever been able to arrange. Here's to hoping it goes down.
zath the champ is offline  
post #20 of 22 (permalink) Old 06-24-2011, 01:43 PM
Amateur
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 129
                     
If two fighters are headlining an event in a non title fight that means they are (very) popular fighters and hence I can see no problems about a 5 round fight.

the Jon Fitch argument does not hold. A three round fight with him in it is 2 rounds too long!

One springs to mind is the Rampage Evens fight. A 5 rounder would have menat a TKO I think. Lets face it that's what we want to see!
Liddell67 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome