Issue 101

May 2013

Could MMA be made better by scrapping five-minute rounds for longer or shorter stanzas? Fighters Only investigates. 

In a real fight, there are no rounds. Take the animal kingdom, for example. Whether it’s lions, tigers or bears, two alpha males fighting over food, territory or a mate don’t just suddenly cease hostilities and retire under a tree for 60 seconds of tactical talk and recuperation.

Chopping up a fight into rounds is a man-made concept and marks one of the major differences between a real fight and a sporting contest. Back in the early days of combat sports, there were no time limits and fights either ended by way of submission, unconsciousness or even death.

Time limits were first introduced not only to counter early opposition to human blood sports, but also to differentiate sporting fights from acts of common violence. The first UFC tournament in 1993 was a throwback to those early days, with its disregard of time limits and rules in general. 

As interesting as the inaugural Ultimate Fighting Championship was, its anarchic formula was not a good recipe for longevity. Had the UFC not later adopted the Unified Rules, the world’s leading MMA promotion may very well have fizzled out in its infancy. One of the most significant changes made was the introduction of five-minute rounds at UFC 21 in 1999, which later became an integral part of the Unified Rules. 

The decision to use five-minute rounds is rarely questioned nowadays; the majority of the MMA community seems to approve. But the question remains: do three and five five-minute-round fights bring out the best in mixed martial arts? Some of the sport’s most thrilling and unforgettable encounters have occurred as a direct result of using longer rounds, including Nogueira vs Sapp and Royce Gracie vs Sakuraba I, both fights in which time had a noticeable impact on the final outcome. 

Alternatively, if longer rounds are out and the focus has shifted towards cramming as much excitement as possible into short rounds, then why not adopt the classic three-minute round as used in boxing? The possibilities are intriguing. 

A matter of timing

Of course, we must respect the Unified Rules and all they’ve done to legitimize MMA but rules, after all, exist to serve the sport. Five-minute rounds may prove to be the final word, but it’s still early days and, as such, it’s better to ask questions sooner rather than later.

It was Rorion Gracie who suggested using the no-timer rule for the inaugural UFC event in 1993. 

“My original idea, when creating the UFC, was to replicate a real fight,” 

Gracie explains to FO. “Thus no time limit was the rule.” No surprise there. Gracie knew that with fewer interruptions, the relatively unknown art of Brazilian jiu-jitsu would have the freedom it required to shock the world.

The introduction of the first time limits in the Octagon (20 and 30-minute rounds at UFC 5) marked a major turning point. Time was no longer irrelevant and fights to the finish were consigned to the scrapheap of history. Then, with the introduction of five-minute rounds, a speedier form of BJJ became necessary and, likewise, strikers and wrestlers could, for better or worse, adapt their strategies around the ticking clock. 

Veteran MMA commentator Stephen Quadros (Pride, Strikeforce, Cage Rage), also known as ‘The Fight Professor,’ believes the introduction of time limits was an important step forward in terms of entertainment value.

“It was no longer the old days where two fighters would lay on the floor forever, because of some secret hardcore fighting society sworn code of keeping it as real as possible. This gave the audience all the excitement of watching paint dry, whilst the fighters would wait for the other to get tired and submitted.” 

Two years before the UFC introduced five-minute rounds at UFC 21, a different system was already in place within the celebrated Pride Fighting Championships in Japan. Pride also used five-minute rounds, but only in the second and third stanzas while the first round came in at 10 minutes. This lengthy opener often encouraged a more strategic approach from fighters, something that was perhaps more respected in Japan where the audiences, it has been suggested, are more appreciative of pure technique than the majority of western fans. 

The pros and cons of the 10-minute round are up for debate. What 10-minute rounds most certainly did better than five-minute rounds was to replicate the earlier incarnations of MMA where fewer interruptions disrupted the natural flow of the fight. A 10-minute round, whether it transpires during the first or last half of a grueling contest, will also provide a stiffer cardiovascular test for fighters. 

As any advocate of longer rounds will tell you, 10 minutes separates the men from the boys. But, according to the detractors, 10-minute stanzas simply lack the explosiveness and excitement that shorter rounds tend to encourage. Fighters with 10 minutes to kill are afraid of gassing out early and thus have a tendency to hold back, whereas in shorter rounds, there’s more chance of seeing explosive bursts of continuous action. 

These are generalizations of course, but the overall impression given by those who favor short rounds, is that longer rounds, whether it’s 10, 20 or 30 minutes, are simply not the best recipe for excitement. 

In 2013, an era where attention spans are shorter than ever and everything is available at the swipe of a touch screen, perhaps a more compact form of MMA is just what the sport requires. As five-minute rounds have become the norm, the evidence would certainly appear to agree. 

Fight to the finish

So is that the end of the debate? MMA, lest we forget, is a young and ambitious sport. It has evolved at a tremendous speed over the last 15 years, but what we see today, as good as it may be, is not yet the finished article. Isn’t it, therefore, in MMA’s best interest to consider the full range of options available before shutting up shop? 

Frank Shamrock, the first-ever UFC champion at 205lb believes experimentation is key to maintaining interest. “I think mixing up the rounds keeps the game fresh and allows for more probabilities in a fight,” he says. “Five minutes is perhaps the best sporting format for the UFC, but I like the old days of no time limits, or the 30-minute straight time. To be honest, I’m not sure if the sport would benefit from longer rounds but I think the fans would actually see more action.” 

Shamrock’s fellow pioneers, Bas Rutten and Dan Severn, also favor the return of longer rounds. “I like the 10-minute opening round,” says Rutten, “because you have to fight more strategically. It makes for an interesting fight.” 

However, UFC Hall of Famer Severn, questions the ability of modern fighters to adapt to a more grueling format. “For 10-minute rounds to work,” says Severn, “this would require athletes to have better cardio than they currently have... We’re not saying fighters are less than what they used to be. It takes something special to become a fighter. But, in my opinion, the 10-minute opening round is a superior marketing concept and athletic test. 

“After 10 hard-fought minutes, that one-minute rest is a gift from God! Only a tiny percentage of professional fighters are capable of doing a 10-minute round. I’m glad that non-title UFC main events have become five rounds because it separates it from the other fights. But going to a 10-minute first round for title fights would separate the real fighters from pretenders.”

That’s what the pioneers say. But what about the current crop of elite mixed martial artists?

“I don’t think the UFC would benefit from using 10-minute rounds or any of the Pride rules,” says fan-friendly heavyweight Roy ‘Big Country’ Nelson. “The longer rounds would definitely benefit the submission specialists to allow them to tire their opponent out and set up their submission. But, overall, shorter rounds are better for a faster-paced fight.”

It would seem that for the younger generation of stars, excitement is indeed the most sought-after commodity and it’s not surprising given that UFC bonuses reward the fighters who deliver the most thrills. As of yet, there’s no award for ‘Best Strategy of the Night.’ 

“I believe today’s MMA fan would be dead against a 10-minute round,” claims British welterweight and crowd- pleaser Paul ‘Semtex’ Daley. “In all honesty, I prefer the five-minute rounds because they are more intense and explosive. With the striking, wrestling and BJJ aspects of MMA, the five-minute rounds are ideally suited to allow for all these to be encompassed in an entertaining fashion.” 

One of the most exciting fighters in the lighter weight classes, the UFC’s Dennis Siver agrees that longer rounds would be detrimental to the sport’s appeal. “I do think the fights would not be as exciting anymore,” says the Russian-born German featherweight, “because fighters think they would have more time to win the round. Also, I do think that if a fight went to the ground during the longer round, fighters might try to rest more while they are in a dominant position.” 

And it’s not just fighters who are against the return of longer rounds. The vast majority of MMA writers, including Tapped Out author Matthew Polly, also believe it would be a step backwards. “I think it’s a bad idea,” he says. “Why make the first round longer? Following the even round structure of boxing and wrestling has made MMA look like a sport and not just a spectacle for the public. Going back to longer rounds would be a step in the wrong direction.” 

After listening to the opinions so far, you’d be forgiven for thinking the return of longer rounds was nothing more than an old fighter’s pipe dream. But one of the most promising young prospects in the sport today, Icelandic welterweight Gunnar Nelson, agrees with the pioneers that MMA should not abandon its past altogether. 

“Sport-fighting is considered by many to be the best way to test your abilities in a fight,” says Nelson. “There are many people who like to watch sport-fighting, which has developed mostly around pleasing the fans and which has lost some of its original purpose – to test a fighter’s ability to fight, which was the very reason it was interesting in the first place. I would like to see some development towards realism again in the UFC.”

And just how would Nelson go about implementing his vision of ‘realism?’

“The UFC is great,” he says, “but they could make it more realistic by having no rounds. Without interference, a fight would go on until the fighters decide that it’s over. There are no breaks. MMA has developed a lot over the last decade but it would be interesting to see how modern fighters would fare using the old-school time rules again.” 

Unfortunately, for Nelson and other advocates of the ‘fight to the finish’ policy, the no time limit rule is surely dead and buried. Frank Shamrock offers a slightly less radical vision of his own ideal time limits. “I think the best thing is this – undercard fights should be one round of 10 minutes, the mid-card fights should be a single round of 20 minutes and the main event should be 30 minutes straight.” 

Shorter and faster?

Whilst Shamrock, Gunnar, Rutten, Frye and Severn are in favor of extending rounds, there are others who believe the sport would benefit by going in the opposite direction altogether. “Three-minute rounds would be good,” says heavyweight contender Nelson, “with no stand-ups. No more feeling each other out for two minutes, which means you’ve got to go for it right away.” 

Keith Kizer, the Nevada State Athletic Commission executive director, has previously stated his own belief that three-minute rounds would help to limit the amount of judging problems that pop up in MMA. Kizer claims three-minute rounds would provide a clearer picture for the judges as to who was winning a fight and as a result, fewer mistakes would occur. 

Siver, always keen on finding ways to make fights more exciting, proposes an addition to a fight that has gone the distance. “Maybe to make fights more exciting, it would be a good idea to add an extra round of two minutes, after three rounds of five minutes. This final short round might prevent more fights going to the judges.” 

However, for all those in favor of further experimentation with time, there are many who would be happiest if things were left just the way they are. “I don’t think the length of rounds needs to be changed,” adds Quadros. “They’re fine the way they are. Monkeying around with this kind of thing only prevents MMA from being seen as a true sport. Let it be.” 

Whilst MMA must, of course, conform to a clear set of rules, neither should the sport become prematurely set in stone for fear it may tempt future stagnation. The depth of opinion, reflected here, shows that although the five- minute round has been well received, there’s still a solid level of interest in further experimentation. 

Occasional deviations from the norm should not only be attainable, but innovative thinking can only be a good thing for the growth of MMA. After all, the unconventional Prizefighter boxing series (eight-man, one-night tourney) provided some much-needed entertainment value for British boxing when it was first introduced back in 2008. 

Inevitably, the time will come when MMA is no longer the new kid on the sporting block. Perhaps in the future, when it’s looking for ways to reinvigorate itself, it will be best served by looking to its own past for inspiration. So who knows? The 10-minute first round, the 30-minute superfight, and even three-minute rounds may yet have a part to play.