The Guardian Calls For MMA Ban

[Steve]

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.

But they didn't always have these things... and they weren't banned. What happened?

Conversely, are you discounting the numerous safety measures that exist within MMA? Can you name any safety measures that have been implemented within MMA? I can think of many.

 

[Tez3]

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.

You don't know anything at all about MMA do you otherwise you wouldn't have written that, not that it's actually understandable.
"to the articled linked by bill," what?

I have actually already given a list of sports which legally place people in danger, the fact is you didn't read my post.

'Racers wear helmets' they are actually of very little use, they do not protect the brain from being bruised, nothing external can.

I'm not sure what cost you think there is to society by people doing MMA, I can however tell you the costs entailed by mountain and fell rescue teams as well as the military services and Coastguards getting people to safety from the hill, moors and mountains. I can tell you the costs entailed by rescuing people from their boats around the coast. Should we ban mountaineers, climbers, walkers, yachtsmen and women, anglers, jockeys, horse riders, skiers, skateboarders etc etc on your rather spurious definition of what you think MMA is? Just because it's not like your magic no touch KOs doesn't mean it's wrong or bad.

 

[Steve]

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.

Well, for what it's worth, I think it's acceptable cost, and so do most people. Everyone who walks near a car, drives a car, or rides in a car everyday is accepting some amount of risk related to cars. Don't we?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I see no one wants to seriously discuss the topic. Fascinating. Please pardon me for posting this thread.

 

[Tez3]

I see no one wants to seriously discuss the topic. Fascinating. Please pardon me for posting this thread.

Really? Do you assume that we find any death amusing then or that we don't take safety seriously in MMA? Trust me, I'm not laughing and I find some people's willingness to see things in MMA that simply aren't there frustrating. What happened to open minds?

 

[Danny T]

Well, for what it's worth, I think it's acceptable cost, and so do most people. Everyone who walks near a car, drives a car, or rides in a car everyday is accepting some amount of risk related to cars. Don't we?

Indeed there is a degree of risk in everything.
At my age I'd rather risk of being an MMA match with someone my equal than be by myself on Bourbon St. at midnight in New Orleans and I'd do the MMA match before doing a base jump where others may well take being on Bourbon St. or take the base jump.

 

[drop bear]

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...

And yet. More deaths.

 

[drop bear]

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.

Any ball sport that allows contact deliberately places you in serious danger without adequate protection.

You are not accidentally tacking people.

 

[Tez3]

And yet. More deaths.

Indeed and in amateur games too.
Five deaths from head injuries in amateur rugby union

 

[Danny T]

I see no one wants to seriously discuss the topic. Fascinating. Please pardon me for posting this thread.

Any death in sport is serious just as any death in any manner not of natural causes is a serious matter. But is any injury or death in MMA worse or more serious or more costly to society or humanity than in any other endeavor?
There is risk involved in everything we do. We attempt to reduce risk but...
You are a shooter Bill, people die from being shot. Do you feel guns should be banned? Many people do, I don't.
One thing in the article mention in short was the "small fraction of income generated" that is received by fighters. This is certainly true as to compensation for the bouts.

"At a time when responsible sports bodies are rightly taking action to improve their concussion protocols to ensure participants are properly cared for when accidental collisions occur, it seems perverse that MMA can be allowed to continue to encourage trauma to the brain. There is no conceivable way in which MMA can even remotely be considered safe. How many more young men need to die before we take action?"

What is the individuals responsibility for his/her personal safety? The Individual can stop the contest at any time.
Far more have died in other contact sports as well as in non-contact sports. What is their responsibility?

Boxing has more deaths, some have standing 8 counts others don't, the fighter need only get up and show an ability & willingness to continue to fight. In boxing one could have been knocked down and concussed in round one get a standing 8 count and continue to get damaged.
In MMA if the fight is stopped that's it. Over. No 8 count and continue. The individual can quit any time. Tap, wave off, verbally submit. How about a bungee jumper who turns over their life to someone else and their equipment. Once they step off that platform can they quit? Can they submit? No they are in the game until it is over either by the equipment not failing or by hitting the ground if it fails. No Choice once leaving the platform. Should that entertainment be banned?

 

[ShawnP]

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.

im just putting 2 and 2 together, you quoted the All Black does the Haka before a match, the Haka was war dance originated in New Zealand was it not? and you also quoted Rugby "IS" a combat sport.
No i dont play Rugby, i dont even watch Rugby but from the video posted i stated "i did not see 1 single intentional hit to a head" and that "this is NOT a combat sport..." in REPLY TO DropBears video post replying to marques post about banning all "Combat Sports". i said nothing about where Rugby was invented and Just because Rugby is a brutal sport does not categorize it as a "Combat Sport".
i am in no way being funny or joking about someones death due to violence, i think most know my standing on violence now but i cant make others take my position on it and i have to agree that MMA, especially for young people is not regulated enough as is a LOT of other things in life.

 

[ShawnP]

What is the individuals responsibility for his/her personal safety? The Individual can stop the contest at any time.
Far more have died in other contact sports as well as in non-contact sports. What is their responsibility

i tried to make this point in another thread that the "Fighter" has the last say when it involved his well being and the fighter would know better than the Ref/Dr./Corner if something was seriously wrong and stop the fight, and i was told i was wrong, that it was the Refs and corners job, not the fighter?????????

 

[Steve]

I see no one wants to seriously discuss the topic. Fascinating. Please pardon me for posting this thread.

I would like to seriously discuss this question, and I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I would not. I posted the questions below, which you haven't addressed.

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?

In your early posts, you spoke of intent, which I think is problematic. You didn't respond, but did invite us to participate in a thought experiment below:

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?

To which I responded with the following, related pretty directly to my first post above about the question of intent. It seems, as I note below, that you are shifting the goal posts a bit, and I'd like to get a better sense of what you are actually proposing.

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?

 

[Steve]

im just putting 2 and 2 together, you quoted the All Black does the Haka before a match, the Haka was war dance originated in New Zealand was it not? and you also quoted Rugby "IS" a combat sport.
No i dont play Rugby, i dont even watch Rugby but from the video posted i stated "i did not see 1 single intentional hit to a head" and that "this is NOT a combat sport..." in REPLY TO DropBears video post replying to marques post about banning all "Combat Sports". i said nothing about where Rugby was invented and Just because Rugby is a brutal sport does not categorize it as a "Combat Sport".
i am in no way being funny or joking about someones death due to violence, i think most know my standing on violence now but i cant make others take my position on it and i have to agree that MMA, especially for young people is not regulated enough as is a LOT of other things in life.

So... are you proposing a ban on all combat sports, more regulatory oversight, more rules... what exactly are you driving towards, here?

 

[Tez3]

i tried to make this point in another thread that the "Fighter" has the last say when it involved his well being and the fighter would know better than the Ref/Dr./Corner if something was seriously wrong and stop the fight, and i was told i was wrong, that it was the Refs and corners job, not the fighter?????????

So you know nothing about rugby, don't even watch it but feel qualified to judge and comment? The same as MMA then. The fighter chooses to fight, that's his responsibility, who he fights, how he fights and during his fight it's the refs and corners responsibility. yes if he/she feels they can't continue then they stop but often the adrenaline and excitement overrules a fighter's brain and this is where the others have to take the fighter's welfare over.

 

[drop bear]

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?

People die doing stuff.

im just putting 2 and 2 together, you quoted the All Black does the Haka before a match, the Haka was war dance originated in New Zealand was it not? and you also quoted Rugby "IS" a combat sport.
No i dont play Rugby, i dont even watch Rugby but from the video posted i stated "i did not see 1 single intentional hit to a head" and that "this is NOT a combat sport..." in REPLY TO DropBears video post replying to marques post about banning all "Combat Sports". i said nothing about where Rugby was invented and Just because Rugby is a brutal sport does not categorize it as a "Combat Sport".
i am in no way being funny or joking about someones death due to violence, i think most know my standing on violence now but i cant make others take my position on it and i have to agree that MMA, especially for young people is not regulated enough as is a LOT of other things in life.

How is being intentionally hit in the head relevant?

OK. Sports have risks. To separate a type of risk does not really make sense.

A mma fighter does not get attacked by a shark like a surfer might.

A mma fighter won't get lost and die from hypothermia like a bush walker might.

A mma fighter won't stack his motorcycle into a tree at a hundred miles an hour like I might.

Everybody willingly engages in these activities with the knowledge that there is risk. Why have you separated mma from any other activity?

 

[drop bear]

i tried to make this point in another thread that the "Fighter" has the last say when it involved his well being and the fighter would know better than the Ref/Dr./Corner if something was seriously wrong and stop the fight, and i was told i was wrong, that it was the Refs and corners job, not the fighter?????????

Was that mma?

Because the whole tapping thing. You know?

 

[Tez3]

Was that mma?

Because the whole tapping thing. You know?

The problem with people who jump in and say how bad/wrong/horrible MMA fights are, is the total lack of understanding of what fights are that they have. Taking your opinion from certain media ie 'human cock fighting' and 'fighting to the death' means you miss all the actual facts about the fights. Assuming too that all fighters are at UFC level because that's all they think of is also wrong. If I said there are different levels of fights such as amateur where there are no hits to the head at all standing or on the ground I imagine they'd be very surprised, semi pro hits to the head standing only fights are common. Most MMA fighters are martial artists to like to challenge themselves in a fight and may only fight once or twice a year, they do all the things other martial artists do the rest of the time, work, train, spend time with families etc.

i tried to make this point in another thread that the "Fighter" has the last say when it involved his well being and the fighter would know better than the Ref/Dr./Corner if something was seriously wrong and stop the fight, and i was told i was wrong, that it was the Refs and corners job, not the fighter?????????

As I said before if he understood how MA fights work it wouldn't be such a puzzle. Apart from this, the subject discussed when he said that was boxing, a different subject which has different rules from MMA!


I watched a fight show last night on television, Cagewarriors on in London, it was their 75th show ( I remember the first one I worked on years ago, the 5th lol) there are so many safeguards in place that unless you have a good knowledge of MMA and the fight scene I'd don't think you'd realise. The fights are there for the spectators to enjoy but the organisation working with SAFE ( a safeguarding organisation run by MMA people here) made the fights as safe as is possible. Incidentally one fight which was very good had only a few punches thrown the rest was wonderful Jits. Another the ref Marc Goddard stopped before any damage was done to the downed fighter. The fighter wasn't too happy but accepted the decision gracefully.

SAFE was launched in 2013 and is going well.
SAFE MMA initiative launched in the UK

There is danger in many things, walking down the road has risks, there's just been a second big earthquake in Japan, other places like Syria are being bombed into nothing so on the scale of things MMA is nothing. All those that spar even lightly in their gyms are at risk, a blow to the head can be light but still cause bruising then bleeding on the brain, you could twist your ankle, break your arm, have a heart attack etc. Assuming MMA is inherently more dangerous than full contact karate/TKD is wrong and quite honestly people should stop being smug about their style being 'safe'. A kick to the head in Olympic TKD ( the one people call tippy tappy) causes damage that wearing a headguard does not mitigate.

 

[Tez3]

So...do those who think MMA is the devil's child ever consider the dangers of drinking alcohol? It costs society far more than MMA ever does or would. The drinking culture that many are used to costs lives, families, jobs and is a burden on many. Would they want a ban on alcohol?
Alcohol Use Costs Increase
Policy Brief: The cost of binge drinking in the UK | University of Bath

Statistics on alcohol - Alcohol Concern
In the UK, in 2014 there were 8,697 alcohol-related deaths

Health Care Costs of Alcohol
Untreated alcohol problems waste an estimated $184.6 billion dollars per year in health care, business and criminal justice costs, and cause more than 100,000 deaths

and we are being lectured about MMA?

 

[Buka]

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?

This is a great thread. I think it's an important one, too. And forgive me for my early post containing - Ban, Baby, Ban! It's how I actually feel, but I don't want you to think I don't take this subject seriously.

First - for Bill's thought experiment. I'm good with one out of a thousand deaths. Why? I don't know, but one out of a hundred sounds far too excessive. You kind of give another choice of one out of ten thousand - I'll take that if it's indeed an option. I don't want to see anyone get killed, not at all, but I'm a realist, a Martial Artist, a fighter, a former cop and a city boy. Sheet happens.

I think Drop Bear said it best, "People die doing stuff."

We should look at this in the big picture. How long has there been fighting contests between people? Goes back to ancient times, does it not? Probably not too many long periods of time where there weren't any. People, we as a species, seem to love watching people fight each other.

Now, consider for a minute, what the early UFC's were like. Nasty. Just plain nasty.
I can't think of another sport, especially a fighting sport, that has implemented more rule changes to protect fighters (and, yes, I know, to cover their own asses as well) as MMA has done in the last twenty years. I'm not just glad for the fighters, as a fan, it's just much of a better sport to watch.