I find that some people object to the violence in MMA without being knowledgeable of what they are objecting to.
One argument that I pose is one that sort of detracts from the image of MMA as a fight and can present it more as a sport on par with any other sport.
We know that in a street fight, anything goes. In an MMA fight, anything goes in 5 minutes within the rules until the 1 minute break for the next round, and then until the fight is up.
You can't attack someones' eyes, fishhook orifices, attack the back or spine, the neck, the throat, the groin, the small joins, etc.
Some argue that while taking those away, that you are left with a hybrid that can be called not a real fight. By the same measure, many people will never call boxing not a fight, even though every technique within boxing is also allowed in MMA.
So, I say, if you take those many parts of the fight out of the fight, you are left with a sport or contest that is a hybrid sort of fighting and not fully fighting. This shouldn't be a bad thing, but a landmark on how far fighting has came and how much more safe and civilized it is and the type of talent it will now attract will be phenomenal.
On the other hand, if someone tells you that hockey or football is somehow morally more justifiable, you can tell them that by the same measure, so is a MMA fight. Then ask them, if you put on pads and a helmet, and charge each other at speeds that replicate car crash scenarios and beat yourself and others up constantly by charging and tackling, then how is that more civilized than a BJJ guy who just takes a guy to the ground and submits him or a wrestler that takes someone down and holds him for 3 rounds without a bruise or scrape.
Also, how is getting punched in the face with a glove worse than a flying 280 lb. behemoth in a helmet driving into your sternum or your back and front torso being tackled by 2 opposing forces that equate to over a thousand pounds of pressure from both 2 opposing points of your body that drive the same amount of force to one area. This seems like a hardly justifiable practice.
I'm not against any sport and I love fighting, but when you look at something that MMA fans might not want to concede, which is that taking away the anything goes part of fighting and implementing a dozen specific rules....well, that might just make MMA as much of a fight as a football game or a hockey game (which allows fighting). Honestly, these are serious talking points that could win the hearts or humble those of non-MMA fans.
Emphasize
THIS is truth.
Good job Poopyface.
You have done it again.
It's always going to be considered fighting when the leading MMA promotion is the ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP.
But I think what you said is truth as well. Nicely put.
Anyone who tries to claim MMA is non-violent is a fool.
Of course it is violent.
It might not be MORE violent than other contact sports, but it is still pretty damn violent.
I'm not sure how you can defend someone sitting on the other persons chest and punching them in the face until they go unconscious as 'non-violent'. Of course it is violent. But nature is just that way and I like it. I'm not going to try and bullshit and pretend it's anything else.
Poopyface TomatoNose - I find that some people object to the violence in MMA without being knowledgeable of what they are objecting to.
One argument that I pose is one that sort of detracts from the image of MMA as a fight and can present it more as a sport on par with any other sport.
We know that in a street fight, anything goes. In an MMA fight, anything goes in 5 minutes within the rules until the 1 minute break for the next round, and then until the fight is up.
You can't attack someones' eyes, fishhook orifices, attack the back or spine, the neck, the throat, the groin, the small joins, etc.
Some argue that while taking those away, that you are left with a hybrid that can be called not a real fight. By the same measure, many people will never call boxing not a fight, even though every technique within boxing is also allowed in MMA.
So, I say, if you take those many parts of the fight out of the fight, you are left with a sport or contest that is a hybrid sort of fighting and not fully fighting. This shouldn't be a bad thing, but a landmark on how far fighting has came and how much more safe and civilized it is and the type of talent it will now attract will be phenomenal.
On the other hand, if someone tells you that hockey or football is somehow morally more justifiable, you can tell them that by the same measure, so is a MMA fight. Then ask them, if you put on pads and a helmet, and charge each other at speeds that replicate car crash scenarios and beat yourself and others up constantly by charging and tackling, then how is that more civilized than a BJJ guy who just takes a guy to the ground and submits him or a wrestler that takes someone down and holds him for 3 rounds without a bruise or scrape.
Also, how is getting punched in the face with a glove worse than a flying 280 lb. behemoth in a helmet driving into your sternum or your back and front torso being tackled by 2 opposing forces that equate to over a thousand pounds of pressure from both 2 opposing points of your body that drive the same amount of force to one area. This seems like a hardly justifiable practice.
I'm not against any sport and I love fighting, but when you look at something that MMA fans might not want to concede, which is that taking away the anything goes part of fighting and implementing a dozen specific rules....well, that might just make MMA as much of a fight as a football game or a hockey game (which allows fighting). Honestly, these are serious talking points that could win the hearts or humble those of non-MMA fans.
Emphasize
You can save alot of space by saying, High school football, where future NFL greats are often on the field with guys who are barely able to play the game. No weight classes there either, and several times a year, at the HS level, folks die.
Neph - <p>I'm not sure how you can defend someone sitting on the other persons chest and punching them in the face until they go unconscious as 'non-violent'. Of course it is violent. But nature is just that way and I like it. I'm not going to try and bullshit and pretend it's anything else.</p>
Exactly.
Anyone who tries to make the argument that MMA is non-violent will wind up being ignored because they sound like a drooling imbecile. Of course it is violent. It's not as violent as some of the detractors like to make it out to be, particularly when compared with other contact sports, but that doesn't mean it is NON-violent.
Neph -I'm not sure how you can defend someone sitting on the other persons chest and punching them in the face until they go unconscious as 'non-violent'. Of course it is violent. But nature is just that way and I like it. I'm not going to try and bullshit and pretend it's anything else.
Honestly though, it is violence. But the feeling for the educated fans is that of a totally different perception.
I love watching my favorite fighter knock someone out, submit them, win a decision, or even full mount and pound them to a TKO. I don't feel any of that stirring that tells me it is violence because both are willing participants and enthused so and it is highly regulated.
Conversely, I actually feel a feeling of disgust when I see an disorganized street fight or brawl. The atmosphere and general feeling is 100% different. Even in the older days of the UFC before rules, it had a campy Martial Arts competition vibe. Loved it. I just think a street fight is often with more hostility, there is often the one guy who is a real brute or fighter who dominates and the guy who seems to be almost an unwilling participant and somewhat more vitctimized and you can feel that feeling in your gut that just isn't there when you're watching MMA, unless you're really sensitive or not used to it.
Still, there's a huge disparity between an MMA fight and a street fight that's night and day different.
MMA is violent at times, but sometimes it is not violent.
1. marked or caused by great physical force or violence: a violent stab
^^^This definition could apply.
2. (of a person) tending to the use of violence, esp in order to injure or intimidate others
^^^Often not applicable because the majority of MMA fighters aren't looking at it as a means to injure or necessarily imitate. Even the ones who are, typically aren't viewed as the highest or most elite competitors in the sport.
3. marked by intensity of any kind: a violent clash of colours
^^^This could apply, but in the event of a dull lay and pray fight with an unskilled, one dimensional wrestler, it seems like a hug fest. Quite anti-violent.
4. characterized by an undue use of force; severe; harsh
^^^Undue would mean that it would be outside of the rules or not a part of the game. Fortunately, MMA has no undue use of force and any that is undue is often called out as so such as a violation of the rules or poor sportsmanship.
5. caused by or displaying strong or undue mental or emotional force: a violent tongue
^^^Again, the majority of MMA fighters don't have any undue mental or emotional force. Strong force, but even then, it's often more of a chess game than a strength game. TUF fighters are often exploited and project an atypical and bizarre quality onto MMA fighters that isn't necessarily there always.
6. tending to distort the meaning or intent: a violent interpretation of the text
^^^This doesn't really apply.
So, in conclusion, I would classify MMA as a "sometimes violent" sport on par with Football and sometimes crosses into "violent" with the more obviously violent sports such as Hockey or Boxing.
BlahBreh - Mma isn't violent? Your a fuckin retard. Lots of sports are violent, Mma is one of em, and it's what we pay for.
According to many of the definitions of violent, it's often not. A street fight is violent, but an MMA is at the highest levels (sport level) is quite the chess match.
You all should realize that I don't mean that it's not violent whatsoever, but I am making an argument that if you are considering Football as non-violent, then by taking the "real fight, no rules" part out of fighting, you can make MMA to be nearly as non-violent.
Of course it's violent at some level, but if you refuse to acknowledge the violence in football, then you ought to apply the same distorted reality to MMA and deem it non-violent.
Poopyface TomatoNose -
You all should realize that I don't mean that it's not violent whatsoever, but I am making an argument that if you are considering Football as non-violent, then by taking the "real fight, no rules" part out of fighting, you can make MMA to be nearly as non-violent.
Of course it's violent at some level, but if you refuse to acknowledge the violence in football, then you ought to apply the same distorted reality to MMA and deem it non-violent.
Football is incredibly violent. I don't know a single person who would dispute that. I think you are operating from a false premise that there are people out there who don't consider football a violent sport. If there are, I have never met any of them.
Its violent. Less violent than hockey or football, but still violent.
The point about MMA and other violent sports is, they're voluntary. If a guy goes on the street and starts fighting folks who don't want to fight, then its bad violence and rightfully illegal. If two guys agree to compete under a set of rules, and can quit at any time (refuse to get back on the field or ice, or tap), then its acceptable violence.
The problem isn't violence, its unwanted violence.
The biggest problem here is defining "violence". I'm being serious.
MMA,Boxing, Wrestling, Etc, are not violent in the sense that there is NO victim. A boxing match between two willing opponents bears no moral relation to the mugging on the street (commonly called "street violence").
Mechanicaly, it is a violent sport, just as hockey, football, or even auto racing is.
MORALLY, it's not even in the same league. The people that thing Jesus would condem MMA are idiots. There is not a shred of evidence in the bible that Jesus would oppose any type of rough sport/play.
Now, if you keep hitting your opponents or cranking his arm after he taps, that is violence. A victim exists, you are breaking the agreed rules and should be punished.
This whole silly debate is non debate, just a failure to define TERMS.
Football is more violent, for sure (for many of the points described above). And it results in many more injuries and many more serious injuries.
MMA's violence is just more sensational, and that is what gets a lot of people.
The other thing is the goal of each sport. Football's violence is masked behind the fact that their goal is to move a pigskin ball across a field. While in MMA, our violence is put on front-street because the goal is to win a fight.
ITS ONLY VIOLENCE IF THERES AN UNWILLING PARTICIPANT...
/thread