I don't like it simply because of all the douches i know IRL who like it.

But, you guys seem like a cool bunch, so maybe i'll give it a chance.

I don't think I've ever sat down and actually watched a full fight, but, like I said, I have trouble respecting it because of the d-bags that show up @ B-Dub's every Saturday night the fights are on looking like, well, the guys in the pic

The difference between MMA and other sports is this. In racing, it's possible to run an entire race without a single wreck. In football, it's possible to have a defensive struggle that isn't terribly physical. In hockey, it's possible to play entire games without any being hit, and there are plenty of games that have no fights.

If there is a wreck, a huge hit, or a fight, that's a side effect of the sport. They don't exist for the purpose of wrecking, spearing, and fighting. If it happens, so be it, and if not, the game will still go on.

cbus4life wrote: I don't like it simply because of all the douches i know IRL who like it.

But, you guys seem like a cool bunch, so maybe i'll give it a chance.

darbypitcher22 wrote: I don't think I've ever sat down and actually watched a full fight, but, like I said, I have trouble respecting it because of the d-bags that show up @ B-Dub's every Saturday night the fights are on looking like, well, the guys in the pic

Same.

If street fighting is going to be popular and entertaining, they can at least have someone launching ha-do-ken or sonic booms.

2kool4skool wrote: If MMA is barbaric, then boxing and football are too. Both sports are more likely to result in serious injuries/death than MMA.

Fab1b wrote: People that think so don't understand the sport at all. Was it barbaric in the beginning, yes but the rules and regulations have made it a legit major sport. Football and boxing produce more serious injuries!

Also people that wear those shirts aren't all douches and guidos. Some of us are big fans, so no different than wearing your favorite team shirts.

Agreed with these. Football and boxing is just as barbaric, if not more.

NNN wrote:If street fighting is going to be popular and entertaining, they can at least have someone launching ha-do-ken or sonic booms.

I can agree with that. And, while it's a different series, to get rid of the "barbaric" image, the MMA guys need to implement this into their arsenal...

Zoltan wrote:
Last point on this.

1.) I never said anything about cheering the knockout, I said they cheered the cheap shot and cheered again when he admitted it was a cheap shot.

2.) The fact they showed it over and over again is pretty irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that a large % of MMA fans thrive on the most violent part of it, and not the technique. Hence the large amounts booing when fights stay on the ground too long.

3.) I like MMA but it has a long way to go to become mainstream. An example is that when ESPN showed the highlights of UFC 100 they could not even show the Henderson knockout because it was too violent. They showed some exchanges and then all of the sudden they show Bisbing on the ground and Henderson celebrating. To use others football example this would be like not being able to show the game winning TD.

4.) This topic is about whether MMA is barbaric and it is without a doubt. Guess what, I still watch occasionally. Others want to bring up football and it might be as well, but that is a topic for another day.

1. For the last time, you should learn the definition of "cheap shot." Something cannot be a cheap shot if it is within the rules and completely legal.

2. People love violence. They have throughout history. Do you think you are revealing something everyone doesn't already know?

3. You are wrong about this. They don't show highlights because the UFC doesn't allow them to. That is why they only provide photos of the vent. The same reason they don't provide highlights of pay per view boxing matches.

eersandbeers wrote:
1. For the last time, you should learn the definition of "cheap shot." Something cannot be a cheap shot if it is within the rules and completely legal.

i disagree with this, their are numerous cheap shots in football that are legal but are just completely unncessary

i.e.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

NNN wrote: The difference between MMA and other sports is this. In racing, it's possible to run an entire race without a single wreck. In football, it's possible to have a defensive struggle that isn't terribly physical. In hockey, it's possible to play entire games without any being hit, and there are plenty of games that have no fights.

If there is a wreck, a huge hit, or a fight, that's a side effect of the sport. They don't exist for the purpose of wrecking, spearing, and fighting. If it happens, so be it, and if not, the game will still go on.





Same.

If street fighting is going to be popular and entertaining, they can at least have someone launching ha-do-ken or sonic booms.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Football on Defense. It is the objective to hit(tackle) the person who has the ball. The amount of abuse these players go through is unbelievable. Not too mention the massive amount of head injuries that not only end careers but ruin peoples lives.

Your last comment shows me you really have no clue what you are talking about in regards to MMA. In no way does it resemble a street fight. There are tons of rules and regulations that all fighters have to follow.

Granted MMA is a newer sport and not a lot of history to go through but the amount of serious injuries/deaths/paralysis is a lot lower than Boxing or the NFL.

Not surprising as you are probably old and follow boxing. Unfortunately for you MMA is the sport of the future.

And like I said earlier, there are Dbags that watch any sport. Go to an OSU football game and you are bound to see thousands.

pmoney25 wrote: Well I guess to avoid liking things that are barbaric, you must stick with watching Baseball, Golf or Tennis because apparently any sport with contact in it is barbaric.

Wait, so you're saying that you honestly don't see any difference in barbarism between MMA and other sports? I can't tell if you're being serious.

Definition of 'barbaric':

1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians b : possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization
2 a : marked by a lack of restraint : wild b : having a bizarre, primitive, or unsophisticated quality
3 : barbarous

It seems to me that there's a real, marked difference between a sport where you stick two guys in a cage and have them beat the hell out of each other versus complex, organized team sports with significant amounts of strategy. Not that I'm downplaying the technique/strategy involved in MMA--by all accounts, it takes quite a bit--but I don't think the primary draw to MMA (or even a significant draw) is the level of strategy that goes into it.

Dog gets injured running races and have to be put down. Dogs also get injured in dogfighting. That doesn't mean both are equally barbaric, as any reasonable person can tell you.

fan_from_texas wrote:but I don't think the primary draw to MMA (or even a significant draw) is the level of strategy that goes into it.

I really doubt that the majority of boxing or football fans watch those sports for the strategy either.

I think everyone acknowledges that most of the casual MMA fans watch the sport for barbaric reasons. But what we're saying, or at least I am, is that it's that way in many sports, and that these fans are tainting the image of a sport that is actually safer than football, a sport we encourage 10 year olds to play.

It's not a coincidence that people who actually train MMA get more enjoyment out of a slick submission than some sloppy KO. Just like it's not a coincidence that people who more closely follow football would get more enjoyment out of the details of the game than a casual fan. MMA just seems to be judged off it's lowest common denominator more than other sports. Probably because very few people grew up practicing ju-jitsu or muay thai, where as most people grew up playing football.

I think those are generally good points. For me, what it comes down to is that in football, the violence is incidental to the game--it can advance your interests, but you're not directly awarded for it. But in MMA, its the main goal--kphysically forcing the other guy into submission. In my mind, that's a relevant distinvtion.

ewww, the wrestling is so yucky.....those guys are all sweaty and stuff. Gross. Need more blood, compound fractures, and brain trauma.


Discuss.

People see the blood and therefore assume it is just human cockfighting essentially. Which is ignorant.

MMA is safer than the NFL for its athletes.

And my last point on this, the fighters themselves go through just as much if not more game planning/training for a fight(The Top Fighters) as Top athletes do in other sports.

It is not 1993 anymore, the sport is not No holds Barred street fighting.

pmoney25 wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but in Football on Defense. It is the objective to hit(tackle) the person who has the ball. The amount of abuse these players go through is unbelievable. Not too mention the massive amount of head injuries that not only end careers but ruin peoples lives.

Your last comment shows me you really have no clue what you are talking about in regards to MMA. In no way does it resemble a street fight. There are tons of rules and regulations that all fighters have to follow.

Granted MMA is a newer sport and not a lot of history to go through but the amount of serious injuries/deaths/paralysis is a lot lower than Boxing or the NFL.

Not surprising as you are probably old and follow boxing. Unfortunately for you MMA is the sport of the future.

And like I said earlier, there are Dbags that watch any sport. Go to an OSU football game and you are bound to see thousands.

If you want to know how old I am, just know this. Three of the last four Super Bowls have had at least one player who I went up against in high school.

To your last point, I know. The difference between them and the human swine that are the loudest and most obnoxious is the ability of one group to actually be able to pay for a ticket instead of sacrificing government cheese and a weekly shower to go see WWE.

fan_from_texas wrote: I think those are generally good points. For me, what it comes down to is that in football, the violence is incidental to the game--it can advance your interests, but you're not directly awarded for it. But in MMA, its the main goal--kphysically forcing the other guy into submission. In my mind, that's a relevant distinvtion.

The best football teams will physically force the other guy into submission. It's not incidental it's directly related, if Team A beats the shit out of Team B (within the rules obviously) then most of the time Team A will win.

Just like most of the time in MMA Fighter 1 will win if he, within the rules, beats the shit out of Fighter 2. Where's the big difference here?

I don't mind the kill shots on kickers. They always break your heart anyways. That's the world's way at getting back at them.

fan_from_texas wrote:

It seems to me that there's a real, marked difference between a sport where you stick two guys in a cage and have them beat the hell out of each other versus complex, organized team sports with significant amounts of strategy. Not that I'm downplaying the technique/strategy involved in MMA--by all accounts, it takes quite a bit--but I don't think the primary draw to MMA (or even a significant draw) is the level of strategy that goes into it.

Dog gets injured running races and have to be put down. Dogs also get injured in dogfighting. That doesn't mean both are equally barbaric, as any reasonable person can tell you.

If All levels of Football(HS,College, and NFL) all of the sudden went to two hand touch or flag football, would it still be as popular? The complex schemes and athletes should still be able to keep it interesting, Correct?

I have seen a few people mention that MMA is safer than football on this thread and I would love to see a real study that shows this. Football produces more injuries for sure, but is this adjusted for participation rates?

It seems to me an average MMA card with 5 fights produces at least one person being knocked out cold, which by definition is a high level concussion. Also, broken orbitals, hands, etc seem fairly prevalent in the sport to go along with standard knee injuries that almost all sports have. I would think an NFL football game compares pretty well to a MMA card when final injuries are totaled, but the NFL game has 5x as many people participating. I could be totally wrong, but saying MMA is safer than football for it athletes does not seem right.

i think a study showed there are more injuries in soccer than football. does that mean its more barbaric?

Glory Days wrote: i think a study showed there are more injuries in soccer than football. does that mean its more barbaric?

No. I don't that safety and barbarity are perfectly 1:1 inversely correlated. I'm positive that more people die swimming each year than raping children, but that doesn't mean that since swimming is more dangerous it's more barbaric. Safety is a component of barbarity, but it isn't the only (or primary?) component.

As long as we can't agree on a definition of barbarity, we're going to have a hard time figuring out whether a sport is more barbaric than another sport. Until we can agree on the definition, we're just going to argue in circles ("It's safe . . . No, it's barbaric . . . No, it's technical . . . No, it's barbaric . . . No, it's safe . . .").

In general, I think the closer an activity is to simply feeding the primal urges, the more barbaric it is. When the entire point of an activity is to cause harm, that activity seems more barbarian than an activity where harm is incidental, even if that harm occurs more often.

In my mind, sports that thrive on that lowest common denominator of human experience are more barbaric than those that don't. It's tough to argue that throwing two guys in a cage and having them fight until one gives up is anything less than barbaric. But like I've said above, pointing out that something is barbaric doesn't mean that it isn't entertaining, or that it shouldn't be allowed, or whatever else.

fan_from_texas wrote:

Glory Days wrote: i think a study showed there are more injuries in soccer than football. does that mean its more barbaric?

No. I don't that safety and barbarity are perfectly 1:1 inversely correlated. I'm positive that more people die swimming each year than raping children, but that doesn't mean that since swimming is more dangerous it's more barbaric. Safety is a component of barbarity, but it isn't the only (or primary?) component.

As long as we can't agree on a definition of barbarity, we're going to have a hard time figuring out whether a sport is more barbaric than another sport. Until we can agree on the definition, we're just going to argue in circles ("It's safe . . . No, it's barbaric . . . No, it's technical . . . No, it's barbaric . . . No, it's safe . . .").

In general, I think the closer an activity is to simply feeding the primal urges, the more barbaric it is. When the entire point of an activity is to cause harm, that activity seems more barbarian than an activity where harm is incidental, even if that harm occurs more often.

In my mind, sports that thrive on that lowest common denominator of human experience are more barbaric than those that don't. It's tough to argue that throwing two guys in a cage and having them fight until one gives up is anything less than barbaric. But like I've said above, pointing out that something is barbaric doesn't mean that it isn't entertaining, or that it shouldn't be allowed, or whatever else.

i completely agree.

Glory Days wrote:

fan_from_texas wrote:

Glory Days wrote: i think a study showed there are more injuries in soccer than football. does that mean its more barbaric?

No. I don't that safety and barbarity are perfectly 1:1 inversely correlated. I'm positive that more people die swimming each year than raping children, but that doesn't mean that since swimming is more dangerous it's more barbaric. Safety is a component of barbarity, but it isn't the only (or primary?) component.

As long as we can't agree on a definition of barbarity, we're going to have a hard time figuring out whether a sport is more barbaric than another sport. Until we can agree on the definition, we're just going to argue in circles ("It's safe . . . No, it's barbaric . . . No, it's technical . . . No, it's barbaric . . . No, it's safe . . .").

In general, I think the closer an activity is to simply feeding the primal urges, the more barbaric it is. When the entire point of an activity is to cause harm, that activity seems more barbarian than an activity where harm is incidental, even if that harm occurs more often.

In my mind, sports that thrive on that lowest common denominator of human experience are more barbaric than those that don't. It's tough to argue that throwing two guys in a cage and having them fight until one gives up is anything less than barbaric. But like I've said above, pointing out that something is barbaric doesn't mean that it isn't entertaining, or that it shouldn't be allowed, or whatever else.

i completely agree.

+1

as a Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do and a person who takes Gracie Jiu-jitsu at the Relson Gracie academy. I can tell you it's not barbaric. It is VERY Technical. They are very talented athletes who want to compete.

Just because is technical doesn't mean its not barbaric.

I'm still wondering why people are so worried if something is barbaric. It isn't a negative word, and people love barbaric sports.

I think a sticking point in my mind here is how I define barbaric. If I were to look at from a definition of brutal violence, then of course, MMA is barbaric. But if I look at it from a standpoint of lawlessness, no rules, anything goes combat, then it is not by a long stretch.

I'm a HUGE MMA fan. I watch just about every card I can, and feel I can speak rather intelligently about the sport. I'm not so sure about MMA producing fewer injuries than football either. The day after a fight most of the fighters on a card get "suspended" due to injuries sustained in their fight. Most of the time its a 2 week to a month suspension from training to let minor injuries like broken fingers or sever contusions heal, but occasionally there are lengthier suspensions for broken bones or more serious injuries. I would wager (having absolutely no facts/studies to back this up just my guess) that there are fewer head/brain injuries in the UFC. The sheer difference in the momentum of a human fist to the cranium compared to the momentum/impact in a violent NFL hit is why I would guess this.

And to the poster who said that the loudest cheer you've ever seen was for Hendo taking the second shot on Bisping, go back and watch some old UFC fights and you'll see MUCH bigger crowd reactions. Watch Georges St. Pierre walk out to fight Matt Serra and then destroy him in St. Pierre's hometown of Montreal, watch Chuck Liddell knock out Tito Otriz after months of trash talking and years of fight ducking, or even watch Matt Hamil walk to the Octagon wearing Scarlet and Grey trunks with Hang On Sloopy as his walk out music in Columbus. Those are probably the three biggest crowd explosions I can remember. All 3 much bigger than the cheer Hendo got for what he did to Bisping.