| - Marco Antico |
| Copyright© 2008 Canadian Mixed Martial Arts Association (CMMAA). |
MACLEANS CALLS MMA "NASTY AND BRUTISH"
by Marco Antico
MMA enthusiasts were both disappointed and outraged last week to see one of Canada's most popular and
highly esteemed magazines trash the sport of Mixed Martial Arts. Here is a link to the article entitled, "Nasty,
brutish, and short, ultimate fighting's all about blood and guts":
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/lifestyle/article.jsp?content=20080227_115939_115939
The writer, Alexandra Shimo, tries to paint an unsavory portrait to her readers mainly by chronicling a ten year
old boy's dream of becoming an ultimate fighter. However, this article presents nothing that MMA fans have
not seen before. It simply boils down to the ideological belief that "fighting is bad" and that it doesn't have a
place in our modern society. Indeed, this is a very common stance that MMA dissidents often take.
The Canadian Mixed Martial Arts Association (CMMAA) realizes that we're not in the business of selling girl
scout cookies. While MMA is a passion for some, it will always be a repulsive and barbaric act to others. But,
what MMA antagonists need to realize is that personal taste is irrelevant to the issue of whether MMA belongs
in society or not. Fact is, the individuals who choose to watch, train or compete in MMA are doing it of their
own free will and most of them will emphatically proclaim that they truly love it! Why should these athletes be
denied their right to earn a living in MMA because some people find the sport offensive? Further, what gives
one the right to claim that something should be banned simply because it does not appeal to them?
CMMAA encourages people to remove the emotional/personal taste element out of the equation as this
should simply be a discussion of safety. We believe that MMA's professional safety record proves that the
sport is indeed as safe as most other mainstream sports. One further realizes the added safety aspects of
MMA when they become educated about the benefits of not having standing eight counts, grappling as
significant component, bouts ending by tapout, using smaller gloves and having shorter average bout
durations as compared to other combat sports such as boxing. These are the things that we should always
be emphasizing as a strong and passionate MMA community.
The following was written by Robert Bentley in a post on www.mma.tv:
It is with sadness that I learn that a publication of Maclean's calibre has decided to debase itself with an article that can only
be called a model example of unadulterated dishonest sensationalism. I would like to correct some of the major mistakes (as I
have not enough time to correct them all) that the article makes and hopefully set the record straight in regards to one of the
most beautiful sports out there: Mixed Martial Arts (referred from now on as "mma").
I've divided this response into two parts: the first is pointing out the major holes in the article demonstrating the dishonesty and
ignorance of the subject with which they are supposed to be reporting. The second is a brief account of the facts of one of the
world's fastest growing sports.
1) The glaring holes in the article itself
With the concern over injury, the British Medical Association has called for a blanket ban on the sport. On Sept. 5, 2007, the
association released a report warning against a major cage fight tournament that was to be held in London later in the week.
"Ultimate fighting can be extremely brutal and has been described as human cockfighting. It can cause traumatic brain injury,
joint injuries and fractures," wrote Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics for the association?
Boxing can be described as ballet, but it doesn't mean that we should expect to see pointed shoes and a team of very thin
women so that comment is entirely irrelevant. There is more traumatic brain injuries per year in football, soccer, rugby, boxing,
kickboxing and downhill skiing. So I suppose we should ban those too? And if we're going to lump in joint injuries and fractures
then that of course we should include just about every sport out there. It is sad that people cannot see that this is a knee-jerk
emotional reaction that is only given credence because it comes from a doctor.
This kind of competition hardly constitutes a sport. The days of gladiator fights are over and we should not be looking to
resurrect them. As doctors we cannot stand by while violent fighting tournaments are allowed to take place.
Again, if injury were the main concern then surely they would ban all the other aforementioned sports. Starting with Boxing,
Kickboxing, Taekwondo, Judo, Freestyle and Greco Roman Wrestling and then continuing on down the line to Rugby, Football
and Soccer. It boggles the mind that these educated individuals are making sweeping statements on an entire field with which
they have apparently little or no knowledge.
As a civilized society we should be campaigning to outlaw these activities.
No, it would only be as a totalitarian, closed-minded and over-protective society we would be campaigning to outlaw these
activities.
Today, hair pulling, eye gouging and clawing your opponent are illegal. So are groin shots and head-butts, although in the
heat of the moment, these still happen.
Eye-gouging, fish-hooking and biting of course have always been illegal. And stating that although in the heat of the moment,
these still happen can literally be applied to any competitive endeavour. We're not just talking in the realms of combat sports
such as boxing and wrestling, but in soccer, football and rugby.
Using "heat of the moment" to imply that this is a characteristic exhibited only by the sport of mma is the height of idiocy.
Some boxers, rugby players, hockey players etc are actually famous for such rough-house tactics. How a writer so blissfully
unaware of the world of sports was allowed to write an article on a sport is beyond me.
To date, three deaths have been attributed to cage-fighting matches. Florida-born fighter Douglas Dedge died after taking too
many blows to the head in 1998; a South Korean fighter identified in the press only as "Lee" died after a mixed martial arts
match in Seoul in May, 2005. Houston-based fighter Sammy Vasquez collapsed during a match in Texas in October 2007, fell
into a coma and died six weeks later.
Yes, to date, world wide and I wonder how many of those deaths occurred in a sanctioned event.
Every year there are around 4 deaths related to high-school football in the United States, not to mention the numerous injuries
resulting in paralysis. Would I need to bring up the relative numbers from Boxing, Kickboxing, Downhill skiing, or is my point
understood?
One slip can leave a fighter taking a heavy beating, or result in a "takedown," in which someone is knocked to the floor.
I must ask what is this fascination the author has with "heavy beatings." Striking is just ONE aspect of this complex sport. Of
course the author of the article must be entirely against boxing or kickboxing where "heavy beatings" are the ONLY goal. It is
also quite laughable that the author even attempted to make the grappling aspect appear even more brutal by stating it is
knocking someone to the floor.
Actually it is taking that person to the floor by methods known from judo or wrestling.
Of course I must assume the author is intellectually consistent and would want to ban judo and wrestling as well (or at least
look on parents who enrol their children in judo classes with disgust). I suggest looking up the death and injury statistics on
those other sports for their homework.
Once Ross is 16, O'Regan hopes he will win "submission of the night." An opponent "submits" when he is put in a position
that could cause him serious injury ? for example in a choke or an armlock and he gives up before the fight has finished. In the
UFC, a particularly good "submission" gets a $5,000 cheque, and O'Regan excitedly talks of Ross winning the money.
I'm not sure what the author is trying to say here. The submission of the night receives a substantially larger amount than that
and it is for a way of ending the fight where NO SERIOUS injury occurs. The opponent honourably concedes defeat because
he has been controlled, and not because he has taken a "heavy beating".
It is also not going to happen to someone of 16 years old. There is no Junior UFC despite what the author is trying to claim.
The rules were similar to the ones that apply to the television fights, but kids wore helmets and protective booties. Head blows
were not allowed for children under 16. "Submissions" were ruled out for kids under 12. The scoring system was also different,
to encourage light contact rather than heavy blows. Fighters fought on a mat, rather than in a cage.
I can't figure out what's being said here, please enlighten me. You've spent the whole article stating how brutal the sport is,
and then mention above that the rules were similar to the television fights. Miraculously however it's with padding, light
contact, head shots and submissions were ruled out and the fighters fought on a mat instead of a cage. This is like stating that
an elementary field hockey game was very similar to professional NHL Hockey only that it was played on grass, aggressive
contact was not allowed, fighting is completely prohibited, and the participants wear sneakers instead of ice skates.
Need I mention that to be intellectually consistent the author must also be against professional hockey as well? Care to look up
the injury/death statistics on that?
I would also like to point out that she is several decades too late in voicing these concerns ? as amateur boxing, wrestling,
judo etc. have had programs for children for a very long time. Please find below several links regarding the safety record of
various well established sports, all of which have some form of a junior program.
The dangers of football:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=A3FYaHbf9sUC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=deaths+per+year+in+highschool+football&source=
web&ots=_XGw6IWMFL&sig=Ly_5KCG2_sVU4qTrhzApre30doA&hl=en
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/09/09/football_death040909.html
A debate as to which is more dangerous: football or boxing with its paltry average of 2.6 deaths per year.
http://www.dotdsports.com/2007/07/boxers-is-more-dangerous-than.html
Another link regarding boxing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/4275652.stm
The following link is to a section of a book describing serious spinal injuries as the result of participating in a variety of sports
including Judo and Rugby:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=J5yGeYKR1U8C&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=judo+related+deaths&source=web&ots=jL0pvEl6Z
N&sig=BGggY1z3kPigA3BeqXOHtYCn_UI&hl=en
2) The beauty and reality of the sport of mma.
The submission: One common objection is to bring up the possibility that an individuals arm may be snapped or that they
could be choked unconscious. This is completely overlooking the fact that it is referred to as a submission hold because an
opponent can concede defeat without further injury. In every other sport I can think of, conceding defeat is considered
shameful and abhorrent in mma it is a perfectly honourable way to acknowledge the superiority of your adversary. (As it is in
Judo, submission wrestling, sambo and jiu jitsu.)
This brutal sport apparently has, as one of its main strategies, a way where someone can obtain victory with little or no long
lasting damage to their opponent. Simply demonstrating that they COULD inflict damage if they so wish is enough to end the
fight. This isn't brutality; this is the height of civility in combat sports. The takedown as mentioned before these are found in
judo and wrestling, but this leads us into one of the glaring differences between mma as a combat sport and boxing (or
kickboxing). When the opponents get close together when the distance is closed an entirely new dimension opens up where
the opponent who has greater grappling skills can obtain an advantage. The fighters are not separated and then told "OK "
Now you are far enough apart to continue striking each other in the head continue doing so for the next eleven rounds or until
a person is unconscious?
The smaller gloves: The gloves do not protect the opponents head or face, they protect the hands. The more the hands are
protected, the harder and longer a person can strike with those hands. The introduction of gloves to boxing in the first placed
decreased only the number of superficial injuries like cuts. However, head trauma increased as a result of the fighters being
able to continue longer (fights not being stopped because of cuts) and strike harder without breaking their hands.
Smaller gloves are also there for a practical purpose - to allow grappling.
There are many, many reasons why I've fallen in love with this sport:
- The intricate complexity of having to combine so many different techniques from so many disciplines. Comparing boxing to
mma would be like comparing checkers to chess.
- The heart and determination it takes to keep your calm when you're tired and being pressured and not knowing which of the
so many directions your opponent will try to direct you.
- The bond you form with your fellow athletes and even your opponents.
- The fact that even now, with its current popularity, the champions remain so accessible that even enthusiastic amateurs can
train with them. Imagine an amateur boxer training at the same gym as Lennox Lewis, being instructed by him and getting
advice and support from him for no more than 100 bucks a month.
In summary, where the author wasn't outright dishonest, she was horribly misinformed.
I suggest that next time a subject for an article is decided upon, that you find someone who is acquainted at the very least with
the genre from which it comes.
by Marco Antico
MMA enthusiasts were both disappointed and outraged last week to see one of Canada's most popular and
highly esteemed magazines trash the sport of Mixed Martial Arts. Here is a link to the article entitled, "Nasty,
brutish, and short, ultimate fighting's all about blood and guts":
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/lifestyle/article.jsp?content=20080227_115939_115939
The writer, Alexandra Shimo, tries to paint an unsavory portrait to her readers mainly by chronicling a ten year
old boy's dream of becoming an ultimate fighter. However, this article presents nothing that MMA fans have
not seen before. It simply boils down to the ideological belief that "fighting is bad" and that it doesn't have a
place in our modern society. Indeed, this is a very common stance that MMA dissidents often take.
The Canadian Mixed Martial Arts Association (CMMAA) realizes that we're not in the business of selling girl
scout cookies. While MMA is a passion for some, it will always be a repulsive and barbaric act to others. But,
what MMA antagonists need to realize is that personal taste is irrelevant to the issue of whether MMA belongs
in society or not. Fact is, the individuals who choose to watch, train or compete in MMA are doing it of their
own free will and most of them will emphatically proclaim that they truly love it! Why should these athletes be
denied their right to earn a living in MMA because some people find the sport offensive? Further, what gives
one the right to claim that something should be banned simply because it does not appeal to them?
CMMAA encourages people to remove the emotional/personal taste element out of the equation as this
should simply be a discussion of safety. We believe that MMA's professional safety record proves that the
sport is indeed as safe as most other mainstream sports. One further realizes the added safety aspects of
MMA when they become educated about the benefits of not having standing eight counts, grappling as
significant component, bouts ending by tapout, using smaller gloves and having shorter average bout
durations as compared to other combat sports such as boxing. These are the things that we should always
be emphasizing as a strong and passionate MMA community.
The following was written by Robert Bentley in a post on www.mma.tv:
It is with sadness that I learn that a publication of Maclean's calibre has decided to debase itself with an article that can only
be called a model example of unadulterated dishonest sensationalism. I would like to correct some of the major mistakes (as I
have not enough time to correct them all) that the article makes and hopefully set the record straight in regards to one of the
most beautiful sports out there: Mixed Martial Arts (referred from now on as "mma").
I've divided this response into two parts: the first is pointing out the major holes in the article demonstrating the dishonesty and
ignorance of the subject with which they are supposed to be reporting. The second is a brief account of the facts of one of the
world's fastest growing sports.
1) The glaring holes in the article itself
With the concern over injury, the British Medical Association has called for a blanket ban on the sport. On Sept. 5, 2007, the
association released a report warning against a major cage fight tournament that was to be held in London later in the week.
"Ultimate fighting can be extremely brutal and has been described as human cockfighting. It can cause traumatic brain injury,
joint injuries and fractures," wrote Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics for the association?
Boxing can be described as ballet, but it doesn't mean that we should expect to see pointed shoes and a team of very thin
women so that comment is entirely irrelevant. There is more traumatic brain injuries per year in football, soccer, rugby, boxing,
kickboxing and downhill skiing. So I suppose we should ban those too? And if we're going to lump in joint injuries and fractures
then that of course we should include just about every sport out there. It is sad that people cannot see that this is a knee-jerk
emotional reaction that is only given credence because it comes from a doctor.
This kind of competition hardly constitutes a sport. The days of gladiator fights are over and we should not be looking to
resurrect them. As doctors we cannot stand by while violent fighting tournaments are allowed to take place.
Again, if injury were the main concern then surely they would ban all the other aforementioned sports. Starting with Boxing,
Kickboxing, Taekwondo, Judo, Freestyle and Greco Roman Wrestling and then continuing on down the line to Rugby, Football
and Soccer. It boggles the mind that these educated individuals are making sweeping statements on an entire field with which
they have apparently little or no knowledge.
As a civilized society we should be campaigning to outlaw these activities.
No, it would only be as a totalitarian, closed-minded and over-protective society we would be campaigning to outlaw these
activities.
Today, hair pulling, eye gouging and clawing your opponent are illegal. So are groin shots and head-butts, although in the
heat of the moment, these still happen.
Eye-gouging, fish-hooking and biting of course have always been illegal. And stating that although in the heat of the moment,
these still happen can literally be applied to any competitive endeavour. We're not just talking in the realms of combat sports
such as boxing and wrestling, but in soccer, football and rugby.
Using "heat of the moment" to imply that this is a characteristic exhibited only by the sport of mma is the height of idiocy.
Some boxers, rugby players, hockey players etc are actually famous for such rough-house tactics. How a writer so blissfully
unaware of the world of sports was allowed to write an article on a sport is beyond me.
To date, three deaths have been attributed to cage-fighting matches. Florida-born fighter Douglas Dedge died after taking too
many blows to the head in 1998; a South Korean fighter identified in the press only as "Lee" died after a mixed martial arts
match in Seoul in May, 2005. Houston-based fighter Sammy Vasquez collapsed during a match in Texas in October 2007, fell
into a coma and died six weeks later.
Yes, to date, world wide and I wonder how many of those deaths occurred in a sanctioned event.
Every year there are around 4 deaths related to high-school football in the United States, not to mention the numerous injuries
resulting in paralysis. Would I need to bring up the relative numbers from Boxing, Kickboxing, Downhill skiing, or is my point
understood?
One slip can leave a fighter taking a heavy beating, or result in a "takedown," in which someone is knocked to the floor.
I must ask what is this fascination the author has with "heavy beatings." Striking is just ONE aspect of this complex sport. Of
course the author of the article must be entirely against boxing or kickboxing where "heavy beatings" are the ONLY goal. It is
also quite laughable that the author even attempted to make the grappling aspect appear even more brutal by stating it is
knocking someone to the floor.
Actually it is taking that person to the floor by methods known from judo or wrestling.
Of course I must assume the author is intellectually consistent and would want to ban judo and wrestling as well (or at least
look on parents who enrol their children in judo classes with disgust). I suggest looking up the death and injury statistics on
those other sports for their homework.
Once Ross is 16, O'Regan hopes he will win "submission of the night." An opponent "submits" when he is put in a position
that could cause him serious injury ? for example in a choke or an armlock and he gives up before the fight has finished. In the
UFC, a particularly good "submission" gets a $5,000 cheque, and O'Regan excitedly talks of Ross winning the money.
I'm not sure what the author is trying to say here. The submission of the night receives a substantially larger amount than that
and it is for a way of ending the fight where NO SERIOUS injury occurs. The opponent honourably concedes defeat because
he has been controlled, and not because he has taken a "heavy beating".
It is also not going to happen to someone of 16 years old. There is no Junior UFC despite what the author is trying to claim.
The rules were similar to the ones that apply to the television fights, but kids wore helmets and protective booties. Head blows
were not allowed for children under 16. "Submissions" were ruled out for kids under 12. The scoring system was also different,
to encourage light contact rather than heavy blows. Fighters fought on a mat, rather than in a cage.
I can't figure out what's being said here, please enlighten me. You've spent the whole article stating how brutal the sport is,
and then mention above that the rules were similar to the television fights. Miraculously however it's with padding, light
contact, head shots and submissions were ruled out and the fighters fought on a mat instead of a cage. This is like stating that
an elementary field hockey game was very similar to professional NHL Hockey only that it was played on grass, aggressive
contact was not allowed, fighting is completely prohibited, and the participants wear sneakers instead of ice skates.
Need I mention that to be intellectually consistent the author must also be against professional hockey as well? Care to look up
the injury/death statistics on that?
I would also like to point out that she is several decades too late in voicing these concerns ? as amateur boxing, wrestling,
judo etc. have had programs for children for a very long time. Please find below several links regarding the safety record of
various well established sports, all of which have some form of a junior program.
The dangers of football:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=A3FYaHbf9sUC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=deaths+per+year+in+highschool+football&source=
web&ots=_XGw6IWMFL&sig=Ly_5KCG2_sVU4qTrhzApre30doA&hl=en
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/09/09/football_death040909.html
A debate as to which is more dangerous: football or boxing with its paltry average of 2.6 deaths per year.
http://www.dotdsports.com/2007/07/boxers-is-more-dangerous-than.html
Another link regarding boxing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/boxing/4275652.stm
The following link is to a section of a book describing serious spinal injuries as the result of participating in a variety of sports
including Judo and Rugby:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=J5yGeYKR1U8C&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=judo+related+deaths&source=web&ots=jL0pvEl6Z
N&sig=BGggY1z3kPigA3BeqXOHtYCn_UI&hl=en
2) The beauty and reality of the sport of mma.
The submission: One common objection is to bring up the possibility that an individuals arm may be snapped or that they
could be choked unconscious. This is completely overlooking the fact that it is referred to as a submission hold because an
opponent can concede defeat without further injury. In every other sport I can think of, conceding defeat is considered
shameful and abhorrent in mma it is a perfectly honourable way to acknowledge the superiority of your adversary. (As it is in
Judo, submission wrestling, sambo and jiu jitsu.)
This brutal sport apparently has, as one of its main strategies, a way where someone can obtain victory with little or no long
lasting damage to their opponent. Simply demonstrating that they COULD inflict damage if they so wish is enough to end the
fight. This isn't brutality; this is the height of civility in combat sports. The takedown as mentioned before these are found in
judo and wrestling, but this leads us into one of the glaring differences between mma as a combat sport and boxing (or
kickboxing). When the opponents get close together when the distance is closed an entirely new dimension opens up where
the opponent who has greater grappling skills can obtain an advantage. The fighters are not separated and then told "OK "
Now you are far enough apart to continue striking each other in the head continue doing so for the next eleven rounds or until
a person is unconscious?
The smaller gloves: The gloves do not protect the opponents head or face, they protect the hands. The more the hands are
protected, the harder and longer a person can strike with those hands. The introduction of gloves to boxing in the first placed
decreased only the number of superficial injuries like cuts. However, head trauma increased as a result of the fighters being
able to continue longer (fights not being stopped because of cuts) and strike harder without breaking their hands.
Smaller gloves are also there for a practical purpose - to allow grappling.
There are many, many reasons why I've fallen in love with this sport:
- The intricate complexity of having to combine so many different techniques from so many disciplines. Comparing boxing to
mma would be like comparing checkers to chess.
- The heart and determination it takes to keep your calm when you're tired and being pressured and not knowing which of the
so many directions your opponent will try to direct you.
- The bond you form with your fellow athletes and even your opponents.
- The fact that even now, with its current popularity, the champions remain so accessible that even enthusiastic amateurs can
train with them. Imagine an amateur boxer training at the same gym as Lennox Lewis, being instructed by him and getting
advice and support from him for no more than 100 bucks a month.
In summary, where the author wasn't outright dishonest, she was horribly misinformed.
I suggest that next time a subject for an article is decided upon, that you find someone who is acquainted at the very least with
the genre from which it comes.
