The Guardian Calls For MMA Ban

[JowGaWolf]

How many more young people must die before mixed martial arts is banned? | Peter McCabe
How many more young people must die before mixed martial arts is banned?
Peter McCabe

Food for thought.

If I had a choice I would get rid of the ground and pound. I would probably also do a rule where 3 very hard hits to the face would be considered a lost. This would be done to help encourage fighters to become better at protecting their head. Hit's to the head won't be banned but if a hit is strong enough to stun or cause severe swelling, then it's good enough to be used to determine a winner. If the other person couldn't protect their face enough to prevent from being punched or kicked in the face that many times with that level of force then in my opinion he isn't at a skill level where he should be fighting that particular person.

Unfortunately most people like to see 2 fighters beat the mess out of each other. Only those who appreciate the fighting system and skill level would be fine with rules like that were a person can win without having to literally destroy another fighters head.

 

[geezer]

If you ban anything that connects to the head then football ( soccer) would need to ban heading the ball ( it does cause brain injury, it's been proven) horse sports ( racing, polo, eventing, show jumping etc) motor biking, skiing events including downhill, slalom, jumping, luge, skeleton and bob sleigh, rugby, Aussie rules, white water rafting.... I could go on, hard hats and helmets do not stop the brain from bruising when you hit your head.

You are absolutely right, Tez. And as more evidence about the long term, cumulative effects of repeated head injuries is collected and publicized, I predict that the outcry against MMA, boxing, and the current rule-set in other heavy-contact sports like rugby, American football, and also regarding heading the ball in Football/Soccer, will only become stronger. Especially in youth leagues.

Whatever our personal take is on this issue, we shouldn't be surprised by this controversy. Another point people cetrainly will make is that whatever your personal choice as an adult is, Society and the rest of us, as taxpayers will have to pay for the long-term care of broke, disabled former athletes suffering from severe disability and dementia resulting from their decision to participate in these kinds of activities.

So, even as a person with "small-L libertarian" leanings, I have to recognize (if not agree) with the argument of those who say that this is everybody's business.

 

[Steve]

Yes, but as I said, football and skilling do not involve intentionally trying to hit someone in the head repeatedly. Boxing and MMA are about the only sports that do this as far as I am aware. That does seem to make them somewhat different.

I'm all for taking reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of people who engage in combat or contact sports. But, I think that a discussion like this needs to focus on mitigating an effect, rather than on a particular cause. What I mean is, what's the real problem here? Is it that people are being concussed, or is it that they are being concussed while competing in MMA?

If I had a choice I would get rid of the ground and pound. I would probably also do a rule where 3 very hard hits to the face would be considered a lost. This would be done to help encourage fighters to become better at protecting their head. Hit's to the head won't be banned but if a hit is strong enough to stun or cause severe swelling, then it's good enough to be used to determine a winner. If the other person couldn't protect their face enough to prevent from being punched or kicked in the face that many times with that level of force then in my opinion he isn't at a skill level where he should be fighting that particular person.

Unfortunately most people like to see 2 fighters beat the mess out of each other. Only those who appreciate the fighting system and skill level would be fine with rules like that were a person can win without having to literally destroy another fighters head.

I think you're describing point fighting, which is another style of competition entirely.

 

[DaveB]

The Guardian is ...well the Guardian. It wants to ban most things that are fun. It's actually not allowed in British Army messes lol because of it's perceived communist viewpoint.

That is disturbing.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

OK, let's play it as a thought experiment for a moment.

Please imagine a sport that is legal in which the winner kills the loser, say by decapitation. I realize there is no such sport, I ask you to play this thought experiment with me.

Do you suppose that such a sport would be allowed?

If so, do you suppose it should be allowed?

Now, still playing this thought experiment, let us say that the imaginary sport is modified so that death is only awarded to the loser in say 1 out of 10 losses. So if a person loses, they stand a 10% chance of being killed.

Would it be OK now?

Then let's say one out of one hundred. The loser stands a 1% chance of being killed.

Would that be OK?

How about 1 in 1,000? A one tenth of one percent chance of being killed?

Now, having conducted these thought experiments, let us ask how often an MMA fighter is killed during the conduct of their sport. Perhaps it is one in 10,000? I don't know, I'm just guessing.

Is that OK on that basis?

In other words, at what point do you object to the percentage of people killed as a direct result of participation in the sport? What's the level you feel OK with?

 

[ShawnP]

And let's be honest here. These shots are intentional.

i did not see 1 single intentional hit to a head in this video, anything close to relating to a hit to the head appears to be accidental, also this is NOT a combat sport...

 

[Tez3]

People are killed in the participation of life. Angling is the most dangerous sport there is, figures prove it, anglers fall in the water and drown. Two pro cyclists died the other week, one from a heart attack ( he was in his 20s) the other when he came off and was run down by a support car. A nine year old girl on a pony was killed a couple of weeks ago when the horse next to her kicked her. A sailor died when she went overboard on a round the world yacht race also a couple of weeks ago, there are numerous bodies of dead climbers on the slopes of Everest, walkers died on Ben Nevis last week, I could go on.

Rock fishing

What about horse racing which kills jockeys AND horses, many each year?

It's nonsense to ask what's acceptable in MMA when so many other activities and sports 'kill' people every day. Humans are risk takers, equating MMA to the ghastly media description of 'fighting to the death' is simply not fair.

 

[Tez3]

also this is NOT a combat sport...

You don't play I take it? The All Blacks do the Haka because it is a combat sport, if you think it's not you need to watch it more closely. Many of those shots are deliberate as is the sharpening of fingernails for use in the scrum, the grabbing of testicles in the same, the feet on the body etc etc.

 

[ShawnP]

People are killed in the participation of life. Angling is the most dangerous sport there is, figures prove it, anglers fall in the water and drown. Two pro cyclists died the other week, one from a heart attack ( he was in his 20s) the other when he came off and was run down by a support car. A nine year old girl on a pony was killed a couple of weeks ago when the horse next to her kicked her. A sailor died when she went overboard on a round the world yacht race also a couple of weeks ago, there are numerous bodies of dead climbers on the slopes of Everest, walkers died on Ben Nevis last week, I could go on.

Rock fishing

What about horse racing which kills jockeys AND horses, many each year?

It's nonsense to ask what's acceptable in MMA when so many other activities and sports 'kill' people every day. Humans are risk takers, equating MMA to the ghastly media description of 'fighting to the death' is simply not fair.

i heard this many years back when i was a kid about sports fishing, drowning was the cause of death and alcohol was the cause of falling off the boat.....

 

[ShawnP]

You don't play I take it? The All Blacks do the Haka because it is a combat sport, if you think it's not you need to watch it more closely. Many of those shots are deliberate as is the sharpening of fingernails for use in the scrum, the grabbing of testicles in the same, the feet on the body etc etc.

so your saying Rugby is a New Zealand combat sport?

 

[Zeny]

On this issue i take the side of banning MMA.

When we talk about a ban on a particular activity, a person's individual preference is no longer relevant, the cost to society is. That's why dangerous drugs are banned in many countries, as well as killing endangered animals for sport.

It does not take a scientific study to tell us that one knock out in a single match has the potential to cause permanent and life shortening injuries to an otherwise healthy person.

If you want a martial arts sport, have one where both combatants wear protective gear. Same reason why soccer players wear shoes and racers wear helmets.

If anyone disagrees with me do write a convincing rebuttal to the articled linked by bill, such rebuttal to state something other than your personal preference and the fact that you enjoy MMA, or that there are other more dangerous sports. Name one sport that is legal in many countries that deliberately places you in serious danger of permanent injury or death without adequate protection (accidents don't count). If there is such sport, that sport ought to be banned too.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think you're describing point fighting, which is another style of competition entirely.

Nope. I'm not describing point fighting. Strikes to the head are allowed even if they are hard. Here are a couple examples where you can clearly see what I'm talking about. If the fighter is constantly getting rocked in the face and their head is moving like a bobble head toy, then 3 of those would be a limit. With point sparring it's all about touching. In my opinion I think that is more dangerous than not hitting the head with some kind of force. Point sparring creates lazy defense.

By the way knockouts would still be valid. With these rules. The goal wouldn't be to stop the head shots. The goal would be to minimize the beating the brain is going to take.

 

[Danny T]

On this issue i take the side of banning MMA.

When we talk about a ban on a particular activity, a person's individual preference is no longer relevant, the cost to society is. That's why dangerous drugs are banned in many countries, as well as killing endangered animals for sport.

It does not take a scientific study to tell us that one knock out in a single match has the potential to cause permanent and life shortening injuries to an otherwise healthy person.

If you want a martial arts sport, have one where both combatants wear protective gear. Same reason why soccer players wear shoes and racers wear helmets.

If you disagree with me do try write a convincing rebuttal to the articled linked by bill, such rebuttal to state something other than your personal preference and the fact that you enjoy MMA.

Would you be a proponent of banning automobiles as well. Certainly far more cost to society with deaths by automobiles. But then most consider it as acceptable because the gain the auto has to society is considered greater than the losses.

Dangerous drugs are banned but there large losses of life due to prescribed drugs.
So those huge cost to society are acceptable while the costs from full contact sports isn't.

 

[Zeny]

Would you be a proponent of banning automobiles as well. Certainly far more cost to society with deaths by automobiles. But then most consider it as acceptable because the gain the auto has to society is considered greater than the losses.

Dangerous drugs are banned but there large losses of life due to prescribed drugs.
So those huge cost to society are acceptable while the costs from full contact sports isn't.

If automobiles don't have bumpers, airbags and sealbelts, or knocking down someone deliberately or driving while under the influence has not been made a criminal offence, then yes, they should be banned.

 

[marques]

If you want a martial arts sport, have one where both combatants wear protective gear. Same reason why soccer players wear shoes and racers wear helmets.

It would be great. But helmets, at least in combat sports, protect mostly the surface (skin), as the gloves do.
Also, it would be less 'interesting' seeing people fighting in an astronaut suit.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Here's something interesting. How many boxers have died in the ring.

This is the site where you can find the data.

The page also has data for MMA .

 

[Steve]

OK, let's play it as a thought experiment for a moment.

Please imagine a sport that is legal in which the winner kills the loser, say by decapitation. I realize there is no such sport, I ask you to play this thought experiment with me.

Do you suppose that such a sport would be allowed?

If so, do you suppose it should be allowed?

Now, still playing this thought experiment, let us say that the imaginary sport is modified so that death is only awarded to the loser in say 1 out of 10 losses. So if a person loses, they stand a 10% chance of being killed.

Would it be OK now?

Then let's say one out of one hundred. The loser stands a 1% chance of being killed.

Would that be OK?

How about 1 in 1,000? A one tenth of one percent chance of being killed?

Now, having conducted these thought experiments, let us ask how often an MMA fighter is killed during the conduct of their sport. Perhaps it is one in 10,000? I don't know, I'm just guessing.

Is that OK on that basis?

In other words, at what point do you object to the percentage of people killed as a direct result of participation in the sport? What's the level you feel OK with?

Bill, this is exactly the point, though. Wherever this line exists, is it the intent of the activity or the result of the activity that matters? In your thought experiment above, you have moved completely away from your assertion earlier that the intent of the sport matters, focusing instead on "chance of being killed."

Is the rate of death per number of participants the salient point? Or deaths overall? Or is this just about deaths?

 

[Tez3]

so your saying Rugby is a New Zealand combat sport?

What? rugby was invented in England, at Rugby school. I'm not saying anything of the sort, not sure whether you are trying to be funny or serious. Rugby is a very hard game, the hits are real. People have died playing and they have been crippled and paralysed for life.

 

[Steve]

On this issue i take the side of banning MMA.

When we talk about a ban on a particular activity, a person's individual preference is no longer relevant, the cost to society is. That's why dangerous drugs are banned in many countries, as well as killing endangered animals for sport.

It does not take a scientific study to tell us that one knock out in a single match has the potential to cause permanent and life shortening injuries to an otherwise healthy person.

If you want a martial arts sport, have one where both combatants wear protective gear. Same reason why soccer players wear shoes and racers wear helmets.

If anyone disagrees with me do write a convincing rebuttal to the articled linked by bill, such rebuttal to state something other than your personal preference and the fact that you enjoy MMA, or that there are other more dangerous sports. Name one sport that is legal in many countries that deliberately places you in serious danger of permanent injury or death without adequate protection (accidents don't count). If there is such sport, that sport ought to be banned too.

Couple of things. First, can you please help me understand what you mean when you use the word "accident"? If you're excluding accidents, from my perspective, you should exclude deaths in an MMA match for exactly the same reason you would exclude deaths in any other sport. They are not intentional, and every effort is made to mitigate risk in MMA as in any sport.

Second, the cure is sometimes worse than the illness. There is ample evidence to suggest that a prohibition on "dangerous" drugs is worse for 'society" than the drugs themselves (without going into more detail as it would get political, I will simply recommend you do some research. You may not agree, but perhaps you will gain at least an appreciation for an alternative perspective). In the same way, the protections afforded athletes can have unintended, harmful consequences. For example, the boxing gloves, standing eight count and other rules within boxing just give the athletes more opportunities to get pummeled in the noggin. While it might be less dramatic in the short term, we are seeing plenty of evidence that long term affects are pretty severe.

 

[Danny T]

If automobiles don't have bumpers, airbags and sealbelts, or knocking down someone deliberately or driving while under the influence has not been made a criminal offence, then yes, they should be banned.

So those who die or seriously injured are acceptable cost to society in automobiles with bumpers, airbags, & seat-belts where as those who die in the others aren't.
Yeah that makes sense.