Jump to content

Any UFC/MMA fans?


Recommended Posts

Dre is right. All MMA fighters employ boxing coaches. And some MMA fighters are former amateur boxers. They also employ wrestling coaches, and jujitsu coaches. It's why MMA fighters are the best all-around fighters in the world. Boxers only employ boxing coaches, because that's all they need to concentrate on. That doesn't mean that if they wanted to, they couldn't be very good in other fields of martial arts. They probably could be very good, because they're generally really good athletes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 411
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The crossover is from Boxers who were'nt very good and from weak commissions...Davis is a prime example.The reason is that those boxers probably were'nt ever going to make alot of money in boxing and went the MMA route because they might have had a better chance to make a living.The fact of the matter is that none of the people you mentioned are top 30 guys,let alone top 10 contenders in whatever weight class they might be fighting in.

Pacquiao might have mentioned it...He's also mentioned that he might run for the President of the Phillipines...I highly doubt he would even consider it with a potential bout with Floyd Mayweather happening down the road.I can't imagine Pacquiao risking injury for the pittance he would receive in an MMA bout compared to the multi-million dollar payday he would receive for fighting Mayweather.

And,sorry buddy,but just about every MMA fight I have ever seen has proven to me that punching accuracy,speed,and,proper form are not emphasized.That's probably because it's only a portion of the entire package necessary to win in an MMA bout.Most MMA fighters seem to punch with slow,looping punches and the defensive hand almost invariably drops.Elbows are wide and the feet are almost always too wide and out of position...That might work in MMA...It's a horrible combination for a boxer...

Actually Davis is condsidering returning to boxing because he made MORE money there.

And,sorry buddy,but just about every MMA fight I have ever seen has proven to me that punching accuracy,speed,and,proper form are not emphasized.

Thats just a meaningless anecdote and fan-boyism. Good striking DOES win lots of MMA fights, and a good boxer always has a punchers chance. All the guys are mentioned are good boxers or kickboxers and have done well applying that skillset in MMA.

And the quality of striking while low on average compared to pure striking sports like boxing and kickboxing its improving fast. And now that MMA is exploding and establishing itself as "the sport to be in" for fighters and the sport to watch for fight fans (its the fastest growing sport in the world) the striking will just keep getting better and better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone likes the same sports, or music, or food, etc. It's not a bad thing.

And yet you continue to invest in trying to "prove" some point you are making about MMA and "outdated fossils." It is amusing in a sad sort of way.

I just don't understand you're complete obsession with posting in a thread specifically created for people who like MMA, to discuss the latest goings on.

Meh, no worse that you posting in any thread that has anything to do with politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And,sorry buddy,but just about every MMA fight I have ever seen has proven to me that punching accuracy,speed,and,proper form are not emphasized.That's probably because it's only a portion of the entire package necessary to win in an MMA bout.Most MMA fighters seem to punch with slow,looping punches and the defensive hand almost invariably drops.Elbows are wide and the feet are almost always too wide and out of position...That might work in MMA...It's a horrible combination for a boxer...

What you'd consider proper boxing form and footwork aren't used in MMA because they're only useful in boxing. They'd be disastrous in a sport where you have to worry about takedowns and kicks. The boxing stance and footwork are only useful within the restricted framework of boxing.

Most MMA fighters (even ones from other striking disciplines, like muay thai) train in boxing, because it can be applied to MMA more readily than other striking forms.

Rogerio Nogueira won the boxing gold medal at the Pan Am games, but doesn't go into his MMA fights attempting to fight like a boxer. Guys like Frankie Edgar, BJ Penn, Georges St Pierre, Cain Velasquez, and Anderson Silva could step into a boxing ring and not look out of place. Could they compete against elite-level boxers? Certainly not. But they'd be competent. They're very well trained at boxing.

I did see an MMA guy fight a boxing guy in a boxing match, at a regional show that was broadcast on Sportsnet. And the boxing guy certainly had the edge, but if the announcers hadn't mentioned that the one fighter competes at MMA rather than boxing, you wouldn't have guessed. You'd figure it was a boxing match where one guy was a little more talented than his opponent.

The relationship between boxing and MMA is like the relationship between longest drive contests and golf. Could Tiger Woods go into a Longest Drive competition and win? He might do ok, but he probably couldn't beat guys who do nothing except practice driving all day. Could a longest drive champ go into a PGA event and look like he belonged? He'd look ridiculous. Being great at boxing would be a great asset for an MMA fighter, but it's just one part of the puzzle. You can't become a great quarterback by just practicing throwing footballs through hoops... you can't become a great hockey player by just practicing your slapshot on your driveway.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so now you are comparing the CF & police with MMA. Riiiight.

You've declared striking an opponent on the ground to be "gutless and cowardly". Police and CF members are trained to do exactly that.

Better yet, use a baseball bat, a crowbar, knife or gun. Or brass knuckles which tend to end fights fairly quickly.

The judge is probably going to look unfavorably on all of those things as excessive force. I doubt the judge is going to decide that it's excessive force if you decline to give your opponent a standing-8 count and another chance to hurt you. Sorry, your attempts to create a slippery-slope have been off the mark all thread.

The only person in this thread upholding hockey as an example of "Real Canadian Manly-Man Values" is you. No one else.

You've continuously referred to hockey as a "real Canadian sport" in this thread. Is it not representative of Real Canadian values? If hockey is at odds with Real Canadian values, why is it so popular, and why are hockey players looked upon as such heroes and role-models in Canada?

It's a contact sport, keep your head up. Or better yet, watch some football and see how many players get paid out in a game for not paying attention - when they are on their feet.

Another typical kimmy strawman. Assign "notions" to people and then argue against those notions. Hockey is a contact sport, keep your head up, even the "smaller, weaker players." :lol:

There we go. Everybody knows that beating up smaller, weaker people is gutless and cowardly. Everybody knows that hitting somebody in the head by surprise is gutless and cowardly. Unambiguously so.

But because it's HOCKEY, out come the rationalizations. "It's part of the game!" "Well people get laid out in football too!" "If a guy doesn't keep his head u, it's his own fault!" (You forgot "Well if you don't plike it, why don't you go watch figure skating???")

You're willing to rationalize gutless and cowardly behavior, as long as it's in the name of hockey.

Don Cherry has no problem with the odd scrap now and then.

Don Cherry also has to go on TV each week and plead for hockey players to stop hitting each other from behind. Have your pee-wee players received their stop-sign stickers yet?

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight's matchup of Brock Lesnar against Cain Velasquez could be epic. I can't think of a recent fight where you could make such a strong case for both fighters.

Cain is by far the better striker, and has such a strong wrestling background that he might be able to stay on his feet. He's got amazing cardio, so if the fight lasts for more than a couple of rounds, he should have an edge there. I don't know if there has ever been a heavyweight who combines wrestling and striking and pure athleticism the way Velasquez does.

Brock is ... Brock. He's the most amazing combination of size, speed, and power that the world has seen since Bruce Banner got hit with gamma rays. He's a premier wrestler and will probably get Cain down on the mat sooner or later. We learned in his last fight that he can take a punch. Not only did he take a punch, he took a whole barrage of Shane Carwin's punches, and nobody in MMA hits like Carwin. The ease with which he submitted Carwin after surviving that onslaught shows not just his improving variety of skills, but also his almost limitless strength.

It's a pick-em, to me. It's hard to bet against Lesnar, though. If Carwin couldn't knock him out, I don't think Cain will either. But Cain might be able to stay on his feet long enough to out-point Lesnar, and maybe wear him down to the point where Brock's strength advantage isn't much of a factor. Lesnar's gas-tank has never really been put to a serious test. If this goes for a few rounds and Lesnar gets tired, he'll be in trouble, because Cain won't ever get tired.

My brain is leaning towards Cain, but somehow I'm having a hard time convincing myself. Any predictions?

-k

edit to add: wowwwwww.

Edited by kimmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tonight's matchup of Brock Lesnar against Cain Velasquez could be epic. I can't think of a recent fight where you could make such a strong case for both fighters.

Cain is by far the better striker, and has such a strong wrestling background that he might be able to stay on his feet. He's got amazing cardio, so if the fight lasts for more than a couple of rounds, he should have an edge there. I don't know if there has ever been a heavyweight who combines wrestling and striking and pure athleticism the way Velasquez does.

Brock is ... Brock. He's the most amazing combination of size, speed, and power that the world has seen since Bruce Banner got hit with gamma rays. He's a premier wrestler and will probably get Cain down on the mat sooner or later. We learned in his last fight that he can take a punch. Not only did he take a punch, he took a whole barrage of Shane Carwin's punches, and nobody in MMA hits like Carwin. The ease with which he submitted Carwin after surviving that onslaught shows not just his improving variety of skills, but also his almost limitless strength.

It's a pick-em, to me. It's hard to bet against Lesnar, though. If Carwin couldn't knock him out, I don't think Cain will either. But Cain might be able to stay on his feet long enough to out-point Lesnar, and maybe wear him down to the point where Brock's strength advantage isn't much of a factor. Lesnar's gas-tank has never really been put to a serious test. If this goes for a few rounds and Lesnar gets tired, he'll be in trouble, because Cain won't ever get tired.

My brain is leaning towards Cain, but somehow I'm having a hard time convincing myself. Any predictions?

-k

edit to add: wowwwwww.

What a slaughter! I won a hundred bux though :)

Brock has a LOT of work to do if he ever wants to beat a guy like Cain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God gawd, I missed this! Sorry for not replying sooner!

You've declared striking an opponent on the ground to be "gutless and cowardly". Police and CF members are trained to do exactly that.

Police and CF have dispensation for using such force, which may be required in a course of duty that upholds civilian law. There is no such dispensation in sports or street fights, thus doing it in MMA - or any other sport - is gutless and cowardly.

The judge is probably going to look unfavorably on all of those things as excessive force. I doubt the judge is going to decide that it's excessive force if you decline to give your opponent a standing-8 count and another chance to hurt you. Sorry, your attempts to create a slippery-slope have been off the mark all thread.

Oh, but the judge will consider it excessive force in practically all civilian cases. Booting, dropping a knee or elbow or even stomping someone while they are down can get you a manslaughter conviction. The problem is, how and when do you determine an opponent can no longer hurt you? When they are unconcious or semi-concious? Hit them anyways, just to make sure eh?

You've continuously referred to hockey as a "real Canadian sport" in this thread. Is it not representative of Real Canadian values? If hockey is at odds with Real Canadian values, why is it so popular, and why are hockey players looked upon as such heroes and role-models in Canada?

Then we are now talking in ideals, so yeah the ideal of hockey - as determined by the rules - fits the ideal of real Canadian values. But ideals are not defined by abberations that occur from time to time. In MMA, the rules say you can hit someone while they are down. Hardly a Canadian ideal.

There we go. Everybody knows that beating up smaller, weaker people is gutless and cowardly. Everybody knows that hitting somebody in the head by surprise is gutless and cowardly. Unambiguously so.

And yet this is why teams carry enforcers who usally square off.

But because it's HOCKEY, out come the rationalizations. "It's part of the game!" "Well people get laid out in football too!" "If a guy doesn't keep his head u, it's his own fault!" (You forgot "Well if you don't plike it, why don't you go watch figure skating???")

You are getting ideals confused with abberations or penalties. There are rules about headshots and other illegal hits.

You're willing to rationalize gutless and cowardly behavior, as long as it's in the name of hockey.

Of course not, there is a rulebook which prescribes penalties for such behaviour. And I am not about to rationalize the gutless and cowardly behavior in the MMA either, specifically the allowance of beating of an opponent when he is down.

Don Cherry also has to go on TV each week and plead for hockey players to stop hitting each other from behind. Have your pee-wee players received their

Hitting from behind in hockey is illegal, against the rules, so Cherry is doing the right thing. MMA should do the right thing too and outlaw hitting someone while they are down. Wrestling/grappling yes, punching no, because it is cowardly, gutless and unmanly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a slaughter! I won a hundred bux though :)

Brock has a LOT of work to do if he ever wants to beat a guy like Cain.

Everyone was saying before the Cain fight that Brock could take a punch. He did take a ton of punches from Carwin, but when the fight began he got rocked by a punch then fell to the ground to get wailed on some more. The same freakin thing happened in the Cain fight to Lesnar.

I find it very weird. How can Lesnar take so many punches from Carwin while on the ground, yet get rocked by both Cain and Carwin standing up? Seems like Lesnar's first reaction to getting hit with a decent punch standing up is to fall down into the fetal position.

But man, what a fight. I thought Cain was going to get destroyed honestly. Lesnar looked in the greatest shape i had ever seen him. That huge open gash under his eye was epic. Can't wait for a rematch. It's too bad Lesnar got such a late start in MMA. If he had started at age 25 who knows how good he would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone was saying before the Cain fight that Brock could take a punch. He did take a ton of punches from Carwin, but when the fight began he got rocked by a punch then fell to the ground to get wailed on some more. The same freakin thing happened in the Cain fight to Lesnar.

I find it very weird. How can Lesnar take so many punches from Carwin while on the ground, yet get rocked by both Cain and Carwin standing up? Seems like Lesnar's first reaction to getting hit with a decent punch standing up is to fall down into the fetal position.

But man, what a fight. I thought Cain was going to get destroyed honestly. Lesnar looked in the greatest shape i had ever seen him. That huge open gash under his eye was epic. Can't wait for a rematch. It's too bad Lesnar got such a late start in MMA. If he had started at age 25 who knows how good he would be.

Yeah it was pretty crazy round of fighting. Ill tell you one thing for sure... Cain Velasquez is a BAD ASS. I can see him holding onto that belt for quite some time. Hell probably fight Junior Dos Santos next, and I think Lesnar will fight Shane Carwin again to see who fights the winner of Dos Santos, Velasquez.

Its nice to see because the UFC heavyweight division has always been a bit of a joke... its getting better though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, great fight! I really wasn't sure if Cain could do it. Especially when Brock came out so aggressively. But the way he popped up so fast after being taken down was really impressive. Especially since Brock was an NCAA division 1 champion wrestler.

I look forward to the rematch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most devastating Heavyweight of all time is the guy who won this fight...

I'm inclined to agree, and take nothing away from Foreman. But "most devestating" is a subjective term. What's even more remarkable is what Ali did to Foreman, and how he did it. He proved that intelligence can defeat overwhelming power. But to do so he had to pay the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, great fight! I really wasn't sure if Cain could do it. Especially when Brock came out so aggressively. But the way he popped up so fast after being taken down was really impressive. Especially since Brock was an NCAA division 1 champion wrestler.

I look forward to the rematch.

But the way he popped up so fast after being taken down was really impressive.

That was the difference in the fight. When Cain was down with Lesnar on top of him I thought "oh shit, here we go!". Its really hard to get up when Lesnar is on top of you obviously and Lesnar could of pounded him out if hed stayed in Cains guard for long.

But Cain got up almost effortlessly. When I saw that... I was pretty confident Cain could win. Cain is a great wrestler as well, with NCAA pedigree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it very weird. How can Lesnar take so many punches from Carwin while on the ground, yet get rocked by both Cain and Carwin standing up? Seems like Lesnar's first reaction to getting hit with a decent punch standing up is to fall down into the fetal position.

Punching is most powerful when it's a whole body motion. You can't put your whole body into a punch when you're on the mat trying to attain or retain top control of a guy. And in that fight, if you watch it again, I think you'll notice that Carwin was mostly just flailing away. There was nothing methodical about it, he was just throwing leather frantically. He landed a few good clean shots, but I think it was actually far less than it might have appeared. Lesnar did block a lot, or move his head enough to avoid the full force, or at least pull down on Carwin enough to reduce the power of those shots.

I think Carwin was thinking "holy! I've got him down! This might be my only chance! I have to throw everything I've got at him right now before he gets back up!"

It's too bad Lesnar got such a late start in MMA. If he had started at age 25 who knows how good he would be.

If he'd started working on MMA as soon as he left college, he'd be something else. But at this point he is what he is. Which is still one hell of a tough fighter.

The other thing I've been wondering is how much his illness last year took out of him. I don't think he's ever recovered all of the muscle mass he lost during that ordeal.

I look forward to the rematch.

For Brock's sake I hope the rematch isn't any time soon. He's got a lot of things to work on before then.

That was the difference in the fight. When Cain was down with Lesnar on top of him I thought "oh shit, here we go!". Its really hard to get up when Lesnar is on top of you obviously and Lesnar could of pounded him out if hed stayed in Cains guard for long.

But Cain got up almost effortlessly. When I saw that... I was pretty confident Cain could win. Cain is a great wrestler as well, with NCAA pedigree.

Yeah, when I saw Brock get the takedown, I thought "Cain is in deep trouble." And when he got free almost effortlessly, I thought "Brock is in deep trouble." His only chance to win that fight was to keep him on the mat... and when it became apparent he wasn't going to get takedowns easily or hold him down when he did, I knew he was in a lot of trouble. He's a one-trick pony. But his one trick is so good that it's been enough to handle everybody he's faced, until Saturday.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God gawd, I missed this! Sorry for not replying sooner!

Probably because I was away from the forum for a week. I won't be around much for the rest of this week either, so don't feel lonely if I don't get back to you any time soon.

Police and CF have dispensation for using such force, which may be required in a course of duty that upholds civilian law. There is no such dispensation in sports or street fights, thus doing it in MMA - or any other sport - is gutless and cowardly.

That the police and CF have the authority to do so does not alter the claim that it's "gutless and cowardly".

That they may be required to do so in the line of duty touches on the issue of necessity, and it's naive to claim that it's never be necessary for a civilian to strike an opponent when they're on the ground.

Oh, but the judge will consider it excessive force in practically all civilian cases. Booting, dropping a knee or elbow or even stomping someone while they are down can get you a manslaughter conviction.

Well, if someone is actually manslaughtered, at least. Beating someone to death-- whether they are standing or on the ground-- will probably lead to criminal charges.

If someone is lying on the ground helplessly, then of course continuing to pummel them is excessive. But if they're lying on the ground with the intent of getting right back up and attempting to harm you, then it's absolutely not excessive to use your advantageous position to protect your own safety.

The problem is, how and when do you determine an opponent can no longer hurt you? When they are unconcious or semi-concious? Hit them anyways, just to make sure eh?

You keep attempting to black and white this... it's always "gutless and cowardly". It's always stomping an unconscious person til you get convicted for manslaughter.

People must sometimes rely on judgment. If your opponent is barely conscious, then continuing to pummel him is poor judgment that could probably get you put in jail. If your opponent is still fully able and still fully intent on fighting you, then letting him up is absolutely foolish.

Then we are now talking in ideals, so yeah the ideal of hockey - as determined by the rules - fits the ideal of real Canadian values. But ideals are not defined by abberations that occur from time to time. In MMA, the rules say you can hit someone while they are down. Hardly a Canadian ideal.

And yet this is why teams carry enforcers who usally square off.

You are getting ideals confused with abberations or penalties. There are rules about headshots and other illegal hits.

This is the first season where the NHL has had any rule at all prohibiting hits to the head. Prior to now, you could hit a guy in the head as long as you used your shoulder. You can still hit a guy in the head, but they have slightly reduced the circumstances under which you may do so.

Every one of those crippling concussions Scott Stevens dished out were 100% legal under the rules of the day, and most of them would still be legal today. What was the reaction when he dished out those shots? Were people saying "oh no, this is terrible"? A lot of non-hockey fans were. But most hockey fans were saying "it's part of the game. He should have kept his head up."

It's not an aberration, it's "part of the game".

Of course not, there is a rulebook which prescribes penalties for such behaviour. And I am not about to rationalize the gutless and cowardly behavior in the MMA either, specifically the allowance of beating of an opponent when he is down.

There's no rule against goons going out and picking on smaller players. It's part of the game. As you already explained, it's such a part of the game that teams have enforcers on their roster in anticipation of this inevitability.

Why did Steve MacIntyre smash Raitis Ivanans' head like a pinata? Because Ivanans had gone out minutes earlier and injured two players who are 50 pounds smaller than himself. Why did Ivanans go out and injure two players 50 pounds smaller than himself? Because it's his job. Why does he have a job doing that? Because it's part of the game.

You already attempted to rationalize this gutless behavior when you said

Hockey is a contact sport, keep your head up, even the "smaller, weaker players." :lol:
Hitting from behind in hockey is illegal, against the rules, so Cherry is doing the right thing.

If such gutless behavior were not so prevalent in the Real Canadian Sport, Don Cherry would not have to go on TV to plead for Real Canadian Men to stop attempting to cripple each other.

MMA should do the right thing too and outlaw hitting someone while they are down. Wrestling/grappling yes, punching no, because it is cowardly, gutless and unmanly.

Why should MMA do what you consider "the right thing"? I mean, if there was a compelling medical argument to be made, that might be a good reason, but yourself and Sir Bandelot attempted to ride that pony and failed miserably.

What makes your claim to know what's "the right thing" any more valid than those who believe that hockey ought to "do the right thing" and institute a complete ban on fighting? What makes your claim to know what's "the right thing" any more valid than those who feel that a ban on boxing would be "the right thing"?

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to agree, and take nothing away from Foreman. But "most devestating" is a subjective term. What's even more remarkable is what Ali did to Foreman, and how he did it. He proved that intelligence can defeat overwhelming power. But to do so he had to pay the price.

Most peope Agree that Earnie Shavers was probably the hardest punching Heavyweight ever.Shavers over Foreman because of Shavers punches being straighter,but Earnie did'nt have the best chin or the best stamina....

What Ali did to Foreman in Zaire should be a case study in psychological warfare.Essentially,Ali got Foreman so angry that George puched himself out trying to knock Ali out.Foreman was counted out in that fight,but he has admitted that he quit from exhaustion and frustration.The punch Ali put Foreman down with was not a knockout punch...It was'nt even as hard as the first left hook Foreman took from Frazier in their first fight.

As for Foreman in the first fight with Frazier,it seems so shocking because no one saw it coming.It was complete and total physical domination of the guy who had beaten Ali in '71 and was undefeated.Foreman was undefeated,as well,but his resume was not as good as Frazier's at that point.In hindsight,it was eerily similar to what Sonny Liston did to Floyd Patterson almost 10 years earlier,however the difference being that everyone knew what Liston was going to do to Patterson.No one,other than Howard Cosell,thought that Foreman had a chance against Frazier...

To me,Foreman is the most devastating Heavyweight ever based on his total number of wins vs wins by knockout...If I'm not mistaken,it's the greatest knockout percentage of any Heavyweight champion ever...The only real blemishes on his record are the early losses to Ali and Jimmy Young,plus the later losses to Holyfield and Tommy Morrison :rolleyes:

I suppose there are few interesting dream fights one could dream up with the 1973 version of George Foreman...

1985 to '87 Mike Tyson vs 1973 George Foreman

1960 to '62 Sonny Liston vs '73 George Foreman

1975 to '77 Earnie Shavers vs '73 George Foreman

There's probably others...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

MMA should do the right thing too and outlaw hitting someone while they are down. Wrestling/grappling yes, punching no, because it is cowardly, gutless and unmanly.

So if you were walking down the street at night with your wife and young kids and a guy with a knife jumped out and attacked you & your family, and you managed to punch him and he fell to the ground, are you saying you would "do the manly thing" and wait for him to get back up and start attacking you & your family again instead of beating the crap out of him while he's on the ground to disarm/incapacitate him?

Ya right!

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you were walking down the street at night with your wife and young kids and a guy with a knife jumped out and attacked you & your family, and you managed to punch him and he fell to the ground, are you saying you would "do the manly thing" and wait for him to get back up and start attacking you & your family again instead of beating the crap out of him while he's on the ground to disarm/incapacitate him?

Ya right!

How is that comparison at all relevant to this discussion on MMA? Were you hitting on the bong again

My view is, it matters not if we think it's "unmanly" (although it is). I note it's particularly attractive to weak, inferior types. Mentally and physically. The fact is that it SELLS, SELLS, SELLS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm not really on board with the criticisms of MMA--I don't care anything for it, and find it exceedingly dull, and so can't get exercised about it in any way--I can't quite understand why people keep summoning real-life threatening situations, or police or military actions, to "explain" the sport.

I feel that's taking a mere commercial sport just a little too seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm not really on board with the criticisms of MMA--I don't care anything for it, and find it exceedingly dull, and so can't get exercised about it in any way--I can't quite understand why people keep summoning real-life threatening situations, or police or military actions, to "explain" the sport.

I feel that's taking a mere commercial sport just a little too seriously.

The thing is, when people claim that mma violates some "sacred code of honor" held my Canadians it makes such comparisons inevitable. In any case MMA fights are really just fights. The reason that they play out the way they do is because thats what generally happens when humans engage in unarmed combat. The fights start standing up but quickly go to the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm not really on board with the criticisms of MMA--I don't care anything for it, and find it exceedingly dull, and so can't get exercised about it in any way--I can't quite understand why people keep summoning real-life threatening situations, or police or military actions, to "explain" the sport.

"Real life" situations got introduced to this thread for one reason: Da Shwa has claimed that striking a grounded opponent is cowardly, unmanly, and UnCanadian in any and all situations, and that Real Canadian Men would never engage in such an act because it is completely at odds with Real Canadian Values. "Real life" situations easily disprove his claim about how Real Canadian Men act.

Basically it comes down to this: having utterly failed to make their case with the initial argument of MMA being excessively dangerous, and having nothing of any factual substance on their side, Bandelot and Da Shwa first came up with a bunch of ridiculous slippery-slope arguments, and finally have nothing left except this appeal to some sort of code of gentlemanly conduct that Real Canadian Men supposedly subscribe to.

If that's going to be the case they wish to make, then the discussion of how Real Canadian Men actually conduct themselves is entirely reasonable. If Bandelot and Da Shwa wish to retract the claim about how Real Canadian Men actually fight, and try to make some kind of rational argument instead of an appeal to "Canadian Values", then the discussion of "real life" situations becomes irrelevant. But they already failed miserably in attempting to concoct a rational argument as to why MMA is evil while boxing is still "The Sweet Science", so this "cowardly!" "UnCanadian!" thing is really all they have left.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...