Opinons on women in MMA

rovert

Roper wrote: »

I'll have to shout now because you don't seem to get it:

WHEN YOU MAKE AN ASSERTION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU TO PROVE IT, NOT ANYONE ELSE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

Like you saying that Im wrong point blank about this?

Due to the fact that women have less muscular necks and torsos therefore they can’t absorb blows to the extent men can. It is the violent snapping of the neck from blows which can cause a concussion.

I dont want this to turn into a flame war but please tell how this wrong exactly?

Sm0ke

this argument is quite fun XD

as far as the original question goes i dont think there shud be wimmins mma, unless their like in their underwear and fighting with pillows.... Also who bes cooking the dinner when u is fighting

/BS
lol sorry I had to!!!

really tough ? there is absolutly no reason women should not be able to Train and fight in MMA and its really cool to hear from female fighters or fans of the sport aswell.

get them ground moves down and with the kickboxin u can go batter Madam couture lol

Dragan

rovert wrote: »

I dont want this to turn into a flame war but please tell how this wrong exactly?

Because it is not taking into account the equative force of the delivered blow. A woman would lack the bodyweight and musculature ( at a genetic level ) to produce the same force in a blow as a man would ( taking this same generic argument that is offered in your quote....as such, the would not be receiving the same blows as men....so that does not come into it.

Any research i have read over the last couple of days tells me that concussion as an injury is relatively poorly understood, your likelihood of concussion is very much an individual thing and that the main difference between women and men is that men will get better visual markers in testing recovery whilst women will get better audio markers.

Thats about it from what i can see.

Edit : As an aside, Rovert and Roper, get a bit more polite with things please of i'll ban you both. Cheers.

Curlypinkie

Clive wrote: »

She is bad for female MMA because her status comes not from her talents as an athlete, her record or her fights, it comes simply because she's a good looking woman. It's insults all female fighters, and relegates women in MMA to "foxy boxing".

She was set up to be the media darling, "the face of women's MMA", she had a weight class created just for her, opponents hand-picked, is allowed to consistenly and flagrantly break the rules (regarding making weight). All of this simply because of her looks.

It sends the message to up and coming female fighters that to get recognition, big paydays and hype, you don't have to graft and put in the hard slog that the other female fighters have, you don't have to be the best - just be okay and get a set of implants.

What if Tom Egan didn't get a UFC shot and instead it went to some marketable bodybuilder who was okay skillwise bit would be fed easy opponents to make him a "face"? Then to have that "face" consistently not even attempt to make weight - in a category set up just for them? For shame I would say.

Well I agree that there is a risk of foxy boxing as you call it (lol) in this case but this is how it usually works in general and everywhere in sports. Female athletes get better media exposure and opportunities when beeing good looking. Just look at Kournikova. Rubbish tennis player, I don't know anything about tennis and can still name drop her.:rolleyes:

Dragan

Curlypinkie wrote: »

Well I agree that there is a risk of foxy boxing as you call it (lol) in this case but this is how it usually works in general and everywhere in sports. Female athletes get better media exposure and opportunities when beeing good looking. Just look at Kournikova. Rubbish tennis player, I don't know anything about tennis and can still name drop her.:rolleyes:

Also look at the fact that the two reason Royce was the choosen Gracie to carry the flag of BJJ into the UFC was because he was

a) not even the best BJJ player in the family
b) A good looking chap before the beatings took their toll.

I read that in an interview with Royce and Rickson, fwiw.

rovert

Dragan wrote: »

Because it is not taking into account the equative force of the delivered blow. A woman would lack the bodyweight and musculature ( at a genetic level ) to produce the same force in a blow as a man would ( taking this same generic argument that is offered in your quote....as such, the would not be receiving the same blows as men....so that does not come into it.

How proportional is the difference between female and males ability to take a blow and the force they can give one?

It does also it looks like Roper and yourself are disputing that the violent snapping of the neck from blows is what can cause a concussion. According to Roper he said this was wrong.

Dragan wrote: »

Any research i have read over the last couple of days tells me that concussion as an injury is relatively poorly understood

I said more less the same earlier in thread, underfunded too.

Dragan wrote: »

your likelihood of concussion is very much an individual thing and that the main difference between women and men is that men will get better visual markers in testing recovery whilst women will get better audio markers.

It is a complex subject absolutely in numerous ways. Going by what I’ve read the instances of concussions in sports seem to be higher and effects of which seem to be more prolonged for them. I get the impression that some others seem to think that I’m against women fighting in MMA I said nothing of the sort. I’m merely said I find myself concerned with the long term effects it may have on female fighters and resent being called ignorant for being so.

Dragan

rovert wrote: »

It does also it looks like Roper and yourself are disputing that the violent snapping of the neck from blows is what can cause a concussion. According to Roper he said this was wrong.

Well, personally i have had 3 to 4 major concussions in my life, none of them were caused by a snapping motion, rather simply by a blunt impact to my head. ( definitely know snapping motion in one as my head was on the ground at the time ).

So, anecdotal, i completely agree with Roper.

With regard to your first question....there is no answer there. Line up 100 athletes of the same sex and each and everyone one of them will have vast differential between how much force they may be able to deliver, versus receive.

rovert

Dragan wrote: »

Also look at the fact that the two reason Royce was the choosen Gracie to carry the flag of BJJ into the UFC was because he was

a) not even the best BJJ player in the family
b) A good looking chap before the beatings took their toll.

I read that in an interview with Royce and Rickson, fwiw.

Sorry can I add a c) here Dragan :

c) he was also smaller and the Gracies wanted to showcase how their brand of Jiu-Jitsu could help a relatively diminutive fighter could easily subdue a much bigger adversary. In the big picture you are right the UFC began as pretty much an infomerical for Gracies Jiu-Jitsu and they needed a poster boy.

rovert

Dragan wrote: »

Well, personally i have had 3 to 4 major concussions in my life, none of them were caused by a snapping motion, rather simply by a blunt impact to my head. ( definitely know snapping motion in one as my head was on the ground at the time ).

So, anecdotal, i completely agree with Roper.

It is anecdotal and Im not your neurologist so I cant comment on your situation. But the fact that youve said that you have had 3 to 4 major concussions is quite alarming to me. As anything above 3 "minor" concussions
is considered very serious.

Dragan wrote: »

With regard to your first question....there is no answer there. Line up 100 athletes of the same sex and each and everyone one of them will have vast differential between how much force they may be able to deliver, versus receive.

But a number of studies have taken samples from varying numbers of females and males. The results of which seem to be that concussions are more likely and dangerous for women. Again it is very complex subject and is something we know relatively little about. Hence my concern.

Dragan

rovert wrote: »

It is anecdotal and Im not your neurologist so I cant comment on your situation. But the fact that youve said that you have had 3 to 4 major concussions is quite alarming to me. As anything above 3 "minor" concussions
is considered very serious.

Oh don't worry, my neurologist has told me exactly the same thing. There is a reason why i no longer compete in the sports that i used to afterall.

Or get in fights for that matter.

Furious-Dave

rovert wrote: »

It does also it looks like Roper and yourself are disputing that the violent snapping of the neck from blows is what can cause a concussion. According to Roper he said this was wrong.

You know what? I think I'll join them in their dispute. In the 20 mins or so since I was bothered to read this thread I've already been able to find info to prove you are wrong. You are correct in saying that a snapping motion can cause a concussion, but it is the snapping of the head not the neck e.g. a powerful hook causing the head to spin. Ultimately, the cause of concussion is rapid acceleration of the head followed by a sudden stop. The brain continues to move after the skull has stopped and this is when damage is done.

For my source - http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13166

In response to comments made after this post the rate of occurrence of concussion in men is about twice that of women, despite the possibility that women may be at higher risk of suffering concussion.

Source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concussion under Epidemiology paragraph.

cowzerp

Common sense should tell you that if 2 men fighting at 70 kg and 2 women where fighting at the same weight the men would be hitting harder and therefore more likely to get concussed, its only happened to me once and it was by blunt force trauma, the head did not snap back at all!

although i do agree that the whip of the neck could cause concussion as the brain can get whipped about more, the less power delivered by women should even out the less power in there neck mucsles.

in my opinion there should not be any real difference in the rates of concussion and if there is its probably more likely that the more powerful men will get concussed, the brain is not more powerful after all and they will certainly be getting hit harder.

rovert

cowzerp wrote: »

Common sense should tell you that if 2 men fighting at 70 kg and 2 women where fighting at the same weight the men would be hitting harder and therefore more likely to get concussed, its only happened to me once and it was by blunt force trauma, the head did not snap back at all!.

Youve neglected a person/sexes ability to absorb a punch in this. Im not sure if there is a 1:1 relationship between the sexes on how they deliver and absorb blows respectfully.

cowzerp wrote: »

although i do agree that the whip of the neck could cause concussion as the brain can get whipped about more, the less power delivered by women should even out the less power in there neck mucsles.

in my opinion there should not be any real difference in the rates of concussion and if there is its probably more likely that the more powerful men will get concussed, the brain is not more powerful after all and they will certainly be getting hit harder.

Not to sound precious you cant really give an opinon or personally agree with something like this unless your qualified in the field or at least studied it. You may have but you havent made it clear. Personally Im just relaying my understanding from what Ive read in the past.

Most descriptions of a concussions are along these lines:

What is concussion?

The brain is encased in a hard structure called the skull, the function of which is to provide protection for the delicate structure of the brain underneath. If the skull is subjected to a sudden fall or blow, no apparent damage may be caused to the skull itself. However, the most worrying aspect is what happens underneath. What may have happened as a direct result of that fall or blow is that the brain may have been jolted or banged against the inside of the skull. This type of injury is what we call concussion. Headache and difficulty with concentration are the commonest symptoms of the condition.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?con=458

Furious-Dave

Just a comment on the original topic of the thread. I am all for women in MMA and all combat sports. I think if women want to do it then no one should discourage them.

rovert

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Just a comment on the original topic of the thread. I am all for women in MMA and all combat sports. I think if women want to do it then no one should discourage them.

The original topic is MMA suitable for women/Opinions on women in MMA isnt it?

ginoginelli

Clive wrote: »

She is bad for female MMA because her status comes not from her talents as an athlete, her record or her fights, it comes simply because she's a good looking woman. It's insults all female fighters, and relegates women in MMA to "foxy boxing".

She was set up to be the media darling, "the face of women's MMA", she had a weight class created just for her, opponents hand-picked, is allowed to consistenly and flagrantly break the rules (regarding making weight). All of this simply because of her looks.

It sends the message to up and coming female fighters that to get recognition, big paydays and hype, you don't have to graft and put in the hard slog that the other female fighters have, you don't have to be the best - just be okay and get a set of implants.

What if Tom Egan didn't get a UFC shot and instead it went to some marketable bodybuilder who was okay skillwise bit would be fed easy opponents to make him a "face"? Then to have that "face" consistently not even attempt to make weight - in a category set up just for them? For shame I would say.

I think your being a bit unfair on gina. Its not her fault she a good looking chick who can fight..and yes she can fight..

Shes got legit striking skills and an exciting style. In any interviews ive seen of her, she comes across as quite humble and really wants to be taken seriously as a fighter.
She had a few problems making weight in a few fights, but so do loads of fighter. Shes young a fighter dealing with other commitments - lets hope it doesnt happen again, but give her a break.

Photogenic athletes are always cast as the poster boys or girls for any sport. This is just the way of the world. I actually think she can be good for mma and helps dispell the myth among girls,that female mma is inhabited by bodybuilding tomboy types. Gina shows women can keep their feminity and still kick some ass. She makes female mma look cool among the females masses, and this will hopefully encourage more of them to particpate..

Myself and most hardocre fans like watching her fight because she exciting, she brings it..more than alot of male mma fighter do. Lookin forward to her and cyborg, if they ever make this happen, then Ais the bash to fight the winner!

Furious-Dave

rovert wrote: »

The original topic is MMA suitable for women/Opinions on women in MMA isnt it?

If women do Boxing, Kickboxing, Kyokushin, Muay Thai, in which they will take a lot more impact than in MMA, then MMA is in fact more suitable for them. But for a more direct answer, No, I don't think MMA or any striking combat sport is suitable for women. I also don't think it's suitable for a lot of guys either but I'm not going to discourage anyone from doing something they really want to do. If they then decide that it's not suitable for them then they will stop.

cowzerp

rovert wrote: »

Youve neglected a person/sexes ability to absorb a punch in this. Im not sure if there is a 1:1 relationship between the sexes on how they deliver and absorb blows respectfully.

There certainly is a difference in how males and females ability to punch is if there the same weight! males are stronger so in most cases will punch harder assuming the technique is correct. as taking blows, the actual skulls are the same, the impact is less, the only 1 difference is the neck muscles.

rovert wrote: »

Not to sound precious you cant really give an opinon or personally agree with something like this unless your qualified in the field or at least studied it. You may have but you havent made it clear. Personally Im just relaying my understanding from what Ive read in the past.

Im a qualified personal trainer and have obviously studied anatomy, physiology and myology. not that that makes a big difference as common sense is easily applied in this debate, i actually gave supporting views for you aswell but feel you just want to argue even though you dont have a clue and have no evidence to support your claims.

rovert

cowzerp wrote: »

There certainly is a difference in how males and females ability to punch is if there the same weight! males are stronger so in most cases will punch harder assuming the technique is correct..

Where did I say that wasnt the case?

cowzerp wrote: »

as taking blows, the actual skulls are the same, the impact is less, the only 1 difference is the neck muscles.

I posted this earlier in the thread.

cowzerp wrote: »

Im a qualified personal trainer and have obviously studied anatomy, physiology and myology. not that that makes a big difference as common sense is easily applied in this debate, i actually gave supporting views for you aswell but feel you just want to argue even though you dont have a clue and have no evidence to support your claims.

Hold on didnt I say:

Not to sound precious you cant really give an opinon or personally agree with something like this unless your qualified in the field or at least studied it. You may have but you havent made it clear. Personally Im just relaying my understanding from what Ive read in the past.

Did you state that you were a personal trainer before this? no

Im not looking for an arguement here but you seem to be claiming Ive given no evidence to support my claims when that isnt true. So far I dont think you've displayed enough of a level of insight to say I dont have a clue either. Especially when it seems you havent read some my posts properly or at all it seems.

angeldance

Dear god I leave you's alone for a day and yous are arguing

As for women being the weaker sex, I'm insulted come into a ring with me and we'll see who's weaker haha

As for the topic of concussion's I've only ever recieved one, and it was my own stupidity I took too many fights within a short space of time and received too many knocks to the head. :rolleyes:

Nothingcompares

I think a lot of guys here have said they wouldn't be comfortable/enjoy seeing two evenly matched girls beat the crap out of each other but I said the same thing about male mma a few years ago. I think once the technical level is there in enough numbers we'll see more female MMA. Just the fact there is so few good female fighters at the same weight class it's hard to run a divison etc.

Clive

ginoginelli wrote: »

I think your being a bit unfair on gina. Its not her fault she a good looking chick who can fight..and yes she can fight..

Shes got legit striking skills and an exciting style. In any interviews ive seen of her, she comes across as quite humble and really wants to be taken seriously as a fighter.

I say fair play to her for taking advantage of the opportunity she was given. She can certainly fight and has come along quite a lot recently. However, don't be fooled by by media savvy. People who are actually humble and want to be taken seriously act professionally.

ginoginelli wrote: »

She had a few problems making weight in a few fights, but so do loads of fighter. Shes young a fighter dealing with other commitments - lets hope it doesnt happen again, but give her a break.

LOL - I think you should try to find out a few of the stories about her weigh in "attempts". Disgraceful unprofessionalism.

ginoginelli wrote: »

Myself and most hardocre fans like watching her fight because she exciting, she brings it..more than alot of male mma fighter do.

That's your prerogative and would never suggest that people shouldn't enjoy her fights. I like watching freakshow matches, but both are bad for the sport, IMO (as a non-hardcore fan).

Curlypinkie

Clive wrote: »

That's your prerogative and would never suggest that people shouldn't enjoy her fights. I like watching freakshow matches, but both are bad for the sport, IMO (as a non-hardcore fan).

That's a bit harsh?
I think that from the perspective of a woman who likes her MMA, Octagon girls would be considered bad for the sport.
But I don't get too upset over it when I know that there actually are female contenders as well. Sort of evens it out.

cagefan

hey, suppose I have mixed feeling about women in mma...I dont particulary like seeing women getting punched but sure I suppose there are lots of other things you could do which are worse..so if you enjoy if..go for it

Wexler12

Mike Bisping didnt think much of it at the Q+A

trojan Fury

angeldance wrote: »

Hi all,

Just thought I'd get your opinons on wether you think MMA is suitable for women. What's making me ask that I've been doing kickboxing for years now and fight competively, but I started MMA last week and I loved it. Theres lots to learn and takes alot of skill, however at the weekend I was amazed at the amount of people saying 'you can't do mma your a girl what about your face' haha. Now I fight light and full contact so I'm wondering why so many people are shocked that a girl would want to do mma. Just wondering have any of you come across this?

Nothing wrong with women fighters in MMA, i used to train in kickboxing & the trainer was a women and she was a savage fighter.
so go for it and who cares what people say.
Dana White has recently said his reconsidering his ''ban'' on women fighters in UFC,

rovert

This may be of interest:
http://www.dailymotion.com/MMAFeminino/video/x803oh_womens-mma-on-fox-news-round-1_shortfilms

http://www.dailymotion.com/MMAFeminino/video/x8053c_womens-mma-on-fox-news-round-2_sport

lynnemc

i'd like to say that this is one of the most sexist posts ever. What right have any of ye to say weather women should do mma, boxing or any striking sport ! suppose women shouldn't play football either !
If a women wants to participate in any sport so be it. its their right to do so and nobody or on person should stand in their way ! who are we to judge on another persons decision. We are not asking to be compared to men. We just want to do it !
What are we still living back in the 1800 ?

rovert

lynnemc wrote: »

i'd like to say that this is one of the most sexist posts ever. What right have any of ye to say weather women should do mma, boxing or any striking sport ! suppose women shouldn't play football either !
If a women wants to participate in any sport so be it. its their right to do so and nobody or on person should stand in their way ! who are we to judge on another persons decision. We are not asking to be compared to men. We just want to do it !
What are we still living back in the 1800 ?

I best of luck with this speech in front of an American Athletic Commission. :pac:

ginoginelli

lynnemc wrote: »

i'd like to say that this is one of the most sexist posts ever. What right have any of ye to say weather women should do mma, boxing or any striking sport ! suppose women shouldn't play football either !
If a women wants to participate in any sport so be it. its their right to do so and nobody or on person should stand in their way ! who are we to judge on another persons decision. We are not asking to be compared to men. We just want to do it !
What are we still living back in the 1800 ?

Thats all well n good but, whos gonna be making their husbands tea while there out training?