I don't know how I feel about this, I'm more thinking out loud. UFC 216 was a great event imo, and it featured two draws for the first time in years. Now for me, I'm not convinced 3 rounds is enough to demonstrate superiority over another fighter. I'll explain what I mean. Werdum vs Overeem is a great example of a fight with 2 clear rounds and 1 close round. Is it fair to say Overeem got the better of Werdum that night? And let's reverse the controversy, would it have been fair to say Werdum got the better of Reem? The fight was essentially decided by a punch. I know judges are encouraged to score winning rounds but for me this fight might as well have been a draw. Another example of my issue with 3 round fights is Rampage vs Evans. Rashad won the first two rounds but by the end of the third Rampage was well in control and over 5 rounds would Evans have been a favourite? If not what value does the 3 round victory actually have? Not to criticise but some posters are very adamant in their scoring of rounds and who should or should not be the winner in a 3 round fight, but for me it's often a case of a 3 round decision can go either way. What this means is if a 3 round fight goes the distance neither fighter really loses out which means that losing fighters can occupy the ranking spots and not really lose face whilst the winner moves forward despite not really doing much more. Another example, Bisping vs Wanderlei. Silva won a very close fight but the loss didn't effect Bisping all that much really as it was a competitive fight and his rise up the rankings continued. Are 3 round fights pointless or is it better that so many top fighters face each other under a system were both progress with their career? Not really sure how I feel about this, as I said I'm just musing out loud.