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

Subcomandante Marcos

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not really arguing for (or against) IMMAA or SafeMMA's approach. I'm just pointing out that we can't really criticise them for not having any real power.
There needs to be a official body imo. Not a collect of coaches trying to do the right thing.

But they clearly do have power. They released a statement with no intention other than to apply pressure on the promoters.
As a result of the statement the village idiot from Enniskerry starts talking out of his arse the venue cancels the booking.

An official body with an evidence based safety standards and a democratic process would be great, instead we have a unilaterally established body with self appointed leaders pushing their own agenda.

Whelo79

Mmatruth wrote: »

You saw what happened yesterday Whelo. Setting up an adjacent body would do nothing to stop such intrusive and destructive interference

Why wouldn't it? At very least it may result in opening up dialogue, which in turn may force/persuade the IMMAA into relaxing the MRI requirement (which only costs €150 by the way). As I said, if you can highlight current best practice from within the UK, Sweden etc and the IMMAF's current requirements as your evidence that the IMMAA are being too stringent with their requirements you are in a better position than we are currently.

It's nearly 2 years since this article was published and little seems to have changed.

http://www.offtheball.com/Irelands-MMA-community-demands-more-transparency-from-IMMAA

Mmatruth

If they were so concerned with doing the right thing they wouldn't be sending fighters abroad against opponents without mri scans. They wouldn't send boxers and Thai fighters into events without having them complete a mri scan. They wouldn't allow a fighter complete an arduous fight camp and only scan him the week prior to the fight. It's a sham...

quote="Mellor;108222659"]I'm not really arguing for (or against) IMMAA or SafeMMA's approach. I'm just pointing out that we can't really criticise them for not having any real power.
There needs to be a official body imo. Not a collect of coaches trying to do the right thing.[/quote]

Mmatruth

Don't be so naive. The immaa would in no way recognise another board, and certainly would not engage in any dialogue.
Any event run by a competing board would be shut down by whatever minister is in office at that time. Ffs man yesterday showed the stark reality of the situation


quote="Whelo79;108222736"]Why wouldn't it? At very least it may result in opening up dialogue, which in turn may force/persuade the IMMAA into relaxing the MRI requirement (which only costs €150 by the way). As I said, if you can highlight current best practice from within the UK, Sweden etc and the IMMAF's current requirements as your evidence that the IMMAA are being too stringent with their requirements you are in a better position than we are currently.

It's nearly 2 years since this article was published and little seems to have changed.

Whelo79

Mmatruth wrote: »

If they were so concerned with doing the right thing they wouldn't be sending fighters abroad against opponents without mri scans. They wouldn't send boxers and Thai fighters into events without having them complete a mri scan. They wouldn't allow a fighter complete an arduous fight camp and only scan him the week prior to the fight. It's a sham...

I agree the hypocracy of sending fighters abroad to compete in a different rule set and safety procedures is pathetic, however you cant compare to boxing and muay thai as they have their own governing bodies set up.

The MRI scan costs €150 to get done, financially it shouldn't be the make or break factor determining if a young lad can afford to compete or give up the sport. The MRI is for the health and safety of all fighters and personally I can't see the issue with taking extra precautions. If 1000 people have to have an MRI scan to potentially save the life of 2 people, so be it.

Is it currently just a one off brain scan and you never get done again in your lifetime?? That in itself would be ridiculous. There should be multiple scans over a career to monitor any physical changes to the brain.

Mmatruth

Governing body or not. If you run a mma gym that is promoting mri scans for mma and you send one of your guys into a Thai fight without a scan you're a hypocrite.
Yes it's a one off scan, it's nuts.

Whelo79 wrote: »

I agree the hypocracy of sending fighters abroad to compete in a different rule set and safety procedures is pathetic, however you cant compare to boxing and muay thai as they have their own governing bodies set up.

The MRI scan costs €150 to get done, financially it shouldn't be the make or break factor determining if a young lad can afford to compete or give up the sport. The MRI is for the health and safety of all fighters and personally I can't see the issue with taking extra precautions. If 1000 people have to have an MRI scan to potentially save the life of 2 people, so be it.

Is it currently just a one off brain scan and you never get done again in your lifetime?? That in itself would be ridiculous. There should be multiple scans over a career to monitor any physical changes to the brain.

Subcomandante Marcos

Whelo79 wrote: »

I agree the hypocracy of sending fighters abroad to compete in a different rule set and safety procedures is pathetic, however you cant compare to boxing and muay thai as they have their own governing bodies set up.

Well, you can, because the self appointed gods of IMMAA run clubs that include K1/Muay Thai fighters and lads who trian MMA and compete in those other diciplines who fight under the banner of these gyms, coached by the very people who insist on IMMAA rules being used to MMA promotions but are happy to let lads fight in Muay Thai or K1 competitions that aren't under that standard.

Again, they either care about fighter safety or they don't. If they did they wouldn't have lads from their clubs fighting in Muay Thai/K1 events without IMMAA standards in place, wouldn't corner the fighters in the events, wouldn't send their fighters to events in the UK without the standards in place.

SBG fighters all around the country are fighting in K1 fights every few weeks without anything close to IMMAA standards being applied.


It's just a big bucket of self important hypocrisy.

Speaking of hypocrisy, did the president of the IMMAA ever get around to releasing an official statement on that Irish fighter who hopped the cage at Bellator, interefered with the event and assaulted an official?

That incident was surely a threat to fighter safety and also jeopardized the legitimacy of MMA in this country.

Mellor

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

But they clearly do have power. They released a statement with no intention other than to apply pressure on the promoters.

I meant actual power. Not media pressure.
A body that actually sanctions fights. Not. Fake rubber stamp.

Mmatruth wrote: »

If they were so concerned with doing the right thing they wouldn't be sending fighters abroad against opponents without mri scans. They wouldn't send boxers and Thai fighters into events without having them complete a mri scan. They wouldn't allow a fighter complete an arduous fight camp and only scan him the week prior to the fight. It's a sham...

Are you saying that it's dangerous to allow fighters to fight without a scan? That arguement is kinda contradictory.

Im bit out of the loop in regards the local scene in Ireland. But IMMAA don't send fighters anywhere. That's another issue with having a board made up of active coaches. People can't separate the two.

Whelo79

Mmatruth wrote: »

Don't be so naive. The immaa would in no way recognise another board, and certainly would not engage in any dialogue.
Any event run by a competing board would be shut down by whatever minister is in office at that time. Ffs man yesterday showed the stark reality of the situation

The don't have to recognise you, but currently to the lay person, it just comes across as some English promotion tried to come over here and run an event against our safety guidelines and got shut down, 'good enough for them'.

With an opposing governing body set up you add more legitimacy to your claims that the IMMAA are acting above their remit and are restricting the growth of the sport. Highlight current safety protocols in amateur boxing, rugby, soccer etc which have high incidences of concussion and injury and ask why is MMA being held to stricter unrealistic standards if that' what you believe! Currently it just looks like a couple of random mma gym owners are upset, and nobody really cares about that. However The 'Mixed Martial Arts Association of Ireland' coming out and making a statement has a much bigger impact.

Subcomandante Marcos

Mellor wrote: »

Are you saying that it's dangerous to allow fighters to fight without a scan? That arguement is kinda contradictory.

No, he's pointing out that the people at the helm of immaa talk out of both sides of their faces and are willing to look past their own rules when it suits them.

Paully D

https://twitter.com/bloodyelbow/status/1045644429967708160?s=21

What a ****ing clown that man is.

ricero

Paully D wrote: »

https://twitter.com/bloodyelbow/status/1045644429967708160?s=21

What a ****ing clown that man is.

A horrible human

xtal191

Paully D wrote: »

https://twitter.com/bloodyelbow/status/1045644429967708160?s=21

What a ****ing clown that man is.

https://twitter.com/ColbyCovMMA/status/1045835067111743489

darced

Why are safemma fighters crossing the border to fight in Derry etc? These events use the same safety guidlines as Battlearena not safemma. Why is this allowed to happen? Its a power grab, simple.

Whelo79

darced wrote: »

Why are safemma fighters crossing the border to fight in Derry etc? These events use the same safety guidlines as Battlearena not safemma. Why is this allowed to happen? Its a power grab, simple.

Safe MMA operate in Ireland and the UK. The UK operation does not require MRI as far as I am aware.

Paully D

The UFC won’t be announcing potential doping violations any more.

They’ll be waiting until the final decision is made but the fighter will still be suspending and withdrawn from the card, it just won’t be announced publically.

Fair enough IMO as long as they don’t start making up fake injuries or bull**** excuses for fighters being pulled off cards, but what else will they do in that case to explain withdrawals? Good thing the General MMA media are afraid to ask Dana any tough questions I suppose!

In other, completely unrelated news, someone from the Mexican media is reporting that Sean O’Malley is out of his upcoming fight at 229 this weekend.

ricero

The goat Chael Sonnen is hearing rumours of Colby Covington vs Nick Diaz for the interim title.

dulux99

ricero wrote: »

The goat Chael Sonnen is hearing rumours of Colby Covington vs Nick Diaz for the interim title.

Matching Nick Diaz up with a wrestler again is just a waste of time. Colby would be a bigger eejit to fight for another pointless interim.

Zero-Cool

Sean got USADA'd and is off 229. He says prohibited substance in a supplement. I just hope the injury bug accepts this as sacrifice enough and leaves the card alone.

https://twitter.com/MMAFighting/status/1046552917417885696?s=19

Paully D

Paully D wrote: »

In other, completely unrelated news, someone from the Mexican media is reporting that Sean O’Malley is out of his upcoming fight at 229 this weekend.

As I said, completely unrelated

ASOT

Paully D wrote: »

The UFC won’t be announcing potential doping violations any more.

They’ll be waiting until the final decision is made but the fighter will still be suspending and withdrawn from the card, it just won’t be announced publically.

Fair enough IMO as long as they don’t start making up fake injuries or bull**** excuses for fighters being pulled off cards, but what else will they do in that case to explain withdrawals? Good thing the General MMA media are afraid to ask Dana any tough questions I suppose!

In other, completely unrelated news, someone from the Mexican media is reporting that Sean O’Malley is out of his upcoming fight at 229 this weekend.

This has the potential to be to be ridiculously dodgey, at the end of the day what's stopping them not pulling fighters? Their not exactly known for their integrity.

Mellor

ASOT wrote: »

This has the potential to be to be ridiculously dodgey, at the end of the day what's stopping them not pulling fighters? Their not exactly known for their integrity.

If it turns out to be a legitimate violation. USADA publish the details and sanction. If the UFC were ignoring USADA suspensions, they be found out quickly.

ASOT

Mellor wrote: »

If it turns out to be a legitimate violation. USADA publish the details and sanction. If the UFC were ignoring USADA suspensions, they be found out quickly.

Fair enough but I'd like everything to be as transparent as possible but this seems counterproductive imo.

Frank O. Pinion

dulux99 wrote: »

I said the UFC mate. UFC isn't a sport. Mixed martial arts is the sport. The UFC is the organisation.

That's the incorrect definition. UFC can't "jump the shark", only scripted TV series can "jump the shark". Movies can "nuke the fridge".

Mellor

ASOT wrote: »

Fair enough but I'd like everything to be as transparent as possible but this seems counterproductive imo.

Tbh I'm not a fan of the current system. Violations are announced vaguely. A fighter pops for weed, but because they release no details rumours run amok and people assume it's steroids.

All details fully transparent would be better than no details though.

Subcomandante Marcos

Mellor wrote: »

Tbh I'm not a fan of the current system. Violations are announced vaguely. A fighter pops for weed, but because they release no details rumours run amok and people assume it's steroids.

All details fully transparent would be better than no details though.

The current system is also annoying because the USADA claims to be open and transparent but goes out of it's way to limit the exposure of it's releases by doing late friday evening news dumps so that it's released so late in the news cycle for that day and business week it gets buried or missed. Especially when they are finding fighters innocent.

dulux99

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

That's the incorrect definition. UFC can't "jump the shark", only scripted TV series can "jump the shark". Movies can "nuke the fridge".

The phrase jump the shark originated when the Fonz jumped over a shark on happy days, it's an analogy, not a scientific term. Weird thing to get so worked up over.

Subcomandante Marcos

dulux99 wrote: »

The phrase jump the shark originated when the Fonz jumped over a shark on happy days, it's an analogy, not a scientific term. Weird thing to get so worked up over.

That's where it originates from, and as such it's applied to TV shows where the plot and characters become boring and people start losing interest so the writers start doing stupid implausible **** to try win back viewers. It doesn't really apply to sports.

MrStuffins

Mellor wrote: »

Tbh I'm not a fan of the current system. Violations are announced vaguely. A fighter pops for weed, but because they release no details rumours run amok and people assume it's steroids.

All details fully transparent would be better than no details though.

Bizarrely, Sugar Sean's was the complete opposite