Trying to defend MMA to people who casually dismiss it as "wrong"?

DrPhilG

flahavaj wrote: »

Why is it so hard to understand that some people are gonna be turnd off by the violence inherently involved in a sport where the whol point is to hurt your opponent and beat them until they can't efend themselves?

I have no problem with that, as I said in my first post in this thread, (post 3 or 4 I think), if someone disagrees with combat sports full stop, as my wife does, then fair enough I respect that. But when someone thinks boxing is fine but condemns MMA based on their own lack of understanding of what they've seen, it irritates me due to the lack of logic.

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Grand, I'll retract the word stupid. You brought up people deserving a slap with that weird analogy of someone slagging your ma?

Indeed I did. I said that people slagging your mother would deserve a slap. People slagging MMA may well deserve to be dealt with by intelligent discussion and the might of logic, but I never suggested slapping them!

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

My god. Can you really not see the difference between boxing and MMA?

My God yes I can! Can you really not see the point I've made? Boxing and MMA are different sports but both are violent and involve inflicting pain/damage on another person. Therefore if you abhor MMA due to it being violent, then how can you accept boxing which is different but also violent?


PS, it wasn't weird, I quite like that analogy.

seadnamac

I agree with those who have an issue with people who are against MMA when those same people see nothing wrong with boxing. They are both violent, combat sports, where the aim is to inflict physical damage on your opponents. You can't be for one and against the other, it's just not reasonable.

The difference is that boxing has been accepted more into society as it's been around for longer as a high profile sport, and people are conditioned to accept it from an early age.

MrStuffins

seadnamac wrote: »

I agree with those who have an issue with people who are against MMA when those same people see nothing wrong with boxing. They are both violent, combat sports, where the aim is to inflict physical damage on your opponents. You can't be for one and against the other, it's just not reasonable.

The difference is that boxing has been accepted more into society as it's been around for longer as a high profile sport, and people are conditioned to accept it from an early age.

You might say that Boxing is MORE violent than MMA.

If you disregard decisions, there is only one other way to win a Boxing match, by rendering your opponent unable to continue.

In MMA, you can win a fight by not doing any damage to your opponent at all.

DeVore

Plus the fights are a LOT longer. People have been champions of MMA and not ended up punch-drunk idiots, incapable of speech.

If people wanted to get into a cage and cut each other up with swords to the death I wouldnt have a problem with it so long as they werent coerced. I wouldnt WATCH it or pay for it or associate myself with it, but if they want to. Go nuts.

DeV.

BobbyOLeary

DrPhilG wrote: »

I have no problem with that, as I said in my first post in this thread, (post 3 or 4 I think), if someone disagrees with combat sports full stop, as my wife does, then fair enough I respect that. But when someone thinks boxing is fine but condemns MMA based on their own lack of understanding of what they've seen, it irritates me due to the lack of logic.

There's perfect logic in condemning MMA but not Boxing. As Bob Reilly pointed out, he's not happy supporting an activity in which people are allowed knee each other in the head. He draws the line at that. The logic is sound, even if you don't agree with his conclusion.

My God yes I can! Can you really not see the point I've made? Boxing and MMA are different sports but both are violent and involve inflicting pain/damage on another person. Therefore if you abhor MMA due to it being violent, then how can you accept boxing which is different but also violent?

It's the type of violence. No matter how you look at Boxing people don't get punched in the head on the ground. Nor do they take knees or elbows to the face (well, they're not supposed to take elbows :pac:). MMA has a lot more of an animalistic feel to it than Boxing. I'm perfectly aware of how safe it is and how much of a job the referees do. I personally like MMA and have no problem with knees and elbows.

If you can see that a difference exists between the two then surely you can see how some people may have two distinct opinions based directly on this difference?

Indeed I did. I said that people slagging your mother would deserve a slap. People slagging MMA may well deserve to be dealt with by intelligent discussion and the might of logic, but I never suggested slapping them!

Right. So you just wanted to inform us that slagging your ma was a slappable offence? Point noted.

In a similar vein, I quite like oranges in the morning with my breakfast.

BobbyOLeary

DeVore wrote: »

People have been champions of MMA and not ended up punch-drunk idiots, incapable of speech.

People have been champions of Boxing and not ended up punch-drunk idiots, incapable of speech.

MrStuffins

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

There's perfect logic in condemning MMA but not Boxing. As Bob Reilly pointed out, he's not happy supporting an activity in which people are allowed knee each other in the head. He draws the line at that. The logic is sound, even if you don't agree with his conclusion.

In general? Or does he in fact mean knee each other in the head on the ground?

Because then he wouldn't really have much of a problem!

BobbyOLeary

MrStuffins wrote: »

In general? Or does he in fact mean knee each other in the head on the ground?

Because then he wouldn't really have much of a problem!

It was from a program on MMA that the BBC or Channel 4 ran a while back. At the end of the day he doesn't like the Unified Rules put out by the New Jersey State Athletic Commission. He finds them too violent. Simple as.

MrStuffins

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

It was from a program on MMA that the BBC or Channel 4 ran a while back. At the end of the day he doesn't like the Unified Rules put out by the New Jersey State Athletic Commission. He finds them too violent. Simple as.

Ah well, tough nuts for him!

I don't like pizza, but i have it on good authority from friends that it's quite awesome!

BobbyOLeary

MrStuffins wrote: »

Ah well, tough nuts for him!

I don't like pizza, but i have it on good authority from friends that it's quite awesome!

Pizza is awesome. Don't let Bob Reilly tell you otherwise.

DrPhilG

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

There's perfect logic in condemning MMA but not Boxing. As Bob Reilly pointed out, he's not happy supporting an activity in which people are allowed knee each other in the head. He draws the line at that. The logic is sound, even if you don't agree with his conclusion.

So his logic is that he likes a little bit of violence, but not too much? Sounds daft to me.

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

It's the type of violence. No matter how you look at Boxing people don't get punched in the head on the ground. Nor do they take knees or elbows to the face (well, they're not supposed to take elbows :pac:). MMA has a lot more of an animalistic feel to it than Boxing. I'm perfectly aware of how safe it is and how much of a job the referees do. I personally like MMA and have no problem with knees and elbows.

Again back to my initial point that it is all about perception. Reilly perceives elbows and knees as "more violent" than standing strikes in a boxing match. What defines a violent sport? Whether it looks more dangerous/violent than boxing or whether there is clear evidence that it is more dangerous/violent? By evidence I mean safety records and serious injuries.

Pro Wrestling looks more dangerous and violent than boxing or MMA because they're hitting each other with sledge hammers etc but he's not rushing to ban that because the evidence shows that because of the scripted nature of the shows, most the damage is only perceived. Why doesn't he take the evidence regarding MMA into account too?

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

If you can see that a difference exists between the two then surely you can see how some people may have two distinct opinions based directly on this difference?

Precisely. But if they were different opinions based on fact and logic I'd have no problem. But when the difference is that they preceive one form of violence differently than another and therefore want one banned, I think they need to be educated properly.

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

In a similar vein, I quite like oranges in the morning with my breakfast.

Oranges or orange juice? I wouldn't honestly find the time to have oranges. Although I do have an apple and a banana at my 10am tea break in work. 5 a day and all that y'know?

BobbyOLeary

DrPhilG wrote: »

So his logic is that he likes a little bit of violence, but not too much? Sounds daft to me.

How is that daft? By your logic if we like any sort of violent activity (start at taekwondo tournaments) we would be daft not to like snuff films because they're both violent.

Pro Wrestling looks more dangerous and violent than boxing or MMA because they're hitting each other with sledge hammers etc but he's not rushing to ban that because the evidence shows that because of the scripted nature of the shows, most the damage is only perceived. Why doesn't he take the evidence regarding MMA into account too?

It's not a safety issue. It's the glorification of violence and the use of a ruleset he doesn't agree with.

Precisely. But if they were different opinions based on fact and logic I'd have no problem. But when the difference is that they preceive one form of violence differently than another and therefore want one banned, I think they need to be educated properly.

Educated to your way of perceiving things?

Oranges or orange juice? I wouldn't honestly find the time to have oranges. Although I do have an apple and a banana at my 10am tea break in work. 5 a day and all that y'know?

Buy the easy-peelers in Tesco, saves so much time.

DrPhilG

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

How is that daft? By your logic if we like any sort of violent activity (start at taekwondo tournaments) we would be daft not to like snuff films because they're both violent.

That's not my logic at all. Reilly's view is that there is an acceptable level of violence. The difference between Taekwondo tournaments and murder is quite clear and needs no clarification. What Reilly doesn't realise (or does but refuses to acknowledge) is that in terms of damage done, injuries sustained etc, MMA is not more violent than boxing. In fact as DeVore and McStuffins have pointed out, boxing is more dangerous because the fights are longer and there is more concentration on head trauma while MMA can end in seconds via submission, as in the recent fight on TUF, (17 second guillotine).

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

It's not a safety issue. It's the glorification of violence and the use of a ruleset he doesn't agree with.

If he is more concerned about the glorification of violence, why isn't he on Vince McMahon's case and looking to ban the WWE? If we're ignoring the facts of actual injuries and just going on what is presented as violent glorified entertainment then how can PW be acceptable? (this is not an anti-PW rant by the way, just making a point). It is a hugely popular form of entertainment with kids and yet it glorifies men beating each other up, not only with fists, elbows, knees etc but also headbutts, sledge hammers, barbed wire, steel chairs etc etc. The kids watching don't know it's scripted?

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Educated to your way of perceiving things?

No, educated to the unbiased facts rather than knee-jerk reactions like "if they allow punches on the ground it must be savage". The educated fact is that allowing punches on the ground is no worse than allowing them standing and if they are not defended (ground or standing) then the fight will end, saving the fighter from the further punishment they would get in a boxing match.

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Buy the easy-peelers in Tesco, saves so much time.

I'm a Sainsburys man myself.

Tones69

Its about evolving I suppose,some people want to some people dont, boxing is a very old sport that everyone from one side of the globe to the other knows about. Some people dont want to accept that its becoming a massive sport and theyl fight it to the death that its "too violent". Its the whole old school way of thinking of "hitting someone on the ground is cowardly" etc etc.

Whether its right or wrong or violent or not people love it and pay money to watch it time and time again.

Butch Cassidy

DrPhilG wrote: »

First question is, does the other person have an issue with boxing too. If they do, then there's no point arguing because they just don't agree with combat sports in general. My wife is in that boat, doesn't agree with "violence as a sport". She accepts that I like it though so no problem.

With those who dislike MMA but have no issue with boxing are a different breed though. For them it's the apparent brutality of MMA compared to boxing. I tend to argue that it's all about perception.

MMA is savage because they let someone get hit again after being knocked down.

3 misconceptions there.

First, tell that to Royce Gracie or Thales Leites. Leites spent his entire fight against Anderson Silva trying to get Anderson to try and come to the ground to hit him. He preferred to be on his back taking shots because that was his best chance of being dangerous. Same with Gracie back in the day. Happy to pull guard because he knew he had more chance of submitting them before they landed any significant punches.

Secondly, who is to say that being punched while standing up is more savage than being punched while lying down? Why is a standing strike fair and noble but one on the ground isn't? It relates in the same way to the first point. People assume that someone on the ground is defenceless and therefore strikes on the ground are unfair. We know that the person on the ground is not necessarily defenceless so why is it more unfair to hit them while downed?

Good points there.

It must be a perception issue because you can't just accept as truth that boxing is ok and MMA is a gross perversion because of a few elements of the sport.

I do think there's an ignorance in someone saying "oh punching to the head on the ground, that's wrong" because they're not aware of the BJJ elements and of how guys fight off their back with ease in some cases. But I can't get through to some people because they won't listen to reason.
"Here, watch this I'll show you a fight and explain the punching on the ground thing..."

"No that's wrong, I'd be sent to jail for that I'm not watching it even if you're trying to explain something".

cowzerp wrote: »

Well said Theprodigy, It's getting silly at this stage people arguing about Pro wrestling and MMA, like all walks of life some people like some things and others like other things, There is 2 separate boards for both and people who want to talk about PW have there right to over there, Its not my cup of tea and the same could be said of many others on here but there is no need to get so defensive because people don't love your entertainment-That does not mean they hate it-it's simply not my thing.

I don't really understand what's going on here or if this even relates to my post but a few years ago here (here as in Ireland not this website) there was some ignorance towards MMA still as some people mistook if for a "fake" predetermined sport.

flahavaj wrote: »

Pingi, Hall and Nash = OUTSIDERZ bai.

Seems to me MMA fans are ovr sensitive whn it comes to criticism of the sport. Why is it so hard to understand that some people are gonna be turnd off by the violence inherently involved in a sport where the whol point is to hurt your opponent and beat them until they can't efend themselves? You don't need to know your arm bars from your Mars Bars to come to such an opinion surely?

I don't think I'm oversensative but there are constant little digs and jabs there and any attempt to even bring a passing mention of it in to general conversation is scoffed at. I don't particularly like Cricket but I wouldn't make fun of you liking it if you told me a small piece of info or news or made an analogy or something.

seadnamac wrote: »

I agree with those who have an issue with people who are against MMA when those same people see nothing wrong with boxing. They are both violent, combat sports, where the aim is to inflict physical damage on your opponents. You can't be for one and against the other, it's just not reasonable.

The difference is that boxing has been accepted more into society as it's been around for longer as a high profile sport, and people are conditioned to accept it from an early age.

Well rugby also, that's a violent combat sport and it's from those who see nothing wrong with either that or boxing but are somehow appalled at the ground game. It'd be nice to have at least something to say to them for up until now I've drawn a blank.