The Clay Guida vs. Anthony Pettis fight has some fight fans and experts clamoring to bring five-round nontitle fights to the UFC. I understand the argument, but I tend to lean against the movement. While it would be interesting to see how the fights would unfold with ten extra minutes, I believe the current format works exactly as it should.
Five-round fights are maintained for title matches and I enjoy that format. The idea of a “champion’s advantage” in the form of having competed beyond the third round is very intriguing. We’ve seen some challengers use the additional two rounds to their advantage to continue pushing the pace and squeak out the victory; Frankie Edgar’s first win over BJ Penn is one such example. We’ve also seen some challengers’ inability to pace themselves cost them championships; for example, Gray Maynard. I find it interesting to see how champions and contenders employ strategy around the fourth and fifth rounds of title fights.
On another note, five-round fights may favor the fighters who have superior striking, rather than those who use takedowns and grappling to mount their offense. In watching Guida-Pettis, it is possible that over a five-round fight Pettis would have been able to rack up points with his striking abilities, and changed the tide of the battle. Even in the third round Pettis was landing shots, moving forward, and stuffing Guida’s initial takedown. A five-round fight would play more to the abilities of strikers than grapplers, especially those who have learned how to effectively stop takedowns.
UFC President Dana White has mentioned that he is open to the possibility of using five-round fights to help determine number-one contenders for titles, and this idea I do like. However, the UFC would have to become very specific in determining the criteria needed to be included in one of these matchups. I would like to see the UFC institute a form of ranking system, but I believe that would handcuff their matchmaking practices. Regardless, if a rematch between Jon Fitch and BJ Penn was set for five rounds, I would be very interested in seeing how things would play out over the final ten minutes. That is an example of a five-round matchup bringing true resolution to a “problem.”
2011 has already been a year that has seen an unrelenting pace of growth for the UFC and the mixed martial arts community as a whole. While I do not believe the institution of five-round fights would be the right move, no one can say that the industry is not trying to continue to find ways to give fans exactly what they want.
I don't think this notion of the Championship Advantage has any relevance.
I find it hard to imagine that Pettis would have been able to rack up points striking. This implies that Guida would begin to gas and I find that unlikely. I do, however, think longer fights favor fights with quick finish ability. The more time given increases the chance that a submission or knockout lands.
The way to institute five round non-title fights is to allow them for contender fights, or fights where the winner will be "in the mix" as Dana likes to say.
However, personally I'm not a fan of five round non-title fights. Its great that we're now able to see complete fights cards live rather than download the prelims afterwards. But that means that almost every Saturday I'm watching six hours of MMA as it is. So even though there are fights that I wish were five rounds, with the frequency of MMA cards, I get enough, thank you. (I hope I don't lose my MMA fan card).
well, i like this article. you raise a few valid points. just in case some people missed it, initially when the council allowed for 5 minute non-title fights, i believe it was also cleared to allow for 7-minute title fights. i could be dreaming, but i remember this being discussed some months ago in an interview between dana white and ariel helwani. regardless of whether that is fact or fiction still suggests fewer fights on cards. if there were perhaps a title fight, and two contender fights on a card, that's perhaps three fights consisting of five 5-minute rounds, or if a 7-round rule is implemented for title fights… it gets a bit ridiculous. it's not boxing. i don't think MMA should end up being a dozen rounds consisting of a couple minutes a piece or wherever this is going. the length of the fights is great, and dividing it to 3 rounds, or five for title matches is a good system. if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I assume you meant rounds when you said minute.
Remember the Strikeforce card with three title fights….
I like the current format as it is today. I feel that 3/5 minute rounds force the fighters to have a sense of urgency when fighting. With some fighters who have been a champ for a while and used to fighting 5 rounds consistently, I believe that is a distinct advantage over a fighter who has never done that before. Look at how Gray Maynard made the mistake of not pacing himself…had he done so, he would possibly be a champion right now.
12 round bouts are horrible for MMA. In boxing, a fighter uses more than half of that fight to feel out his opponent before truly instituting his game plan. Manny P is probably one of the only fighters, along with Miguel Cotto who goes in there looking for the KO in round 1. In MMA it would potentially be worse…