How different would fights be if there were *NO* decisions allowed for victory?

[HHJ]

Been tried.

There really wasn't a finish in this fight. Royce just gave up, cos it's a 90 min match. More out of boredom than anything else probably lol

 

[nostradumbass]

You'd probably have fewer finishes. It only takes 1 guy to make it a snoozer, and once someone feels outmatched, he can just avoid and run the clock out.

 

[joy2day]

There really wasn't a finish in this fight. Royce just gave up, cos it's a 90 min match. More out of boredom than anything else probably lol

I think the corner ended up throwing in the towel.

 

[HHJ]

I think the corner ended up throwing in the towel.

Yeah


If you have no time limits, people are gonna conserve their energy, and of course wind up gassing anyway probably

 

[HHJ]

This is a sport, not a fight to the death.

There really isn't any future in such a thing in the long term.

Id rather see my favorite fighter have 30 fights instead of one long shitty one.

But hey, do you.

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

GSP would be a tomato can. Mark Hunt would've been a UFC champion at some point. the Dagestanis would be trash tier. guys like Mike Perry would be considered GOAT candidates in MMA.

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

There really wasn't a finish in this fight. Royce just gave up, cos it's a 90 min match. More out of boredom than anything else probably lol

come on, he gave up because he was getting his ass kicked. it was his own rules and he threw in the towel, you only do that because you're losing.

 

[HHJ]

come on, he gave up because he was getting his ass kicked. it was his own rules and he threw in the towel, you only do that because you're losing.

They were dickin around most of that fight. Yes he lost. But it's barely a fight most of the way through.

 

[joy2day]

Yeah


If you have no time limits, people are gonna conserve their energy, and of course wind up gassing anyway probably

Right, and when you think about it, no one really benefits from those kinds of fights. It's mostly really boring to be a spectator, and brutal to be a fighter (WAY too much damage for one fight).

Boxing was kind of like that up until the early 20th century. Matches only went to 15 rounds in the 20s and 30s; before that you had crazy 100 round matches. Leaving that era was an obvious improvement.

It was only when I was a kid that they changed it to 12 rounds in the early 80s after Kim died after the KO from Ray Mancini.

 

[DoubleTrouble]

I think it would make fights worse. LOADS of fighters would play it safe to have a draw on their records instead of a possible loss.

 

[DoubleTrouble]

GSP would be a tomato can. Mark Hunt would've been a UFC champion at some point. the Dagestanis would be trash tier. guys like Mike Perry would be considered GOAT candidates in MMA.

You mean the Dagestani's that finish most of their opponents? lol

 

[Objectively Correct]

whoever loses gets deported to bolivia

 

[chinarice]

GSP would have ended all of his opponents' lives after they gassed

Finish rate would be 100% in his wins

 

[b00tysweat]

Belal shavkat would go 47 rounds.

Leon / Belal 2 is how the world ends. The fight goes on forever

 

[Conan the K-9]

If there is no finish inside the 3 or 5 rounds, then both fighters get a loss to their record and in case of a title fight the belt will be vacated. And none of them will fight next for the title.

Bye bye, silly undefeated records and decision hugger win streaks. I’m in!

 

[Lawrence]

Let's imagine Dana woke up as a red hot tomato one day and said,
"If you go to decision, both you and your opponent loses."

It's still 3 rounds or 5 rounds, not a fight to the death LOL

Would fighters fight better?

Every white belt makes this thread...

Welcome to Sherdog Lad