NSAC Considering Five Round Non-Title Fights |
| Posted By |
Message |
Aether
Heavyweight Champ
Career record: 929-503
Season: 18-6 (#1669)
Location: Edmonton
|
Posted by slapshot
Posted by Giant_Ochai
It's about time. Three rounds doesn't do it for me when the world's best fighters are competing. Seven round title fights should also be implemented.
Seven rounds..... ?
I hope you are just joking, even if your not the idea made me chuckle. 
Why would that be a joke? It seems completely logical that if you are going to raise non-title fights to 5 rounds that you should also raise title fights an extra 2 rounds as well. I don't see how you could be in favour of one and find the other ridiculous.
|
|
Post #16 7/27/09 8:48:11PM
|
|
|
XblacksheepX
MMA Regular
Career record: 657-353
Season: 0-0 (#-)
Location: Germany
|
I'd like the idea of special fights like main event, superfights or similar to have AN OPTION to go 5 instead of 3 rounds. If the Judges declare after the 3 rounds there would be a split decision or it is too close to call, then they could call for another 2 rounds for a more explicit decision if there's still no stoppage. Similar like it is in K-1.
That way you could have the best of both. If it's a clear dominated fight by one fighter it's decisioned after 3 rounds, no need to extend something what is already clear-cut. If not and the fight is very close, there's a good possibility it's being stopped in the next 2. The fighters still need to push the pace to not lose the 3 round decision, so there would be no holding back either.
A good way to keep it more out the judges hands, and in addition, judges could be more encouraged to count more 10-10 draw rounds when it's very close! 
|
|
Post #17 7/27/09 8:57:19PM
|
Advertisement |
|
MODesty
Career record: 1011-533
Season: 42-17 (#206)
Location: Oklahoma
|
Posted by scobac
you cant foresee this, it's all hindsight (come on 20/20), those fights would have been great 25mins but you can predict that otherwise your just taking a chance.
"I don't see a problem with it. Lot of fights I would have rather been 5 rounds and not 3. I agree with everything the writer said and think this will help push the sport even more towards main stream."
That's kind of the point taking a chance. Fans and the UFC know most of the time which fights are going to be good and which ones will be slow. Now there a few fights now and again that are shockingly good and no one expects it but they aren't the norm. Like everyone knew
Franklin vs Henderson
Franklin vs Silva
Chuck vs Silva
GSP vs BJ Penn
Machida vs Tito
Griffin vs Tito
Chuck vs Jardine
Sanchez vs Guida
Sanchez vs Parisyan
would all be great fights.
_______________________________________
MMA Playground Mod
Telnights
MMAplayground Rules
|
|
Post #18 7/27/09 9:15:59PM
|
Buy the ticket, take the ride
Career record: 928-525
Season: 39-20 (#649)
Location: My big ass bed
|
Why fix whats not broke?
3 rounds is perfect for MMA, it keeps the time down forcing the fighters to try to finish or be exciting while also allowing decisive winners.
Adding 2 more rounds for non title fights just maddens the unhelpful.
A close fight will still be a close fight an split decision will still be a split decision but the pace of the fight will slow and it will put newer fighters at a huge disadvantage coming from the amateur leagues to the professional and having to just be ready to be able to go 5 rounds.
Even main events don't really need it. I say keep the 5 rounds for title fights.
_______________________________________
"RIP Evan Tanner, a real life trail blazer."
I was born to lead, not to read!!!!
|
|
Post #19 7/27/09 9:52:59PM
|
XblacksheepX
MMA Regular
Career record: 657-353
Season: 0-0 (#-)
Location: Germany
|
Posted by SmileR
Why fix whats not broke?
3 rounds is perfect for MMA, it keeps the time down forcing the fighters to try to finish or be exciting while also allowing decisive winners.
Adding 2 more rounds for non title fights just maddens the unhelpful.
A close fight will still be a close fight an split decision will still be a split decision but the pace of the fight will slow and it will put newer fighters at a huge disadvantage coming from the amateur leagues to the professional and having to just be ready to be able to go 5 rounds.
Even main events don't really need it. I say keep the 5 rounds for title fights.
Well, you have 2 more rounds where anything can happen and the chances of a fight being stopped or at least letting one fighter doing more for the score cards then the other is also bigger, and yes, more depening on the fighters conditioning. Of course the outcome still can stay the same, but the chances are better the fight ends prematurely.
Don't get me wrong, i'd only like that OPTIONAL 5 rounders for special fights. And that would not including fighters just coming from lower level leagues.
And what about all these bad jugde decisions? unless there someone coming up with a scoring system that fits better to mma, i say alot of fights are too much depending on the judges. we all know the commissions are full of bs judges. So everything that makes the outcome of an important fight (like nr. 1 contender spot, main event or similiar) more reasonable i would welcome.
|
|
Post #20 7/27/09 10:08:16PM
|
matt_black
MMA Regular
Career record: 434-256
Season: 0-0 (#-)
Location: st. john's, newfoundland, canada
|
I like the idea of a 5 round fight if it is deemed to be a contender fight, such as the swick vs kampmann fight in september, maybe these fights do deserve 5 rounds, but at the same time this may comprimise alot of ppv time and cause less fights per ppv, which in turn sucks, but contender fights deserve 5
Last edited 7/27/09 10:21PM by matt_black
Edit note/reason: n/a
|
|
Post #21 7/27/09 10:20:07PM
|
XblacksheepX
MMA Regular
Career record: 657-353
Season: 0-0 (#-)
Location: Germany
|
Posted by matt_black
I like the idea of a 5 round fight if it is deemed to be a contender fight, such as the swick vs kampmann fight in september, maybe these fights do deserve 5 rounds, but at the same time this may comprimise alot of ppv time and cause less fights per ppv, which in turn sucks, but contender fights deserve 5
yeah, the ppv time is a problem there, definitely. i already dislike if a title fight takes 5 rounds and you get to see less fights from the undercard. But easy way out of that: extend ppv time now!!! And while you're at it, show the prelims on spike tv too! 
|
|
Post #22 7/27/09 10:27:03PM
|
prozacnation1978
Heavyweight Champ
Career record: 1016-531
Season: 43-16 (#40)
Location: san diego
|
dude a 10 fight fight card is 5 hours long that is long enough, i can't imagine a 5 round boring ass fight
|
|
Post #23 7/27/09 10:36:43PM
|
Aether
Heavyweight Champ
Career record: 929-503
Season: 18-6 (#1669)
Location: Edmonton
|
Part of what people need to consider is that the difference between a 5 round fight and a 3 round fight isn't just + 2 rounds. What I mean by this is that you can't look back at a close 3 round fight and say that it would've been more definitive, that 5 rounds would've been more enjoyable, or anything else.
A fighter is going to approach a 5 round fight completely differently. If the same great close 3 round fights had been 5 rounders maybe the first 2 rounds would have been a slow feeling out period and the fight actually wouldn't have been any more entertaining. Maybe the fight would have taken an entirely different course because fighter A builds his strategy around tiring the guy out slowly instead of attacking him forcefully.
There are way too many variables to claim that fights we wish were longer would have been improved by 2 extra rounds. Looking at title fights the 2 extra rounds don't really seem to increase the action, they slow it down quite a bit because the fighters realize they have a lot more time to find their range and pace their attack. I'm not arguing that this is better or worse, there are positives and negatives of course. This allows for more strategy, but it also slows the pace of the fights.
For me personally, I think that it would create a lot more boring slow fights overall. Yes, I think there would be certain fights that would benefit, but I think the majority of fights would simply get slower in pace. I don't believe it would really bring much more resolution to decisions. Judges would simply have a larger number of rounds to score subjectively. If the scoring is such that 3 people can look at the same round and all come to different decisions, adding rounds won't solve this problem. It will actually increase the variability of decisions. In theory it should give the fighters more time to finish, but looking at Title fights, how many actually end in rounds 4/5? Not many, and if they finish in these rounds one fighter is almost always being clearly dominated.
Last edited 7/28/09 12:13AM by aether
Edit note/reason: n/a
|
|
Post #24 7/28/09 12:04:06AM
|
TimW001
MMA Sensei
Career record: 502-330
Season: 0-0 (#-)
Location: Canada BC
|
I would like this...a lot.
|
|
Post #25 7/28/09 1:37:37AM
|
Steady MODdin'
Career record: 1037-597
Season: 38-21 (#827)
Location: Milwaukee
|
i dont like this at all, like people said before me, it will slow things down because they have to pace themselves for 5 and know that they have a lot of time to get going. on top of that it screws up ppvs. theres no reason for this.
|
|
Post #26 7/28/09 7:27:37AM
|
|
