How much more entertaining is a fight with breaks in between rounds vs a single 10-15 minute round?

Moral Victory

Black Belt
@Black
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
6,175
Reaction score
1,140
Exhaustion will keep people from exploding as much and keeping up a high pace initially, but exhaustion also makes people more desperate and open up for more mistakes defensively.

Which would result in the more entertaining fights/finishes?
 
It looks like fighters need a 1 min break to recover, but on the other hand, they probably fight/train with a 1 minute break in mind. It favours a striker though, the fight (in title fights) starts 5 times on the feet. A grappler would like 1 long round as he has the most time to work on the ground. I think for most people five 5 minute rounds are the most entertaining.
 
We'd probably see the first in action heart attack if you had a 15 minute round lol (we almost had one in pride, Ken shamrock vs Fujita)
 
10 or 15 min will have more grappling/stalling. We might have more submissions because people are exhausted and make mistakes. Longer rounds might benefit the old school gracie self defense types where they pull guard and grab wrist until someone gets tired. Striking wise in terms of action will be a lot less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G10
I think the rounds / breaks are fine how they are, but scoring / reffing has to be more uniform and updated for the times:
- penalizing stalling
- open scoring
- if we're sticking with the boxing-based 10-9 system, then take a point for every
knockdown
 
Last edited:
5 rounds each of three minutes sounds better
And the judging based per overall, not based on rounds.
 
5 rounds each of three minutes sounds better
And the judging based per overall, not based on rounds.

I would argue that "overall" scoring is more subjective than round-per-round scoring, but since judge are never held accountable for having a round 100% wrong, that blow my whole "objectivity" point...
 
A 10-minute round is closer to a street fight.

A real street fight doesn't have a time limit or a referee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noc
I remember the old 10min round 1 in PrideFC. Was good mostly, but when it was bad it was real bad. Watching two guys about to hit the bucket due to dual heart attacks isn't very entertaining.
 
5 rounds each of three minutes sounds better
And the judging based per overall, not based on rounds.
What's the idea behind 3 minute rounds? More energy?
 
honestly just have 1 1 minute round

then they just have to go all out the whole time

2x 3 minute rounds imo.

make 10-10 rounds more common. you have to decisively win the round to get the points.

and make the win bonus way more.

GO GET IT
 
or... 1x 10 minute first round, then a 2 minute break and then a 2 minute "FINISH HIM" round.
 
ive always favored one 15-minute round (or 25 minutes for title fights). ridiculous that a guy who obtains mount with a few seconds left in a round has to lose that positional advantage at the start of the next round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noc
This discussion consistently goes in circles.

A fight to the death would solve this conundrum.
 
A benefit of the current round system is that it allows for more tactical adjustments. Part of the fun of watching high level MMA is seeing how tactical geniuses make adjustments between rounds to win fights. If you just have one long round then you lose out on getting to enjoy that part of MMA.
 
Back
Top