If a car crash can be referred to as violent then a sport where players are crashing into each other can be classified as violent.
Now I am really ducking out of this.
Now we're just talking semantics. I personally would never refer to a car crash as "violent" unless someone rammed into someone else. I mean, you're talking about the "violent storm" or a "violent seizure" kind of violent - I am not. We may as well be talking about two completely different words. I was assuming we were talking about intentional human violence, since that is how this convo actually started.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
If a car crash can be referred to as violent then a sport where players are crashing into each other can be classified as violent.
Now I am really ducking out of this.
Now we're just talking semantics. I personally would never refer to a car crash as "violent" unless someone rammed into someone else. I mean, you're talking about the "violent storm" or a "violent seizure" kind of violent - I am not. We may as well be talking about two completely different words. I was assuming we were talking about intentional human violence, since that is how this convo actually started.
You have been talking about semantics since this conversation got started
Semantics is everything! Headbutting, body slamming, these are acts of intentional human violence, and they are occurring on the football field. It's not a hugely important point or discussion, but it sort of encapsulates the resistance to MMA that has always been unfair. It's rooted in gut reaction and not rational thought.
If a car crash can be referred to as violent then a sport where players are crashing into each other can be classified as violent.
Now I am really ducking out of this.
Now we're just talking semantics. I personally would never refer to a car crash as "violent" unless someone rammed into someone else. I mean, you're talking about the "violent storm" or a "violent seizure" kind of violent - I am not. We may as well be talking about two completely different words. I was assuming we were talking about intentional human violence, since that is how this convo actually started.
You have been talking about semantics since this conversation got started
No I haven't. I've been talking about MMA being violent and Football not being violent. I think the context in which I was using the word was perfectly clear. Maybe HFD was arguing semantics, I dunno.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Semantics is everything! Headbutting, body slamming, these are acts of intentional human violence, and they are occurring on the football field. It's not a hugely important point or discussion, but it sort of encapsulates the resistance to MMA that has always been unfair. It's rooted in gut reaction and not rational thought.
Those intentional human acts of violence are not allowed in football though. Yes, once in a while someone DOES get violent on the field, but that isn't a part of the game. I specifically said I was talking about legal plays. My "resistance" (disgust, actually) isn't unjustified, and I think it's a little nuts to suggest that football is comparable to a sport where people are sometimes legally beaten into bloody pulps, honestly. I don't understand how one can consider it unfair for someone to be principally against a sport that is ONLY two people beating up on each other. Obviously plenty of people are super comfortable watching people pummel the shit out of each other in an enclosed space, but I find it barbaric. It's essentially blood lust IMO. I say this rationally, lol, and also being fully aware of what it takes for the MMA athletes, having been friends with one. I think what makes people MMA fans is the same thing that made ancient Romans fans of gladiator/blood sports. That is not an irrational opinion. Of course, I am fully aware that anyone who likes MMA isn't about to agree with me!
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Semantics is everything! Headbutting, body slamming, these are acts of intentional human violence, and they are occurring on the football field. It's not a hugely important point or discussion, but it sort of encapsulates the resistance to MMA that has always been unfair. It's rooted in gut reaction and not rational thought.
Those intentional human acts of violence are not allowed in football though. Yes, once in a while someone DOES get violent on the field, but that isn't a part of the game. I specifically said I was talking about legal plays. My "resistance" (disgust, actually) isn't unjustified, and I think it's a little nuts to suggest that football is comparable to a sport where people are sometimes legally beaten into bloody pulps, honestly. I don't understand how one can consider it unfair for someone to be principally against a sport that is ONLY two people beating up on each other. Obviously plenty of people are super comfortable watching people pummel the shit out of each other in an enclosed space, but I find it barbaric. It's essentially blood lust IMO. I say this rationally, lol, and also being fully aware of what it takes for the MMA athletes, having been friends with one. I think what makes people MMA fans is the same thing that made ancient Romans fans of gladiator/blood sports. That is not an irrational opinion. Of course, I am fully aware that anyone who like MMA isn't about to agree with me!
The headbutting and body slamming is intentional and happens on nearly every play. I don't know what sport you are watching. The play posted above is a legal play and his intention was to hit the other player so hard that they would lose bodily function enough to drop the ball. What's the difference between that and punching or kicking someone? If anything it is more violent, as he's using his entire body to achieve maximum force. You don't like blood, that's an emotional response,(and that's fine) but rationally, that intentional football hit is far more likely to kill or paralyze than the superficial face and scalp wounds that look so bad in MMA.
It's not nuts to compare MMA to football, it's entirely rational.
Football is a highly stylised, very violent war game, MMA is a highly realistic, very violent war game. One kills and paralyzes, the other seems to do so at a lesser degree, so far. The rest is just an emotional response to the details.
Clearly I don't agree with your interpretation of the differences. And obviously we are talking about two different things in terms of what happens in football, since we are watching the same game. Headbutting?? I assumed you were talking about violent attacks, not normal play ... now I don't know what you're talking about. You mean when they lower their heads during a tackle?? At any rate, one sport is about kicking the shit out of someone until one man comes out on top and the other either can't get up or can't take the beating anymore, and the other is about scoring a goal with a ball. So yeah, I think it's "nuts" to compare the two (by that I mean that I am very surprised that MMA fans refuse to acknowledge what a big difference there is between those two scenarios). I am not having an emotional response. I see it in a completely different way than you do - that doesn't mean I'm not being rational or am being overly emotional. But again, I expect MMA fans to defend this, because if they didn't they'd be admitting that they have blood lust or that barbaric desire to witness people fight each other into submission, literally... kind of like animals do in the jungle. I get why fans of that want to defend their position on the matter. And again, please, someone show me the comparable stats on injury in both sports, taking into account the number of people participating and other meaningful statistical factors so I can see exactly how football injury and MMA injury compare. You all seem to have memorized those stats, to be so confident about them, but I haven't. Also, I'll need to see the correlation between violence and death in football, because even if you look at the stats for soccer, there have been tons of deaths on and off the field in that sport, but I doubt anyone considers soccer a violent sport... or do you??
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think the best way to settle it would be to have a football game against each other. A football team against MMA fighters on the field. The football team gets to wear their normal equipment and the MMA fighters get to wear theirs. Only difference would be the field would be lined with a cage.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,293
If a car crash can be referred to as violent then a sport where players are crashing into each other can be classified as violent.
Now I am really ducking out of this.
Now we're just talking semantics. I personally would never refer to a car crash as "violent" unless someone rammed into someone else. I mean, you're talking about the "violent storm" or a "violent seizure" kind of violent - I am not. We may as well be talking about two completely different words. I was assuming we were talking about intentional human violence, since that is how this convo actually started.
no, it got started by me comparing their MARKETING STRATEGIES FOR EACH SPORT, and you keep insisting I am comparing the sports themselves, which I never did. I also stated very clearly that I don't believe intent defines what violence is.
Clearly I don't agree with your interpretation of the differences. And obviously we are talking about two different things in terms of what happens in football, since we are watching the same game. Headbutting?? I assumed you were talking about violent attacks, not normal play ... now I don't know what you're talking about. You mean when they lower their heads during a tackle?? At any rate, one sport is about kicking the shit out of someone until one man comes out on top and the other either can't get up or can't take the beating anymore, and the other is about scoring a goal with a ball. So yeah, I think it's "nuts" to compare the two (by that I mean that I am very surprised that MMA fans refuse to acknowledge what a big difference there is between those two scenarios). I am not having an emotional response. I see it in a completely different way than you do - that doesn't mean I'm not being rational or am being overly emotional. But again, I expect MMA fans to defend this, because if they didn't they'd be admitting that they have blood lust or that barbaric desire to witness people fight each other into submission, literally... kind of like animals do in the jungle. I get why fans of that want to defend their position on the matter. And again, please, someone show me the comparable stats on injury in both sports, taking into account the number of people participating and other meaningful statistical factors so I can see exactly how football injury and MMA injury compare. You all seem to have memorized those stats, to be so confident about them, but I haven't. Also, I'll need to see the correlation between violence and death in football, because even if you look at the stats for soccer, there have been tons of deaths on and off the field in that sport, but I doubt anyone considers soccer a violent sport... or do you??
and I would expect a non-MMA fan to defend their position as you have.
I have no blood lust. I prefer the traditional MARTIAL ART aspect of mixed martial arts. the physical competitive nature of it, like watching a greco-roman wrestling match. You keep sensationalizing it with your descriptions of "beating each other to a pulp" and all that hyperbole, which is a very small aspect of the contest, and quite rare, but people who aren't fans generally do explain it like that. it's ignorance of the sport, to be quite honest. they see those earlier contests when it was "no holds barred". it hasn't been like that for years, and that's why it's now sanctioned as a legal sport all over the globe. or they see the highlights, which, in any sport, always show the most brutal aspects of it for marketing purposes (hockey, football, etc). prior, it was only a few select states that allowed it. I wasn't an MMA fan UNTIL it became less brutal. I am not a fan of being allowed to punch someone in the nuts until he taps. that happened in one match. it was disgusting.
comparing it to gladiators of ancient times is laughable. MMA isn't to the death, and it's not prisoners being sent to a brutal demise.
it's in a cage setting for the fighter safety, so they don't fall out of the ring if there were standard ropes. if you believe the cage means they are "animals", then you are just being fooled by the usual talking points of the sport's detractors.
having a friend who was an MMA fighter doesn't make you an expert.
if you want stats, look them up. I just did, and I was incorrect. there have been 5 deaths in sanctioned MMA bouts. There have been several deaths in football. and that doesn't even account for deaths that are incurred after their career that can be directly attributed to the sport. of course, there are most likely going to be similar issues for MMA fighters, but with the sport being relatively young, we won't know that for several years.
however, I also found that a study conducted in 2006 showed that the risk of injury in MMA is comparable to that of a pro boxer.
There are likely a few MMA, football and boxing deaths every year, at some level of each sport. One of my best friends played in a college lacrosse game where a Cornell play was hit in the chest with a shot and died. Deaths are not the full story. The lasting issues with boxers, football players and likely with MMA fighters are better examples of the impact of the violence.
This is a pretty good article on a near boxing death
There are likely a few MMA, football and boxing deaths every year, at some level of each sport. One of my best friends played in a college lacrosse game where a Cornell play was hit in the chest with a shot and died. Deaths are not the full story. The lasting issues with boxers, football players and likely with MMA fighters are better examples of the impact of the violence.
This is a pretty good article on a near boxing death
This is violent. There are different types of violence. That is all
True....however that's an illegal hit.
I believe that's "defenseless player" ruled now but really is the ref's discretion.
Football is violent. Not sure why that's even in discussion on here.
Let's get back to boxing...
Mayweather states he will make 350Million from this fight. That's insane...
helmet to helmet
I see defenseless player.
I can see how he could get nailed for helmet to helmet too. The crown of his helmet found the chin of that Falcons player.
Put it into real time though and I still think a flag is bullshit...
Well it's defenseless and helmet to helmet. Easy flag. Wouldn't have been 10 years ago, but they're trying to do whatever they can to prevent head injuries.
Clearly I don't agree with your interpretation of the differences. And obviously we are talking about two different things in terms of what happens in football, since we are watching the same game. Headbutting?? I assumed you were talking about violent attacks, not normal play ... now I don't know what you're talking about. You mean when they lower their heads during a tackle?? At any rate, one sport is about kicking the shit out of someone until one man comes out on top and the other either can't get up or can't take the beating anymore, and the other is about scoring a goal with a ball. So yeah, I think it's "nuts" to compare the two (by that I mean that I am very surprised that MMA fans refuse to acknowledge what a big difference there is between those two scenarios). I am not having an emotional response. I see it in a completely different way than you do - that doesn't mean I'm not being rational or am being overly emotional. But again, I expect MMA fans to defend this, because if they didn't they'd be admitting that they have blood lust or that barbaric desire to witness people fight each other into submission, literally... kind of like animals do in the jungle. I get why fans of that want to defend their position on the matter. And again, please, someone show me the comparable stats on injury in both sports, taking into account the number of people participating and other meaningful statistical factors so I can see exactly how football injury and MMA injury compare. You all seem to have memorized those stats, to be so confident about them, but I haven't. Also, I'll need to see the correlation between violence and death in football, because even if you look at the stats for soccer, there have been tons of deaths on and off the field in that sport, but I doubt anyone considers soccer a violent sport... or do you??
and I would expect a non-MMA fan to defend their position as you have.
I have no blood lust. I prefer the traditional MARTIAL ART aspect of mixed martial arts. the physical competitive nature of it, like watching a greco-roman wrestling match. You keep sensationalizing it with your descriptions of "beating each other to a pulp" and all that hyperbole, which is a very small aspect of the contest, and quite rare, but people who aren't fans generally do explain it like that. it's ignorance of the sport, to be quite honest. they see those earlier contests when it was "no holds barred". it hasn't been like that for years, and that's why it's now sanctioned as a legal sport all over the globe. or they see the highlights, which, in any sport, always show the most brutal aspects of it for marketing purposes (hockey, football, etc). prior, it was only a few select states that allowed it. I wasn't an MMA fan UNTIL it became less brutal. I am not a fan of being allowed to punch someone in the nuts until he taps. that happened in one match. it was disgusting.
comparing it to gladiators of ancient times is laughable. MMA isn't to the death, and it's not prisoners being sent to a brutal demise.
it's in a cage setting for the fighter safety, so they don't fall out of the ring if there were standard ropes. if you believe the cage means they are "animals", then you are just being fooled by the usual talking points of the sport's detractors.
having a friend who was an MMA fighter doesn't make you an expert.
if you want stats, look them up. I just did, and I was incorrect. there have been 5 deaths in sanctioned MMA bouts. There have been several deaths in football. and that doesn't even account for deaths that are incurred after their career that can be directly attributed to the sport. of course, there are most likely going to be similar issues for MMA fighters, but with the sport being relatively young, we won't know that for several years.
however, I also found that a study conducted in 2006 showed that the risk of injury in MMA is comparable to that of a pro boxer.
It's not ignorance man. It's a different perspective. I fully acknowledge the athleticism involved in the sport. I have seen enough UFC to know what it's about. It's bloody inescapable where I am. Yes, I was friends with a UFC fighter - I am not claiming it makes me an expert, but I got the inside scoop from the athlete's point of view. That isn't even the point, though. I've been talking about my feelings related to the impact on fans, not the competition between the players. But you're right, I'm not a fan, clearly. That does not mean I'm ignorant. But I have learned that your argument is always the argument used by fans, so I'm not surprised you're using it. As for the gladiators comparison - I wasn't comparing the sport to gladiators. Again, I was comparing the fans and their basic motivations for enjoying MMA/UFC (in general). And no, I don't think the cage is what makes it animalistic. Do I think that brutally fighting against one another for fun is barbaric? Yes indeed I do. And that is hardly a bizarre point of view. I feel that society should be moving away from such things as we evolve. I feel that UFC is a sign of society devolving. Again, it's the spectacle and the watching of UFC that I have a problem with. If there was no audience, we wouldn't be having this debate.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Clearly I don't agree with your interpretation of the differences. And obviously we are talking about two different things in terms of what happens in football, since we are watching the same game. Headbutting?? I assumed you were talking about violent attacks, not normal play ... now I don't know what you're talking about. You mean when they lower their heads during a tackle?? At any rate, one sport is about kicking the shit out of someone until one man comes out on top and the other either can't get up or can't take the beating anymore, and the other is about scoring a goal with a ball. So yeah, I think it's "nuts" to compare the two (by that I mean that I am very surprised that MMA fans refuse to acknowledge what a big difference there is between those two scenarios). I am not having an emotional response. I see it in a completely different way than you do - that doesn't mean I'm not being rational or am being overly emotional. But again, I expect MMA fans to defend this, because if they didn't they'd be admitting that they have blood lust or that barbaric desire to witness people fight each other into submission, literally... kind of like animals do in the jungle. I get why fans of that want to defend their position on the matter. And again, please, someone show me the comparable stats on injury in both sports, taking into account the number of people participating and other meaningful statistical factors so I can see exactly how football injury and MMA injury compare. You all seem to have memorized those stats, to be so confident about them, but I haven't. Also, I'll need to see the correlation between violence and death in football, because even if you look at the stats for soccer, there have been tons of deaths on and off the field in that sport, but I doubt anyone considers soccer a violent sport... or do you??
and I would expect a non-MMA fan to defend their position as you have.
I have no blood lust. I prefer the traditional MARTIAL ART aspect of mixed martial arts. the physical competitive nature of it, like watching a greco-roman wrestling match. You keep sensationalizing it with your descriptions of "beating each other to a pulp" and all that hyperbole, which is a very small aspect of the contest, and quite rare, but people who aren't fans generally do explain it like that. it's ignorance of the sport, to be quite honest. they see those earlier contests when it was "no holds barred". it hasn't been like that for years, and that's why it's now sanctioned as a legal sport all over the globe. or they see the highlights, which, in any sport, always show the most brutal aspects of it for marketing purposes (hockey, football, etc). prior, it was only a few select states that allowed it. I wasn't an MMA fan UNTIL it became less brutal. I am not a fan of being allowed to punch someone in the nuts until he taps. that happened in one match. it was disgusting.
comparing it to gladiators of ancient times is laughable. MMA isn't to the death, and it's not prisoners being sent to a brutal demise.
it's in a cage setting for the fighter safety, so they don't fall out of the ring if there were standard ropes. if you believe the cage means they are "animals", then you are just being fooled by the usual talking points of the sport's detractors.
having a friend who was an MMA fighter doesn't make you an expert.
if you want stats, look them up. I just did, and I was incorrect. there have been 5 deaths in sanctioned MMA bouts. There have been several deaths in football. and that doesn't even account for deaths that are incurred after their career that can be directly attributed to the sport. of course, there are most likely going to be similar issues for MMA fighters, but with the sport being relatively young, we won't know that for several years.
however, I also found that a study conducted in 2006 showed that the risk of injury in MMA is comparable to that of a pro boxer.
It's not ignorance man. It's a different perspective. I fully acknowledge the athleticism involved in the sport. I have seen enough UFC to know what it's about. It's bloody inescapable where I am. Yes, I was friends with a UFC fighter - I am not claiming it makes me an expert, but I got the inside scoop from the athlete's point of view. That isn't even the point, though. I've been talking about my feelings related to the impact on fans, not the competition between the players. But you're right, I'm not a fan, clearly. That does not mean I'm ignorant. But I have learned that your argument is always the argument used by fans, so I'm not surprised you're using it. As for the gladiators comparison - I wasn't comparing the sport to gladiators. Again, I was comparing the fans and their basic motivations for enjoying MMA/UFC (in general). And no, I don't think the cage is what makes it animalistic. Do I think that brutally fighting against one another for fun is barbaric? Yes indeed I do. And that is hardly a bizarre point of view. I feel that society should be moving away from such things as we evolve. I feel that UFC is a sign of society devolving. Again, it's the spectacle and the watching of UFC that I have a problem with. If there was no audience, we wouldn't be having this debate.
well, a generalization is just that-an opinion that holds little to no validity in truth. I know many MMA fans, and non of them are bloodthirsty savages. is a knockout exciting? Yes, but no one wants to see anyone hurt. I must prefer a submission tapout than anything else. shows real athletic skill in martial arts.
I never said it was bizarre. I just disagree with it. just because I'm a fan, doesn't make my point less valid, any more than you not being a fan makes yours any less so.
the way you talk about it tells me there is a level of ignorance. there is seldom "brutality" involved. most fights end with guys sweaty and rarely with them beaten to a bloody pulp. that's what the media shows you. if you watched regularly, you'd see that's not the norm.
actually, MMA has evolved in a way that is regulated, less dangerous, way less brutal. so no, I would disagree; it is not a sign that society is devolving.
if there was no audience, it wouldn't exist. as with any form of sport or entertainment.
Well, I'm not ignorant, and if you think I am because you think that there is seldom any brutality involved in UFC, then we must be existing on different planes of reality, lol. Dude, I'm telling you that I am very familiar with the sport - as I said, it's fucking unavoidable on a very regular basis. Just because our perspectives are different it doesn't mean I just don't know what I'm talking about, FFS.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
so you sit and watch a 4 hour PPV on a regular basis when you abhor it? yeah, I kinda doubt that. not sure how someone could be so familiar with something if they don't watch it.
yeah, I respectfully say you have some level of ignorance of the topic based on things you've said, and you tell me I'm on a different plane of reality.
so you sit and watch a 4 hour PPV on a regular basis when you abhor it? yeah, I kinda doubt that. not sure how someone could be so familiar with something if they don't watch it.
yeah, I respectfully say you have some level of ignorance of the topic based on things you've said, and you tell me I'm on a different plane of reality.
I like going to pubs and bars, and unfortunately, most of them have frequent UFC nights. If i know it's their UFC night I don't go, but I often end up going to a random place and they have UFC blaring and the place is full of fans. So me and my friends sit through it instead of trucking all over the place to find a bar that isn't hosting UFC (plus I suppose I take it all in with a sense of curiosity, given that I am intrigued by this UFC craze in a sociological sense). So yeah, I watch it even though I don't like it. So respectfully, I see it different than you, but it's not because of ignorance.
As for the different plane of reality... that wasn't an insult at all, and it wasn't a comment only applying to you. I simply meant that we are clearly looking at this from completely different, incompatible view points. I'm as much on a different plane of reality from you as you are from me IMO.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I do think football is dangerous. Only an idiot would think it's not dangerous. So is hockey, and all extreme sports, and skiing and any other sport where you go really fast, like the luge.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,293
I do think football is dangerous. Only an idiot would think it's not dangerous. So is hockey, and all extreme sports, and skiing and any other sport where you go really fast, like the luge.
I do think football is dangerous. Only an idiot would think it's not dangerous. So is hockey, and all extreme sports, and skiing and any other sport where you go really fast, like the luge.
I still don't get how you are very knowledgeable in MMA by only seeing it in bars and pubs.
I do think football is dangerous. Only an idiot would think it's not dangerous. So is hockey, and all extreme sports, and skiing and any other sport where you go really fast, like the luge.
I still don't get how you are very knowledgeable in MMA by only seeing it in bars and pubs.
As opposed to who? The fighters? MMA scholars? Pretty sure most fans only see it on TV, or maybe attend an event once in a while.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I do think football is dangerous. Only an idiot would think it's not dangerous. So is hockey, and all extreme sports, and skiing and any other sport where you go really fast, like the luge.
I still don't get how you are very knowledgeable in MMA by only seeing it in bars and pubs.
Comments
Now I am really ducking out of this.
Football players intend tend to hurt other football players.
Headbutting, body slamming, these are acts of intentional human violence, and they are occurring on the football field.
It's not a hugely important point or discussion, but it sort of encapsulates the resistance to MMA that has always been unfair.
It's rooted in gut reaction and not rational thought.
My "resistance" (disgust, actually) isn't unjustified, and I think it's a little nuts to suggest that football is comparable to a sport where people are sometimes legally beaten into bloody pulps, honestly. I don't understand how one can consider it unfair for someone to be principally against a sport that is ONLY two people beating up on each other. Obviously plenty of people are super comfortable watching people pummel the shit out of each other in an enclosed space, but I find it barbaric. It's essentially blood lust IMO. I say this rationally, lol, and also being fully aware of what it takes for the MMA athletes, having been friends with one. I think what makes people MMA fans is the same thing that made ancient Romans fans of gladiator/blood sports. That is not an irrational opinion. Of course, I am fully aware that anyone who likes MMA isn't about to agree with me!
The play posted above is a legal play and his intention was to hit the other player so hard that they would lose bodily function enough to drop the ball.
What's the difference between that and punching or kicking someone? If anything it is more violent, as he's using his entire body to achieve maximum force.
You don't like blood, that's an emotional response,(and that's fine) but rationally, that intentional football hit is far more likely to kill or paralyze than the superficial face and scalp wounds that look so bad in MMA.
It's not nuts to compare MMA to football, it's entirely rational.
Football is a highly stylised, very violent war game, MMA is a highly realistic, very violent war game. One kills and paralyzes, the other seems to do so at a lesser degree, so far.
The rest is just an emotional response to the details.
And again, please, someone show me the comparable stats on injury in both sports, taking into account the number of people participating and other meaningful statistical factors so I can see exactly how football injury and MMA injury compare. You all seem to have memorized those stats, to be so confident about them, but I haven't. Also, I'll need to see the correlation between violence and death in football, because even if you look at the stats for soccer, there have been tons of deaths on and off the field in that sport, but I doubt anyone considers soccer a violent sport... or do you??
Football is violent. Not sure why that's even in discussion on here.
Let's get back to boxing...
Mayweather states he will make 350Million from this fight. That's insane...
www.headstonesband.com
I have no blood lust. I prefer the traditional MARTIAL ART aspect of mixed martial arts. the physical competitive nature of it, like watching a greco-roman wrestling match. You keep sensationalizing it with your descriptions of "beating each other to a pulp" and all that hyperbole, which is a very small aspect of the contest, and quite rare, but people who aren't fans generally do explain it like that. it's ignorance of the sport, to be quite honest. they see those earlier contests when it was "no holds barred". it hasn't been like that for years, and that's why it's now sanctioned as a legal sport all over the globe. or they see the highlights, which, in any sport, always show the most brutal aspects of it for marketing purposes (hockey, football, etc). prior, it was only a few select states that allowed it. I wasn't an MMA fan UNTIL it became less brutal. I am not a fan of being allowed to punch someone in the nuts until he taps. that happened in one match. it was disgusting.
comparing it to gladiators of ancient times is laughable. MMA isn't to the death, and it's not prisoners being sent to a brutal demise.
it's in a cage setting for the fighter safety, so they don't fall out of the ring if there were standard ropes. if you believe the cage means they are "animals", then you are just being fooled by the usual talking points of the sport's detractors.
having a friend who was an MMA fighter doesn't make you an expert.
if you want stats, look them up. I just did, and I was incorrect. there have been 5 deaths in sanctioned MMA bouts. There have been several deaths in football. and that doesn't even account for deaths that are incurred after their career that can be directly attributed to the sport. of course, there are most likely going to be similar issues for MMA fighters, but with the sport being relatively young, we won't know that for several years.
however, I also found that a study conducted in 2006 showed that the risk of injury in MMA is comparable to that of a pro boxer.
www.headstonesband.com
This is a pretty good article on a near boxing death
http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/enterpriseHaro/jose-haro-keep-fighting-nearly-killing-daniel-franco
I don't even know what this debate is about anymore.
helmet to helmet
www.headstonesband.com
I can see how he could get nailed for helmet to helmet too. The crown of his helmet found the chin of that Falcons player.
Put it into real time though and I still think a flag is bullshit...
I never said it was bizarre. I just disagree with it. just because I'm a fan, doesn't make my point less valid, any more than you not being a fan makes yours any less so.
the way you talk about it tells me there is a level of ignorance. there is seldom "brutality" involved. most fights end with guys sweaty and rarely with them beaten to a bloody pulp. that's what the media shows you. if you watched regularly, you'd see that's not the norm.
actually, MMA has evolved in a way that is regulated, less dangerous, way less brutal. so no, I would disagree; it is not a sign that society is devolving.
if there was no audience, it wouldn't exist. as with any form of sport or entertainment.
www.headstonesband.com
yeah, I respectfully say you have some level of ignorance of the topic based on things you've said, and you tell me I'm on a different plane of reality.
www.headstonesband.com
As for the different plane of reality... that wasn't an insult at all, and it wasn't a comment only applying to you. I simply meant that we are clearly looking at this from completely different, incompatible view points. I'm as much on a different plane of reality from you as you are from me IMO.
The project’s findings raise grave questions about the safety of a dangerous sport that is popular precisely because of its violent nature.
I still don't get how you are very knowledgeable in MMA by only seeing it in bars and pubs.
www.headstonesband.com