5 ms·

I don't find the UFC brutal at all. Even when the fights get bloody. I don't wince when someone is getting punched the UFC. But watching an innocent man be kil

by oxide 10y ago

I don't find the UFC brutal at all. Even when the fights get bloody. I don't wince when someone is getting punched the UFC. But watching an innocent man be killed in cold blood? That's brutality. The fights usually end with a hug or a handshake, there is a mutual respect for the sport, and for each other, that lessens the impact of the "violence" IMO.

carsongross 10y ago
The long-term effects on UFC athletes (most of whom are throw-away, and will never be known) is going to make boxing look like handbags at twenty paces. Admitting the technical and athletic virtuosity of many of the participants, and the honorable nature of many of the fights, it is a disgustingly violent sport.
- oxide 10y ago
  I disagree. I can't think of a single sport where the athletes aren't throw-away. That's what sports do. They suck the livelyhood out of their competitors for the pleasure of spectators. American Football leaves people broken physically and mentally. Boxing causes a slow-building brain damage that leaves legends like Ali a shaking, stuttering mess until their dying day. You're only wanted in Basketball until your knee gives out. Injuries are career-ending for any athlete, in any sport. I personally find Hockey more "disgustingly violent" than the UFC.
  - carsongross 10y ago
    Do you see a moral difference between violence-as-a-byproduct of a goal and violence-as-the-goal? If not, do you see how someone else might? Are you familiar with the tu quoque fallacy? I will of course not convince you of much via a HN comment thread, this is for the others.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - oxide 10y ago
      >Do you see a moral difference between violence-as-a-byproduct of a goal and violence-as-the-goal Yes. I just don't think it applies to the UFC. Violence is not the goal of the UFC. It isn't a bloodsport, it isn't cockfighting. Moral arguments hold no water with me in regards to the UFC. If you tune in to the UFC just to watch someone get the shit kicked out of them, you're missing the point entirely. Personally, I watch the UFC to see two athletes of equal skill compete in what I consider a sport. Many fights end with zero blood. Some fights end in seconds. Blood is a very much a by-product IMO, not the end goal.
      - softawre 10y ago
        > That's like watching NASCAR in the hopes that someone will die in a fiery car crash. You do realize that is exactly the reason most people watch Nascar, right?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        oxide 10y ago
        not my best analogy.
        jtuente 10y ago
        Honestly, it was a good analogy. GP is as outside of NASCAR as he is of the UFC.
        j2bax 10y ago
        I think its disingenuous at best to say this is the reason most people watch NASCAR... I only know a few die hard NASCAR fans myself, but they are far more interested in the technical skills of the drivers than seeing someone potentially harmed for a little fireworks show.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > > Do you see a moral difference between violence-as-a-byproduct of a goal and violence-as-the-goal > Violence is not the goal of the UFC. Its perhaps not the goal, but its also not a byproduct. Its most accurately the mechanism.
  - avar 10y ago
    Chess? Bowling? Archery? Shooting?
- ricree 10y ago
  Do you have any evidence for that? Many MMA proponents claim that the long term effects should be less severe than boxing, because their fights generally involve less repeated head trauma. I don't know enough about the issue to argue one way or another, but I find it a plausible argument.
  - carsongross 10y ago
    The evidence is anecdotal now, but the sport is young: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/1/10/10742776/opinion-reality-mma-knockouts-concussions-joe-rogan-goodridge http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/1/10/10742776/opinion-realit...
    - balls187 10y ago
      By and large, most of Gary's fights were outside the UFC, and his fights in the UFC were in the early days, where there were a lot fewer rules. In Pride, Soccer kicks to a opponents head were allowed, and Gary sought to fight in various promotions well passed his prime. If you look at other MMA fighters of his era that have displayed signs of CTE, they spent a considerable amount of fights outside the UFC.
- zck 10y ago
  I'm not a fan of either boxing or UFC, but from what I can tell, boxers take far more headshots, while UFC fighters are hit elsewhere more, and can get other injuries -- e.g., armbars can break arms and tear ligaments (http://www.mma-training.com/arm-bar/ http://www.mma-training.com/arm-bar/). While I'd rather not get any longterm injuries, CTE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...) is far scarier to me than most longterm effects I can think of UFC fighters getting.
- e40 10y ago
  I totally disagree. Most boxing orgs have a 3 knockdown rule. You can be knocked down twice in each round and still continue. That means, you could get 2 concussions per round, until the end of the fight. The UFC stops the fight when you are unable to defend yourself. That usually means you can only get one concussion per fight. They are much more rare, however, than that. Also, you can look at the number of deaths per year in each sport. Boxing has around 10 per year. The UFC has never had a death, but MMA has had a few, over the last few years. The quick stoppages are key to the UFC being less damaging to the athletes than boxing.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > The UFC stops the fight when you are unable to defend yourself. Don't boxing refs stop the fight when they think the fighter can't continue (e.g. can't answer/focus)? I'm pretty sure I've seen that. > Also, you can look at the number of deaths per year in each sport. Boxing has around 10 per year. The UFC has never had a death, but MMA has had a few, over the last few years. Boxing is equivalent to MMA, not the UFC. I think people on both sides of this particular point aren't being very clear on the distinctions unless it's beneficial to their specific point.
    - balls187 10y ago
      > Don't boxing refs stop the fight when they think the fighter can't continue (e.g. can't answer/focus)? I'm pretty sure I've seen that. No. In Boxing, the ref has a mandatory 8 count.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        I'm pretty sure that depends on what organization they are fighting with and the specific rules. It's not hard to find articles about controversy when a referee stops a fight[1]. In the linked case, there was no count, nor even a knockdown. Obviously there are cases, at least in some boxing organizations, in which a ref can stop a fight without a full count. 1: http://www.badlefthook.com/2014/3/9/5486930/canelo-vs-angulo-results-canelo-alvarez-destroys-alfredo-angulo-fight http://www.badlefthook.com/2014/3/9/5486930/canelo-vs-angulo...
- feklar 10y ago
  Boxing is much more dangerous, you have to beat your opponent senseless for 12 rounds in the UFC there is a submission option to win the match instead of only strikes. Just check CompuBox stats for a 12 round match with hundreds of "power" strikes landed VS stats for a UFC 5 or 3 round match.
- amagumori 10y ago
  Hellll no. The addition of grappling / submission as a way to end a fight actually makes mma much safer on the whole than boxing. Striking takes less precedence in mma and becomes more situational. Many fights are won with armbars or similar submissions, which are much, much less traumatic long-term than sustaining nothing but blows to the head in every fight. Additionally i'd argue mma referees are more conservative than boxing refs, stopping fights earlier and being quicker to prevent injury. I can't overstate how fucking brutal boxing is, how many fights i've seen where the ref takes far too long to end the fight. When you talk about people like george foreman, or even a newer boxer like gennady golovkin, these are much more powerful strikers than anyone in mma. George foreman, despite being a good person, probably gave several people brain damage throughout his career. Boxing might not look as flashily violent but it's MUCH worse for the athletes long-term.
- balls187 10y ago
  Actually, I disagree with this statement, because it conflates UFC and MMA incorrectly. Unified MMA rules make MMA much safer than boxing. In Boxing, there is a mandatory-8 count rule, which can allow boxer to regain their composure post knockout, which is more dangerous than in MMA, where the ref will stop the fight as soon as the fighter can no longer intelligently defend themselves. My understanding about CTE, is it's the repeated blows to the head, post concussion that causes brain damage. In the UFC, refs will stop the fight to prevent further trauma. In Boxing, fighters will continue to fight, despite suffering a knock-down. re: UFC vs MMA: For the UFC's part, once a fighter has amassed a few knock-out losses, they typically are removed from the promotion. Outside of the US, the rules and safety for fighters is far more suspect (like classif Saku fights where he is nearly knocked unconscious and is allowed to regain his composure and win.
rjett 10y ago
Perhaps that's true in the ring and on the screen, but the incidence rate of domestic violence involving MMA fighters outside of the ring is several orders of magnitude higher than in other sports. Between the performance enhancing drugs used to train, the head injuries sustained, and SOME of the people drawn to the sport in the first place, I can't watch the sport without feeling somewhat repulsed. HBO Real Sports did a good segment on violence in MMA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgpdU_uPO34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgpdU_uPO34
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
It puts me to mind of gladiation, of Roman bloody mindedness and cruelty. I can't shake the negative connotations of that.
- oxide 10y ago
  That's not a fair comparison at all. That's an actual bloodsport, which the UFC is not. A fight wasn't stopped when a gladiator couldn't defend himself. In a Roman arena, you fought to the fucking death. Maybe against an opponent 3 times your size. Maybe against a den of lions. People held and watched these events with the explicit purpose of watching other people die. In the UFC, once you are unable to defend yourself the fight is over. In the UFC, you can submit an opponent. Sometimes that means a fight lasts 10 seconds, with not a drop of blood spilled. That's as apples and oranges as a comparison gets.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    I know it's an unfair comparison. To make it worse, gladiators were slaves. "It puts me to mind of..." is a weasel phrase :)
    - oxide 10y ago
      ah, damn. I've been baited as the kids say. hook, line and sinker.
      - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
        Sorry; that was not my intent.

by oxide 10y ago

carsongross 10y ago

The long-term effects on UFC athletes (most of whom are throw-away, and will never be known) is going to make boxing look like handbags at twenty paces. Admitting the technical and athletic virtuosity of many of the participants, and the honorable nature of many of the fights, it is a disgustingly violent sport.

oxide 10y ago
I disagree. I can't think of a single sport where the athletes aren't throw-away. That's what sports do. They suck the livelyhood out of their competitors for the pleasure of spectators. American Football leaves people broken physically and mentally. Boxing causes a slow-building brain damage that leaves legends like Ali a shaking, stuttering mess until their dying day. You're only wanted in Basketball until your knee gives out. Injuries are career-ending for any athlete, in any sport. I personally find Hockey more "disgustingly violent" than the UFC.
- carsongross 10y ago
  Do you see a moral difference between violence-as-a-byproduct of a goal and violence-as-the-goal? If not, do you see how someone else might? Are you familiar with the tu quoque fallacy? I will of course not convince you of much via a HN comment thread, this is for the others.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - oxide 10y ago
    >Do you see a moral difference between violence-as-a-byproduct of a goal and violence-as-the-goal Yes. I just don't think it applies to the UFC. Violence is not the goal of the UFC. It isn't a bloodsport, it isn't cockfighting. Moral arguments hold no water with me in regards to the UFC. If you tune in to the UFC just to watch someone get the shit kicked out of them, you're missing the point entirely. Personally, I watch the UFC to see two athletes of equal skill compete in what I consider a sport. Many fights end with zero blood. Some fights end in seconds. Blood is a very much a by-product IMO, not the end goal.
    - softawre 10y ago
      > That's like watching NASCAR in the hopes that someone will die in a fiery car crash. You do realize that is exactly the reason most people watch Nascar, right?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - oxide 10y ago
        not my best analogy.
        jtuente 10y ago
        Honestly, it was a good analogy. GP is as outside of NASCAR as he is of the UFC.
      - j2bax 10y ago
        I think its disingenuous at best to say this is the reason most people watch NASCAR... I only know a few die hard NASCAR fans myself, but they are far more interested in the technical skills of the drivers than seeing someone potentially harmed for a little fireworks show.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > > Do you see a moral difference between violence-as-a-byproduct of a goal and violence-as-the-goal > Violence is not the goal of the UFC. Its perhaps not the goal, but its also not a byproduct. Its most accurately the mechanism.
- avar 10y ago
  Chess? Bowling? Archery? Shooting?
ricree 10y ago
Do you have any evidence for that? Many MMA proponents claim that the long term effects should be less severe than boxing, because their fights generally involve less repeated head trauma. I don't know enough about the issue to argue one way or another, but I find it a plausible argument.
- carsongross 10y ago
  The evidence is anecdotal now, but the sport is young: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/1/10/10742776/opinion-reality-mma-knockouts-concussions-joe-rogan-goodridge http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/1/10/10742776/opinion-realit...
  - balls187 10y ago
    By and large, most of Gary's fights were outside the UFC, and his fights in the UFC were in the early days, where there were a lot fewer rules. In Pride, Soccer kicks to a opponents head were allowed, and Gary sought to fight in various promotions well passed his prime. If you look at other MMA fighters of his era that have displayed signs of CTE, they spent a considerable amount of fights outside the UFC.
zck 10y ago
I'm not a fan of either boxing or UFC, but from what I can tell, boxers take far more headshots, while UFC fighters are hit elsewhere more, and can get other injuries -- e.g., armbars can break arms and tear ligaments (http://www.mma-training.com/arm-bar/ http://www.mma-training.com/arm-bar/). While I'd rather not get any longterm injuries, CTE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...) is far scarier to me than most longterm effects I can think of UFC fighters getting.
e40 10y ago
I totally disagree. Most boxing orgs have a 3 knockdown rule. You can be knocked down twice in each round and still continue. That means, you could get 2 concussions per round, until the end of the fight. The UFC stops the fight when you are unable to defend yourself. That usually means you can only get one concussion per fight. They are much more rare, however, than that. Also, you can look at the number of deaths per year in each sport. Boxing has around 10 per year. The UFC has never had a death, but MMA has had a few, over the last few years. The quick stoppages are key to the UFC being less damaging to the athletes than boxing.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > The UFC stops the fight when you are unable to defend yourself. Don't boxing refs stop the fight when they think the fighter can't continue (e.g. can't answer/focus)? I'm pretty sure I've seen that. > Also, you can look at the number of deaths per year in each sport. Boxing has around 10 per year. The UFC has never had a death, but MMA has had a few, over the last few years. Boxing is equivalent to MMA, not the UFC. I think people on both sides of this particular point aren't being very clear on the distinctions unless it's beneficial to their specific point.
  - balls187 10y ago
    > Don't boxing refs stop the fight when they think the fighter can't continue (e.g. can't answer/focus)? I'm pretty sure I've seen that. No. In Boxing, the ref has a mandatory 8 count.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure that depends on what organization they are fighting with and the specific rules. It's not hard to find articles about controversy when a referee stops a fight[1]. In the linked case, there was no count, nor even a knockdown. Obviously there are cases, at least in some boxing organizations, in which a ref can stop a fight without a full count. 1: http://www.badlefthook.com/2014/3/9/5486930/canelo-vs-angulo-results-canelo-alvarez-destroys-alfredo-angulo-fight http://www.badlefthook.com/2014/3/9/5486930/canelo-vs-angulo...
feklar 10y ago
Boxing is much more dangerous, you have to beat your opponent senseless for 12 rounds in the UFC there is a submission option to win the match instead of only strikes. Just check CompuBox stats for a 12 round match with hundreds of "power" strikes landed VS stats for a UFC 5 or 3 round match.
amagumori 10y ago
Hellll no. The addition of grappling / submission as a way to end a fight actually makes mma much safer on the whole than boxing. Striking takes less precedence in mma and becomes more situational. Many fights are won with armbars or similar submissions, which are much, much less traumatic long-term than sustaining nothing but blows to the head in every fight. Additionally i'd argue mma referees are more conservative than boxing refs, stopping fights earlier and being quicker to prevent injury. I can't overstate how fucking brutal boxing is, how many fights i've seen where the ref takes far too long to end the fight. When you talk about people like george foreman, or even a newer boxer like gennady golovkin, these are much more powerful strikers than anyone in mma. George foreman, despite being a good person, probably gave several people brain damage throughout his career. Boxing might not look as flashily violent but it's MUCH worse for the athletes long-term.
balls187 10y ago
Actually, I disagree with this statement, because it conflates UFC and MMA incorrectly. Unified MMA rules make MMA much safer than boxing. In Boxing, there is a mandatory-8 count rule, which can allow boxer to regain their composure post knockout, which is more dangerous than in MMA, where the ref will stop the fight as soon as the fighter can no longer intelligently defend themselves. My understanding about CTE, is it's the repeated blows to the head, post concussion that causes brain damage. In the UFC, refs will stop the fight to prevent further trauma. In Boxing, fighters will continue to fight, despite suffering a knock-down. re: UFC vs MMA: For the UFC's part, once a fighter has amassed a few knock-out losses, they typically are removed from the promotion. Outside of the US, the rules and safety for fighters is far more suspect (like classif Saku fights where he is nearly knocked unconscious and is allowed to regain his composure and win.

rjett 10y ago

Perhaps that's true in the ring and on the screen, but the incidence rate of domestic violence involving MMA fighters outside of the ring is several orders of magnitude higher than in other sports. Between the performance enhancing drugs used to train, the head injuries sustained, and SOME of the people drawn to the sport in the first place, I can't watch the sport without feeling somewhat repulsed. HBO Real Sports did a good segment on violence in MMA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgpdU_uPO34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgpdU_uPO34

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

It puts me to mind of gladiation, of Roman bloody mindedness and cruelty. I can't shake the negative connotations of that.

oxide 10y ago
That's not a fair comparison at all. That's an actual bloodsport, which the UFC is not. A fight wasn't stopped when a gladiator couldn't defend himself. In a Roman arena, you fought to the fucking death. Maybe against an opponent 3 times your size. Maybe against a den of lions. People held and watched these events with the explicit purpose of watching other people die. In the UFC, once you are unable to defend yourself the fight is over. In the UFC, you can submit an opponent. Sometimes that means a fight lasts 10 seconds, with not a drop of blood spilled. That's as apples and oranges as a comparison gets.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  I know it's an unfair comparison. To make it worse, gladiators were slaves. "It puts me to mind of..." is a weasel phrase :)
  - oxide 10y ago
    ah, damn. I've been baited as the kids say. hook, line and sinker.
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      Sorry; that was not my intent.