Sports Random, Random

[Deuce]

Have you watched any UFC? Yes some matches are largely "hitting" but many matches are not - lots of wrestling, jujitsu etc. I won't argue whether or not it's barbariac, but I will say it's less than boxing. For a numeric consideration look the number of deaths in each sport. MMA has 7 ever and 0 of those were in UFC. Boxing has more than that just since the last MMA death in 2016. If you consider MMA barbariac, boxing has to be at least as bad.

No argument about Dana White being an asshole.

WWE has tons of people dying early. Haven't seen it as much with UFC yet, although there are a few. I don't pay attention to boxing though, but I'm sure some ex-boxers have died as well. NFL may be the worst of many sports there with all the CTE related deaths.

Not sure why boxing is getting a free pass from you, unless because it's not as "new" as MMA?

I didn't say that boxing is healthy or safe. I simply said that UFC is worse.
I feel that, for all the corruption over the years, boxing is still viewed as being largely honorable and respectable. Yes, it has deteriorated over the years (part of what I mentioned earlier in that respect overall in society has deteriorated over the years). But - perhaps because of its long tradition - it is still considered a 'noble' sport by many. You don't hit people when they're down, low blows are not tolerated, etc.

UFC, by comparison, is much more akin to a street fight, where pretty much anything goes. There is more blood... people are hit repeatedly after they are down... and overall, I feel that it is based more on a foundation of disrespect than is boxing.

Because of these elements, I strongly believe that UFC has a much greater negative influence on kids - particularly teenagers - than boxing has. And that's a big thing for me (the effect on kids).

In terms of comparable deaths, I would venture that there are more deaths in boxing simply because more boxing takes place worldwide than UFC style fighting.

[ptmcmahon]

UFC is now heavily regulated and "everything does not go." Low blows are also penalized in UFC. People aren't repeatedly hit when they are down ... refs stop when opponents aren't defending themselves. There are very few matches with blood - however I will say when there is blood in UFC there is a LOT more than in boxing.

Here is a link for you to look at:

https://engageind.com/blogs/articles/wh ... ing-or-mma

And I'll quote some of it:

"What these researchers discovered was boxers are more likely to receive injuries that’ll affect their health in the long term. MMA fighters were shown to have less of a risk of receiving injuries that’ll affect their long term health. Just more of a risk from facial cuts and contusions in MMA than Boxing. The data they compiled was a 10-year study spanning from 2003 to 2013. Researching post-fight medical data from 1,181 MMA fighters and 550 boxers. Out of this research, it showed that 59.4% of MMA fighters received some sort of injury in their fight. Boxers in the research showed a 49.8% injury rate in their fights. This data shows you’re more likely to get hurt in MMA. However serious injury was higher in Boxing. Of the 550 boxers studied 7.1% of them were knocked out or lost consciousness. This compared to 4.2% of MMA fighters that were knocked out or lost consciousness."

So more people get hurt in MMA, but boxers have worse injuries. And a lot more boxers get knocked unconscious - pretty close to double. Not sure how that would make it "more noble" or "respectful."

It sounds to me like you may have watched one of the early UFC events 15-20 years ago and are assuming nothing has changed (anything went for the first couple of years, low blows were allowed back then for example)....when was the last time you watched a match or took notice of the rule changes and all the regulations? If you are unaware of current rules and regulations, you may not be the best judge of whether or not it is more barbaric than boxing.

[Deuce]

I unfortunately see highlights of UFC daily on sportscasts. I find it barbaric. Today.
I don't know the intricacies of the rules in UFC - but I know what I see with my own eyes. And I find it extreme and, yes, barbaric.
And with Dana White at the helm, you can bet your ass that it is made to be as sensational and attention-grabbing as possible - which, of course, leads us to less than humane treatment both inside and outside of the ring - or 'octagon'. It is primarily - and likely solely - viewed as a form of 'entertainment' by the boss, not as an 'art form', or even as a sport.

Might the study you mention include other forms of MMA, excluding the UFC?
Just wondering.

I'm also curious why you're making so much effort to defend UFC. Are you involved in it in some way (other than merely as a spectator)?

[Fastbackss]

Deuce, finding it barbaric but not knowing the nuances of it allows you to have an opinion of it but not to then throw stones in the guise of questions to others.

Ptc is going the heavy lifting here, and I appreciate the data used, but is 100% correct based on the studies.

UFC (and regulated MMA) does not allow traipsing in the spectrum of partial loss of consciousness. The official steps in immediately as soon as the person is partially incapacitated. It isn't as overt as boxing so it allows the participant to keep going, which is when the injuries come more readily.

Dana is a carnival barker. He doesn't cover up his political leanings, and also seems to "push" his fighters that do with extra publicity. He also grievously underpays his fighters. Estimate is they receive 15-20% (most sports leagues are closer to 50%).

This is why many "older" fighters are doing a boxing match for Triller. They are paying exceptionally well.

(And for the record, I like both. I actively followed UFC for 3 years but got out of it mainly because I wasn't as invested in the fighters. )

[ptmcmahon]

I unfortunately see highlights of UFC daily on sportscasts. I find it barbaric. Today.
I don't know the intricacies of the rules in UFC - but I know what I see with my own eyes. And I find it extreme and, yes, barbaric.
And with Dana White at the helm, you can bet your ass that it is made to be as sensational and attention-grabbing as possible - which, of course, leads us to less than humane treatment both inside and outside of the ring - or 'octagon'. It is primarily - and likely solely - viewed as a form of 'entertainment' by the boss, not as an 'art form', or even as a sport.

Might the study you mention include other forms of MMA, excluding the UFC?
Just wondering.

I'm also curious why you're making so much effort to defend UFC. Are you involved in it in some way (other than merely as a spectator)?

Nope, no MMA involvement other than as a spectator. When you see highlights are you only seeing highlights of knockouts and making your judgement on that? Just as a recent example, the last event I watched had 9 matches. 5 were judges decisions, 2 were technical knockouts (where the ref stopped fight because one person had the advantage from strikes, but there was no actual knockout), and 2 were submission finishes. Now I watched the event so I can't comment on what the highlights showed. But if all you are watching is the highlights and not the whole thing, I don't think that puts you in a fair position to judge. You certainly can't make comments on how "everything goes" during the matches if you just watch the highlights.

The equivalent would be if I watched no boxing at all, turned on highlights and saw the last few seconds of a fight and saw a knockout. That would lead me to thinking it's barbaric too.

My gut feeling is that boxing is ok in your book because it has been around longer and MMA is bad because it is newer. Using your words boxing is considered "noble" and has a "long tradition." The statistics show it has higher rates of deaths and long term injuries than MMA. And having watched both - and not just highlights of one - I don't see how people who watch both can consider MMA more barbariac (but sounds like you don't watch both.) Some matches are just punching - ie pretty much the same as boxing. Many matches are filled with wrestling, jujitsu etc. For example in the main event one person only landed 80 strikes in 25 minutes because they weren't trying to outbox/ko their opponent.

Really I want to know - if you don't watch it anything other than highlights, why do you think you get to decide MMA is more barbaric? If I had never seen a boxing match, I wouldn't feel ok to judge it.

(For full disclosure I do watch MUCH more MMA now than boxing.)

[Deuce]

I don't watch boxing or MMA or UFC. I did watch some boxing at one time - I was never a huge fan... but I'm old enough to remember the end of Ali's career... and to have seen some Leonard/Duran/Hagler/Hearns fights, etc.
But boxing entered the 'entertainment' domain much too profoundly for my liking... which brought further corruption to an already corrupted sport. I haven't watched it in years.

You seem to be playing with entities here. You alternate using 'UFC' and 'MMA' based on what you wish to project.
For the record, all of my comments are on UFC. Because that's all I've seen. I haven't seen more than a total of about 40 seconds of MMA that wasn't UFC (and that 40 seconds was in several different segments, not all at once).
As I understand it, MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) is describing the activity (just as as the word boxing does), and UFC is a 'brand' of MMA fighting. And so, UFC is to MMA as the WWE is to wrestling.
As I said, I'm commenting strictly on UFC, which to me is a barbaric circus. This is not surprising, given who runs it - just as WWE is an idiotic circus run by another asshole.

You didn't answer my question about whether the study(ies) you cite refers to the UFC, or to other MMA fighting. Because I believe there is a significant difference (just as there is an enormous difference between Olympic style wrestling and WWE wrestling).

No, I do not watch UFC fights. I have many other, better things to do with my time. And yes, I can indeed and legitimately classify it as barbaric based on what I have seen. Because even if every second that I don't see is NOT barbaric (which I don't believe could possibly be the case), the parts that I DO see most definitely fit my definition of barbarism.

As well, I fail to see how anyone can honestly consider anything that Dana White is involved with as being an 'art' - or a sport, even. He is all about entertainment and attention getting and and making as much money as possible at any cost. Perhaps he has done to MMA what Vince McMahon did to wrestling - that is, take a legitimate sport/art form and transform it through heavy manipulation and influence and sensationalism into 'entertainment'.
Can sports also be entertaining? Of course. I'm entertained by some tennis matches, some hockey and baseball games, etc. But when entertainment becomes the primary goal and end product, rather than fair competition, it can no longer be called a sport in my opinion. And the UFC is in that category.

I find it odd that the others who referred to UFC as being 'barbaric' in this thread have been completely silent apart from their initial offering that it's barbaric. If you feel the way you've expressed, support your perspective and enter the ensuing discussion, which you helped to create!

[ptmcmahon]

The study specifically said MMA so I would guess it’s a mix of UFC and other organizations. I would say despite who’s running it, UFC probably has a better overall reputation in terms of safety, following regulations etc. Smaller or independent leagues may be much more lax following regulations or having quality officiating.

And yes I do consider UFC a mixed martial “art”, sport etc. I don’t think the fact that the head of it is an asshole changes that. It’s the fighters I’m considering. Their boss being a jerk doesn’t change what they do. In the real world your job isn’t diminished just because your boss is a jerk.

And I’m still not questioning if you can think MMa/UFC is barbarism… I just don’t see how you can consider boxing ok too then. You saw the sad end of Ali’s career.. surely you’ve seen some Tyson fights or highlights. I don’t know how that isn’t consider barbaiac too.

As for why some others are silent… maybe they’ve learned not to argue with/against us

[Deuce]

The study specifically said MMA so I would guess it’s a mix of UFC and other organizations. I would say despite who’s running it, UFC probably has a better overall reputation in terms of safety, following regulations etc. Smaller or independent leagues may be much more lax following regulations or having quality officiating.

^ True enough that small, independent leagues might lack in the area of safety - boxing was and is the same... but I don't think that the UFC cares any more about safety than the WWE does. If a 'performer' is incapacitated, they are replaced. In both 'organizations', the performers are simply pawns in the overall game, or circus - entirely replaceable by another 'character'...

And yes I do consider UFC a mixed martial “art”, sport etc. I don’t think the fact that the head of it is an asshole changes that. It’s the fighters I’m considering. Their boss being a jerk doesn’t change what they do. In the real world your job isn’t diminished just because your boss is a jerk.

^ It very much surprises me that this is your perspective. That Dana White is what he is COMPLETELY changes what the performers do - in a similar way that the writers and directors of a sitcom dictate what the actors do. Do you honestly not believe that Dana White plays a major role in determining the 'persona' of Connor McGregor, for instance? McGregor is likely inherently a jerk - but I'd bet you anything that Dana White has played a significant role in telling him how to misbehave. And McGregor is certainly not the only UFC fighter whose character/behaviour is vulgar, violent, and controversial - he's just the most extreme. Many other UFC performers also do whatever they can to gain media attention - both inside and outside of the ring. And it is overall scripted by Dana White.

I also believe that the majority of UFC fights are fixed. Because Dana White is a con artist and dishonest manipulator - and is more than capable, as the head of UFC and with the personality he possesses, of deciding which result will bring him and his organization the most attention and money.
(And, yes, I am aware that fixing fights in boxing is also rampant.)

And I’m still not questioning if you can think MMa/UFC is barbarism… I just don’t see how you can consider boxing ok too then. You saw the sad end of Ali’s career.. surely you’ve seen some Tyson fights or highlights. I don’t know how that isn’t consider barbaiac too.

^ I simply view boxing as being more tame/controlled. UFC is a straight out street fight. I see little to no difference between a typical street fight and the UFC junk. In boxing, there is no tripping allowed, no takedowns, no hitting a person while he's down, no hidden hair pulling or eye gouging, etc.... it's just stand-up, toe-to-toe fighting. While there may be some rules guiding UFC, it seems to me that much more is permitted in UFC than is permitted in boxing. Boxing is very restrictive in comparison.
That said, as I mentioned previously, I am not a boxing fan, and do not watch it now. I am simply commenting on it because you brought boxing into the discussion, comparing it to UFC, and asked me for my thoughts about it.

I never wondered this previous to this discussion, but, given your username, are you perhaps related in some way to Vince? Is he the 'crazy uncle' in your family?

[ptmcmahon]

^ It very much surprises me that this is your perspective. That Dana White is what he is COMPLETELY changes what the performers do - in a similar way that the writers and directors of a sitcom dictate what the actors do. Do you honestly not believe that Dana White plays a major role in determining the 'persona' of Connor McGregor, for instance? McGregor is likely inherently a jerk - but I'd bet you anything that Dana White has played a significant role in telling him how to misbehave. And McGregor is certainly not the only UFC fighter whose character/behaviour is vulgar, violent, and controversial - he's just the most extreme. Many other UFC performers also do whatever they can to gain media attention - both inside and outside of the ring. And it is overall scripted by Dana White.

Please don't use Conor as an example of how MMA fighters act/behave. That would be like saying all boxers bite each other because I saw Mike Tyson do it. Conor is an egotistical maniac and would be wherever he is. He and Dana White belong together.

I disagree that Dana White plays a role in the persona of many UFC fighters (although I won't say none ... I'm sure it does for a few though.) But the majority of them seem to good people who love fighting and are underpaid grossly for the amount of money UFC is raking in. For most of them, if they are mentioning Dana White at all, it's post match saying "Dana, please give me the bonus tonight, I could really use the money." Having a jerk boss doesn't automatically make you a jerk. As someone who sometimes sees 20-30 MMA matches a month I would say I'm a better judge of this than someone who only sees highlights. Sports news of course is going to focus on people like Conor. So in turn I would be surprised that you would think you are a better judge of MMA fighters personalities than me.

I also believe that the majority of UFC fights are fixed. Because Dana White is a con artist and dishonest manipulator - and is more than capable, as the head of UFC and with the personality he possesses, of deciding which result will bring him and his organization the most attention and money.
(And, yes, I am aware that fixing fights in boxing is also rampant.)

Do you have any evidence of this? I can't remember seeing or hearing anything at all about this. There have been many matches where there was a big upset where the person bringing the most attention loses. Conor for example has 1 win in his last 4 fights and has 1 win since 2016. If this was all fixed to make the person who would bring attention wins I'm sure he would have more than this. If you have no evidence than your are basing your judgment of UFC/MMA on an opinion you have decided upon with no evidence at all....which I think means it has no creditability.

^ I simply view boxing as being more tame/controlled. UFC is a straight out street fight. I see little to no difference between a typical street fight and the UFC junk. In boxing, there is no tripping allowed, no takedowns, no hitting a person while he's down, no hidden hair pulling or eye gouging, etc.... it's just stand-up, toe-to-toe fighting. While there may be some rules guiding UFC, it seems to me that much more is permitted in UFC than is permitted in boxing. Boxing is very restrictive in comparison.
That said, as I mentioned previously, I am not a boxing fan, and do not watch it now. I am simply commenting on it because you brought boxing into the discussion, comparing it to UFC, and asked me for my thoughts about it.

Stop saying there is hair pulling, low blows, eye gouging in UFC/MMA. If any of that happens, fighters are penalized. None of that is allowed. I wouldn't say "boxing is barbariac" because they allow people to pull hair - because they do not. So you can't use that argument against MMA/UFC either.

As for tripping, takedowns etc - if you don't like that then you must consider Tae Kwan Do, Jujistsu, Amateur Wrestling all barbaric too then right? I personally consider that more of an "art" and less barbaric than just stand up toe-to-toe fighting where the goal is just to hit the other person as hard or as much as possible. So to be consistent you must not like those martial arts either.

I never wondered this previous to this discussion, but, given your username, are you perhaps related in some way to Vince? Is he the 'crazy uncle' in your family?

I have called him Uncle Vince many times...although I ... assume .. we aren't closely related. (It would explain a lot.) Personally I was always hoping Ed was secretly my grandfather and was going to show up with a cheque one day.

[ti-amie]

I said UFC is barbaric and I didn't see any reason to jump back in since the discussion was doing nothing to disprove my point.

I grew up watching 15 round heavyweight boxing matches with my father and I agree that boxing became too much "entertainment". I also used to watch ECW (Extreme Championship Wrestling") with Sabu, the Dudleys, and Rob van Damm. I look back at some of the video on YouTube and cringe. UFC, which I don't watch, grew out of that tradition after McMahon bought ECW and changed it to entertainment. UFC walks right up to the door ECW held ajar and walks through it.

Boxing was violent though. I didn't see the Emile Griffith vs Benny Paret fight where Paret took a brutal beating

"The fight was both notable and controversial for the punishment Paret took in the ring at the hands of Griffith which led to his loss by knockout in round 12 of a scheduled 15 rounds. Paret died in the hospital of his injuries 10 days later."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Par ... ys%20later.

The night boxer Emile Griffith answered gay taunts with a deadly cortege of punches
In the early 1960s it was impossible to believe that any sporting hero could be a homosexual. This abridged extract of Donald McRae’s new book A Man’s World: The Double Life of Emile Griffith tells of a fight with terrible consequences


Benny Paret lies helpless against ropes as the flailing fists of Emile Griffith batter him into unconsciousness during 12th round of their welterweight championship fight in 1962, with referee Ruby Goldstein poised to move in. Photograph: New York Daily News Archive/NY Daily News via Getty Images

Donald McRae
@donaldgmcrae
Thu 10 Sep 2015 13.43 BST

The boxer and his boyfriend sat together on a train hurtling along the New York subway. Emile Griffith had pulled a hat down over his eyes. He was not in the mood to make eye contact with anyone just before the Saturday morning weigh-in for his world title fight that night, 24 March 1962, at Madison Square Garden. It would be the third time he’d face his bitter rival Benny “Kid” Paret – in a career which would eventually see him become one of the finest welterweight champions in history.

Griffith went on to fight 337 world championship rounds – 69 more than Muhammad Ali. But his place in the pantheon would be darkened forever by his tragic trilogy against Paret.

He had lost his world title to Paret seven months previously. The Cuban had upset Griffith at the weigh-in to that bout by taunting him as a maricón [eff word.] In boxing’s macho world there could be no greater insult – especially when it was an open secret that Griffith was “different”. It was not just that he spoke of his pleasure in designing pretty bonnets for ladies or could discuss the latest pillbox hat worn by Jackie Kennedy outside the White House.

Emile Griffith was gay at a time when homosexuality was derided as a disease, condemned as a sin and classified as a crime. Even consensual sex between two adult men could result in their imprisonment. Homosexuality was a criminal act in every state of America – apart from Illinois. The American Medical Association, meanwhile, persisted in classifying homosexuality as a “psychiatric disorder”.

The renowned fighter visited gay bars most weekends – but he found it impossible to come out with a public statement about his sexual preference. It was imperative to bury the truth because a gay boxer was an unimaginable phrase. In the early 1960s the subject was not only taboo; it was impossible to believe that any sporting hero, a man’s man, could be a homosexual.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/ ... ok-extract

Full story is at the link.

To my knowledge nothing like this has happened since. There have been rumors about other boxers but all are alive and no one is said to have died at their hands.

[dmforever]

I said UFC is barbaric and I didn't see any reason to jump back in since the discussion was doing nothing to disprove my point.

I grew up watching 15 round heavyweight boxing matches with my father and I agree that boxing became too much "entertainment". I also used to watch ECW (Extreme Championship Wrestling") with Sabu, the Dudleys, and Rob van Damm. I look back at some of the video on YouTube and cringe. UFC, which I don't watch, grew out of that tradition after McMahon bought ECW and changed it to entertainment. UFC walks right up to the door ECW held ajar and walks through it.

Boxing was violent though. I didn't see the Emile Griffith vs Benny Paret fight where Paret took a brutal beating

"The fight was both notable and controversial for the punishment Paret took in the ring at the hands of Griffith which led to his loss by knockout in round 12 of a scheduled 15 rounds. Paret died in the hospital of his injuries 10 days later."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Par ... ys%20later.

The night boxer Emile Griffith answered gay taunts with a deadly cortege of punches
In the early 1960s it was impossible to believe that any sporting hero could be a homosexual. This abridged extract of Donald McRae’s new book A Man’s World: The Double Life of Emile Griffith tells of a fight with terrible consequences


Benny Paret lies helpless against ropes as the flailing fists of Emile Griffith batter him into unconsciousness during 12th round of their welterweight championship fight in 1962, with referee Ruby Goldstein poised to move in. Photograph: New York Daily News Archive/NY Daily News via Getty Images

Donald McRae
@donaldgmcrae
Thu 10 Sep 2015 13.43 BST

The boxer and his boyfriend sat together on a train hurtling along the New York subway. Emile Griffith had pulled a hat down over his eyes. He was not in the mood to make eye contact with anyone just before the Saturday morning weigh-in for his world title fight that night, 24 March 1962, at Madison Square Garden. It would be the third time he’d face his bitter rival Benny “Kid” Paret – in a career which would eventually see him become one of the finest welterweight champions in history.

Griffith went on to fight 337 world championship rounds – 69 more than Muhammad Ali. But his place in the pantheon would be darkened forever by his tragic trilogy against Paret.

He had lost his world title to Paret seven months previously. The Cuban had upset Griffith at the weigh-in to that bout by taunting him as a maricón [eff word.] In boxing’s macho world there could be no greater insult – especially when it was an open secret that Griffith was “different”. It was not just that he spoke of his pleasure in designing pretty bonnets for ladies or could discuss the latest pillbox hat worn by Jackie Kennedy outside the White House.

Emile Griffith was gay at a time when homosexuality was derided as a disease, condemned as a sin and classified as a crime. Even consensual sex between two adult men could result in their imprisonment. Homosexuality was a criminal act in every state of America – apart from Illinois. The American Medical Association, meanwhile, persisted in classifying homosexuality as a “psychiatric disorder”.

The renowned fighter visited gay bars most weekends – but he found it impossible to come out with a public statement about his sexual preference. It was imperative to bury the truth because a gay boxer was an unimaginable phrase. In the early 1960s the subject was not only taboo; it was impossible to believe that any sporting hero, a man’s man, could be a homosexual.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/ ... ok-extract

Full story is at the link.

To my knowledge nothing like this has happened since. There have been rumors about other boxers but all are alive and no one is said to have died at their hands.

Thanks for this. II didn't know about this at all. I"m not a boxing or UFC fan, but I found this interesting.

Kevin

[Deuce]

^ It very much surprises me that this is your perspective. That Dana White is what he is COMPLETELY changes what the performers do - in a similar way that the writers and directors of a sitcom dictate what the actors do. Do you honestly not believe that Dana White plays a major role in determining the 'persona' of Connor McGregor, for instance? McGregor is likely inherently a jerk - but I'd bet you anything that Dana White has played a significant role in telling him how to misbehave. And McGregor is certainly not the only UFC fighter whose character/behaviour is vulgar, violent, and controversial - he's just the most extreme. Many other UFC performers also do whatever they can to gain media attention - both inside and outside of the ring. And it is overall scripted by Dana White.

Please don't use Conor as an example of how MMA fighters act/behave. That would be like saying all boxers bite each other because I saw Mike Tyson do it. Conor is an egotistical maniac and would be wherever he is. He and Dana White belong together.

I disagree that Dana White plays a role in the persona of many UFC fighters (although I won't say none ... I'm sure it does for a few though.) But the majority of them seem to good people who love fighting and are underpaid grossly for the amount of money UFC is raking in. For most of them, if they are mentioning Dana White at all, it's post match saying "Dana, please give me the bonus tonight, I could really use the money." Having a jerk boss doesn't automatically make you a jerk. As someone who sometimes sees 20-30 MMA matches a month I would say I'm a better judge of this than someone who only sees highlights. Sports news of course is going to focus on people like Conor. So in turn I would be surprised that you would think you are a better judge of MMA fighters personalities than me.

^ Where did I state that I'm a "better judge of MMA fighters" than you? I stated no such thing, and inferring I did is pure manipulation.
One could easily argue, though, that you are far too biased in favour of UFC to objectively judge. Your entire purpose in this discussion is to defend the UFC because you are a big fan of it. You have invested a good amount of your time into watching it.
It could be equally argued that my angle is more objective - I have no investment in the UFC at all - I have nothing to gain by criticizing it - I'm simply giving my honest opinion on it.

Secondly, the only thing I said about MMA is that I know virtually nothing about it other than the 40 seconds I've seen of it. All my comments are on UFC, not on MMA generally - and I believe there is a significant distinction to be made between the two (as there is between wrestling and WWE).
Your continued interchanging of MMA and UFC whenever convenient in order to support your agenda isn't appreciated. As I've stated several times now, I don't see the two as being in the same ball park in relation to this discussion. I've told you that ALL my comments are on UFC, which is an 'entertainment spectacle', and that I know virtually nothing about MMA outside of the UFC - yet you insist on still bringing up MMA over and over...
Do you also repeatedly bring up Olympic wrestling in discussions about the WWE?

I also believe that the majority of UFC fights are fixed. Because Dana White is a con artist and dishonest manipulator - and is more than capable, as the head of UFC and with the personality he possesses, of deciding which result will bring him and his organization the most attention and money.
(And, yes, I am aware that fixing fights in boxing is also rampant.)

Do you have any evidence of this? I can't remember seeing or hearing anything at all about this. There have been many matches where there was a big upset where the person bringing the most attention loses. Conor for example has 1 win in his last 4 fights and has 1 win since 2016. If this was all fixed to make the person who would bring attention wins I'm sure he would have more than this. If you have no evidence than your are basing your judgment of UFC/MMA on an opinion you have decided upon with no evidence at all....which I think means it has no creditability.

^ Seriously?!?
This seems to have struck a particular chord with you.
Asking for 'evidence' is ridiculous, of course. And to infer that I'm one of the only people on the planet who believe that UFC fights are fixed is equally ridiculous. Come on, please be serious. If you follow UFC as closely as you claim to, you know very well that there have been, and continue to be, many, many accusations of fight fixing within it - from fans, from outsiders, from the media, and even from its own performers (whom you refer to as 'fighters'). A simple google search will bring up many examples of this.
(Here - I'll even help... https://www.google.com/search?q=ufc%20fixed%20fights )

Also, as I stated, Dana White is entirely capable of fixing fights. Do you think he's 'too honest' to do that? Do you think he's 'too good a person' to do that? Do you think his conscience would stop him from doing that? The guy is a shady used car salesman; a total con artist and selfish manipulator, among other undesirable things. Of course he is entirely capable of fixing fights if he determined it was to his benefit and advantage in some way - and, as the head of the outfit, he could easily decide that it will be done.
As for your example of Conor McGregor losing fights - come on, man... McGregor has been considered one of the top performers in the UFC, and perhaps even the 'best' - so it's rather obvious that the UFC will get considerably MORE attention if McGregor loses than if he wins. And on top of that, his losing a fight makes it easier for him to 'act out' and be even more of a jackass - which, in turn, leads to more attention for the UFC, more money, etc.
It's all just a big show - to believe it's not that, and that it is legitimate sport, is to be very gullible.

^ I simply view boxing as being more tame/controlled. UFC is a straight out street fight. I see little to no difference between a typical street fight and the UFC junk. In boxing, there is no tripping allowed, no takedowns, no hitting a person while he's down, no hidden hair pulling or eye gouging, etc.... it's just stand-up, toe-to-toe fighting. While there may be some rules guiding UFC, it seems to me that much more is permitted in UFC than is permitted in boxing. Boxing is very restrictive in comparison.
That said, as I mentioned previously, I am not a boxing fan, and do not watch it now. I am simply commenting on it because you brought boxing into the discussion, comparing it to UFC, and asked me for my thoughts about it.

Stop saying there is hair pulling, low blows, eye gouging in UFC/MMA. If any of that happens, fighters are penalized. None of that is allowed. I wouldn't say "boxing is barbariac" because they allow people to pull hair - because they do not. So you can't use that argument against MMA/UFC either.

^ In UFC, it is much easier to pull hair and gouge eyes than it is in boxing. It's pretty much impossible in boxing A) because of the restrictiveness of the gloves, and B) because the boxers are never on top of each other. In UFC, it's easy to conceal doing stuff like that from the referee (while still being able to be seen by the TV cameras, of course - which is another thing I believe is likely pre-arranged).

As for tripping, takedowns etc - if you don't like that then you must consider Tae Kwan Do, Jujistsu, Amateur Wrestling all barbaric too then right? I personally consider that more of an "art" and less barbaric than just stand up toe-to-toe fighting where the goal is just to hit the other person as hard or as much as possible. So to be consistent you must not like those martial arts either.

^ This is going to absolutely ridiculous lengths to defend your beloved UFC.
Yes, there are take-downs in Taekwondo, Jiu Jitsu, amateur wrestling, etc. And once the take down is accomplished, that's it - it's done - they stop and re-set. They don't bash each other in the face repeatedly with fists and elbows after taking them down, as is done routinely in UFC.
I don't recall seeing much - if any - blood in real wrestling or Taekwondo and other related disciplines, either.
I think you know very well that to compare the two is foolish. One is a chaotic circus done for the primary purpose of 'entertainment', and the others are known worldwide for their extremely high level of respect for the opponent and for their personal discipline. To compare these to the UFC is beyond comparing apples to oranges - it's comparing apples to artificially flavoured orange Jello.

[Fastbackss]

Ptc is going to ridiculous lengths?

You have gone to just as ridiculous lengths to project your opinion. Ptc has been more than fair, without getting animated, to try and present the opposing opinion.

This board is supposed to allow for that.

This isn't the first time that someone has had an opposing opinion and you have engaged them in a protracted "discussion" where their opinion is useless to you.

Ptc has merely presented the opposing viewpoint. You're entitled to have one, and so is Ptc.

Let it go already.

[ptmcmahon]

Yes I'm done here. I told myself not to get into discussions with Deuce (outside of curling ) before and broke my own rule. Your problems with MMA seem to be summed up by:

- You believe fights are fixed even though there is nothing more than accusations of it. I've watched hundreds of fight and never thought anything was fixed unless the judges are fixing it - and what I see is very weird scoring that would be a weird way to try to fix fights. I'd love to see any proof of this at all...but there is none.
- All fighters are jerks because their boss is. You give one example of a jerk because he's the one on the news most often, but have never heard of any other examples. Pro tip - add Jon Jones to your repertoire next time discussing with someone, he's had all kinds of legal issues as well
- You repeatedly talk about low blows, hair gouging, and hair pulling. None of that is allowed, and is penalized.
- You don't like takedowns in MMA, but it is ok in other sports because they can't also "bash people in the face" after, and there is no blood.
- Boxing is ok even though you can "bash people in the face" and there is blood.

I use MMA and UFC terms interchangeably because UFC is just a MMA organization. Any time watching UFC, highlights or otherwise, is time you've watched MMA. You know WWE and Olympic wrestling are not remotely the same thing so no I wouldn't bring one up discussing the other.

I know you will need to have the last word so you can reply, but I'm done. I've defended UFC/MMA because I don't like people seeing people say something I enjoy is bad but use all kinds of false information to make it look bad. I wouldn't come to this board and say "Tennis is horrible because every match is fixed and everyone is a big jerk because I watched a few highlights of Kyrgios...but none of you get to defend tennis because you love watching it. My opinion is objective and fans are too biased to defend it."

[Deuce]

Ptc is going to ridiculous lengths?

You have gone to just as ridiculous lengths to project your opinion. Ptc has been more than fair, without getting animated, to try and present the opposing opinion.

This board is supposed to allow for that.

This isn't the first time that someone has had an opposing opinion and you have engaged them in a protracted "discussion" where their opinion is useless to you.

Ptc has merely presented the opposing viewpoint. You're entitled to have one, and so is Ptc.

Let it go already.

^ You've already pronounced your position on the matter - and so it is no surprise that you support pt, as his position is the same as yours. Quite predictable.

I wonder why you defend pt's right to defend his position in the manner he sees fit, but essentially tell me that I don't have the same right to defend mine in the way I see fit.
I never told pt - or anyone else - to stop. It requires two people to discuss/debate a subject - please don't make it out like I'm the one person who insisted on continuing this - the fact is that I am but one of two equal participants (three if we include you). When I feel strongly about a subject, I'll usually discuss it for as long as the other party wishes to. Some people call this kind of passion a virtue. You do not. So be it.

Yes I'm done here. Apparently, you're far from 'done here', as the below rather clearly indicates. I told myself not to get into discussions with Deuce (outside of curling ) before and broke my own rule. Your problems with MMA seem to be summed up by: For the umpteenth time, I have no comment on MMA. I am commenting solely on UFC. I see a significant distinction between the two which I've already described several times.

- You believe fights are fixed even though there is nothing more than accusations of it. I've watched hundreds of fight and never thought anything was fixed unless the judges are fixing it - and what I see is very weird scoring that would be a weird way to try to fix fights. I'd love to see any proof of this at all...but there is none. Most people know that where there's smoke, there's fire. With the large number of accusations of fight fixing in UFC, coming from many different areas and directions, it takes quite a voluntary effort to say that there is definitely no fight fixing. Methinks you cannot see the forest for the trees.
- All fighters are jerks because their boss is. You give one example of a jerk because he's the one on the news most often, but have never heard of any other examples. Pro tip - add Jon Jones to your repertoire next time discussing with someone, he's had all kinds of legal issues as well. No - I did state that several other fighters have acted out violently, rudely, classlessly, and have had legal problems. I may not recall their names, but that's simply because their names are irrelevant to me. The fact that they represent the UFC is what is relevant. If you're going to respond to my posts - and even summarize them with your own slant! - at least read my posts properly before you do so, please.
- You repeatedly talk about low blows, hair gouging, and hair pulling. None of that is allowed, and is penalized. Yet it still happens. Hey - it makes for good for TV...
- You don't like takedowns in MMA, but it is ok in other sports because they can't also "bash people in the face" after, and there is no blood. When you compare apples to artificially flavoured orange Jello in order to further your agenda, I will call you on it.
- Boxing is ok even though you can "bash people in the face" and there is blood. Once again, you are manipulating and misrepresenting my comments - which seems to be a habit with you in your (desperate) attempt to defend your beloved UFC. I never said, wrote, or even implied, that 'boxing is ok'. You brought boxing into the discussion, and asked me to compare it to UFC. I did so to the best of my ability, while at the same time saying that I was never a boxing fan, that I watched a few fights many years ago, and have not watched it for years.

I use MMA and UFC terms interchangeably because UFC is just a MMA organization. Any time watching UFC, highlights or otherwise, is time you've watched MMA. You know WWE and Olympic wrestling are not remotely the same thing so no I wouldn't bring one up discussing the other.
I disagree. To me, UFC is to MMA as the WWE is to wrestling. Once again, the WWE and UFC are very primarily an 'entertainment spectacle' - a 'bastardization' of sport, if you will, whose main aim is not to determine who is the better at his craft, but is rather to do what it takes to gain as much attention and make as much money as possible.

I know you will need to have the last word so you can reply, but I'm done. Nope - you're still not done... I've defended UFC/MMA because I don't like people seeing people say something I enjoy is bad but use all kinds of false information to make it look bad. Now you're essentially saying that my opinion is false. That's rather desperate of you. What you say is "false information" are things I have seen and formed an opinion on. Just because you disagree in no way makes anything I say "false". I wouldn't come to this board and say "Tennis is horrible because every match is fixed and everyone is a big jerk because I watched a few highlights of Kyrgios...but none of you get to defend tennis because you love watching it. My opinion is objective and fans are too biased to defend it."
I am not basing my opinion of UFC on Conor McGregor alone, quite obviously (and previously stated). As far as match fixing in the UFC goes, I am far, far, far from alone in possessing this view - again, quite obviously. Bury your head in the sand to all of the accusations if you like - that is your right... but, as I said, most people know that where there is smoke, there is fire. And then there's Dana White's character - the man who has the power to decide whether or not to fix matches is a con artist and historical manipulator. But, hey - I've said all this already.
And, by the way, McGregor makes Kyrgios look like a Saint.