Not surprised that they would honestly. But hopefully it won't get anywhere. I wonder if you see them calling for an end to drinking? Surely more people are hurt maimed and killed as a result or in conjunction with drinking... but because by and large it's socially acceptable no one says peep in the UK.
They are talking in the UK about taxing Booze out the market, banning happy hours and bogof offers on booze etc. All that will happen is tax will get put up and people will still drink. They should ban rugby as well - I know more than one ex player who has spinal and head injuries from playing. We should make Lacrosse or Peever our national sport
You might find the following interesting, particularly the more detailed second link. I didn't have time to do much searching but as far as I'm aware comparisons always show that football is far more dangerous than rugby (and that's just for the participants - lets not go into the violence records of the separate crowds). Of course the location of the injuries in Rugby have a higher risk of causing death. Unfortunately the latter study doesn't give us comparison numbers. http://www.injuryjournal.com/article/PIIS002013830600372X/abstract http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/1998/qld/qisuissue47.pdf
Touch is the most dangerous - mostly because it is palyed by people afraid to comit or by people with little experience?
meh, this topic rears its ugly head every couple of years and never goes anywhere. it makes for good soundbites, that's about it. btw, nice poof flag, doug, but go and watch lacrosse. it is vicious.
whether other contact sports actually have higher injury rates than contact MA, is I suspect irrelevent to the kinds of people who object to these things. The BMA and other anti-fighting sports people object because the AIM of boxing/MMA/Muai Thai or whatever is to injure your opponent. Which to some extent is an understandable objection.
But the fact of the matter is nobody is forced into these fights, it's the choice of the participants! So i don;t see what the BMA has to complain about really. Such a tiny tiny percentage of the population is involved in combat sports, yet nearly every person i know is down town every weekend binge drinking and i've rarely been out without seeing a fight kick off due to alcohol. I think they have their priorities severely wrong.
I have a History professor (incidentally, also an ordained Rabbi) who was appalled when he saw MMA on TV. Even likened it to dogfighting & cockfighting. So I started thinking: are those who take the moral highground against MMA and combat sports offended because people participate in it, or because people watch it? He was highlighting what he saw as a spectator, and included statements like, "They don't even wipe the blood off the mat!" and "They even have women fighting!" I infered from his statements that he was upset, not at the participants, but that someone would promote such a thing. At the risk of turning this into a philosophy discussion, I think most of those who are trying to get combat sports banned want to do so because they don't want people watching them; after all, what kind of a reflection is it on our society when we cheer two people beating each other's brains out? (And before anyone jumps on me here, I train in, watch, and fully support MMA, judo, boxing, etc! Just playing Devil's Advocate.) At any rate, I doubt the measure will pass. The AMA, and I think also the BMA, have been trying to ban boxing forever, it seems. Unless, God forbid, we see someone actually killed live on PPV, I doubt that this amounts to more than just saber-rattling.
Thats not really the point though. There're lots of things that i cannot choose to do even if i want to. Government does dictate what we can or cannot do supposedly to protect us. If two people outside a pub decided (and both consented) to beating each other up - they would be arrested, quite rightly. If they do it in a ring they are encoraged and paid and idolised, where is the dividing line and why? (like callsign, i'm playing devils advocate - i think you'd struggle to find many people on a MA board who would support such a ban)
To that point I'd have to say those that are so put off by this and try to throw the humanistic angle into the mix are sorely mistaken. Humans by and large have always had forms of ritualized violence. From the gladiators of Rome to the tribal wars over petty matters... to boxing... one can even view Rugby and Hockey as ritualized violence. It's part and parcel with human nature. I'm sure there are many more examples that can be brought up. I think it's actually quite a healthy thing.
I think that the opponents of this would suggest we have moved on from roman times and no longer need to indulge our ritualistic violence. the Romans also threw Christians to Lions and sodomised young children, hardly a culture to aspire to... Neither rugby nor-hockey can be argued as ritual violence in the same way, as the intent is not to hurt your opponent (even if your opponent may occasionally get hurt as a side effect)
And to that point I'd have to asked who died and made them king to dictate what or how humanity participates in? exactly....No one. Since when do I have to listen to these milquetoast mothertruckers tell me what I can and can't do in sport, in training and in my life? Man what world are you living in? You may enjoy living in a nanny-state where they dictate what is and isn't progress... where they selectively cherrypick bit of culture that suit them... but I don't. Rubbish... Western culture spends half of it's time tripping all over itself with how great Roman culture is and now you want to pull out the bad things to highlight your plight. Puhleeeeze. If the amount of TV shows on Rome and the Romans is anything to go... it's very much the culture that many aspire to. If the amount of time it's spent being covered in history classes in school is anything to go by it's the much vaunted element of western history and culture. Sure they can... they are fields of battle... if only by proxy.
Again - I'm not saying i support this ban. I'm just playing the part of someone who does [so might be an idea to can your standard ad-hom attacks.] Well, I'm living in England (where this issue has come from) and we have an elected goverment in place which does tell us what you can and can't do in your life. you have to listen because they make the laws. Which of these seems more cherry picking to you: A) 2 consenting adults are allowed/encoraged/paid/idolised for fighting in a ring, but the same two consenting adults would be jailed for doing so in the street B) Fighting is illegal, regardless of where you do it. So because HBO make a successful documentary about roman culture, and because we study roman culture, and because the Romans had some good acheivements its ok to box, because romans enjoyed watching trained atheletes kill each other? Thats the most ridiculous pro-boxing argument i've ever heard. well done. How is it possible to so totally miss my point? Rugby is not a field of battle and is not comparable to MMA or boxing as tha AIM of rugby is not to injure the other team.
Awww gee... now why would I do that? Right and your so spineless that you have no say over what the government does or doesn't do. The Government growls and you ask 'Pipe and slippers dear?'.... lol... you get what you settle for. I find it odd that you seem to think there is any comparison between the two given the context of what's being discussed here. There are such massive differences between two yobs fighting in the street and two professional athletes that it boggles the mind that you can't see that. Again... you've missed the point entirely... for the second time. Ritualized violence has always been part of humanity. Whether you like it or whether it gives your softy fuzzy world a dose of brutal reality. It is what it is. Plain and simple. Maybe you're the type that will sit back and let the government hand down on high what it thinks is good for the people... but I sure as hell wouldn't stand by and let it happen without putting up a fight. But hey... suit yourself.
Regardless of whether or not one thinks it acceptable for spectators to enjoy combat sports for the thrill of individuals doing violence to each other, those who take issue with this have a rather long line of institutions to combat before MMA even comes close to the chopping block. Obviously, as has been stated, the comparison to dogfighting or cockfighting is irrelevant when the participants alone are considered (as they are wholly willing, and their lives are not at stake). Consequently the only relevant consideration is the glee of the onlookers, which returns one to the point above (consider boxing and arguably many other competitions). So, the whole argument that violence should not be culturally acceptable is not really relevant to MMA opposition specifically. The informed onlooker is aware that, contrary to appearances, competing in MMA doesn't lead to any appreciably greater number of injuries (or notably more severe injuries), and consequently there is no reason to qualify MMA as the foot that steps across the line. Furthermore, a skilled articulator will surely be able to demonstrate that organized violence is encouraged and accepted by human nature. Is it wrong? Well that entirely depends on your point of view, but putting a stop to it is indisputably many years down the road, if indeed it's ever deemed acceptable to try. Also, as for the MMA vs rubgy argument, one might argue that the intent in MMA is not necessarily to hurt the opponent, merely to overcome him. In doing so the opponent is frequently harmed. Similarly, in rugby the goal is to overcome the opposing team, and in doing so many of its members will come to potentially serious harm. Do both MMA competitors and Rugby competitors experience moments of hurtful intent to opponents? - Yes, absolutely, and in both sports many onlookers frequently enjoy the violence. Consequently it's fairly easy to brand rugby or any contact sport as organized violence, and consequently falling in the same category as MMA.
Yeah, but that's the thing, isn't it? How many of the people calling for the ban truly inform themselves on MMA? The professor in my first post wrestled in high school, but was appalled by MMA. I'd prepared a rather lengthy response to help inform him as to what actually goes on, as opposed to the maybe-thirty seconds or so that he'd seen, including: -they're highly-trained, consenting adults competing on their own volition -MMA has had fewer deaths than boxing, football, etc. -the women are as highly-trained as the men, and again aren't forced into it -combat sports have existed since time immemorial -the current state of MMA actually puts the health of the combatants first (compare this to the early Vale Tudo events or London Prize Ring Rules boxing) ... but the guy cut me off and didn't want to talk about it. Fair enough, we were getting off-topic anyways, but to this day he remains uninformed, and only knows MMA from the little bit he saw. It would be difficult to convince a bunch of doctors that a sport that allowed punching a man while he's down is "safer" than many other contact sports out there. I think this is the uphill battle that MMA is facing. Those who appoint themselves the guardians of human decency and morallity are usually so self-rightious that they can't concieve that their possition is wrong. They don't want to be educated they just want the "abhorent behavior" stopped. Fortunately, though these opponents occupy some possitions of power, they seem to be in the minority.
The problem I have with the regular "ban this sick filth" crowd - aside from the fact that they're largely clueless about what actually happens and what it takes to get in the ring/ cage/ whatever else they're thinking up is that they never provide a viable alternative As Slip says, ritualised violence has always been part of human nature. Many people like watching fights. They like the idea of two highly-trained athletes testing themselves and their training against one another on a level playing field and seeing who comes out on top. This is why I watch MMA, kickboxing, muay thai, boxing, grappling - hell, I'll even watch TKD if it's on (partly for those reasons, partly to provide the giggles ). The "bloodlust" lot are largely temporary MMA fans spurred on by TUF; some will progress into true fans who get what they sport's about, many will bugger off soon and lock onto the next fad The point is, there is a large audience for combat sports. There always has been and their always will be. If the BMA and their ilk get their way, what happens? Where's their alternative? The alternative would simply be that MMA, boxing, kickboxing and "all violent fight sports" would just go underground where they'd be unregulated, (more) corrupt and a hell of a lot more dangerous to all involved
