407 replies to this topic

[Sir Bandelot]

If some dudes want to fight each other and other dudes want to watch, fine by me. Yes, there might be injuries, maybe even deaths, but the participants understand and accept the risks.

A classic case of liberal degeneracy syndrome

[kimmy]

A classic case of liberal degeneracy syndrome

In Bonam's case I think it's more like libertarian degeneracy

But it's a valid point: if we're talking about banning something because it's offensive to some people, or some people find it gross or icky or degenerate, then we're talking about banning everything from gay sex to alcoholic beverages to dealcoholized beer to rock and roll records to short skirts. Who wants to get into a game of line-drawing like that?

-k

[Bonam]

In Bonam's case I think it's more like libertarian degeneracy

Libertarian yes I suppose. Dunno where the degeneracy comes in

But it's a valid point: if we're talking about banning something because it's offensive to some people, or some people find it gross or icky or degenerate, then we're talking about banning everything from gay sex to alcoholic beverages to dealcoholized beer to rock and roll records to short skirts. Who wants to get into a game of line-drawing like that?

Indeed. But the more specific point I was trying to make is that it seems the main argument people have made against these particular sports is that they pose a risk of injury. But people partake in countless other such sports all the time. Climbing, skiing/snowboarding, autoracing, and pretty much anything classified as an "extreme sport" carries substantial risks. Should we then ban all of these? Should we just lock people up in their houses and not let them come out in case they might accidentally trip on the porch and hurt themselves?

I value freedom far more highly than having the government try to keep me safe from the consequences of my own choices.

[kimmy]

Indeed. But the more specific point I was trying to make is that it seems the main argument people have made against these particular sports is that they pose a risk of injury. But people partake in countless other such sports all the time. Climbing, skiing/snowboarding, autoracing, and pretty much anything classified as an "extreme sport" carries substantial risks. Should we then ban all of these? Should we just lock people up in their houses and not let them come out in case they might accidentally trip on the porch and hurt themselves?

I value freedom far more highly than having the government try to keep me safe from the consequences of my own choices.

The "safety" argument is a sham. Those opposed to MMA won't-- and can't-- explain why cuts and broken bones and concussions suffered in MMA matches are cause for a ban while cuts and broken bones and concussions suffered in hockey or football or skiing are not.

A competitive skateboarder was killed right in Vancouver this summer. Where's the BCMA outrage?


-k

[Bonam]

The "safety" argument is a sham.

Yeah I suspect it is mostly a cover/justification for their real reason for opposing fighting sports, which is that they look down on them as barbaric/disgusting. Such subjective moral notions shouldn't be the basis of laws that reduce people's freedoms to participate in activities they like. Although there are a few whose main motivation really is the safety argument (and want to ban skiing, football, and everything else too), and those people are even worse than the previous category, because they genuinely believe that the government should control how people live so as not to hurt themselves.

[kimmy]

Can you cite that rule please?

TECHNICAL KNOCKOUT (TKO):

(a) Applicable when the referee judges that it is impossible to continue the match due to an accidental injury (of neither fighter's fault) to a fighter. Such decisions shall be made in accordance with Article12.
( Applicable when a corner man throws a towel into the ring during the course of a match. In the event that the referee does not notice the towel being thrown in, the official observer is authorized to announce the end of match.
© Referee Stop: Applicable when the referee judges that one fighter is overwhelmingly superior to his opponent and the inferior fighter is in a physically perilous condition.
(d) Doctor Stop: Applicable when the official physician judges that it is impossible to continue the match due to an injury or severe damage to a fighter. If a fighter is down and has sustained severe damage, the official physician has the option to stop the match, accordingly to the deliberation.

(link)

Many fighters who have the ability to "defend himself" are often knocked out in mma and boxing. So it is a basically meaningless statement unless you have something specific to add which provides clear boundaries for punching a grounded opponent.

As dre explained, the referee uses a guideline that the fighter is "actively" or "intelligently" defending himself. For a fighter who is on his back, that typically means he is using his arms to block strikes, or using grappling to control his opponent's posture or arms to prevent his opponent from landing *effective* strikes.

Most strikes landed while on the ground in MMA fights are *not* effective strikes. It's very difficult to land effective strikes while grappling. The effective strikes only begin when the guy on top is able to improve his position (usually a mount position) and get free of his opponents arms. At this point, he's able to posture up so that he can get some wind up on his punches, and then the guy on the ground is in trouble. At this point he can punch freely and the referee is going to stop the fight unless the bottom fighter can regain a defensible position quickly. If he can't show the referee that he can protect himself at this point, and he is getting hit, the referee stops the fight. That's how rule 4.c is interpreted by every official working in North America.

And sitting on someone pounding their defended head is going to cause damage regardless not to mention being totally gutless.

The biggest thing that people just don't understand about MMA is how many tools the guy on the bottom has to defend himself with. Many fighters will willingly let an opponent get them on their back just to have an opportunity to use their grappling techniques. The frequency with which the guy on top ends up in a choke hold or a leg-lock or on his face with the other guy on top of him is surprising. So no, it's not gutless, because competent martial artists know how to fight in that position and are no more defenseless than the guy on his feet.


When the guy on top does attain a position that makes it impossible for his opponent to defend himself, that's when the match is over.

I've seen a few fightsin MMA/UFC where the guy gets a couple good elbow blows to the top of his head. That's gotta do more damage than a boxing glove. Sure the number of hits are less, the severity of the hits in MMA are higher. I am speculating here.

The assumption that punches thrown on the ground are somehow more dangerous than punches thrown while standing is just inane. Any boxer-- Jack Weber will vouch for this-- will tell you that real punching power doesn't come from the arms, it comes from the legs and hips and torso.

In MMA matches, when there is a knockout, it almost invariably occurs as a result of a blow thrown when both fighters are standing.

The reason is, you can punch far harder when you're standing up. When a fighter is on the mat grappling with his opponent, he can't throw powerful strikes like he can when he's standing. He can't use his footwork and his hips to generate power. And you don't have room to wind up. And you have a guy grabbing your arms and pulling you down and using your own chest to shield his head.


-k

[Sir Bandelot]

Yeah I suspect it is mostly a cover/justification for their real reason for opposing fighting sports, which is that they look down on them as barbaric/disgusting. Such subjective moral notions shouldn't be the basis of laws that reduce people's freedoms to participate in activities they like. Although there are a few whose main motivation really is the safety argument (and want to ban skiing, football, and everything else too), and those people are even worse than the previous category, because they genuinely believe that the government should control how people live so as not to hurt themselves.

Oh indeed, indeed, indeed...
Once again you ideologues can only see a situation as a black or white issue. Either let the people do anything they want, between consenting adults or ban everything. That attitude is not necessary. There are some who don't want to ban anything, but do want to see better rules, such as wearing helmets when playing football. What's wrong with that concept? You can still have your fun just don't be a fool. Know about the danger. That's what the role of th BCMA would be. to lobby the government and use ads to make people aware of the danger. Wear safety equipment it might save your life. No need for "outrage" at the dangers of skateboarding.

[GostHacked]

Oh indeed, indeed, indeed...
Once again you ideologues can only see a situation as a black or white issue. Either let the people do anything they want, between consenting adults or ban everything. That attitude is not necessary. There are some who don't want to ban anything, but do want to see better rules, such as wearing helmets when playing football.

Yeah those guys would not stand a chance playing rugby. You can get injured in sports, that is obvious, if you think it's too dangerous, don't watch and don't participate. People who get into these professional sports know exactly what they are getting into. They are aware of the dangers and understand the risks.

What's wrong with that concept? You can still have your fun just don't be a fool. Know about the danger. That's what the role of th BCMA would be. to lobby the government and use ads to make people aware of the danger. Wear safety equipment it might save your life. No need for "outrage" at the dangers of skateboarding.

MMA is low on the injury list. Cheerleading is more dangerous it seems.

[dre]

Oh indeed, indeed, indeed...
Once again you ideologues can only see a situation as a black or white issue. Either let the people do anything they want, between consenting adults or ban everything. That attitude is not necessary. There are some who don't want to ban anything, but do want to see better rules, such as wearing helmets when playing football. What's wrong with that concept? You can still have your fun just don't be a fool. Know about the danger. That's what the role of th BCMA would be. to lobby the government and use ads to make people aware of the danger. Wear safety equipment it might save your life. No need for "outrage" at the dangers of skateboarding.

I dont see it as being black and white. I think its reasonable to take steps to make these sports safe in relative terms. The bottom line is that you cant put these events on if the city wont give you a permit, and if you cant purchase insurance for them.

My position isnt that sanctioned sports shouldnt be relatively safe, its that sanctioned MMA already is.

[Shady]

My position isnt that sanctioned sports shouldnt be relatively safe, its that sanctioned MMA already is.

Exactly. And MMA is sanctioned and regulated. But that's not good enough for some people. Why? Because they just don't like the sport. And therefore, apparently nobody else should either.

Kimmy, great point about some fighters prefering to fight on their back. Those fighters who have particularly good guards, and good jujitsu love fighting from the bottom. They want fighters to throw punches, so they can catch arms in arm locks, or catch their head in a triangle or similar type sumbission. But unforunately, many people who are ignorant to the sport, continue to base their opinions on their own stereotypes and lack of knowledge.

[Jack Weber]

I've seen a few fightsin MMA/UFC where the guy gets a couple good elbow blows to the top of his head. That's gotta do more damage than a boxing glove. Sure the number of hits are less, the severity of the hits in MMA are higher. I am speculating here.

I'm no fan of MMA,but,the Marquis of Queensbury rules state that two boxers can ONLY hit their opponents with the pronated part of the fist and can only hit their opponents from the belt up.Obviously that's going to account for higher power punches to the head.I would also say that from the MMA fights that I have watched,the punching skill from many MMA fighters is not at the level of a professional boxer...In otherwords,the punches are not thrown with the proper form or proper velocity.As far as the use of elbows go,one only has to look at Muay Thai to see that an effective elbow will do far more damage than a wrapped and gloved fist.

On the boxing glove issue...Boxing gloves,and the relative merits of the padding,are not designed for the protection of any opponent.They are designed to protect the hands of the one throwing the punch.

Having said that,I don't think the two sports are really comparable.Of all the martial arts,boxing is the most restrictive,so in a mixed martial art setting it's only a portion of the package necessary to win.Having said that,an MMA fighter in a boxing match is going to be in way over his/her head because they simply are'nt skilled enough in the finer points of boxing.A prime example of this is what recently happened with James "Lights Out" Toney...He got destroyed in an MMA match because he really is'nt anything more than a boxer...But if the MMA guy who beat Toney fought James in a boxing match at Cruiserweight,I suspect he would last no more than 6 3 minute rounds because of Toney's exceptional ability at infighting.He's one of the best short range fighters of the last 4 decades and Toney would have simply beaten his opponent up with short,sharp punches to the body....

Edited by Jack Weber, 08 September 2010 - 05:51 PM.

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm no fan of MMA,but,the Marquis of Queensbury rules state that two boxers can ONLY hit their opponents with the pronated part of the fist and can only hit their opponents from the belt up.Obviously that's going to account for higher power punches to the head.I would also say that from the MMA fights that I have watched,the punching skill from many MMA fighters is not at the level of a professional boxer...In otherwords,the punches are not thrown with the proper form or proper velocity.As far as the use of elbows go,one only has to look at Muay Thai to see that an effective elbow will do far more damage than a wrapped and gloved fist.

On the boxing glove issue...Boxing gloves,and the relative merits of the padding,are not designed for the protection of any opponent.They are designed to protect the hands of the one throwing the punch.

Having said that,I don't think the two sports are really comparable.Of all the martial arts,boxing is the most restrictive,so in a mixed martial art setting it's only a portion of the package necessary to win.Having said that,an MMA fighter in a boxing match is going to be in way over his/her head because they simply are'nt skilled enough in the finer points of boxing.A prime example of this is what recently happened with James "Lights Out" Toney...He got destroyed in an MMA match because he really is'nt anything more than a boxer...But if the MMA guy who beat Toney fought James in a boxing match at Cruiserweight,I suspect he would last no more than 6 3 minute rounds because of Toney's exceptional ability at infighting.He's one of the best short range fighters of the last 4 decades and Toney would have simply beaten his opponent up with short,sharp punches to the body....

Yeah!

That's why boxing is the sweet science...

[kimmy]

I would also say that from the MMA fights that I have watched,the punching skill from many MMA fighters is not at the level of a professional boxer...In otherwords,the punches are not thrown with the proper form or proper velocity.As far as the use of elbows go,one only has to look at Muay Thai to see that an effective elbow will do far more damage than a wrapped and gloved fist.

Muay thai elbows are seldom used in MMA, even by guys with muay thai backgrounds. The vertical elbow smashes are against the rules, and the spinning elbows are too risky to throw in MMA because you risk giving up your back. People who aren't familiar with the sport assume that there's going to be crazy elbow smashes and flying kung-fu kicks and stuff like that. The truth is, the dominance of grappling in MMA makes flashy kicks and spinning elbows too risky to be of use. MMA striking tends to look a lot like boxing, with kicks to the legs added in.

As for the boxing form of MMA fighters... I think one has to realize that boxing would look a lot different if boxers had to worry about being taken down or being kicked.


What happened to James Toney was .. heh.. well, he failed to land even a single punch, got put on his back, and put in a submission hold by a guy who is 20 pounds smaller and nearly 50 years old. Boxing fans (and boxers) who ridicule the grappling aspect of MMA should take note.


-k

[bloodyminded]

That is an oversimplification of the issue. These people are professionals and their concerns are valid. MMA is a dangerous sport with the potential to kill, and it has killed.

Moving on to a more reasonable, measured view, I like this excerpt from the article-

[i]Gillespie said the BCMA takes the position that MMA fights are more dangerous than boxing because of fewer safety rules.

“MMA allows a fighter to attack an opponent while down and we believe those things increase the risk of serious injury,” said Gillespie.

Yes, and at first blush, this sounds perfectly true.

Except it appears they've jumped the gun, since actual research is at odds with what appears to be the "common sense" assessment...that turns out not to be "common sense."

[Jack Weber]

Muay thai elbows are seldom used in MMA, even by guys with muay thai backgrounds. The vertical elbow smashes are against the rules, and the spinning elbows are too risky to throw in MMA because you risk giving up your back. People who aren't familiar with the sport assume that there's going to be crazy elbow smashes and flying kung-fu kicks and stuff like that. The truth is, the dominance of grappling in MMA makes flashy kicks and spinning elbows too risky to be of use. MMA striking tends to look a lot like boxing, with kicks to the legs added in.

As for the boxing form of MMA fighters... I think one has to realize that boxing would look a lot different if boxers had to worry about being taken down or being kicked.


What happened to James Toney was .. heh.. well, he failed to land even a single punch, got put on his back, and put in a submission hold by a guy who is 20 pounds smaller and nearly 50 years old. Boxing fans (and boxers) who ridicule the grappling aspect of MMA should take note.


-k

I was specifically speaking about Muay Thai and not Muay Thai techniques in MMA...

I've already stated that I don't think either sport is comparable...Which is why I stated that Tony got slaughtered,however,I think if that MMA guy had fought a boxing match at Cruiserweight(assuming Toney coulf even make weight anymore),I highly doubt the MMA guy would last 5 or 6 rounds with Toney...Toney was/is a prodigious infighter and body puncher...