Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Bleacher Report


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Liver Kick


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Yahoo MMA Blog


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


MMA Dude Bro


Sherdog Radio


Eddie Goldman


Liver Kick Radio


Video Corner


Fight Hub


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

“All fights should be five rounds” and half-point scoring

By Zach Arnold | November 20, 2010

Print Friendly and PDF

There’s plenty of grumbling about the split decision win by Quinton “Rampage” Jackson over Lyoto Machida. (Examples can be found here and here.)

Two arguments came up immediately in the post-fight discussion:

a) The usual suspects clamoring for all UFC fights to be five rounds.
b) Would Machida have won if we used half-point scoring instead of standard scoring under the Unified rules?

On point a), I’m generally a guy who is a believer in fights being three rounds and not five. What I am willing to concede ground on is this — I’ll accept the notion of eliminator/contender bouts going five rounds. I’ll take that step.

On point b), let’s take a look at how someone (according to Josh Gross) would score the Rampage/Machida fight using a half-point system:

Just for fun, under half point scoring: R1 10-9 Machida, R2 10-9.5 Jackson, R3 10-8.5 Machida.

I’m not opposed to experimentation with the half-point scoring system, but how much more accurate would it make for scoring of fights by the current crop of judges in MMA?

Dana white announced that George Sotiropoulos will fight Dennis Siver in February in Australia.

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 72 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

72 Responses to ““All fights should be five rounds” and half-point scoring”

  1. David M says:

    UFC main events should be 5 rounds, not all UFC fights. I haven’t seen anyone make that argument.

    If there were half-point scoring I would have had Machida rd 1 10-9.5, Rampage rd 2 10-9.5 and rd 3 to Machida 10-8.5

    • 45 Huddle says:

      Based on how the judges scored it today, it would have been….

      Round 1 – Rampage 10-9.5
      Round 2 – Rampage 10-9.5
      Round 3 – Machida 10-9

      29-29 DRAW on 2 of the judges score cards. Wow, that half point system is a real problem solver there. It would make more fans pissed off.

  2. 45 Huddle says:

    1) Under half point scoring it would have been: 29-29. There is no way Machida won that 3rd round more then 10-9. And almost nobody likes draws. And half point rounds would cause more controversy then they would stop.

    2) Want to start making more 5 round fights? #1 contender fights would have then been 5 rounds. Imagine 5 rounds of Fitch/Alves 2, Shields/Kampmann, or Marquardt/Okami? It would bore people to death. For the few times it would benefit, it would do much more damage to the sport then anything else.

    3) Why does George continue to be given easier fights? He needs to fight up in competition not on the same level he has been.

    Very simple solution for the scoring…. Have fighters actually fight. Both Machida and Rampage know the rules. It’s not like the criteria is being changed on them. They know they have to win 2 rounds. It’s that simple. The criteria doesn’t need to be changed. Guys like Machida running backwards does….

    • Chuck says:

      Yeah, but if you change the rules to “no backing up”, then you would basically have the World Combat League.

      I have been clamoring for half points for a LONG time. The problem is that most judges in North America probably won’t use it. Judges have 10-10 rounds at their disposal, and they don’t use THAT! I highly doubt most judges who would probably need a calculator to score a four round fight that they scored three rounds to one would use half points. Judges would have to think for a change.

      • 45 Huddle says:

        They have stalling rules in wrestling that work very well. First, you can’t back staight up. You have to at least circle.

        And then if you just downright avoid, then the warnings and then negative points come much quicker then in MMA.

        And half points would have turned this fight into a draw. Which pisses off the core fanbase much more then a close decision.

        • Rules forcing Machida to stand his ground in this fight would have caused him to lose the bout going away by the end of the second. Regardless of hurting Rampage he would have been down like 10-7 at the end of rounds 1 and 2.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          Which is perfect. This is a FIGHT. Sure, it’s a sport version of a pure fight, but it’s still a fight. And fighters need to be fighting. And the rules need to ensure that happens.

          If fighters know they will be penalized for not being active, then they won’t be able to do what Machida does, which is really just try to avoid fighting and play a close points game until his opponent gets so bored that an opening happens. And the paying public doesn’t want to see that. At leats the vast majority of the paying public.

        • I don’t want to see Machida forced into stand and bang counter punching. If there was a serious movement to force that, I’d stop watching MMA period.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          That doesn’t force them to stand and bang.

          It forces them not to retreat and not do anything.

          Nobody wants to see 2 guys just slug it out because they have no other options. But watch some amateur wrestling. There is still a lot of slow moments and stategy going on. But the whole avoidance thing like Machida does…. There is no equivalent allowed without warning or points being deducted.

        • Chuck says:

          Yeah, but the difference is that amateur wrestling is grappling only (I wrestled from fifth grade to twelfth, skipping a few years in between, I was used to getting stalling penalties) and MMA has punching and kicking. I would much rather get tackled to the ground than punched repeatedly in the head. There should be more leniency for backing up in striking contests over grappling contests. Oh, and I’m also used to getting stalling penalties (or “shidos”) as a judo player as well. I like being lazy ;).

        • 45 Huddle says:

          Striking or grappling. Makes no difference. It’s how the fighter fights. If he is avoiding fighting….. That should not be allowed. And refs know when fighters are avoiding. It’s when the good refs start getting on them to “get busy”.

    • I can give just as many example of great theoretical 5 rounds fights as anyone can bad theoretical examples. In fact, I can offer far, far more good than bad. The argument that the UFC also makes fights like Mir/Cro-Cop, and that they would need to make those 5 rounds is laughable. They A) Do not need to make Mir/Cro-Cop, they choose to B) “title eliminators” are written in tissue paper to start with.

      Fights like this one between two former world champions should be booked for 5 minute rounds. If people really want to see more prelim fights than rounds between world championship level fighters on a PPV card they are paying for, they are mentally ill.

      • 45 Huddle says:

        But that just isn’t true. A while back when people were asking for more 5 round fights…. I made a comprehensive list of all of the recent UFC And Strikeforce 5 round title fights. And very few of those title fights actually benefited from them being 5 rounds.

        I wasn’t demanding they shorten the title fights. It’s nice to have the extra time. But more often then not, the extra rounds did not change the verdict of the fight. And in many of the 5 round decisions, they were considered very boring fights.

        And whether or not the #1 contender fights are not written in stone, those would be the first to be converted over to 5 rounders. And of the last 6 UFC ones…. Fitch/Alves, Marquardt/Okami, Rampage/Evans, Shields/Kampmann, Maynard/Florian, & JDS/Nelson….. Only one of those fights had people wishing it was longer. Four of those fights put people to sleep. And would have been even worse if they were 5 rounds.

        • They aren’t the only 5 round fights in existence though. There’s 5 rounders in almost every regional organization in the country. How is it that Mike Kyle, Abel Cullum, and Matt Horwich are in exciting fights that go past the 3rd, but something like Rampage/Lyoto shouldn’t be? Because by virtue of the possibility that Jon Fitch might be in a 5 rounder, it would be bad?

          If Shields/Kampmann was 5 rounds, Shields probably would have lost. Okami would have been in some trouble too. Fitch might have had a finish. JDS would have. Maynard would have actually fought at championship length before getting a title shot. I have no problem with any of those fights being 5 rounders instead of getting a couple of jobbers fighting. Why do you want to see jobbers instead of championship level fighters?

        • 45 Huddle says:

          And if you want to talk about numbered show main events…. The last 5 that were non-title bouts…

          1) Quinton Jackson vs. Lyoto Machida
          2) Nathan Marquardt vs. Yushin Okami
          3) Michael Bisping vs. Yoshihiro Akiyama
          4) Frank Mir vs. Mirko Filipovic
          5) Chuck Liddell vs. Rich Franklin

          So the only bought of those 5 that people would have wanted to go longer then 3 rounds was Jackson/Machida…. And the fight itself was slow for 2 rounds because of a lack of offense…..

        • Better yet – If we shouldn’t have 5 round fights for nontitles because they might be boring, why have 5 round fights at all? Its just something archaically borrowed from boxing to have a longer title fight. MMA then should have a uniform fight length of X rounds, perhaps 3. After all, NBA games aren’t longer in the postseason than in the regular season, right? And if you’re afraid of a fight being boring and not willing to differentiate the value of a #1 contender or legends bout to a preliminary fight between journeymen, why bother differentiating the length of title fights?

        • It was irrelevant how long two of those would have been booked. They ended inside the distance, as 5 round fights do in fact do. Besides, as I said before – the UFC doesn’t have to make every headliner 5 rounds. Nor do they have to make any particular fight a headliner, nor do they have to run X number of shows. Its all arbitrary. Everything they do is.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          Your problem is that I have just made a list of the recent main event AND #1 contender fights and both show that 5 rounds weren’t needed.

          Marquardt was the one fading not Okami. Who cares if Fitch finished, it was so boring we shouldn’t be subjected to more rounds…. And I’m a fan of Fitch. Kampmann is a choker and Shields is a born winner, that result wouldn’t have changed.

          Just like the 3 point line was added in the NBA to make the game more pleasing to the crowd. Or how the fences were brought in for baseball to create more home runs. Keeping the fanbase happy is important. And people want fights. Not boring marathons.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          1) It’s a slippery slope when you start picking and choosing which fights are 5 rounds.

          2) Title fights should still be 5 rounds because it makes them special. Makes them different then every other fight in the UFC. And that’s important.

        • So Okami finishes him. Maybe Marqhardt pulls out a miracle. What is the great negative about a 5 round fight there? What was it going to detract from on that terrific UFC 122 card? Who knows if Kampmann wouldn’t have beaten Shields? Shields was gassed out totally and Kampmann was coming on strong. The cut was brutal on Shields – Like Leites fell apart in round 4 of his title fight this year against Horwich, its very possible a less skilled fighter could have pulled out the upset. I wish I could have seen it instead of Brendan Schaub.

          If the fans just want fights and don’t care who’s in them, why bother with 5 round fights at all?

        • 45 Huddle says:

          The big negative to 5 round fights? Two of them.

          1) A boring fight becomes even more boring. The UFC can get away with it with title fights sometimes. It’s a hard sell for non-title fights.

          2) INJURIES, INJURIES, INJURIES. If a fighter breaks his hand in round 1…. Having to have 2 more rounds verus 4 can have a serious health impact on their career. There is no reason to have to added injuries and wear and tear on the body when it’s not needed.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          “It was irrelevant how long two of those would have been booked. They ended inside the distance, as 5 round fights do in fact do.”

          It is relevent. Those fights do not benefit from increasing the number of rounds.

          You are trying to prove why more rounds are needed. Fights ending before th end of 3 rounds do not help prove your point.

        • 1) A boring fight becomes even more boring. The UFC can get away with it with title fights sometimes. It’s a hard sell for non-title fights.

          Why ever risk a long boring fight then by having 5 round title contests? You think people would not want to turn into an advertised 5 round non-title fight because it might be long and boring? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

          2) INJURIES, INJURIES, INJURIES. If a fighter breaks his hand in round 1…. Having to have 2 more rounds verus 4 can have a serious health impact on their career. There is no reason to have to added injuries and wear and tear on the body when it’s not needed

          Oh please. Again: I guess it is OK to risk your world championship level fighters having such injury problem in elongated fights? Seems like a foolish idea to protect a bunch of journeymen at the expense of the guys that actually make you money. Not to mention that there is literally zero sample size (a term you enjoy this thread) indicating that title fights cause any additional long term injury issues.

        • It is relevent. Those fights do not benefit from increasing the number of rounds.

          Sure is easy to say in post-script! Hey, I guess Anderson Silva has dispatched most of his opponents inside 3 during his reign or won shut outs in the majority of his fights. Why does he need to fight 5 then? Just leads to boredom!

          You are trying to prove why more rounds are needed. Fights ending before th end of 3 rounds do not help prove your point.

          You’re using it as a one sided argument by saying that fights that end early are proof that 5 round fights are not needed. Well, Forrest/Silva only went 90 seconds or so. Did they even need a second round? I bet you would see more action if they just fought 5 minutes, amirite?

        • 45 Huddle says:

          Very simple on the title fights being 5 rounds….

          Fans are much more willing to let the strategy play out when a title is on the line. Booing happens less quickly compared to non-title fights where they have less emotionally invested in the fight.

          As for injuries….

          World Champions don’t fight as often so they have more time to heal.

          And the risk/reward is greater….. Which makes more sense to have the fights longer.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          “You’re using it as a one sided argument by saying that fights that end early are proof that 5 round fights are not needed. Well, Forrest/Silva only went 90 seconds or so. Did they even need a second round? I bet you would see more action if they just fought 5 minutes, amirite?”

          I’m defending the status quo. Something that is proven to work and has already been established. So there is no burdeon of proof needed on my end. I’m still providing some, but you really need to be the one to prove why the current system is broken.

          Fights that don’t need a 4th or 5th round don’t prove you point. They just don’t. And then questioning whether or not a 2nd round is even needed once again changes how things are operating. That’s the problem with your lack of logic. I’m calling for no change….. And you aren’t understanding that.

          The combination of boring fights and fights that don’t benefit from 5 rounds are two things you have not been able to really get around at this point.

        • I get that the strawman you’ve conceived about 5 round fights as it pertains to Mir/Mirko and Franklin/Liddell doesn’t bolster the argument. That’s why you came up with it and positioned it as my argument. Hell, that’s pretty easy to shoot down when you just fire at that instead of the counter argument.

          As for this being the system that works, well – Rampage/Machida went to a controversial decision in a bout where people really wanted to see more of it. Is Rampage/Machida an excellent example of the sport “working”? OK, since we are playing the strawman game, I’m going to suppose that it is. I’ll also suppose that really, everything about the sport – rules about “coming forward” or the 10 point must aren’t really broken either, given the sport’s popularity. After all, those too represent the sport’s status quo. So I guess there is nothing to fix or improve on?

        • 45 Huddle says:

          “As for this being the system that works, well – Rampage/Machida went to a controversial decision in a bout where people really wanted to see more of it. “

          Your slanted view on this fight is comical. The reality of the fight is….

          Rampage/Machida saw 1 fighter avoid contract for 12 minutes as he ran backwards. Fighter should try to engage during the 15 minutes before fans want to see him compete for 25.

          And my argument isn’t a strawman argument. I firmly do not see proof that overall, the sport would benefit from more rounds during specific fights.

          And nobody was online today (who wasn’t trolling for views) saying they wanted to see more of that fight. They were saying how boring it was.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          The only thing that needs to be fixed is how stalling is called in MMA. It needs to happen faster and have more severe penalties. That will fix the biggest problem.

          5 round fights would create more problems.

        • Your slanted view on this fight is comical. The reality of the fight is….

          My view on the fight is that it was a great fight. Why would I not want to see a longer fight between two world title level competitors that I found absolutely riveting?

          Rampage/Machida saw 1 fighter avoid contract for 12 minutes as he ran backwards. Fighter should try to engage during the 15 minutes before fans want to see him compete for 25.

          I guess I’m wrong for enjoying this fight because Machida was fighting on the back foot? This is ludicrous.

          And my argument isn’t a strawman argument. I firmly do not see proof that overall, the sport would benefit from more rounds during specific fights.

          Yes it is. You’re arguing that 5 round fights would be bad and telling me that my examples are poor of fights that would benefit. Mind you, they are examples you have chosen, not ones I necessarily argued for. That would require actually arguing what I said.

          And nobody was online today (who wasn’t trolling for views) saying they wanted to see more of that fight. They were saying how boring it was.

          Then those people are idiots. Its too bad MMA fans can’t handle anything that isn’t two guys standing and banging in the center of the ring.

          The only thing that needs to be fixed is how stalling is called in MMA. It needs to happen faster and have more severe penalties. That will fix the biggest problem.
          5 round fights would create more problems.

          So as pointed out below, Machida would have basically been out of this fight from the start. Pretty much any counter puncher would be eliminated from the sport. I have no interest in that.

      • There’s a meaningless belt on the line to make it special. That’s more than enough given the UFC’s promotional power, especially since, as you clearly argue, the fans just want to see carnage. It would seem to me that 5 round fights then are actually against the desires of the fans based on your argument.

    • Johnny Dungeon says:

      “Why does George continue to be given easier fights? He needs to fight up in competition not on the same level he has been.”

      Please don’t look at which opponent he is scheduled to face next. Screw it, I’ll tell you – DENNIS SIVER. *face palm*

      Someone must be purposefully holding George back.

      • Johnny Dungeon says:

        “After all, NBA games aren’t longer in the postseason than in the regular season, right?”

        Sorry, but I have to call you out on this: worst comparison ever. Post-season games DO get longer, it the sense that there are up to SEVEN games in a row against the same team, and for pretty much the same reason why there are five rounds in UFC title fights.

        • Stating that games are longer because there is a series is stretching the definition pretty greatly – akin to claiming that a single baseball game doesn’t count because the team’s actual length of regulation is a minimum of 162 9 inning periods. I’m comparing a fight to a single game. The NBA doesn’t book 120 minute basketball games to decide the championship. The Super Bowl is 4 15 minute quarters, not 6. So on, so forth. The period of regulation for the contest is not changed. It is changed for pro boxing. Title contests are 12 rounds, previously 15. Non-title bouts are 4/6/8/10. Obviously that’s the model they’re copying.

        • Johnny Dungeon says:

          “Stating that games are longer because there is a series is stretching the definition pretty greatly”

          Common, that’s not a stretch. In fact I’d be surprised if some announcer hasn’t already used “round” as an analogy to “game”. Since you out of the blue brought up a bunch of other sports I think you secretly admit that it was a lousy comparison.

        • Is the Penn/Hughes fight from last night a single fight or part of a trilogy in which it is merely the third part? It sounds to me that you are arguing that it is the latter.

  3. This isn’t a real fight. Its a sport. You fight a round by round system, you get scored that way and that’s life. Every other scoring system this sport has seen has been horribly mismanaged or was complete shit, whether it was the UFC judging fights at the end of the contest (Rutten/Randleman sure worked out, didn’t it?), PRIDE or K-1 doing it, or Shooto trying to make referees call “CATCH” every time.

    All this talk about half points and asking judges to use more personal touches in their scoring and “think” is a fucking horrible idea. The worst one ever. Boxing tried that in the 1970s and it was an epic fail of legendary proportions. Try it again in MMA and it’ll be a hundred times worse, plus you’ll be doing it in the relative infancy of the sport in the US.

    It was a close fight and someone won. That’s why the fights are 3 rounds – to encourage winners. Promoters, fighters, and commissions alike don’t like draws, only sanctioning bodies do (so that they can demand rematches and huge sanctioning fees).

  4. RunSilent says:

    I’ll add my vote for all main events to be five rounders, 3 round main events are so anticlimactic.

  5. Phil says:

    I don’t get the obsession with half point scoring.

    Changing Gross’ card to R1: 10-8 machida, R2: 10-9 Jackson, R:3 10-7 Machida, gives you Machida winning 29-25 or 4 “units,” which is the same exact thing as that scorecard that has it 29.5-27.5, or 4 half points.

    As for 5 round fights, someone really needs to explain to me how a system that lets Cole Konrad and Neil Grove fight 5 rounds but has Rampage and machida fighting 3 makes sense on any level.

    • smoogy says:

      You’re not crazy, the half point crowd are truly out to lunch. Do they not teach the concept of significant digits in Grade 10 science class anymore?

      As for the B and C-level shows running 5 round title fights, take it from 45 Huddle: there is just something special about seeing that Wild Bill’s Fight Night gold wrapped around the champ’s waist. Call me romantic, but titles still mean something in this sport!

  6. Zack says:

    2 of the consensus best fights of this year (Santiago vs Misaki and Anderson vs Chonnan) were decided in the 5th round.

    • 45 Huddle says:

      So you make decisions based on recent trends with small sample sizes?

      Go back further. Get a bigger sample size. And the need for 5 rounders has never really been established.

      Sure there is always the: “Well, somebody could have won if it went longer”. But that argument can be made no matter how long a fight is. If there is a time limit, that argument will always be made.

      If there is a longer history of fights being decided in the 4th and 5th rounds, then a change could be made. But that long term trend has not been established yet.

  7. Ajax says:

    I personally don’t ever want see Rampage or Machida headline an event again. I will be rooting against them both from now on to stop them from wasting people’s money. That is, if you’re dumb enough to pay for one of these as opposed to watching a free stream 🙂

  8. robthom says:

    That didn’t happen because of scoring or rounds!

    That happened because of favorites just like boxing!

    You’ll keep making more and more things against the rules, but you wont change anything until you change the culture!

    As usual.

    (The next thing you know you have to be represented by a battery of lawyers and legal representatives just to say “Hi, fluck me!” ala fedor.)

    • 45 Huddle says:

      Finally, somebody who gets it. Judges do play favorites.

      During Machida/Rampage…. They played favorites of the fighter over the runner!!

      • robthom says:

        They always do.

        Without checks and balances “have at it”, those are fringe benefits.

        Possibly available for a price no less.

        There was only 2 justifications when that came down!

        Old fashioned Stupidity or old fashioned extortion.

        But its always that way!

        It wasn’t either of those vets first time to the rodeo!

        • 45 Huddle says:

          Ariel Helwani and Dave Meltzer both were there live and they had the fight for Rampage.

          Not stupidity. Machida did so little in offense for the first 2 rounds that the aggression became the biggest factor by default.

  9. Tradition Rules says:

    Just gonna add my two cents here:

    First,I think everyone here who has posted about the Machida/Jackson fight have made very good,valid points,really.

    Second, I was pulling for Machida to win. Many find him boring, but I personally like him a great deal,…and yes, even I think he should be more aggressive in some of his fights,even though he IS a personal favorite of my own.

    Third, I believe that Machida out-struck Jackson in the first round, but Jackson was more aggressive without a doubt, and that is why he won the first round, as close as it was. Some nice knees by Machida, but not enough ATTEMPTS at engaging with Rampage to win the round. I told my friend who I watched this fight with this very thing.

    Next, Jackson had a bit more of an edge in the second round. I was, however, impressed by the fact that Machida handled himself well when up against the cage.Jackson did not do much with the takedown, but he still got it.

    Finally, Machida had the third round, there is no doubt. He really seemed like he had just warmed up, and it had been a while since we have seen him use ANY BJJ. He seem pretty confident and patient on his back. Loved it when he tried for the Kimura and Jackson blocked it, so he when for the juji-gatame. And when Jackson had him rolled up on his back and went for the slam, how cool was it that Machida landed on his feet!

    I still think this was a good fight for Machida from the stand point that after his knockout loss, in his return bout he didn’t get KTFO like so many have with Rampage.

    It was Machida’s fight to lose, and that he did. If he was a bit more aggressive in either the first or second round, he would have won this fight.

    I think Machida should spend some time with a boxing coach, as it would do wonders for his head movement as well as what *appears* to be his apprehension to be struck in the head. I know his style is elusive, but he uses his whole body & body movement to keep from getting hit. If he showed more aggression and was able to even occasionally spend a little more time in at close range with confidence, I believe we would his wins by knockout would be both more common and more impressive. We’ve already seen he has pinpoint accuracy with all his strikes, but his hands especially.

    He already trains in BJJ, wrestling & sumo as well, so its not like he is a Karate “purist” in the octagon anyway. It can only help him.

    I personally enjoyed the fight and most of the show…though the one fight that went to a decision with
    Gerald Harris & Maiquel Falcão sucked, because all Falcão did was back up the entire third round. Harris tried to engage him, if even poorly, but he tried hard. After the second round when Falcão’s corner told him to wait for Harris to make a mistake, he didn’t even try for the occasional strike, be it attacking or counter striking. He waited for a frustrated Harris to shoot in, if he could even get close enough. It sucked so bad because it was obvious that Falcão could have put him away with his strike, but he really just chose to not even be elusive, but run that entire third round.

  10. David M says:

    45 Huddle you are like the Rush Limbaugh of this board: a complete gasbag whose dumbass ideas appeal mostly to idiots. You basically want Toughman in a cage; this is embarrassing. You speak for the drunken idiot fans out there who scream “blood!” and “kick him in the nuts!”

    • robthom says:

      I dont have a terrible problem with jackson winning.

      It was close.

      I personally suspect that he edged out because he was more popular with the crowd.
      (In braindead Michigan no less!)

      But thats only a hunch, not here nor there.

    • mr. roadblock says:

      David M,

      Who are you then? Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman who wants to see two men in their underpants dry-humping each other. And enjoys seeing guys ride their bicycle all fight and try to find the magic line of just barely doing more than his opponent in two rounds?

      • David M says:

        I am not sure how wanting to see 5 round main events and scoring based on damage instead of ineffective bull charges make me = to wanting to see dry humping, but maybe I missed something.

        Rampage’s last two fights have been similar in that they were tactical fights that got less tactical and became more violent as the fight progressed. In both fights, we were robbed of seeing any kind of conclusion because Dana thinks a Paul Kelly fight should get the same amount of time as Rampage-Machida.

        If you are going to bash Machida for inactivity the first two rounds, you should also bash Rampage, because he did next to nothing as well. Walking forward and not really engaging isn’t what should should be the determining factor in a fight.

        I thought the main event last night was fun; the first round was slow but these guys are trying to be careful and not get KTFO. The third round was great, and I assume the 4th round would have been even better; as the fight went on they both started to open up more and take more chances. A fight is supposed to be a story with an arc, and just as the fight was getting really good, it was over. That sucks.

        • Mr. Roadblock says:

          I agree 100% with your assessment of the main event.

          But I don’t think 5 rounds is the answer to Rampage’s problem. He needs to start fighting when the bell rings in round 1.

          His fight with Forrest was 5 rounds and he didn’t show up until the end of that fight either. It’s Rampage, not the number of rounds.

          Bernard Hopkins fights the same way in 12 round boxing matches. Starting to fight in round 8 then whining about the score when he loses 115-113.

          Most times the odds are if a fight isn’t exciting for three rounds it wouldn’t be enhanced by being 5 rounds.

          About the only 3 round fight I’ve wanted to see go longer that I can remember is Chuck vs Wanderlei.

        • David M says:

          Mr. Roadblock: Rampage-Rashad, Rampage-Machida, Couture-Nog are the first three fights that come to mind for 3 round main events that we didn’t get to see a conclusion to.

          5 round isn’t the answer to Rampage per se, it is just what we as fight fans deserve. People don’t pay their money to see 2 bums on the undercard get the same amount of time as the main event; it is nonsensical. Fights are about moments, and far too often we are robbed of great moments in big fights because Dana’s dumbass thinks only title fights should be five rounds. If that is how he feels, then he should lower the price of ppvs without a title fight because clearly he considers title fights to be more important than all others.

          In reality, people buy ppv shows for the main event, whether for a title or not. It is preposterous that 2 world class fighters who we are paying big money to watch should not get more time to perform than some nobodies; it would be akin to Manny fighting a superfight against Paul Williams for no belts at a catchweight and having it go 6 rounds because no belts on the line. Absolutely fucking retarded. People who don’t want to see rounds 4 and 5 between 2 world class fighters, ask yourselves why you bought the show in the first place.

          Some of the justifications I have seen for not having 5 round main events border on ridiculous; I don’t remember where it was written but someone said that a long fight is unfair to the physically stronger fighter, LOL. WTF kind of bizarro world is this? Maybe the fights should just be 60 seconds and a step backwards should be an automatic disqualification. Seriously, when added stamina is used as a reason fights shouldn’t be longer, I really want to bang someone’s head on the keyboard (not my own, obviously).

  11. cutch says:

    I agree with Alan that the big matches like Rampage-Machida & Penn-Hughes, should have been 5 rounders. It’s only 10 minutes of your life, it’s not going to kill you, most PRIDE fights had a 20 minute time limit and not many people moaned back then.

    I would rather see two more potentially boring rounds, instead of 10 months of bitching. I know that 5 rounders can be controversial as well but you are more likely to get someone pulling ahead on the score card and 10 more minutes to finish.

  12. EJ says:

    I have no interest in either 5 round non title fights or the half point scoring system, nothing I saw tonight would have benefited from applying both.

  13. fightopinionReader says:

    There seems to be thought that if a very close 3 round fight went 5 rounds, we would have a better determination of who was the better fighter. That is not exactly true. You would have a different answer, not a better answer.

    A 5 round fight is a different beast than a 3 round fight. It is like a running event in track and field. They have 100, 200, and 400 meter runs. The best 100 meter running is not usually the best 200 meter runner, and vice versa. If you had a very close result with two 100 meter runners, making them run a 200 meter event isn’t going to give you the best 100 meter runner. It will answer who is the best 200 meter runner.

    Increasing the length of the fight will favor the endurance fighter over the strength fight. Some fighters bodies are more optimal for that, others are not.

    I am against 5 round fights. Most of the time, I got bored after the 3rd round. By that time, I am happy to move on to the next fight. To me, short fights and quick results are one of the best things about the UFC.

    • Bored by the 3rd round? LOL. Do you actually enjoy the sport, or are you just one of those people who likes to see quick finishes and lots of carnage?

      • fightopinionReader says:

        Typically by the 3rd round, one or more of the following has occurred:

        – one or both fighters are gassed, and gassed fighters = boring fights

        – the action starts getting repetitious. What may be exciting for one or two rounds becomes boring after three or four rounds.

        – a fighter is getting brutalized and is just trying to avoid the knockout. With 5 rounds of course, this guy is only going to continue to get slaughtered.

        This brings up another point – 5 round fights = more punches to the fighters head, more potential for long term brain damage – with no increase in fighter pay.

        • How often do world championship caliber fighters find themselves gassed by round 3 in fights they haven’t or don’t lose in that round? This isn’t about making all fights 5 rounds or not, nor am I arguing that it changes the ease of judging. Argue what I say instead of 45 Huddle strawmen.

          If you’re bothered that people get punched in the head, go follow Ivan Trembow out the door.

        • fightopinionReader says:

          “How often do world championship caliber fighters find themselves gassed by round 3 in fights they haven’t or don’t lose in that round?”

          BJ Penn, Dan Henderson, Frank Mir are world class and notorious for gassing early. Also include any heavyweight greater than 250 pounds.

          Also, if we want to push 5 round fights on every main event, than we’ll have plenty of non world class, non championship fighters fighting 5 round fights. This will be gassed fighter city. Can’t wait to see Marquardt dodge Okami for two more rounds!

          You have gone from accusing me of loving carnage “or are you just one of those people who likes to see quick finishes and lots of carnage?”, to instructing me out the door if I am bothered by people getting punched in the head. Your all over the place, and you lecture 45 huddle on argument technique. Look in the mirror.

        • Dan Henderson is known for having problems with stamina at middleweight – he went a hard 5 with Rampage in an all time great bout. Also didn’t seem to be slipping too hard against Franklin at 195.

          What I mean by “carnage” is that it sure sounds like you like to see fights with relatively quick stops. Hell, you say it. You don’t like fights that make it to the third. It doesn’t sound to me that you’re really so interested in the sport of MMA as much as you’re interested in seeing guys get dismissed with KOs or submissions quickly and having 10 of those jammed into a broadcast.

  14. bluerosekiller says:

    Mark me as one who’s ALL for 5 round main event fights.
    ESPECIALLY when they’re between two proven championship caliber fighters.

    IMO, all the arguments for such fights remaining at 3 rounds are just rediculous & short sighted.
    Hell, I actually happen to suffer from ADHD. Have for my entire life & I just turned 49 last month.
    And, I’ve never had a difficult time sitting through longer fights. As a lifelong boxing fan, I FAR prefered 15 round title fights to the 12 round affairs that we’ve had for going on three decades now.

  15. mr. roadblock says:

    I think if this fight had gone 5 rounds people would still be arguing about a close decision that 50% of people don’t like.

    I didn’t think much happened in rounds 1 and 2, but Jackson “won” both of them.

    Machida lost that fight. He didn’t engage early and he didn’t appear to have a game plan beyond catching Rampage with a counter. He also gave the fight away by laying on Rapage from 2:40 (on the clock) until about 1:20 and not doing anything.

    I never have sympathy for a guy who is trying to coast to a points victory and doesn’t get it. That’s why Tito vs Oscar is my favorite judges decision of all time.

    If you were ever going to make a drastic change to scoring this is what I want:

    Judges to have two extra options on their score cards.

    1. Draw (regardless of points they can make a fight a draw)

    2. Double loss. Both fighters get an L on their record and half pay.

    I love strategy and game plans in MMA. But I’m sick of seeing guys try to do just enough. Yes this is a ‘sport’. But it’s becoming too much of a game for points. I want to see a fight and a spectacle. I want to know who is better because someone stopped his opponent, not got an extra takedown in the first round.

    • I’m not arguing that 5 rounds would make the judging easier or less controversial. It didn’t in Rampage/Forrest or Machida/Shogun I, did it? Its just a matter of principle regarding top level competitors. Its silly to think that Rampage and Machida should be fighting on the same terms as a couple of no name white guys on the unaired undercard.

    • Chuck says:

      Roadblock;

      Those are pretty crappy outcomes. Give both guys losses if they didn’t fight to some arbitrary standards? That would be awful.

      And a draw regardless of score? So I can score a boxing match 118-110 (ten rounds to two) and just say “fuck it, I’ll call it a draw!”? That is fairly ludicrous. If I want to score a fight a draw, I’ll split the rounds in half (six rounds to six, 114-114 for twelve rounds).

  16. klown says:

    Lots of fun to be had with LHW match-making coming out of this event. I’d do:

    Rampage vs Griffin-Franklin winner for #1 contender

    Bader-Jones winner vs Silva-Vera winner

    Machida vs Griffin-Franklin loser

    Hammill vs Bonnar-Pokrajac winner

    Soczynski vs Bader-Jones loser

    Silva-Vera loser vs Nogueira-Ortiz winner

  17. The Gaijin says:

    I must say that I love coming on here and after each and EVERY “controversial” decision I get to see 45 Huddle with the pom poms out “justifying” the decision. 99.9% of the time he’s got the defenses up using all kinds of harebrained excuses…comical.

    I think it’s got to do with his undying love of saying how “corrupt” and indefensible decisions were in PRIDE were he feels the need to defend the 10-point must system b/c it might some way, somehow make the UFC look bad.

    So transparent, but so funny.

  18. Fluyid says:

    Way off topic here, but just gotta tell someone, somewhere. A friend of mine who knows these things tells me that Jose Canseco has signed to fight none other than Dan Quinn.

    Yep, totally irrelevant to this topic and such. But still….

  19. grafdog says:

    ufc should hire Don the dragon Wilson for the events to scream “YOU CAN’T WIN A FIGHT BACKING AWAY FROM A GUY!!!!!” at the fighters. And once in a while whisper to the judges “now if Quinton started fighting like WHohass I mean Machado is, what would we be seeing? two fighters backing away from each other…”

    Under ufc rules Jackson won the first 2 rounds pretty modestly and lost the third round badly. With pride rules Machida would have won because he really made a huge effort to win the fight 3 times in the third.

  20. grafdog says:

    I’d like to see the ufc or some smaller shows only score the second and third round.

  21. MMA Tycoon says:

    Half point scoring is EXACTLY the same as just giving out more 10-8 or 10-7 rounds, which I would like to see happen.

    Pushing half points and not just more liberal use of the existing system is baffling to me and seems like it’s a concept either derived by stupid people or aimed at stupid people.

    More 10-8s, more 10-7s, more 10-10s. The system doesn’t need changing – people’s mindsets need changing.

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image