New at Reason
Greg Beato looks at the rise in ultimate fighting's popularity, despite the best efforts of a certain senator from Arizona.
Comments to "New at Reason":
J sub D | September 20, 2007, 12:22pm | #
Is it timidity that saves us? An essential decency? Shrewd self-preservation? Whatever the reasons, the same story plays out again and again. We choose Victoria’s Secret TV specials over Airtight Grannies, Maroon 5 over death metal. And as much as we might like human cockfighting, we like humane cockfighting even more.But, but, but, if the government doesn't prohibit/regulate it, we're too morally weak to control ouselves. 9 out of 10 televangelists agree.
Episiarch | September 20, 2007, 12:33pm | #
Airtight GranniesBeato, props for making me laugh out loud.
Dan T. | September 20, 2007, 12:34pm | #
Interesting look at the UFC, but the premise doesn't entirely make sense. Reading the article, it seems very much the case that UFC sanitized their fighting at least in part due to the efforts of McCain.And now that it's a little less barbaric, the government is generally staying off UFC's back, right? If McCain and company just wanted to protect boxing then they'd still be hounding UFC.
So it seems like this one worked out well for everybody.
Jacob | September 20, 2007, 12:35pm | #
Mixed Martial Arts, NOT "Ultimate FIghting"Ironic how Americans shrug off this kind of brutality but flip out over dog fighting, e.g. the vilified Michael Vick. Both "sports" are disgusting, but where are our priorities?
Charles Oliver | September 20, 2007, 12:45pm | #
When McCain first started his anti-MMA campaign, I called his office and talked to one of his staffers. I had heard that McCain had never actually seen an MMA event, just a series of clips of the most spectacular KOs from several televised shows. I thought that was rather like condemnng football based solely on watching one of those "NFLK's Greates hits" tapes.I asked his spokesman if McCain had ever actually seen an MMA show. He just reiterated McCain's belief that the sport was barbaric. I asked the question again. Again, he went off on another point. so I asked a third time, and his answer was, to the best of my memory, "The senator has seen all he needs to see."
robc | September 20, 2007, 12:48pm | #
ed,I dont think anyone in MMA has ever been hurt as bad as the worst injury in the first 2 weeks of this NFL season.
At least since the rules changes. Anyone who follows MMA know for sure?
Andrew | September 20, 2007, 12:51pm | #
I don't think there's ever been a truly serious injury (like Kevin Everett), at least in UFC/Pride. I'm not sure if it's occurred elsewhere in MMA.But anyways, like any other sport, or boxing, or pro wrestling, it doesn't matter. If the fighters consent to participating, why is there even an issue?
VM | September 20, 2007, 12:52pm | #
Jacob | September 20, 2007, 12:35pm | #QFT!!!!!!!!!
Mixed Martial Arts, NOT "Ultimate FIghting"
It's fun to watch so called real sports like NHL and Boxing flail around in the face of NASCAR and UFC.
whit | September 20, 2007, 1:03pm | #
"Ironic how Americans shrug off this kind of brutality but flip out over dog fighting"what a stupid comparison. MMA fighters voluntarily choose to be warriors and fight. dogs don't exactly "consent" to be brutalized, and nobody claims they have the capacity to "opt out".
it's ridiculous.
furthermore, injured dogs are euthanized when their utility as fighters runs out, etc.
don't make stupid comparisons.
mccain, as much as i admire him in some respects, is a statist ninny.
he was equally as ridiculous in baseball and campaign finance 'reform', why should MMA be any different.
as to injuries, i have seen some NASTY cuts, and there have been several nasty bone breaks (tim sylvia's forearm comes to mind)
it's still RELATIVELY safe, when compared to many contact (and even some non-contact) sports.
also note that the way MMA matches are stopped by refs vs. the way boxing matches are, means they are less likely to result in the kind of permanent brain damage that boxers suffer. at least, i heard one neurologist make that point.
SIV | September 20, 2007, 1:15pm | #
Uh, the people get to choose but the dogs don't?Animals would never fight each other without being forced to by humans.
Tbone | September 20, 2007, 1:31pm | #
Is it timidity that saves us? An essential decency? Shrewd self-preservation?I'd like to say evolutionary psychology i.e., that we are becoming more civilized. But given that we continue to optimize the tools of fratricide and extinction, not so much.
In the same manner that war images are too "icky" for mass consumption, we seemingly have a limit for the violence we want watch when we know it is real (as opposed to the slasher film). Why we seemingly have less concern when we know it is occurring, but don't see it, I really can't explain.
ed | September 20, 2007, 1:39pm | #
what a stupid comparison. MMA fighters voluntarily choose to be warriors and fight. dogs don't exactly "consent" to be brutalized...Neither do chickens, cattle, fish and other tasty creatures who are "brutalized" then eaten.
Mr. Nice Guy | September 20, 2007, 1:40pm | #
"Ironic how Americans shrug off this kind of brutality but flip out over dog fighting, e.g. the vilified Michael Vick. Both "sports" are disgusting, but where are our priorities?""Animals would never fight each other without being forced to by humans."
Animals would fight, but not in the artificial and often deadlier ways that humans involved in cockfighting and dogfighting rig up (ever seen the cockspurs sometimes used?). And of course in the wild there is no third party to douse the loser with water and electrocute them if they lose...
As several people have pointed out, in UFC there are many bloody noses but few serious longstanding injuries. In fact, as the sport has progressed and the less able have been weeded out it often devolves into a wrestling match between two well versed professionals who know well when they are beaten and tap out quickly. I think this, more than McCain et al's leaning on the sport, is what has made it seem less "savage."
Mr. Nice Guy | September 20, 2007, 1:43pm | #
A closer analogy to dog or cockfighting would be televised knife fights between humans that were grabbed off the street, given a knife, and then pushed into a "ring" with an opponent and goaded into going at it.ed | September 20, 2007, 1:44pm | #
I dont think anyone in MMA has ever been hurt as bad as the worst injury in the first 2 weeks of this NFL season.robc,
Agreed. That's one of the reasons I finally gave up on the NFL after decades of fandom. That and the endless replays of each and every insignificant down from every conceivable angle, the crappy and jingoistic truck commercials and the hours upon hours of tedious pregame, postgame and during-game analysis. I'd rather drink Draino.
See this circle I'm marking off here? This is my zone of terror.
VM | September 20, 2007, 2:00pm | #
destijl by flying armbar!!!!!!!!!whit | September 20, 2007, 2:05pm | #
"Neither do chickens, cattle, fish and other tasty creatures who are "brutalized" then eaten."fwiw, that's why i prefer kosher butchered meats.
it's a CLEAN KILL :)
Rex Rhino | September 20, 2007, 2:32pm | #
Interesting look at the UFC, but the premise doesn't entirely make sense. Reading the article, it seems very much the case that UFC sanitized their fighting at least in part due to the efforts of McCain.No... McCain hounded UFC until it was watered down not to be any competition to pro-boxing.
And now that it's a little less barbaric, the government is generally staying off UFC's back, right? If McCain and company just wanted to protect boxing then they'd still be hounding UFC.
UFC might not have gone out of buisness, but without the censorship tactics of McCain on behalf of the Boxing industry, MMA probably would have replaced boxing.
Michael Pack | September 20, 2007, 2:35pm | #
I think I'll stick to STARGATE ATLANTIS.mph | September 20, 2007, 2:59pm | #
Watching MMA without a lot of the rules that have been implemented is boring.
Is it timidity that saves us? An essential decency? Shrewd self-preservation? Whatever the reasons, the same story plays out again and again. We choose Victoria’s Secret TV specials over Airtight Grannies, Maroon 5 over death metal. And as much as we might like human cockfighting, we like humane cockfighting even more.
Prior to this phase of the sport, it was sliding into an essential conservatism on the part of the fighters: Fans were getting increasingly restive over long, boring grappling contests that surely happened in part because the fighters had to weigh the tradeoff between the damage they were free to inflict and the damage they were free to suffer. Safer to lock up, "lay-and-pray," and look either for a submission or superior enough position to pound the daylights out of the opposition while he flails around underneath. It was a case of too much of a "good thing," to the extent unrestrained violence is good, having stifling consequences.
In the last few years, the fighters (and fights) have gotten more dynamic. I'd say that the introduction of gloves, the emphasis on proper taping and cut treatment, and more cautious refereeing has freed fighters. They're more safe if they walk into a knockout, and they're less likely to have limbs broken by submissions if they tap out in time. It's an environment that encourages more risk by blunting some of the consequences.
I think there are probably some old-school fans who'll think I'm retarded. I just know that my first exposure to the UFC in the mid-90s (in a barracks room at Ft. Bragg, where all the drunken hooting did nothing to enliven the proceedings) was unwatchably dull. I became a lot more engaged when I tried it out again two or so years ago.
J sub D | September 20, 2007, 3:02pm | #
A closer analogy to dog or cockfighting would be televised knife fights between humans that were grabbed off the street, given a knife, and then pushed into a "ring" with an opponent and goaded into going at it.Mr Nice Guy, an apt analogy, but you omitted executing the loser.
Ska | September 20, 2007, 3:07pm | #
That picture of McCain looks more like "Bleeding in the Stool." That's what you get for eating 4 lbs. of cheese in one sitting Senator.de stijl | September 20, 2007, 3:12pm | #
did you ever see PRIDE fighting?Is that like Friday Night Sissy Fights with the Tyrannical Teabagger?
JW | September 20, 2007, 3:29pm | #
Ok, first, a small correction to the article. In the first UFC events biting and eye gouging were the only things that were illegal. Groin strikes were legal.Second, when saying that animals wouldn't fight unless humans force them isn't completely true. Roosters(cocks) will fight naturally. It is a territorial thing. Dogs on the other hand have to be brutalized to be made to fight. Not justifying either, just saying.
Third, to Rex Rhino, MMA is taking boxing's place. Regulation is what got MMA and specifically the UFC to where it is today.
Pro Libertate | September 20, 2007, 3:50pm | #
No fighting is ultimate without allowing chimpanzees to participate.VM | September 20, 2007, 3:55pm | #
but don't forget, ProGLib, that there have been suspicions that at least one of the fights has been fixed...darce choke | September 20, 2007, 4:03pm | #
Who is watching the fights this weekend??? I can't wait to see Shogun in the UFC!!!JBinMO | September 20, 2007, 4:12pm | #
"A closer analogy to dog or cockfighting would be televised knife fights between humans that were grabbed off the street, given a knife, and then pushed into a "ring" with an opponent and goaded into going at it."That sounds like an awsome show!
dhex | September 20, 2007, 4:15pm | #
In the last few years, the fighters (and fights) have gotten more dynamic. I'd say that the introduction of gloves, the emphasis on proper taping and cut treatment, and more cautious refereeing has freed fighters.i would agree. there's more emphasis on stand-up fighting, which is as you mentioned a lot less boring.
the bad thing about the ufc et al getting more popular is they have the same goofy packaging and whatnot that other sports have PLUS the design sensibilities of spike tv. it kinda gets in the way.
i am both heartened and saddened to see that channel 9 league - well channel 9 in ny - get kinda popular, revamp its design and go for the beefcake angle with the ladies all in one shot.
or as my wife put it, "more cuties!"
Akbar Goldberg | September 20, 2007, 4:25pm | #
MPH summed up my thoughts exactly,although I am going to miss Shogun's flying head stomps but seeing him dismantle Forrest Griffin none the less. And for the love of god someone please sign Fedor ASAP. North American fans don't know what they're missing in that guy.whit | September 20, 2007, 5:40pm | #
"i would agree. there's more emphasis on stand-up fighting, which is as you mentioned a lot less boring"i disagree. i think it's less exciting to some, more exciting to others. groundfighting is generally more boring, the less you understand it. also, some practitioners (frank shamrock) were exceptionally exciting on the ground. others, not so much.
stand up fighting can be boring, too. when you get a counterpuncher vs. somebody who is not willing to be the agressor, it can be PAINFUL to watch.
some refs, yves lavigne comes to mind, stand the fighter up WAY too quickly. i saw him do it once AS one fighter was applying a kimora (sp?). it was insane. i do think it's ok when the fighters are TRULY stalemated on the ground, that they stand them up.
it's usually when the fighters are very evenly matched, that the ground game comes to a standstill. i can say that some of the most exciting fights i have ever seen have been almost entirely ground based.
the primary difference in pride is the frigging ring, which is FAR inferior, since the refs have to keep moving people on the ground when they slide too far. that gets old. cages are far more suited to MMA.
last i checked, pride allowed knees and kickes to a downed subject (UFC doesn't) but didn't allows elbows to the head from the ground (which si absurd imo).
the thing that has made it a lot more exciting isn't just the structural changes but the fact that the fighters have gotten much better. it used to be that many fighters were good, except on the ground, where they played defense at best. this meant a good ground guy could simply down them (not so simple all the time) and then win by attrition.
now, there are so many guys who are really good OFFENSIVELY and DEFENSIVELY on the ground, that it can be immensely exciting on the ground. i agree with rogan, that some judges are way too quick to stand the guys up.
whit | September 20, 2007, 5:42pm | #
edit: i meant "knees and kicks 2 the head"ufc does allow kicks 2 the body of a downed subject
SIV | September 20, 2007, 6:03pm | #
No... McCain hounded UFC until it was watered down not to be any competition to pro-boxing.I am a casual fan at best but my understanding is the "reforms" were a mixture of improving the sport and conforming to State athletic commission
rules so they could stage events outside of a handful of southern states.
I loved the old UFC but the tournament format led to forfeited championships or poorly matched finals.I believe the original rules banned only fish -hooking,eye-gouging and small joint manipulation.Everthing else was within the rules.Brazillian vale tudo permits everything and has no time limits.
midbrowcrisis | September 20, 2007, 9:57pm | #
MPH,I agree, Ultimate Fighting in the bad old days should have been called, "Ultimate Snuggling." The Brazilian dude who won year after year simply was the best at lying down and spooning the hell out of the other guy.
Oliver,
"The senator has seen all he needs to see." Cute discourse technique, right? He says the title, "The Senator" (disembodied august presence) as though the title alone grants that statement all the authority it needs to answer any residual, lingering doubts.
Ed,
Well, chickens where I live have it pretty good. They run around free to peck away at bugs and garbage in my neighborhood and crap on my motorbike in the morning. When they are killed it's actually very quick and humane. Also, I whisper the fish to sleep before I kill them.
bill | September 20, 2007, 10:47pm | #
UFC sucks! World Combat League is the shiznit! No wrestling and you HAVE to attack or you lose points. Awesome!penxv | September 20, 2007, 11:53pm | #
MMA progressed in Japan without state regulation or too many rules (or drug testing).That's not to say that there aren't problems in the Japanese scene, but McCain definitely held back MMA's progression in the U.S.
The sport was legal in so few states that not many people had seen live events... and it is nearly impossible for a sport to cultivate an audience under such restrictions.
McCain didn't do any long term damage, but fighter pay is significantly lower now than it would have been if McCain hadn't gone on his crusade (no doubt encouraged by his boxing friends).
This is a better article than most regarding MMA. If you could see the uselessness of the athletic commissions up close... it is pure comedy.
I still think football sold out by involving the faculty, should've gone undergound instead.
Art-P.O.G. | September 21, 2007, 6:33am | #
I thought this was a superb article. It kind of reminds me of what sellouts politicians can be, in the corner of "special interests" like the boxing community and dogging legitimate sports like MMA. UFC and Pride are awesome; about the only good boxing I've seen lately was "Rocky Balboa".Jacob | September 21, 2007, 9:03am | #
For every inaccurate/ill-informed statement made on this thread, Fedor will eat a baby.Jacob | September 21, 2007, 9:06am | #
And for those who think ground fights are boring, I refer you to Noguiera vs. Barnett, Griffin vs. Guida, or even two nights ago Diaz vs. Assuncao(SP?)VM | September 21, 2007, 9:51am | #
BIG NOG!!!!!!!!!!What Jacob says!
[ignoring midbrow, as he's obviously an ignorant idiot]
bill - check out other mma organizations. Pride (fought in a ring) had amazing fights, and the rules allowed for a good mix of submission grappling and stand up. As a fan of standup, you might like K1, too! Enjoy!
pen - no drug testing - Mark Coleman and Phil Baroni? tee hee. grin.
midbrowcrisis | September 21, 2007, 11:10am | #
[ignoring midbrow, as he's obviously an ignorant idiot]You're lucky we're not in the same room or I'd spoon the hell out of you.
:)
VM | September 21, 2007, 12:19pm | #
srsly!Royce could kick ass. certainly kicked the asses of lots of leather throwers.
but hang on - lemme get the crisco sticks and the noam chomsky blow up doll! let's party!!!!!
woo hoo!
:)
bill | September 21, 2007, 2:24pm | #
Oh ya K-1 is cool (Bonjasky is one bad mutha) so is Shidokan. I just mentioned WCL because they have the "no passivity, no holding" rule. Even in K-1 they can clinch or step back and not fight for a period of time. WCL is balls to the wall all out fighting for 3 minutes.