# No more rounds in MMA



## SanshouMatt (Jul 1, 2008)

This has been a long debate but not one I've seen discussed on here so I thought I'd open it up to the group and see what we think.

MMA didn't have rounds until UFC21 when, bowing to the pressure of politics, fading view numbers and calls for the sport to be banned, the UFC bucked under the pressure and put in a round structure. Personally I think this is wrong.

the great thing about MMA is that this is a fight, that's the point, thats why we love it and thats why Pride was so fricking awesome that I still watch it now. Pride was about fighting, pure, simple, brutal (to some) but it was a fight. Boxing is actually a very different thing but we'll come onto that.

A 15 min non titel fight and a 25 min titel fight would surely make for something more compelling, more spectacular and at the end of the day more decisive? Aside from the whole knees to downed guys and the crappy 10 point must system this is to my mind the biggest issue in MMA. It waters down the sport.

GSP even talks about this on a regular basis and is the sport's biggest exponent of the no round idea, just last week he had this to say:

"I think by doing rounds, we're breaking the momentum of the fight and making the fight different," he said. "I think the rounds have been added in the past because they want it to be more similar to boxing, but I believe in MMA, we are our own sport. We should not try to copy any other sport.

"If you want to see two guys fighting each other and see who's the best man, let them fight. Don't stop the fight until it's finished. If there were no rounds, I believe there would be way more finishes."

"The fight would be way more fantastic, and the show will be better," St-Pierre said. "That's what I would change about the rules."

What do you think? Should we get rid of rounds? Is it better or worse for the sport?


----------



## Cakemaker (Nov 13, 2013)

I think rounds serve a purpose.

It is more structured, friendly to watch for an outsider and comes across as better run.

The BJJ world still regularly adopt both systems of rounds & the "sub 15" format both have their positives and negatives.

Say a fighter gets a cut through accidental head contact towards the end of round 1, under a 15 min 1 round concept the cut is allowed to develop and worsen with no corner or cut man assistance. With the 3x 5 min round structure the cut man can go to work and prolong the fight.

Yes there will be more finishes but some of those additional finishes will be due to untreated accidental injuries.

I happily take part in both but find myself holding back in the sub 15 to conserve energy thus lowering chances of a early victory.

With a round system using the 10 point must you find that the fighters can adjust their game plans and off a fighter has lost round 1 & 2 they tend to come out swinging in round 3 which builds excitement.


----------



## SanshouMatt (Jul 1, 2008)

Good points but at what point is this a fight and what point is this a sport?


----------



## Cakemaker (Nov 13, 2013)

SanshouMatt said:


> Good points but at what point is this a fight and what point is this a sport?


It is a fight sport lol.

If you class it as "fighting" it will be banned like in the old days of UFC 1 when it was bare knuckle & headbutts.

It is now a sport because it is regulated, has a defined set of rules and scoring system. If it was solely whoever passes out then it would go back to the "human cockfighting" tag of 20 years ago.

People like Dana White are not stupid, they know that if they changed the set up too much they will loose a large chunk of money into the sport.


----------



## AlanS (Mar 18, 2009)

If the fighters health is any priority they should keep rounds included. Recuperration on your muscles, time for rehydration, it's all essential especially with fighters pushing their training as hard as they do, and the increasingly large amount of weight some of them cut. You can't get over a bad weight cut in one day, to push yourself in a no-round fight would be very detrimental to your health.

To go 100% for 15 mins (25 for a title bout) would make for some very sloppy, gassed fighters too.


----------



## SanshouMatt (Jul 1, 2008)

Somthere are a few points here. Weight cut being one. Personally im against the current style of weight cutting, its a nonsense so rehydration etc should not be an issue. Also if fighters gas and get sloppy and as a result have the piss beaten out of them by a better fighter surely thats a better yardstick?

Come on, didnt we watch Pride and love it, most of the guys who were good enough to be in pride made it to the ufc and had longer careers and better gas tanks than fighters of recent years.


----------



## Cakemaker (Nov 13, 2013)

AlanS said:


> If the fighters health is any priority they should keep rounds included. Recuperration on your muscles, time for rehydration, it's all essential especially with fighters pushing their training as hard as they do, and the increasingly large amount of weight some of them cut. You can't get over a bad weight cut in one day, to push yourself in a no-round fight would be very detrimental to your health.
> 
> To go 100% for 15 mins (25 for a title bout) would make for some very sloppy, gassed fighters too.


Yes pride was good but I feel the UFC and indeed a lot of other national shows are better due to how they look after the fighters.


----------



## SanshouMatt (Jul 1, 2008)

Look after fighters? Have you seen the package for healthcare and the pay of a lower tier guy?


----------



## AlanS (Mar 18, 2009)

the UFC health insurance package is not that bad. Fighters are covered up to 25k for any medical procedure...not too shabby.


----------



## SanshouMatt (Jul 1, 2008)

$25k is nothing in the USA, for example the average ACL repair in the USA costs just over $68k with no insurance, co-pay is still going to cost you something int he realm of $10k at least (likely much much more) even with insurance, UFC cover is co-pay and not fully comp unless you're a top 5 fighter. Even then you're not guaranteed to have everything covered. You've then got to factor in what the time out costs a fighter let alone what a fight costs. Serious injury in the UFC? screw you. the UFC refused to pay to sort Rampage's knees out mainly due to cost and he continued to fight.

John Cholish broke down what it costs per fight with no injury, he reckoned a fight in Brazil cost him approx $18k and had he been injured he could have easily seen that turn into $50k even for something minor for a guy at his level.

When you factor in the fact that Cholish's purse for the fight was only $8K its pretty hard to see how a guy in the lower leagues of the UFC makes ends meet, particularly since the UFC levelled the sponsor tax. As you may know Marc sponsored a couiple of fighters in the big show pre the tax, we were all stoked to see the MMA factory logo on a pair of shorts but less than a year after the UFC said you have to pay $100k for the privilege. A fighter now is lucky if they get $2k off a sponsor and there are very few with pockets deep enough to do anything. A small company cannot be seen to sponsor someone out of the cage either as the UFC contract precludes it unless there is a written agreement for a kickback of an unspecified amount (up to the UFC's lawyers) as a result fighters can get free kit and can mention the free kit to an extent in interviews but if money changes hands the supplier and the fighter are in breach. No way any of them want to go to war with the UFC's mobbed up lawyers.


----------

