5 Round Non-Title Main Events are in - Also Flyweights are coming to the UFC.

[fpac]

I'm torn on how I feel about this. I like how title fights feel more important because they are 5 rounds. On the other hand though, I hate 3 round main events. With all the weight divisions the UFC has now (aside from injuries) there shouldn't be a PPV that isn't main evented by a title fight now though.

[TheShizNo1]

Don't like the 5 round non title fights.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by fpac

I'm torn on how I feel about this. I like how title fights feel more important because they are 5 rounds. On the other hand though, I hate 3 round main events. With all the weight divisions the UFC has now (aside from injuries) there shouldn't be a PPV that isn't main evented by a title fight now though.

Impossible with injuries. There will only be one title defended this summer because of them.

[bkfount]

Quote: Originally Posted by fpac

With all the weight divisions the UFC has now (aside from injuries) there shouldn't be a PPV that isn't main evented by a title fight now though.

Even if they don't, the UFC is huge now. They've outgrown their regular PPV and Spike schedule to the point that a network makes sense. Hell, there's even the rumor they may buy G4.

[The Chef]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sandman42

Starts with Evans/Davis at 133. I can already see a problem with the UFC on Versus 5 card though since Lytle/Hardy is the main event over Miller/Henderson. About time either way though. As for flyweights I fully expect the first title fight to be Benavidez vs. Mighty Mouse.

It actually does not start with Evans/Davis as that contract had already been signed and per the article I read there is no timetable as to when this will officially start.

http://www.mmamania.com/2011/6/9/221...s-will-be-five

[redsrule]

It will probably start after 135 with Rampage-Jones. Whenever the next non-title event is. Maybe with the main event of the UFN in Louisiana?

[Sandman42]

While I agree with you guys that certain fights should be 3. Don't want to see 5 rounds for Rampage/Hamill or Lytle/Hardy, but there are tons of fights that I want to see go 5 rounds. Rampage/Machida, Penn/Fitch, Pettis/Guida were all fights that should have gone on longer. These guys are top tier fighters, there's no reason for them to only go 3 rounds when they are so evenly matched.

Plus look at all the great 5 rounds fights we've seen recently. Edgar/Maynard, Pettis/Henderson, Santiago/Misaki just to name a few. If Pettis/Henderson was just a fight in the UFC it would have been no where near as good as it was. I'm surprised to see so many people against it here. Pretty much everywhere else I look is in high praise of this move.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sandman42

While I agree with you guys that certain fights should be 3. Don't want to see 5 rounds for Rampage/Hamill or Lytle/Hardy, but there are tons of fights that I want to see go 5 rounds. Rampage/Machida, Penn/Fitch, Pettis/Guida were all fights that should have gone on longer. These guys are top tier fighters, there's no reason for them to only go 3 rounds when they are so evenly matched. Plus look at all the great 5 rounds fights we've seen recently. Edgar/Maynard, Pettis/Henderson, Santiago/Misaki just to name a few. If Pettis/Henderson was just a fight in the UFC it would have been no where near as good as it was. I'm surprised to see so many people against it here. Pretty much everywhere else I look is in high praise of this move.

The problem is you dont know if a fight should have been longer until you see it. If Rampage/Hamill was a barn burner people would have been calling for 5 rounds for that fight. If Fitch laid on Penn for 3 rounds, no one would have wanted to see two more rounds.