Today show NHB story..

Did Anyone catch this bit of lefty propoganda this morning?

You should have seen the pansy from the AMA watching some footage and being "shocked"... God, it was sad.

Anyway, I wrote them this.

Good Morning,

Im writing in too voice my disappointment of your story on no holds barred fighting this morning the 9th of February.

I understand its easier for journalists to sensationalise a topic to attract the attention of the public than to actually delve into the subject, but as a fan of you show for some time, I was saddened to see such a cursory look at the sport and the ACTUAL reality of what happens. You chose to name the sport you were watching No Holds Barred when the name adopted in reality is Mixed Martial Arts. Herein lies the truth to the sport you chose to shed in such a brutal light. The sport is bred from the honour and self discipline taught in the martial arts, it is a combination of the martial disciplines including modern sports that are now considered to be martial arts in their own right eg Boxing and wrestling.

It is honourable to quit (tap out) in MMA (Mixed Martial Arts), not so in boxing& What is more brutal? An MMA fighter who can take a very small number of punches before quitting, or a boxer who has gloves attached simply to extend the rounds a fighter can stand and enable him to receive MORE hits in the head.

There has been 1 recorded death in MMA in the last 10 years. An unsanctioned event in Russia some years ago. Some statistics on death from sporting accidents tell a far more horrific tale. In those 10 years, some 200+ boxers have died. In 10 years there has been less deaths in MMA/NHB then there has in one year of US cheerleading.

The comments made by the AMA were also disheartening. I imagine the gentleman has never witnessed an event, and was speculating simply by watching footage. To the untrained eye the sport can look barabaric, but to the trained competitor it is simply a venue to test his skills. Fighting will always be part of the human psyche, and to have an avenue for the release of that is much important than attempting to suppress the human spirit.

Thanks and regards,

Good stuff.

WOW, very nice pulsar.
I can't believe i missed it, did anyone tape it??

It was less than 5 minutes, but just enough time to whinge. I was trying to draw some positives, but it was generally pretty negative.

The reporter couldn't get over it 'looking' brutal, though he may have understood the reality of it, he was more than keen to emphasise the 'brutality'.

Great idea but a spell check might have made a better impression.

I'm thinking the recipient would have thought something along the lines of "Just some illiterate goon bashing some keys in the hope of making words appear..."

At least you got off your arse mate. :)

Double post


It's not a good idea to go running off sending 1000's of emails to them. The majority come off as emotional and one-sdied. 1000 such emails will mask the well thought out ones.

Pulsar's is a good email. I have also sent one, since my wife relayed the report to me this morning. If anyone wants to read it, I'll email it to them.

Please don't send thousands of one line emotional emails to these guys. If you do send an email, make it a good one. Let's use this as an avenue to "open a dialogue" with a major media outlet.

Edited to add last paragraph and to stop myself sounding like a primadonna

Bah, keep the politics out! It's only caused trubble so far...

Well, it's the tregghuggers of society that are most keen to see the sport brought down.

and thanks Timmy, yeah a spellcheck could have been good, but I was pissed, at least I didn't get too emotional.

I watched the segment and didn't think it was too bad.

Sure, MMA came off looking brutal, but who are we kidding, relative to any non-contact or even some combat sports, that's the way it will be perceived.

What did people really have a problem with?

1. That the AMA doesn't condone strikes to the head? Nothing new in that.

2. That the participants looked like thugs? I didn't think so.

3. The comparisons with Fight Club? Well haven't NHB etc events been leveraging off that movie for a while now?

4. That the rules weren't explained in detail? Not that surprising, but they did mention there were illegal moves and the event was sanctioned by a regulating authority.

Probably the hardest thing to remember is that MMA events aren't everyone's cup of tea. I for one only enjoy them for their spectacle value alone and I've been an active combat sports participant for 20 years. Think of what you're trying to achieve through exposing the sport to the mainstream, and be prepared to defend yourself appropriately when you're subjected to public debate.

The devil and media always get their pint of blood despite the outcome.

Did anyone tape the 'report'?



Don't rile up us tree-huggers.

Hey Dutch, how's it going? Which parts were positive?

It wasn't the AMA guy saying the punches to the head were bad, but it was the constant camera shots of his face going "Ahh", and "ohh, that's brutal". Of course I expected a doctor to take that stance, but compared to boxing, strikes to the head aren't as serious. Not that I expected them to take that path.

They didn't look into Chris's background, they only once mentioned he's competed in the Olympics. It just came across as "I like to fight", rather than "I like to compete". Big difference.

Fight club is everything MMA isn't. non-sanctioned, underground, no sense of pride or honour, just random violence IMO. MMA shouldn't be marketed as such, and every year moves further away from it.

"That the rules weren't explained in detail?"

At one point they said Australian events were different to American events in that they hve no eye gouges. That's not even correct.

Sure I'm taking a hard-line in what we can "give" to the detractors, but I think we should stand-up be in your face and tell them it's a sport, tell them of the safety record and tell them about how hard these guys train and how competitive it is. IMO.

Postive parts:

The Cris Brown assocation - an Olypmian adds a level of respectability.

That there was any coverage whatsoever that for once didn't focus on people getting hurt.

That the event was sanctioned: i.e., it is monitored etc and above-board.

As for what was "said", my wife (who enjoys the NHB stuff a lot more than me) made the same comment re eye gouges. I perceived the comment differently i.e., there were more rules in the Australian event than are employed in the American events, and the rule to be used will include no eye gouging etc among others. Sorry, I was a professional negotiator for a couple of years, and careful use of semantics (even if I cannot spell) to create an alternate/incorrect perception without actually "lying" is a beautiful thing to watch. You and my wife (and probably 99% of the audience) both fell for it.

If there wasn't any sensationalism behind the story, they'll manufacture some. If they can't, then there ain't no story.

I think educating the wider public is the key here, and unfortunately the avenues left open to promoters(if they are unwilling to play the media game) are few and far between.

Question: why do people care anyway? The events have been sanctioned, there isn't any evidence that participants are more at risk than boxers or cheerleaders and the shows are only getting bigger and better. Sounds to me like any 'relatively' balanced (i.e., at least it wasn't Alan Jones giving his minutes worth) media attention can only do good from now on in.

Please, can people stop trying to say how safe MMA is by bagging the sport of boxing? This argument will only serve to hurt both sports, and if actions ever do get taken to ban/limit boxing (as organisations like the AMA would love), then MMA will most certainly be tarred with the same brush and detrimentally effected as well.

Pulsar, taking a 'hard line' is surely not the way to convince detractors that a sport is NOT ruthless, violent and full of thugs, is it? Reasoned arguments refuting their allegations, and a good dose of information is by far a more professional method of 'enlightening' them.

As far as the media is concerned though, don't expect positive reports to appear with any frequency. If it's not 'sensational' or 'outrageous', do you think they would bother reporting at all? The absoulte pinnacle of mainstream acceptance that we can expect is that currently enjoyed by boxing, and unless it's a world title fight or there's a death, the media still basically ignores it. Let's not get carried away thinking MMA is going to be the next cricket...

Well said, I was halfway through writing a similar piece on using boxing's relatively unsafe practices to justify our own, but couldn't put it as well as you did.

"The absoulte pinnacle of mainstream acceptance that we can expect is that currently enjoyed by boxing"

That's a good point.

However, I don't see any benefit of marketing the sport as the sole source of release for anyone wanting a fix of brutality. I don't think it can even be attempted to be sold like that. It's been tried for years, and it's still not going anywhere.

How to market the sport is definitely a problem. I'm thinking we need something different anyway than the standard "come get your death and blood" here marketing and publicity.

Anyway, I thought it was a disappointing story. Dutch is right though, thank God Jones didn't get to throw his 2 cents in.

"taking a 'hard line' is surely not the way to convince detractors that a sport is NOT ruthless, violent and full of thugs, is it"

I don't know I feel journalists will jump on any comments we say about the violent aspect of the sport no matter how small or trivial. If we standfast to the honour and safety of the sport, I feel there's some leverage to be had.

I'm just frustrated that other people can't appreciate MMA as much as me, and the media looks like never conveying the real essence of the sport.

"keryn phelps can eat me for a change ;)"

LOL Classic!

LOL. Pay that one.

Yep, great call on the carpet muncher!

pulsar, "However, I don't see any benefit of marketing the sport as the sole source of release for anyone wanting a fix of brutality" The only thing you need to remember here is that it wasn't 'marketing' that you saw - it was 'reporting' (I use the term loosely, although these days that is the only way it can be used I think!).

The people who put together and aired the story have no interest whatsoever in MMA, they only have an insterest in getting regular people to watch their show by displaying images that jar the senses in one way or another.

We, on the other hand, love the sport and sometimes find it hard to understand why others have such a hard time appreciating it like we do.

I'm slowly ,and sadly, coming to the conclusion that maybe the best we can hope for is no coverage at all - if we educate the media as to the positive aspects, they will then understand it, appreciate it, and not find anything 'abhorrent' about it. All of which sounds good, but they would then cease to be interested in reporting it too... ;-(