Why have more than one round?

Penn proved by landing a couple more punches than Hughes in the first and by failing a sub attempt in the second that he is the better fighter.

I think we can all agree that the remaining three rounds would have been moot even without the injury; having lost the first two rounds (I'm surprised those couple punches and failed sub didn't make the rounds 10-8, to be honest), it goes without saying that there would have been no way for Matt to win the remaining three. As far as I can recall, there has never been a case of a fighter legitimately winning a fight by taking over in the later rounds.

So why not just have one round? I think having more than that just makes it more likely that the inferior fighter might be able to eke out a win through conditioning, or that a fluke injury or slip might allow the inferior fighter to capitalize, and in either case we might see the more un-educated fans mistakenly assuming the winning fighter is actually the better fighter.

The point of the fight is to show who the better fighter is, and since only the early part of the fight can do that, shouldn't we limit fights to one five-minute round? Or maybe just a minute or two.

Conditioning is a big part of fighting. Horrible post orcus.


Terrrible troll job.

lol @ anyone taking this bait...

I'm way too highbrow to troll.

This is an award-worthy example of reductio ad absurdum.

Penn huggers insist that the first two rounds proved he was a better fighter than Hughes. So what possible reason is there for having more rounds?

Even if Hughes had won the remaining three (assuming the fluke injury didn't take place), all that would have proved was that he had better conditioning. Apparently it was already too late to prove that he was the better fighter.

I am genuinely interested in what the UG delusionals have to say about this.

Yes. Unfortunately mma.tv won't allow me to use my Blogger template.

Like was stated before me, conditioning is a huge part of fighting, based on the fact that fights are 3 rounds, 5 if its a title fight. Should the fight go the distance, a fighter would have to have the energy to make it the distance. BJ Penn did not. Matt Hughes did. The better prepared fighter was able to capitalize on that.

I dont like Matt Hughes all that much, but he's a damn good fighter, and based on the fight Saturday night, he's a better fighter than Penn.

Ahh.. ic where your going with this orcus. The sad thing is is that you're right with the way some people around here acted after the fight, I just wasn't catching on to your sarcasm.

hughes is not a better fighter then bj penn. Look at Judo Machines post and breakdown. BJ gassed or hurt his rib whatever, he is far superior - just a matter of time till he takes hughes and regains the ww title.

orcus, you've demonstrated a serious lack of MMA knowledge in other threads, I'd try to not be so vocal with your "expert" opinion. Quit acting like people are arguing that BJ should be given the belt based on the first 2 rounds. Everyone knows that Matt came out on top but it wasn't a fight where he dominated every second. Just admit it was a good, close fight with both fighters having the advantage at certain points.

"BJ gassed or hurt his rib whatever, he is far superior -"

If he was superior, he wouldn't have gassed.

Its about time we starting making some sensible changes to the ridiculous rules that faggot Dana is implementing to protest his boy.

I second the motion to make all fights just round so that we can determine the ultimate skill and technique level while both fighters are still fresh.

I also think football and basketball games to one half, in tennis, you should only have to win 1 set, hockey should just be one period and the 100m should be cut to 20m (or 10m?).

Support the sport.

"orcus, you've demonstrated a serious lack of MMA knowledge in other threads"


" Quit acting like people are arguing that BJ should be given the belt based on the first 2 rounds."

Not the belt, but the title of "best fighter in the ring that night".

Nearly every single pro-Penn post on this forum says he proved he is the better fighter last weekend, based on outscoring Matt in the first two rounds.

So my question stands: By that logic, what is the purpose of more rounds? We know who the better fighter is a few minutes in. Why waste everyone's time and increase the chances of the inferior fighting racking up another "W" via fluke or conditioning? This isn't Ultimate Conditioning Championship, it's Ultimate FIGHTING.

One thing troubles me, though: How is it that Crocop broke Fedor's face and avoided all his takedowns for most of the first 10 minutes of their fight, but went on to lose a decision? And why do people still foolishly insist that Fedor is the better fighter? (And that isn't even addressing the fact that Fedor only began taking over when Crocop gassed)

Orcus... you are dumb

conditioning is part of the sport and if you can't hack it for more than 2 rounds then I'm sorry, you best be able to put people away inside of 1 or two rounds or else you are in the wrong sport. Conditionin is a legitimate strategy used by the best fighters in the world, and it's not because they are worse then the fighters they are fighting. Tito/Frank was a great example of how important conditioning is to a fighter. Frank was a better fighter and used the endurance advantage to beat a much larger opponent in Tito Ortiz.

Why am I even replying to such a stupid comment? I've been trolled