Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 11:33 PM 
Dana White recently announced that the UFC is going to begin implementing five round fights for main events that are non-title fights. I can see this being good news for fighters like Nate Diaz, who tends to turn it on in the latter stages of his fights. Other fighters, like BJ Penn and Roy Nelson seem to lose their steam in many of their fights toward the later rounds. With me being a fan of all things under the MMAjunkie.com banner, as well as an avid listener of Sherdog Radio’s Jordan Breen, I was excited when I saw that MMAjunkie.com staff columnist Steven Marrocco joined Jordan in “The Press Row”, which is a weekly segment where Jordan talks about different MMA topics with another member of the MMA media. That segment can be found here: http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/Steven-Marrocco-Joins-Press-Row-33193
This week’s topic covered the UFC’s decision to implement five rounds for main event fights. It is no secret that Jordan has been in favor of the switch. He believes that a three round fight can take away the strategic element. If a fighter chooses to feel out and observe their opponent for even one round, they may be forced to win the remaining ten minutes of the fight. Steven on the other hand, is not in favor of the change. Although he thinks there would be fights that would benefit, he also believes that it spreads out the action and does not foster to fights like Griffin vs. Bonnar where both fighters were basically sprinting for three rounds. Had that fight been slated for 5 rounds, it is very possible that they may have come in with game plans that allowed them to last until the end of the fifth frame. Steven also noted that many times, #1 contender’s fights play out with fighters implementing safer game plans to give them a better chance at a title shot, which can end up producing boring fights. #1 contender’s fights often garnering main event status, which would mean that boring 3 round fights turn into boring 5 round fights.
I believe good arguments can be made for both sides. Before I decided which side of the fence I stood on, I wanted to find out how many fights would have actually been affected by the change. I went back and looked at every UFC event from January 1st, 2011 to this past weekend’s UFC 131. Within that time frame, there were eleven UFC events. Out of those eleven, I am only considering nine of them due to two events already including 5 round title fights. So of the nine events that would have been affected, six had main events that went to a three round decision while the remaining three fights ended with finishes. The six fights that went to three round decisions were:
UFC 127’s Penn vs. Fitch
UFC on Versus 3’s Sanchez vs. Kampmann
UFC Fight Night 24’s Nogueira vs. Davis
UFC 130’s Rampage vs. Hamill
The Ultimate Fighter 13 Finale’s Pettis vs. Guida
UFC 131’s Dos Santos vs. Carwin
Although these six fights were the main events, Rampage vs. Hamill would have remained a three rounder due to it being bumped up to main event status once Maynard vs. Edgar fell through (which would have been a 5 round fight anyway). Another fight in question may be Guida vs. Pettis because The Ultimate Fighter Finale fight was the main event, but I would assume that the UFC would have switched the main event to Guida vs. Pettis had the “five round main events” been implemented beforehand. That all being said, I am going to consider those six fights for argument’s sake.
Looking at the six fights listed above, I believe that five round fights would have benefitted half of the fights. I think that Fitch would have finished Penn due to Penn’s decline in the 3rd round, Kampmann would have received the nod due to Sanchez’s face closing up, and Dos Santos would have finished Carwin assuming that Shane would have absorbed more strikes because of his lack of eyesight. The remaining three fights, in my opinion, would have continued on to being 5 round Decisions based on how the first 3 rounds played out (this is all speculation on my part).
So instead of there being six decisions, we would have only been subjected to three decisions. With the current state of MMA judging, I am going to say that that is a positive. We can point to both the Penn vs. Fitch fight, and the Sanchez vs. Kampmann fight as being met with controversial decisions handed down by the judges and another two rounds would have undoubtedly had an impact on that. I could also point to the Pettis vs. Guida result as being controversial as some thought that Pettis was the more active fighter from his back, but the judges scored the fight 30-27 for Guida which means that two more round would have not affected the result, baring a potential finish by Pettis. I like the idea of six decisions turning to three, and also clearing up two controversial results.
The downside to this hypothetical analysis, which was also a negative that Steven Marrocco pointed out, is that the other three decisions may have subjected the viewing audience to even more stale rounds to sit through. If the first three rounds were indicative of how another two rounds may have gone, then Guida, Davis, and Rampage would have gone on to win 5 round snoozers instead of just 3 round snoozers, which is not conducive to entertaining the casual MMA fan. We already see the boo-birds come out in the 1st round of many slow starting fights, and 5 round fights would extend fights that are often perceived to be boring.
Adding on to my last point, boring three round fights would only worsen if they were five round fights. My reasoning is due to the game-plans that may be implemented by coaches and fighters having to deal with fighting more rounds. I believe that coaches like Greg Jackson would alter game-plans to include a slower pace to the fight, much like a runner would have a slower pace when running a mile compared to a ½ mile. There may be more “staring showdowns” than “throwing bombs” which was also a point brought up by Steven Marrocco. Although he brings up a good point that I cannot disagree with, I also believe that that situation (or Dana White to be exact) will take care of itself. We have seen Dana White react harshly (crazy, huh) when fighters do not initiate action in a fight. Gerald Harris was given the pink slip after not producing in a loss to Maiquel Falcao despite Harris garnering a winning record in the UFC that also included a Knock Out of the Night. If fighters end up dancing around the cage ala Anderson Silva vs. Damien Maia, or lay and pray on top of their opponent ala John Fitch (in many fan’s eyes), I doubt the UFC will consider them for future Main Event fights. I also believe that if a fighter is slated to be the Main Event of a fight card, they obviously are toward the top of their division, or they have a history of putting on exciting fights. Obviously, there will be some exceptions where a fight that looked exciting on paper turns out to be a boring 5 round fight, but like I said….those situations will take care of themselves.
There are many ways to look at this situation and we can think of more pros and cons on each side of the argument. Could 5 round fights add to the wear and tear that fighters are subjected to? Would the two potentially extra rounds force fighters to come into the fight in better shape which may also add to better fights, and in turn prepare challengers for future title fights? Will this change have a large effect on the entertainment value which could either turn casual fans away from the sport, or will it make 3 round fights even more exciting? Will we see less televised fights due to longer main events or will YouTube and Facebook fights take care of that concern? All of these questions may or may not be answered in the future after we have some actual 5 round non-title fights to base our judgments on, but I do believe that the pros will end up out-weighing the cons.
Thank you for reading the Ph1sh Bowl! Leave a comment if you wish and Be Champions!
Reader Comments (11)
A great read.
Good points on either side, if the shit hits the fan will Zuffa back down from this stance? That is the question. Great
Phish bowl dude.
Fuck You Fish! Sorry, good read should be a topic on the show sometime in a lengthy discussion.
Good stuff Phishbaum...I still think all 3 of those fights you mentioned which wouldve ended (Sanchez/Kampann, Carwin/Dos Santos, Penn Fitch) wouldve been decided in round 4 (but of course, who knows. I am not in favor of 5 round non title fights. Cause you know who is gonna get hurt? The little dudes that are energizer bunnies, and absorb more chronic punishment and wear and tear that the bigger dudes who dont have the stamina to go hard for 5 rounds. I think the best solution would be two fold: implement a judging and structure similar to the Pride FC...if youre going to judge subjectively, and seeing how crappy juding has been, you may as well drop the 10 point must system and go to the Pride system of "who was closer to finishing the fight, controlled the fight, effective aggressor, etc." and then, in a non title main event, you implement a 4th round if the judges cannot make up their mind about who won. This seemed to work pretty good in PRide if my memory serves me right, and it sure as hell cant be worse than the current system
I like the sudden death angle, if things aren't decided after 3, go to a sudden death round. Its the easiest way to do things people.
While I do think that an extra round would be great in many instances, here is the problem I have with it. If a fight is signed to be a 3 round fight, then fighters will train for a 3 round fight, and more importantly they will fight with a pace and style that is condusive to the length of such signed fight. They should really have nothing left after that 3 round is done. If their fight is siged to be a 5 rounder, then they will game plan for 5 rounds. Now if there is a chance that there 'could' be an extra round, are we then going to see fighters stalling or trying not to engage to save some energy for that potential round? With judging how it is at this point, that could also backfire for those fighters but even worse, it would make for some boring, strategic rounds.
Regarding the Pride rules, I dont think that those rules were any better in my opinion because of their own hang ups. I do like the 2 minutes between rounds, but do not like the no elbows to the head or face. I dont like yellow cards, because I dont think that a fighter's pay should be adjusted during the fight. If there is a "win bonus" that is different, but for a "Referee" to have the power to dock a fighter's pay is rediculous. I also do not like the 10 minute 1st round, with a 5 minute 2nd round. It is already almost impossible for judges to remember what happened in a 5 minute round, much less a 10 minute round.
My opinion on the easiest change to make right off the bat would be to require a judge to submit a score using the current 10 point must system (which is not the greatest either), but also declare a "winner" incase your score card shows a draw due to 10-8 rounds, point deductions, etc. I can score a fight 28-28 but be confident that fighter A beat fighter B.
The final thing I would do is to clarify, and broaden the scope of how judges actually score a round. The 10-9 score covers too large of a spectrum of what happened in that specific round. One 10-9 round could be so close that one fighter won it by just a takedown with 10 seconds left. Another 10-9 round could be an ass whoopin, which maybe should be a 10-8. If fighter A barely wins 2 rounds, but then gets his ass kicked in the 3rd, but the final round gets 10-9s by the judges, should the fighter who kicked ass in the 3rd really lose? I think we need to use 10-7's like we use 10-8s, and use 10-8's like we use for many one sided 10-9 rounds. This may increase the amount of '28-28' scores, but like I mentioned earlier, that is where the "winner" comes into play that the judge also had to include next to his/her score.
ok well what if at the end of the 3 rd fight that ends in a draw, they go to a 4rth judge who makes a rulling on who he thinks won the fight?
I'm a fan of the extra round, and am okay with yellow cards, but think they should be docked a half-point for a yellow and a full point for a red card (rather than docking the fighter cash).
The risk of a three-round stare-down in a five-round fight is where a yellow card could come in handy, but rules and protocols would need to be clarified and consistent -- a set amount of time must past where neither fighter makes an offensive move, a set number of warnings, etc. For instance, if after 45 seconds no offensive moves have been made, the ref could warn the fighters. If the ref doesn't recognize how much time has passed, something as simple as a judge doing something to alert the ref (like raising a flag) could be enough. Then the fighters know they have to pick it up. After a fighter gets, say, three warnings, the yellow card comes out and that fighter gets docked a half-point for the round.
The same principles could apply to the ground game. People complain about wrestlers laying on people, but the only place where wrestling can be that inactive not be penalized is in a mixed martial arts. In collegiate wrestling, after a takedown the wrestler in control has a window of time to make an offensive move or gets called for stalling -- and those can cost points. And there are clear guidelines for what counts as offense, like moving out of a parallel position and into a perpendicular position with respect to the down opponent. In freestyle and greco, you get about 10-15 seconds on the mat to score an offensive move. If you score, you keep going; if you don't, the ref calls you back up.
That approach could easily translate to mma, it wouldn't hurt wrestlers (because they're used to having short time to create offense), and it'd actually help out the non-wrestlers and the fans because they know the fight wouldn't all occur in a corner of the cage. If a fighter takes his opponent down and no other offense is created either from top or bottom position in about 45 seconds, it gets called back up. If offense is attempted but defended, that's one thing, but if a fighter takes his opponent down and just hangs on, the ref could give a warning, and three warnings could lead to a card. If a fighter pulls guard or gets taken down and doesn't pull any sweeps, reversals or submission attempts, that bottom fighter could get warned. You could make it complicated by separating warnings on the feet from warnings on the ground, but that seems needless and works against the goal of creating action.
Such measures Could make for much more exciting fights, even from the wrestlers; rather than three takedowns a round with one occurring at the 30 second point, you might see six or seven takedowns because the fight wouldn't be allowed to remain on the ground, and wrestlers would have to be more active from the top -- which means more action in general. And if two strikers are too wary to pull the trigger on the feet, the ref's warning and possible loss of a half-point would light a fire under them.
Fighting a "strategic" fight at a pace that makes people get up for a beer or leave early would take on a whole new dimension if such a strategy could cost a competitor a round or a fight by a half-point. A fighter who dominates by LNP could end up with a 9.5-9 or a 9-9 round, which defeats the stall-out strategy. Hell, such measures might even help clarify something like the third round of the Fitch-Penn fight; if Penn doesn't make any sweeps, submission attempts or anything else in that round, you don't have to worry about the judges determining if it's a 10-8 round because the ref first warns and then pulls the card -- and it's at least a 10-8.5 round, if not a 10-7.5 round. Plus I think it'd make mma just more of a sport. Fighters have adapted to working within the current rules and not creating risk by slowing things down, and it chaps the asses of fans, other fighters, and promoters. It's time for the rules to adapt to the adaptations of the fighters.
Mixed feelings here. I would like to see 5 round fights involving proven fighters that bring it, or say competitive trilogies (penn vs hughes). I don't want just ANY main event fight to be 5 rounds, because i concur there are bound to be snooze fests. The UFC hasn't had a great track record of fun 5-rounders imo. Liddell put on some good title fights, as did Couture, and the drama of Silva vs Sonnen, but those are in the minority.
I know we can't have it both ways, but it would be nice to allow Joe Silva to "choose" the number of rounds in his match making. A guy can dream I guess.
Great article Ph1sh. Very intelligent stance on the topic.
Damn, there's some intelligent conversation going on here, you guys should do this on the radio show. Great topic, solid read. I give this Ph1sh Bowl 3 thumbs up!
says "late summer, 2011" - so I'm guessing that means August/September-Coach handbags wholesale