Mayweather vs McGregor-ridiculous spectacle or legitimate sporting event?

HughFreakingDillon

play competitive tackle football. it's violent. yes, but most if not all football injuries are inflicted by your opponent, not by you fucking up. to me that's violence. 

HesCalledDyer

Current boxers I can name: Manny Pacquiao, Canelo Alvarez, Victor Ortiz, Juan Manuel Marquez, Andre Berto, Miguel Cotto, Terence Crawford, Roman Gonzalez, Sergey Kovalev, Andre Ward

Current MMA fighters I can name: Conor McGregor... because of Floyd Mayweather

rgambs

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

Not household, but no less so than boxing's (current) big names.

I am not a fan of either, and I can definitely name more boxers than I can MMA fighters (I can name exactly one MMA fighter, in fact, and it's in the title of this thread ). I think it's because there are just so damned many MMA fights and fighters that nobody who dislikes/hates the sport can be bothered to pay attention to any of their names in passing. But when a boxer is being highlighted, that stands out because it's rarely discussed in comparison (plus, boxing is somewhat less off-putting to most people who aren't into fighting).

I can't name any current boxers. not one. 

What about Mayweather?

he's retired as of Saturday.

Haha! Touche. Well, I was actually talking about boxers in general, not current ones. I know a lot of their names - at least a dozen off the top of my head. But, of course, I'm speaking as someone who actually has a real issue with MMA/UFC. I don't like boxing either, but MMA crosses a line of viciousness that doesn't sit well with me, mostly because of the fans, in a general sense. I'll put it this way: literally the ONLY bar fights I've ever seen in my life all happened on UFC nights. I think the sport, at least with the way it's marketed now, spawns violence, aggression, and general douchebaggery (no, of course I'm not talking about all UFC fans). I don't feel that boxing has the same effect.

I've watched UFC at bars a few times, and never saw any issue at all. There of course are going to be those types that are probably aggressive already and UFC + booze + those types of people = fights, but most MMA purists just enjoy the competitive nature of the sport. it's not all blood and broken bones like it used to be. A lot of it is highly skilled submissions. sure there are knockouts, and of course that's part of the marketing of it, the excitement of a half-second leg to the face, no different than football or hockey being marketed using massive bone-crunching tackles and bare knuckled brawling. But that's actually just a small part of it. I admit sometimes I feel conflicted about watching it. It seems odd to me that I'm such a pacifist yet I get enjoyment out of MMA. It doesn't reconcile well. 

I do know it takes skill and work. I was friends with an MMA fighter, and he was a great guy and hard worker (he got his ass kicked badly every fight, and he finally stopped and went back to teaching MMA). I can't imagine it's good for kids to watch such things for entertainment. I don't feel that hockey or football is comparable in any way, though agree that the hockey fights aren't good for kids either. I don't think football is violent at all. Tackling isn't fighting IMO.

I know they aren't the same. i was only mentioning how things are marketed, and just because it's marketed that way, doesn't mean that's what you are getting. 

I disagree. Football is incredibly violent. No, it's not fighting. But people have died on the field. Multiple concussions leading to depression and suicide is a real problem in pro football, although it generally happens years after the athlete has retired, so it doesn't get the attention it requires. 

Oh, I'm thinking of violence as in people beating the shit out of each other (I actually can't figure out why anyone wants to watch that - I definitely know why you're feeling conflicted as a passivist, lol. I'm not sure how one reconciles that! I personally feel sick to my stomach while watching it). I don't feel that on-field injuries is violence. Certainly not in the context that we're talking, i.e. MMA. I think of football injuries in the same way as I think of any other sporting injuries. Many non-violent sports are dangerous for the athletes.

Bar fighting has been the official sport of douchebags since long before MMA came along.
 The hits on an NFL field are actually more dangerous and injurious than in the cage.  Two men smashing into each other with their maximum possible bodily kinetic energy.  Yeah that's extreme violence.

Men are hardwired for aggression and violence.  Sport is a healthy way to act out those tendancies in a controlled environment.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

play competitive tackle football. it's violent. yes, but most if not all football injuries are inflicted by your opponent, not by you fucking up. to me that's violence. 

Yeah, I know what football is like. It's just using bodies to block the opponent or to get past the opponent. I think there is a really defined difference between that and two men in a ring beating the shit out of each other by kicking, punching, etc. One is fighting and one is not. The purpose of UFC and boxing is to knock the other guy out, while the purpose of football is to get the ball into the end zone or over the goal posts. Not even close to comparable. People getting hurt doesn't necessarily = violence IMHO.

rgambs

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

play competitive tackle football. it's violent. yes, but most if not all football injuries are inflicted by your opponent, not by you fucking up. to me that's violence. 

Yeah, I know what football is like. It's just using bodies to block the opponent or to get past the opponent. I think there is a really defined difference between that and two men in a ring beating the shit out of each other by kicking, punching, etc. One is fighting and one is not. The purpose of UFC and boxing is to knock the other guy out, while the purpose of football is to get the ball into the end zone or over the goal posts. Not even close to comparable. People getting hurt doesn't necessarily = violence IMHO.

I see what your saying, but I disagree.  Hitting a person as hard as you physically can with your entire body is an extremely violent action.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

play competitive tackle football. it's violent. yes, but most if not all football injuries are inflicted by your opponent, not by you fucking up. to me that's violence. 

Yeah, I know what football is like. It's just using bodies to block the opponent or to get past the opponent. I think there is a really defined difference between that and two men in a ring beating the shit out of each other by kicking, punching, etc. One is fighting and one is not. The purpose of UFC and boxing is to knock the other guy out, while the purpose of football is to get the ball into the end zone or over the goal posts. Not even close to comparable. People getting hurt doesn't necessarily = violence IMHO.

the purpose of MMA is NOT to knock the other guy out. it's to win via submission, knockout, or judges' scorecards. the first and last choices are the more often end result of each contest. 

purpose or intent is not required for it to be deemed violent. 

no one here is comparing the sports of football to MMA except you. I was comparing their marketing strategies. 

I say MMA is violent. I say football is also violent. they are just different in their violence, but FAR more people have been severely injured and died in football than in MMA. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

play competitive tackle football. it's violent. yes, but most if not all football injuries are inflicted by your opponent, not by you fucking up. to me that's violence. 

Yeah, I know what football is like. It's just using bodies to block the opponent or to get past the opponent. I think there is a really defined difference between that and two men in a ring beating the shit out of each other by kicking, punching, etc. One is fighting and one is not. The purpose of UFC and boxing is to knock the other guy out, while the purpose of football is to get the ball into the end zone or over the goal posts. Not even close to comparable. People getting hurt doesn't necessarily = violence IMHO.

the purpose of MMA is NOT to knock the other guy out. it's to win via submission, knockout, or judges' scorecards. the first and last choices are the more often end result of each contest. 

purpose or intent is not required for it to be deemed violent. 

no one here is comparing the sports of football to MMA except you. I was comparing their marketing strategies. 

I say MMA is violent. I say football is also violent. they are just different in their violence, but FAR more people have been severely injured and died in football than in MMA. 

Whatever - knock them out, pound them into submission, lol, same diff.
Wait, what?? You are the one who brought up football and said it's violent, and I'm saying I don't think it isn't, and explaining why I think that.
I'd love to see your comparative injury/death stats on that. I'm guessing you actually have no clue how many injuries/deaths have resulted from MMA or football, overall, nor how number of participants would impact whatever those numbers are.
Anyway, if football is violence, then so is water polo. And if unjuries/deaths determine violence, then skiing, equestrian, motocross, soccer, and gymnastics is crazy violent.

Cliffy6745

This is violent. There are different types of violence.  That is all

HughFreakingDillon

pound them into submission? no, that's not even a thing. it's called having them in a submission hold, like an armbar or something similar where the guy taps out verbally or physically. 

there has been ONE death from pro (sanctioned) MMA fighting, and it was actually quite recently. so yeah, I know what I'm talking about. 

again, I didn't say injuries determined violence. those are your words. I said the nature of the sport did. guys crashing into each other head on, or spearing a guy while he's mid-air, yeah, I consider that violent. rugby I also would consider violent.

water polo? not so much. 

PJ_Soul

Cliffy6745 said:

This is violent. There are different types of violence.  That is all

It's a high impact sport to say the least. Yeah, sorry, I still just don't think it's violence. I mean, if the guy doesn't try that hard to stop the dude with the ball, the dude would possibly get past him. Guy tries hard to get past him, guy stops him with basically equal force. It's just a matter of our definition of human violence, obviously. Now, I DO consider some things that are illegal plays to be violent. Just as I (obviously) see hockey fights as violence, I also think that shit like illegal hits from behind is violence, and other brutal illegal plays. But normal legal play in hockey and football is not violence IMO, and certainly not comparable to MMA (which has been my point all along). 
All that said, I think anyone getting into playing football (and their parents) has to be extremely well-informed about the physical risks, and impacts have to be prevented for people under 18, which I doubt is happening in a lot of places. But if adults choose to take that risk, fine with me. Same with MMA and boxing and hockey, of course.

Cliffy6745

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.

PJ_Soul

Cliffy6745 said:

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.

Cliffy6745

PJ_Soul said:

Cliffy6745 said:

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

Cliffy6745

Football players intend tend to hurt other football players. 

rgambs

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.

PJ_Soul

Cliffy6745 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Cliffy6745 said:

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.

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

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!

rgambs

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

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.

PJ_Soul

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??

PJfanwillneverleave1

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.