ironworks
06-23-2014, 09:29 PM
Feed Source: Bleacher Report MMA
For some time now, fans and officials have been pondering how to fix many of the problems currently in the sport of MMA.
Be it judging inconsistencies, fighters “coasting” by maintaining a top position without trying to improve said position for a finish, or just being overly tentative, the sport is still trying to come up with the next improvement.
As of now, most fights are three rounds, with each round lasting five minutes. For title fights, the bouts are five rounds, five minutes per round.
It’s a formula that has worked well in the eyes of many and has been adapted as a sport standard by nearly all MMA promotions. This is especially important considering that a uniformed standard is needed in order for fighters to grow to their full potential.
But would there be any possible benefits of changing the length of rounds and, further, bout durations?
In theory, the idea behind this is that shorter rounds would make fighters work harder to take advantage of strong positions in addition to making it easier for the judges to properly assess the content of three minutes worth of action as opposed to five.
The latter seems very important when it comes to the usage of the 10-8 round, which is rarely done with any kind of uniformity in the sport today. One judge may see a round 10-8 while the other two do not, which can lead to vast differences in scoring.
The former is of equal importance for obvious reasons: It leads the fighter on top to try and make the most of any advantageous position rather than simply milking the clock by imposing the urgency of time. The fighter might not get another chance if they don’t get the finish or do enough damage to give themselves an advantage in the rounds to come.
Secondly, it could make for more competitive fights as it gives striking-based fighters more opportunities to impose their will. By proxy, this turns up the heat on grappling-based fighters, making them work hard for the finish anytime they take the fight to the floor.
Of course, with shorter rounds comes the need for a change in bout duration. Non-title fights would need to be five rounds long and title fights increased to seven or nine rounds.
That is a whole lot of change to implement in a sport so accustomed to the current standards.
Baring that in mind, we must consider if the changes would really empower the fighters toward a fair yet fan-pleasing end, or would it just be a case of freeing one style while encumbering another?
Cui bono?
As it stands today, the main problem seems to be in the judging of a round. Even now, with the sport nearly 20 years old, most judges come from the world of boxing where three-minute rounds are the norm and the 10-8 round scoring system is implemented with much more clarity and regularity.
For some time now, fans and officials have been pondering how to fix many of the problems currently in the sport of MMA.
Be it judging inconsistencies, fighters “coasting” by maintaining a top position without trying to improve said position for a finish, or just being overly tentative, the sport is still trying to come up with the next improvement.
As of now, most fights are three rounds, with each round lasting five minutes. For title fights, the bouts are five rounds, five minutes per round.
It’s a formula that has worked well in the eyes of many and has been adapted as a sport standard by nearly all MMA promotions. This is especially important considering that a uniformed standard is needed in order for fighters to grow to their full potential.
But would there be any possible benefits of changing the length of rounds and, further, bout durations?
In theory, the idea behind this is that shorter rounds would make fighters work harder to take advantage of strong positions in addition to making it easier for the judges to properly assess the content of three minutes worth of action as opposed to five.
The latter seems very important when it comes to the usage of the 10-8 round, which is rarely done with any kind of uniformity in the sport today. One judge may see a round 10-8 while the other two do not, which can lead to vast differences in scoring.
The former is of equal importance for obvious reasons: It leads the fighter on top to try and make the most of any advantageous position rather than simply milking the clock by imposing the urgency of time. The fighter might not get another chance if they don’t get the finish or do enough damage to give themselves an advantage in the rounds to come.
Secondly, it could make for more competitive fights as it gives striking-based fighters more opportunities to impose their will. By proxy, this turns up the heat on grappling-based fighters, making them work hard for the finish anytime they take the fight to the floor.
Of course, with shorter rounds comes the need for a change in bout duration. Non-title fights would need to be five rounds long and title fights increased to seven or nine rounds.
That is a whole lot of change to implement in a sport so accustomed to the current standards.
Baring that in mind, we must consider if the changes would really empower the fighters toward a fair yet fan-pleasing end, or would it just be a case of freeing one style while encumbering another?
Cui bono?
As it stands today, the main problem seems to be in the judging of a round. Even now, with the sport nearly 20 years old, most judges come from the world of boxing where three-minute rounds are the norm and the 10-8 round scoring system is implemented with much more clarity and regularity.