Are Standing Arm Break Unsportsmanlike in MMA?

[now disabled]

I think it's fair to say ethics are always individual, and sometimes (often?, maybe always?) contextual. Point is, it seems there's always an individual component, and we could argue whether there's always a contextual component, as well.

Yes I agree

 

[Anarax]

'Bearing' your opponent? that's not actually what they do and often matches are won by points.

*Beating. That's entirely dependent on the fighter and their style though. Many of the Top MMA competitors have quite a few KOs on their record, even the ones that aren't known for their striking/KO power. Some fighters also have the intention both mentally and physically to KO their opponent, but aren't able to. Look at Ali and Foreman, Foreman was throwing everything he had at Ali but didn't manage to knock him out. Just about every shot Foreman threw was with the intention to KO/injure him. What about Pedro Rizzo who had devastating leg kicks. He TKOed opponents with his leg kicks and left a permanent indentation in Randy Couture's femur. Should Pedro not have thrown a legal leg kick with full force in a Pro MMA bout because of the massive damage it would inflict?

Only to a point, they aren't going to break someone's neck to win.

That's what the rules are for

You seem to want to make it sound as if we are in Roman times and back in the arena.

Not at all. Two fighters trying to kill each with weapons is different, for weapons greatly increase the lethality of the match. I don't condone an MMA fighter walking into the ring with a Gladius.

MMA is exciting enough, varied enough and is finally starting to make it as a main stream sport, we don't need this rubbish.

Two professional fighters going into an agreed upon bout, both following the rules while trying to KO each other isn't rubbish.

I've spent over 20 years now working towards this ( and the inclusion of women) and you want it to go back to being labelled cock fighting etc.

I'm not overly concerned with what some might label it. It's full contact professional fighting.

Professional fighters don't want the reputation of being nasty, of breaking opponents, not necessarily for moral reasons but because no one will agree to fight them and they will be out of work.

Winning fights within the confines of the rules by KO/TKO isn't nasty. If other fighters are afraid to fight another fighter then it's the responsibility of the organization to find him/her an opponent.

I can see your point - as I said earlier, what participants agree is okay is part of the ethics.

I just don't see a good reason to significantly injure someone in the name of sport. And, as I said before, that's just me.

I understand and respect your stance on the matter, you're consistent in your beliefs.

This is why rules tend to be more restrictive for amateurs and novices. At an elite level, athletes are expected to know when they are beaten, and are relied upon to submit when appropriate

Good point. Here in the US each state has different rules/laws concerning amateur bouts. Some even require the use of headgear. That's why I used Professional bouts as the benchmark.

If you fight dirty, looking for eye pokes or fish hooks, that’s on you. If you hold onto chokes and submissions after the tap, that’s also on you.

Yeah, that's why I'm differentiating between winning within the confines of the rules.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I didnt know this existed until now. (this particular move anyway)

I also wouldnt be much pleased if you broke my arm if the fight was establshed as sport/entertainment/fun.

 

[Tez3]

Two professional fighters going into an agreed upon bout, both following the rules while trying to KO each other isn't rubbish.

I didn't say it was rubbish, I said what you are writing is rubbish.

Not at all. Two fighters trying to kill each with weapons is different, for weapons greatly increase the lethality of the match. I don't condone an MMA fighter walking into the ring with a Gladius.

You're not seeing the point of this all are you? What you seem to understand doesn't come from what I've written, you are on a different track altogether.

I'm not overly concerned with what some might label it. It's full contact professional fighting.

Really? when the professionals are calling it MMA, when the fighters are calling it MMA etc etc etc you want to be a smartarse and call it something else as if you were the arbiter of all things martial arts.

 

[Steve]

Ah shakespeare lol

yeah man . you quoted shahespeare first. Right? I thought we were having a moment.

 

[Anarax]

I didn't say it was rubbish, I said what you are writing is rubbish.

Okay, so the scenario I gave isn't rubbish. But what I typed is? That makes perfect sense

You're not seeing the point of this all are you? What you seem to understand doesn't come from what I've written, you are on a different track altogether.

You're the one who brought up Roman times, thus I was responding to your comment.

Really? when the professionals are calling it MMA, when the fighters are calling it MMA etc etc etc you want to be a smartarse and call it something else as if you were the arbiter of all things martial arts.

Most of the examples I gave apply to professional boxing, kickboxing and MMA. Full contact professional fighting is an umbrella term that encompasses all of them.

you want to be a smartarse

Easy now Tez. You shouldn't need to resort to name calling to make your point

 

[now disabled]

yeah man . you quoted shahespeare first. Right? I thought we were having a moment.

No actually I mis quoted Shakespeare lol

 

[Steve]

If you don't like the comment, Steve, ignore it.

I asked a question and your post above is not an answer. If you aren't going to answer, just say so, but don't deflect.

 

[Steve]

No actually I mis quoted Shakespeare lol

its okay.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I asked a question and your post above is not an answer. If you aren't going to answer, just say so, but don't deflect.

I answered. You didn't like my answer, and re-asked the question. I don't have a different answer to give you.

 

[drop bear]

Ethics aren’t contextual? Can you tell me more about that?

Morality isn't contextual. Ethics or at least empathy is.

This happens a lot.

Quick example. Heaven is not for good people. Heaven is for people who accept Jesus.

 

[Steve]

I answered. You didn't like my answer, and re-asked the question. I don't have a different answer to give you.

Okay. Can you remind me of your answer? I went back and couldn’t find it.

 

[drop bear]

So Roy Nelson who went off at the ref for not calling a fight early enough.

But didn't stop hitting the guy.

 

[wanderingstudent]

I know there was intent to break his opponent's arm, but this is exactly why I suck at practicing ChinNa. Too many classes, people start out nice 'n easy; then next thing you know- some one is bleeding or torque.

 

[TSDTexan]

Morality isn't contextual. Ethics or at least empathy is.

This happens a lot.

Quick example. Heaven is not for good people. Heaven is for people who accept Jesus.

While I agree with the quick example, it misses a certain nuance.
Heaven is for people who submit themselves to Jesus, who trust in him and follow him and his teachings.

But.... this discussion of Jesus is a religious one
.. and really I think it violates the guidelines... and we might want to step away from it before it leads to a threadlock by the admins.

 

[drop bear]

While I agree with the quick example, it misses a certain nuance.
Heaven is for people who submit themselves to Jesus, who trust in him and follow him and his teachings.

But.... this discussion of Jesus is a religious one
.. and really I think it violates the guidelines... and we might want to step away from it before it leads to a threadlock by the admins.

OK
The Serbians and the Croatians could murder each other. (Commit genocide) Because their morality was external and absolute.

The other side was evil and wiping them out was for the greater good.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay. Can you remind me of your answer? I went back and couldn’t find it.

You asked if I was comparing my training to MMA fights, and I said no. You later asked something about my reason for mentioning it, and I said something about the reference of a prior post that seemed to say it's ethical because it's available.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So Roy Nelson who went off at the ref for not calling a fight early enough.

But didn't stop hitting the guy.

Yeah, and it's my knee-jerk reaction to say, "You could have stopped hitting him and just gone to control moves." At the same time, looking at it from his standpoint, we've seen fights where one guy was absolutely done - or so we thought - and he somehow got free and with one wild swing that connected won the match. If he knew the guy wasn't a threat, he should stop hitting him. But that might cause him to lose the match.

Me? I'd rather lose.

 

[TSDTexan]

OK
The Serbians and the Croatians could murder each other. (Commit genocide) Because their morality was external and absolute.

The other side was evil and wiping them out was for the greater good.

well this is a thread departure.
I could argue pros and cons for the topic of the inherently evil act of ethnic cleansing... but it is far outside of the scope of the thread.

being a good sportsman is abiding by the rules set of the sport, nothing more, nothing less.
if the rules say you can break arms to win... that's fair. if the rules say you can tap out to avoid the broken arm... that's fair too.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well this is a thread departure.
I could argue pros and cons for the topic of the inherently evil act of ethnic cleansing... but it is far outside of the scope of the thread.

being a good sportsman is abiding by the rules set of the sport, nothing more, nothing less.
if the rules say you can break arms to win... that's fair. if the rules say you can tap out to avoid the broken arm... that's fair too.

In my opinion (for all that's worth), sportsmanship goes beyond just obeying the rules (though that's definitely the larger part of it). Throwing a fit if you lose isn't usually against the rules, but many people would consider it poor sportsmanship.