General MMA Chat/News mk3 - **No Spoilers Use Event Threads**

Whelo79

MrStuffins wrote: »

People acting like Dana White or something, like they have a vested interest in the general public taking MMA seriously.

As a fan of the sport, I don't benefit from Jon Jones being banned. I lose out. Because I don't get to see the best of all time in massive fights v DC or whoever he's matched up against.

If people want to cheer on administrators and corrupt officials, the same officials who effectively banned Nick Diaz for life for smoking weed, and rejoice when guys have their livelihoods taken away that's up to them.

Let the man fight!

It's a short sighted view in my opinion. The sport (IMMAA) wants to push for Olympic recognition and in order to achieve that goal it needs to be seen to be taking legitimate action regards fighters overall welfare, doping etc. That's why we have seen stuff like bloods and brain scans being mandatory.

Olympic recognition brings funding for young amateur fighters which in turn aids the development and improvement of the pro side.

MrStuffins

All well and good....... if I have a vested interest in the sport. But I don't. I'm a fan.

Olympics, amateur funding etc. They are not my concern. I care as much about that than I do about grassroots soccer, grassroots boxing etc. It would be nice for these things to happen, but it doesn't effect me enough for me to care.

By all means, punish Jon Jones if he's done something wrong. But for people to be reveling in it and calling for him to be banned for 4 years for "The good of the sport" is pretty sad in my opinion

DrPhilG

I don't ever want to see MMA at the Olympics.

cletus

Surely just being a fan gives you a vested interest, insofar as you want to be able to watch the sport on BT, or whatever. I dont know about you, but I saw my first event on an old copy of a vhs in ‘96. I like the fact that it has become mainstream because its more accessable to me now. That only came about by having rules and regulations put in place similar to other organised sports.

If the UFC were to eschew the casual fan base it has built up from the process of developing as a sport, and rely on the ‘hardcore’ fans, we’d all still be catching up on the results of fights from bulletin boards

Whelo79

MrStuffins wrote: »

All well and good....... if I have a vested interest in the sport. But I don't. I'm a fan.

Olympics, amateur funding etc. They are not my concern. I care as much about that than I do about grassroots soccer, grassroots boxing etc. It would be nice for these things to happen, but it doesn't effect me enough for me to care.

By all means, punish Jon Jones if he's done something wrong. But for people to be reveling in it and calling for him to be banned for 4 years for "The good of the sport" is pretty sad in my opinion

But it is for the good of the sport.

If Ben Johnson had not been banned in '88 the 100m sprint would have lost a lot of respect as the most prestigious athletics event.

Look at cycling now. It's almost a laughing stock, that has been tarnished very close to a point of no return.

While it might hurt the average UFC fan now (which is what I guess your are?) it benefits the sport in the long run which is where I see it from. I follow the amateur level here in Ireland, attend a lot of national events and I can see first hand the improvements over the last few years and the huge benefits legitimacy of the sport can have.

Whelo79

DrPhilG wrote: »

I don't ever want to see MMA at the Olympics.

Why not?

MrStuffins

By all means have rules. By all means punish those who break them.

But should i be calling for Jon Jones to get a disproportionately long ban on the internet just because it'll give MMA a better chance to be in the Olympics or because it might benefit the grassroots sport?

No.

Let. The. Man. Fight.

MrStuffins

Whelo79 wrote: »

If Ben Johnson had not been banned in '88 the 100m sprint would have lost a lot of respect as the most prestigious athletics event.

DrPhilG

Sorry, double post

Whelo79

cletus wrote: »

Surely just being a fan gives you a vested interest, insofar as you want to be able to watch the sport on BT, or whatever. I dont know about you, but I saw my first event on an old copy of a vhs in ‘96. I like the fact that it has become mainstream because its more accessable to me now. That only came about by having rules and regulations put in place similar to other organised sports.

If the UFC were to eschew the casual fan base it has built up from the process of developing as a sport, and rely on the ‘hardcore’ fans, we’d all still be catching up on the results of fights from bulletin boards

Excellent points. If the UFC under Rorion Gracie and Co. had never refined the rules to gain acceptance by the NJSAC the sport as we know it would no longer exist. They were close to gone as it was before the Fertitta's came in and bought the UFC and fought really hard to get other State Athletic commissions to approve the sport.

DrPhilG

Whelo79 wrote: »

Why not?

Because it would be watered down beyond recognition. Head guards, shin pads, bigger gloves, probably ban elbows etc.

It would be a turd of a spectacle.

BJJ on the other hand, go for it.

MrStuffins

Whelo79 wrote: »

While it might hurt the average UFC fan now (which is what I guess your are?) it benefits the sport in the long run which is where I see it from. I follow the amateur level here in Ireland, attend a lot of national events and I can see first hand the improvements over the last few years and the huge benefits legitimacy of the sport can have.

Good for you. And congrats on pulling the "I'm a bigger fan than you" card. I see your first post on the forum was in the Aldo v McGregor thread.

I've been attending local and international MMA events for over a decade. I know what the "long run" is because i've been watching from almost the beginning.

It doesn't diminish my point.

Whelo79

DrPhilG wrote: »

Because it would be watered down beyond recognition. Head guards, shin pads, bigger gloves, probably ban elbows etc.

It would be a turd of a spectacle.

That's basically amatuer MMA, it goes on around the country every month. The World MMA championships take place in Bahrain next month and those fighters (from 30+ countries) will wear slightly bigger gloves and shin pads, certain submissions and elbow/forearm strikes are banned.

The Olympics are (in theory) for amateur athletes. Up until very recently amatuer boxers wore head gear and bigger gloves. They didn't bother Muhammed Ali, Roy Jones Jr. and all our Irish boxers who went to the Olympics and then turned pro. It's a fantastic way to learn and gain experience before going professional. And importantly I want brings government funding for clubs and fighters.

Whelo79

MrStuffins wrote: »

Good for you. And congrats on pulling the "I'm a bigger fan than you" card. I see your first post on the forum was in the Aldo v McGregor thread.

I've been attending local and international MMA events for over a decade. I know what the "long run" is because i've been watching from almost the beginning.

It doesn't diminish my point.

I didn't pull any 'card'. I was mearly stating that I have seen progress from the grass roots up and appreciate the positive impact Olympic recognition would have on the sport as a whole. Banning drugs cheats is part and parcel of that. What Jones ban should be I don't know but as a second offense it should be longer than his first ban.

We all know there are MMA fans and UFC fans.

Whelo79

MrStuffins wrote: »

And they have all received lengthy bans? Therefore so should Jon Jones yeah?

MrStuffins

Whelo79 wrote: »

We all know there are MMA fans and UFC fans.

On this forum there tends to be those who have been posting and discussing for a long time (many have gone, understandably) and those who have blown in on the McGregor Express. Let's not pretend you didn't just yet to play the "You're a casual and I'm not as I attend amateur events" card

Whelo79 wrote: »

And they have all received lengthy bans? Therefore so should Jon Jones yeah?

As I said, by all means have rules! Issue bans. But appropriate one s

Unless I'm mistaken, none of those guys have been banned for 4 years, which is what some were calling for here.

Let the man fight!

Tazzimus

If it was a first offence, maybe 4 years is a bit harsh.
This is not, however, his first.

Whelo79

MrStuffins wrote: »

On this forum there tends to be those who have been posting and discussing for a long time (many have gone, understandably) and those who have blown in on the McGregor Express. Let's not pretend you didn't just yet to play the "You're a casual and I'm not as I attend amateur events" card



As I said, by all means have rules! Issue bans. But appropriate one s

Unless I'm mistaken, none of those guys have been banned for 4 years, which is what some were calling for here.

Let the man fight!

Yeah, absolutely McGregor piqued my interest in the sport. Prior to that I wouldn't even have classed myself a casual fan. I was very aware of the sport and had watched the original Ultimate Fighter series, seen the odd main event here or there and played the old game on the Dreamcast

It's the same way my interest in boxing rose significantly in the era of Collins, McCullough and Carruth, although I had been brought up on boxing as a kid watching Duran, Hearns, Hagler, etc. Is there supposed to be shame in that?

What I questioned was if you were a UFC fan or an MMA fan. I believe an MMA fan should want what's best for the sport in the long run, not just wants best for their tv viewing right now. I would consider myself far more than a casual MMA fan now, which is what your are trying to paint with the McGregor express comment. And as a fan of the sport I want to see it grow exponentially. So much so that my whole degree was based around MMA and as part of that degree I carried out a 6 month study involving some of the countries top professional and amatuer MMA fighters to examine their training and injury patterns in a hope of reducing injury occurrence and improving performances. I am moving on now to do my Msc and MMA will be the main focus of that too.

I don't want young lads to be looked down upon by friends, parents or strangers because they are taking part in MMA. Olympic recognition brings that legitimacy and respect, and if Jon Jones getting a 4 year ban (if that's what USADA rules state) helps even minutely in that, then so be it. He is the one who was stupid enough to get caught dopng (inadvertently or not) twice.

dulux99

I really think this thing of “there are MMA fans and there are UFC fans” is nonsense. It becomes a pissing contest between who’s been to more obscure events and who has more street cred. It’s horsesh*t. If you’re into the sport you’re into the sport, it’s as simple as that. It’s natural for people to be more interested in the elite league in the sport. Just because you watched the World Cup and you don’t watch the league of Ireland doesn’t make you any less of a fan of the sport.

MrStuffins

Whelo79 wrote: »

What I questioned was if you were a UFC fan or an MMA fan. I believe an MMA fan should ........

Luckily for me, and others, you don't get to decide what an MMA fan is.

Do I believe Jones should be punished? Yes. Do I want to see him fight again? Yes.

Calling for a 4 year ban, when he's already 31, is a bit much for me.

ASOT

I don't want a 4 year ban either, part of me wants him back part of me wants some sort of ban. I'd love to see TRT Belfort back aslo. Belfot v Jones all out roids match.

Whelo79

MrStuffins wrote: »

Luckily for me, and others, you don't get to decide what an MMA fan is.

Do I believe Jones should be punished? Yes. Do I want to see him fight again? Yes.

Calling for a 4 year ban, when he's already 31, is a bit much for me.

So leniency should be given, determined by your age, when it comes to being punished for cheating? I can't agree.

And of course I would like to see Jones fight again, as long as he is clean and not doping. He was a pleasure to watch in action. If his two violations are just for stupidity and taking contaminated supplements I feel bad for him. If he knowingly took them he is an idiot because I can't imagine he needed them. He could have went down as one of the greatest ever without doping.

Whelo79

ASOT wrote: »

I don't want a 4 year ban either, part of me wants him back part of me wants some sort of ban. I'd love to see TRT Belfort back aslo. Belfot v Jones all out roids match.

I've no problem with that either. If someone creates an MMA promotion that allows steroid use, for whatever reason, so be it. Let them at it.

Tazzimus

Whelo79 wrote: »

I've no problem with that either. If someone creates an MMA promotion that allows steroid use, for whatever reason, so be it. Let them at it.

So Pride then

Reinstate Pride, put all the roiders in there and let them at it. Job done.

MrStuffins

Whelo79 wrote: »

So leniency should be given, determined by your age, when it comes to being punished for cheating? I can't agree.

No. That's not what i'm saying. I mentioned his age from a fan's point of view.

Some people want to revel in the fact that he's going to get banned and want him banned for a long time. An inappropriately long time.

How many MMA fighters have ever been banned for 4 years? Or more? Diaz is the only one I can think of and that was pure megalomania on the part of the commission.

Whelo79

MrStuffins wrote: »

How many MMA fighters have ever been banned for 4 years? Or more?

How many fights have second offenses? The length of ban has to increase with each offense in my opinion. The length of ban needs to be long enough to act as a deterrent.

Like I said, I'd love to see him fight again but not to the detriment of the sports legitimacy. That's my humble opinion.

EagererBeaver

MrStuffins wrote: »

Whelo79 wrote: »

We all know there are MMA fans and UFC fans.

On this forum there tends to be those who have been posting and discussing for a long time (many have gone, understandably) and those who have blown in on the McGregor Express. Let's not pretend you didn't just yet to play the "You're a casual and I'm not as I attend amateur events" card

Whelo79 wrote: »

And they have all received lengthy bans? Therefore so should Jon Jones yeah?

As I said, by all means have rules! Issue bans. But appropriate one s

Unless I'm mistaken, none of those guys have been banned for 4 years, which is what some were calling for here.

Let the man fight!

You are mistaken. Gatlin was banned for four years for his second violation. He only got four years after arbitration resulted in an eight year ban being cut due to cooperation.

MrStuffins

Whelo79 wrote: »

How many fights have second offenses? The length of ban has to increase with each offense in my opinion. The length of ban needs to be long enough to act as a deterrent.

Like I said, I'd love to see him fight again but not to the detriment of the sports legitimacy. That's my humble opinion.

The ban should increase.......... do you think it should increase four-fold? What's wrong with an 18 month ban? Or a 2 year ban?

Subcomandante Marcos

Whelo79 wrote: »

And they have all received lengthy bans? Therefore so should Jon Jones yeah?

In fairness there should be red lines through Bolt's records too.

When you use a former BALCO chemist as one of your main trainers for years you automatically fair the sniff test.

Whelo79

MrStuffins wrote: »

The ban should increase.......... do you think it should increase four-fold? What's wrong with an 18 month ban? Or a 2 year ban?

Absolutely. Like I said, it needs to be a deterrent. You need to know your career is basically over if you get caught.

18-24 months is nothing in the grand scheme of things. 2-4 fights maximum for some fighters.