3-five-minute rounds isn't enough-

VPofAtheism said:
I agree except I don't like rounds at all. Do away with rounds, they were invented for betting purposes, useless. I think there should simply be a one 20 minute round, with no stand-ups, fence grabbing allowed, toes in fence allowed, 12 to 6 elbow is allowed.



So since the fighters have poor cardio according to you, that is why the rules should stay the same? There is nothing wrong with pacing. I will still watch and pay. Not all fighters in boxing clinch to rest.



They are both exhausting in different ways. Any MMA fighter in a 12 round fight would die.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of poor cardio. The best conditiined athletes in world can't grapple full force for 15 minutes let alone 25 especially in the heavier weightclasses.

Grappling is far more exhausting than boxing even kickboxing is more tiring than boxing.
 
I like the idea of 5 three minute rounds instead. Would eliminate long periods of lay and pray and inactivity. Plus more rounds to score could make the scorecards more definitive.
 
VPofAtheism said:
I agree except I don't like rounds at all. Do away with rounds, they were invented for betting purposes, useless. I think there should simply be a one 20 minute round, with no stand-ups, fence grabbing allowed, toes in fence allowed, 12 to 6 elbow is allowed.



So since the fighters have poor cardio according to you, that is why the rules should stay the same? There is nothing wrong with pacing. I will still watch and pay. Not all fighters in boxing clinch to rest.



They are both exhausting in different ways. Any MMA fighter in a 12 round fight would die.
Click to expand...

Rounds have existed since the 1800s and we're largely a product of helping introduce rest. I have no idea where your statement comes from.


It's not my opinion. Every card features several incredibly gassed fighters. Some after the first round. Aldo, Hendricks and Wideman have all shown iffy cardio and are the champions of their respective divisions. Grappling is brutally tough. All three guys listed also cut immense weight for their classes. The correlation here is fairly apparent.



I don't get the boxing vs MMA inferiority complex. All combat sports are tough. Maidana/Money is definitive proof that you have 3-4 rounds (10ish minutes) of full retard mode, then even with little guys you simply fade.


The biggest problem with MMA is two faded guys locked in grappling exchanges looks much less visually appealing than two guys forcing arm punches. Also the speed of pro boxers I've always felt makes it look more like eminent fireworks.
 
I really don't want to see more rounds. Shorter fight times and more push for finding a way to finish an opponent. If I start finding myself surfing the net on my phone instead of watching the fight...those fighters aren't doing their job.
 
Jermei said:
I read somewhere that the 10 minute round results were virtually identical as 2x 5 minute rounds. No source, just something I remember... I love pride as much as the next guy but I prefer the 5 minute rounds. I watched a lot of pride fights that could have used a break to stand them up too.
Click to expand...

I think it's a lot tougher to fight for ten minutes straight then for five then taking a minute break then fighting another five. Pure speculation though.
 
robjenkins2 said:
I like the idea of 5 three minute rounds instead. Would eliminate long periods of lay and pray and inactivity. Plus more rounds to score could make the scorecards more definitive.
Click to expand...

You understand we are supposed to be learning who would actually win in a fight, right?? Or is that completely forgotten?
 
Jermei said:
I read somewhere that the 10 minute round results were virtually identical as 2x 5 minute rounds. No source, just something I remember... I love pride as much as the next guy but I prefer the 5 minute rounds. I watched a lot of pride fights that could have used a break to stand them up too.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, and it's not that hard to believe.

It would still change the dynamic of the fight though.

I love first round 10mins, and judge the fight as a whole. I think that's the way to go.
 
Konster said:
I think it's a lot tougher to fight for ten minutes straight then for five then taking a minute break then fighting another five. Pure speculation though.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I like the break, it gives the fighters time in the corner to get tips and its good pace. Keeps everyone active and pushing for the W.
 
SuperNerd said:
That's interesting, and it's not that hard to believe.

It would still change the dynamic of the fight though.

I love first round 10mins, and judge the fight as a whole. I think that's the way to go.
Click to expand...

I like judging the whole fight too but its too coruptable to just pick a winner and forget the early rounds... not that scorecards are any better. They need educated judges more than anything... one judge gave round to 2 to Barao in the Dillashaw fight which is just insane.
 
Konster said:
I would like the first round to be ten minutes like it was in PRIDE. Other than that I'm pretty fine with the way it is now.
Click to expand...

People say this, but I don't think many of them actually sat though some of those snoozefests that happened because of it. I don't think it's a change that's for the better. More rounds also means more stalling once you get a lead, and less urgency all around.

Personally I'm fine with 3x5, or at least don't see it as a big enough problem to warrant changing.
 
Jermei said:
I like judging the whole fight too but its too coruptable to just pick a winner and forget the early rounds... not that scorecards are any better. They need educated judges more than anything... one judge gave round to 2 to Barao in the Dillashaw fight which is just insane.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. The thought of a corrupt judge rolled through my empty head when I posted that.

spid3yo said:
People say this, but I don't think many of them actually sat though some of those snoozefests that happened because of it. I don't think it's a change that's for the better. More rounds also means more stalling once you get a lead, and less urgency all around.

Personally I'm fine with 3x5, or at least don't see it as a big enough problem to warrant changing.
Click to expand...

I like grappling. I think longer rounds would impose a higher standard of grappling.
 
Yeah, but prolonging that is impossible at this point. Too much fighters on the roster...
 
SuperNerd said:
Yeah, I agree. The thought of a corrupt judge rolled through my empty head when I posted that.
Click to expand...

Its still corruptible now, as I'm sure boxing and other sports with 'round-judged' scoring is.

What I've thought about is like a 'worm' tracker (you may have seen this type of thing on political debates and so on) where each of the judges uses a dial which swings in favour of either participant. Fighter A is strongly winning in a section of the fight and the dial moves all the way to the left, Fighter B is slightly winning a section and the dial is moved only slightly (etc, you get my drift). Action is neutral or not much is happening then the dial is at center. Obviously judges would have to be taught how to use this, but its not too difficult.

Then at the end of the fight, the entire 'worm' graph is tallied with the areas over or under the line in Fighter A or Fighter B's favour is summed to determine a result. It gives running evidence on the judges thoughts at any time. If can then be used by the judge to return a judgement on who won the fight.

I think this gives the best of both worlds when it comes to 'overall' judging, and evidence to help to minimise corruption etc.
 
Magnum1978 said:
What I've thought about is like a 'worm' tracker (you may have seen this type of thing on political debates and so on) where each of the judges uses a dial which swings in favour of either participant. Fighter A is strongly winning in a section of the fight and the dial moves all the way to the left, Fighter B is slightly winning a section and the dial is moved only slightly. Action is neutral or not much is happening then the dial is at center.

Then at the end of the fight, the entire 'worm' graph is tallied with the areas over or under the line in Fighter A or Fighter B's favour is summed to determine a result. It gives running evidence on the judges thoughts at any time. If can then be used by the judge to return a judgement on who won the fight.

I think this gives the best of both worlds when it comes to 'overall' judging, and evidence to help to minimise corruption etc.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I'm gonna have to think about that. Sounds pretty good.

Its still corruptible now, as I'm sure boxing and other sports with 'round-judged' scoring is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, but at least there is still 'some math' to see how they got to their conclusion, instead of the judges just picking a colour after a fight like I suggested.
 
I have championed three minute rounds for years.

Five for a non-title and nine, yes I said fucking nine, for title fights and main events.

I also think 10 minute rounds would be awful to watch.
 
Amerikuracana said:
I would be fine with 10-5-5 with different scoring for the first, and 10-5-5-5-5 for title fights.
Click to expand...

You would probably have fighters passing out from exhaustion.

MMA is physically more taxing than boxing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Harlekin
UFC's point system needs to be improved
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
2K
Safton
Safton

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,875
Messages
55,451,385
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top