All Purpose UFC/MMA/That Kind Of Thing Thread

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

Well, it's about damn time! ;D ;D ;D

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

First of all, I'd like thank everybody for participating in discussion over the sport. It's nice to see people give their views over the subject. I do apologize if some of the posters here seem brash. Defending and trying to help educate the public about the sport sometimes wears away and makes people irritable. I have no doubt they mean well.

Are many of us trying to make everyone fans? I don't think so. To some people, MMA might not be their bag. That's cool. We do flinch at the fact that there are people who still believe that it's "bare knuckle toughman stuff". That's why we all are here. To try to dispel the myth and educate people on what MMA really is. If it seems we're trying to "bring everyone to the fold", it is not really the intention and we humbly apologize if we've come off that way.

Now, on to the questions.

1. as Mr. 7134 has stated, there are more Asian fighters in MMA. It's just that they compete in the leagues in Japan more frequently then the Americas. In Japan, the sport is very big and is to the point of being covered in major sports media. As to why there aren't Wushu artists against Liddell, even there were no rules when the UFC began and the first UFCs were ment to be a paid infomercial for Gracie Jiu-Jitsu, the first years of the UFC (and later on during the MMA revolution in Japan) that there was no "best" style. They proved a lot of the popular fighting styles (more notably boxing and TKD) were not equipped to defend or finish on the ground. Today, you'd be hard pressed to find a "pure" fighter from any style. Everyone trains for everything. Groundwork, striking, clinchework, you name it. It's not about style vs. style anymore, but about who trains harder, who's more determined and who's quicker finishing the fight.

2. Right now, in the Asian countries, two have big name established leagues (Japan, S.Korea) while others (Taiwan, Thailand, China) have startup leagues or are looking into MMA. Around the world, I'd say a rough estimate of 20 nations are into MMA, nearly half have one or two professional leagues.

3. I don't think the seperation of martial arts was on purpose. I think that when the Indian people saw the fighting style of Alexander's pankrationists, they tried to emulate that style and could only come up with styles focusing on one aspect of fighting and not the whole and that natural seperation has been with us to that day. You also could say that it was fearful that Pankration was a very powerful style and was picked apart and had each part focused on by followers. Some sort of real version of Monty Python's killing joke.

Bringing the style back together the arts has been a new idea since the popularity of Bruce Lee, who is an inspiring figure of the MMA community.

4. Back in the early days, when UFC didn't have rules, a lot of the major martial arts orginizations were deeply against it. They were, at one time, part of the people trying to stop UFC. Today, they're indifferent or positive about MMA because it's helping bring people back into the gyms and schools. FILA, the governing body of Greco-Roman and Freestyle wrestling, supports MMA. As does the ISKA. Also, a fighter in MMA with a record in one or two major martial arts communities is much more likely to be picked up by the Major Leagues more they someone who just straight up trains in MMA.

5. Because they're not really trying to kill each other out there. They're trying to see who's best in the fight. After the fight, they'll shake hands, hug and probably got out for some brews after their post fight checkup. Some people do hold a grudge against each other and they settle matters in the ring and let the best man decides who's right. Other then that, it's a sport were regular people just want to have fun.

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

There is a difference. I'll try to summerize as best I can.

All fights are in a ring.
Instead of 15-25 minute fights where it's five minute rounds, they usually have a ten minute round and two five minute rounds.
There is a penalty system to curb stalling and neutral fighting.
The fight is judged on a whole rather then on a round to round.
Groin shots, SJM, grabbing ropes for leverage and Elbows are banned
Knees on a downed opponent are legal as well as kicks.
Judging criteria is based on striking, grappling, near attempts, ring positioning and damage.

I'd say that the fighters who fight in Japan are of a better calibre due to the how the orginizations look for fighters of a more major calibre then just signing some guy because he's got eight fights under his belt. Your more learned fans would possibly be ones who follow more global leagues as well.

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

I argued this one tooth and nail for days, but I have to say, I've had my fill of this topic for a good long time.

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

bruce don't quit now. you almost had them!

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

You're right Jim. I hereby challenge them to step into the octagon and settle it once and for all. No rules, battle to the death, etc.

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

What's the O/U on the number of more MMA/UFC fans who'll sign up just to post lengthy defenses/odes to their favorite sport? I'm guessing at least two more.

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

Do I count for the O/U if my response is not lengthy? This arguement has been played to its end, I believe, so I would just add some examples.

Kevin Randleman (2 time national wrestling champion for Ohio state) vs Fedor Emelianenko ( The best there is)

http://www.dailymotion.com/visited/search/fedor%2Brandleman/video/x8nhk_fedor-emelianenko-vs-kevin-randlema

Former Pride champion Nogueira vs Bob Sapp. 150 pound weight difference all in muscle.

http://www.vidilife.com/index.cfm?f=media.play&vchrMediaProgramIDCryp=D8E1C5FD-18A7-483A-BA4B-3

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

Don't do that ATL. That's not cool.

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

If you like, I can post the addresses to several MMA news sites that'll explain the complexities of the sport further.

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

Sirs, Madames,

Go to UFC-MMA site to learn the complexities of the greatest sport? I'd rather take a personality test at the Church of Scientology in pursuit of "clear."

YHS, etc

 

Re: "60 Minutes" piece on UFC/MMA

Here's the thing - we don't need the complexities of the sport explained any further. We don't need to know how to escape a triangle choke or how Royce Gracie's 60-minute matches (pre-round days) were human chess matches even though the casual viewers thought they were damn boring.

A UFC fanboy started a thread (which happens every couple of months). People responded the same way they did in the last UFC thread, some making jokes or mocking the sport and others explaining why UFC gets so little coverage.

So let's recap...

1. You want more coverage across the nation, the AP has to start covering the events and moving copy. Sure, the two Vegas papers and the LA Times might cover UFC 65. But if you want stories in papers in the rest of the nation, the AP must get involved.

2. Dana White should have the main event end before 11:30 p.m. EST (8:30 Vegas) because papers on the east coast aren't going to hold the presses for the UFC. Judging by the panel discussion at the APSE convention this year about boxing, a lot of papers don't hold for title bouts in that sport either.

3. When a local MMAer starts moving up the ranks, it's a worthy feature. But the idea of covering the locally-produced cage fights has a much merit as covering toughman contests.