http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/7/27/964625/nsac-considering-five-round-non
According to MMA Junkie, the Nevada State Athletic Commission will be looking to fine tune their ruleset when they convene on August 17th. NSAC has provided a copy of the potential changes here. Among the changes, NSAC proposes to increase leniency with regards to length of bouts. Here's the text (bold indicates proposed change):
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.
I've written about my support for more five round fights before. Just within the past year, one only has to look at the Franklin/Henderson, Franklin/Silva, and Condit/Kampmann fights as examples of why the option for five round non-title fights is necessary.
Our quirky friends at Fightlinker disagree:
Five round non title fights? Say it ain't so, Keith! While I'm sure many people are high fiving over the possibility of fights like Anderson Silva vs Forrest Griffin or Randy Couture vs Big Nog going 25 minutes instead of 15 (and I say 'like' because these aren't in Nevada), just wait till the five round fight becomes the new three round fight. Anything that pushes MMA closer towards boxing's never-ending bout syndrome is bad fucking news. How about we add the option to stick another period onto hockey games while we're at it?
I'm not really sure how adding ten potential minutes to a mixed martial arts contest is pushing the sport closer to boxing, nor am I sure how that's inherently a bad thing either. With that said, what are the benefits?
More decisive finishes - From my previous post on the topic, I showed that - in a limited sample size - five round title fights are finished 77% of the time as compared to the MMA average of 67% for three round affairs. More fights avoiding the mysterious hands of the judges the better.
Less importance per round - In a three round fight, each round makes up 33% of a judge's score card. A round in a five round bout is only worth 20%. For example, in the Caol Uno/Spencer Fisher fight at UFC 99, if you score the first two rounds (which were very close) to Fisher, Uno has to win a dominant 10-8 third just for a draw. With two additional rounds, Uno would have ample time to make up lost ground (if not finish his opponent).
More quality at the top of the cards - I'm an extremist. The more five-round fights, the better. I understand that's a minority position, and unlikely to come to fruition in the event that NSAC opens the five-round door. That said, if the UFC utilizes the five round fight for all main and co-main events, that's potentially 20 additional minutes of high-level MMA. Who can argue with that?
As a final note, I think it's important to take a look at the wording of the proposed clause (emphasis mine):
or any other mixed martial arts contest or exhibition which the Commission considers to be a special event
It looks like the NSAC is taking measures to ensure they have oversight over a promoter's wants.
Wouldn't be a bad idea for Main events that are deemed worthy of a % rounder without a title up for grabs.
sorry instead of % meant 5
Kind of waters down the whole point of a main event fight being "different", but there have been 3 round fights that really should have been 5 rounds before as well. Then again, there have been 5 round decisions, that people still thought were close, so who knows.
how about 5 rounds for the Main Event slot only
there obviously wouldnt be a BELT on the line, so i dont think it would take anything away from a championship 5 rounder
it would produce more decisive endings
only negative is that it would probably mean one less fight per PPV
caposa - how about 5 rounds for the Main Event slot only
there obviously wouldnt be a BELT on the line, so i dont think it would take anything away from a championship 5 rounder
it would produce more decisive endings
only negative is that it would probably mean ONE LESS FIGHT PER PPV
Either that or we won't have to listen to Goldie for an extra 10 mins.
"only negative is that it would probably mean ONE LESS FIGHT PER PPV"
Probably not; the fights getting 5 rounds would generally be the non-title fights that headline some PPVs. So one 5-rounder per card shouldn't screw anything up.
I like it
for sum reason i like the 10 min rd followed by the 5 min rd
Headline fights - definitely.
Main card - I could see it, but the number of total televised UFC bouts on each PPV would probably be capped at 4. That would kinda suck.
Undercard - I wouldn't vote for that. I think shorter rounds help out the newer, less experienced guys and keeps the fans from having to sit through 25 minutes of inactivity during the inevitable plodding gameplan of an overly cautious fighter.
-ken
Don't really agree with it. Deciding who gets the 5 rounder (if not only main events) can be too subjective and biased without necessarily adding a lot. To be honest, Kampmann/Condit is the exact reason we don't need more 5 rounders. Rounds 3 to 5 would just be even more lay n pray than there already is
I don't know what your criteria is for a "good fight"
but many people, including myself, thought Condit/Kampmann was fantastic
"To be honest, Kampmann/Condit is the exact reason we don't need more 5 rounders. Rounds 3 to 5 would just be even more lay n pray than there already is"
That was a great fight and I don't remember being bored for a second. What I do remember is it being extremely close, and with two more rounds it's likely one guy would have pulled definitively ahead.
caposa - I don't know what your criteria is for a "good fight"
but many people, including myself, thought Condit/Kampmann was fantastic
Gotta agree with that one.... If anything it should have been 5 rounds. It was a close ass fight!!!
I like the idea if they continue to insist on using a "10 point must" scoring system.
All major fights between top 10 contenders should be 5 rounds. What's interesting is that I was under the impression that right now, it's pretty much 100% up to the promoter anyway, that the promoter can basically apply to the commission to have any fight be 5 rounds. The idea that it requires a "title" is silly because of the absurd range between titles. I mean, is a fight for the KOTC HW title more deserving of 5 rounds than Nog/Couture?
well, if it happens you can kiss those long fight cards goodbye. I highly doubt the UFC will pay a fortune to the PPV to extend events another hour, and if all fights are 5 rounds there's no way you'd see a full card unless nothing went full term.
no interest for the most part...I like round 4 and 5 being the championship rounds. You need to get the job done in 3 if you're not the champ...works just fine for me.
"You need to get the job done in 3 if you're not the champ"
That makes it sound like non-champs need to actually be better than champs, because they should only need 3 rounds to get the job done. Once you're champ, you can slack and try to slide by in 5?
I agree...Big fights that are non title should be 5 rounders...such as the Franklin/W. Silva fight...