Like a lot of Australians, I’ve been aware, in a peripheral sense, of the Ultimate Fighting Championship for a long time.
With UFC 127 being held in Sydney, and newspapers like The Daily Telegraph suddenly devoting entire pages to the sport, mixed martial arts was pulled from the sides of my vision and placed into the centre-stage of my sporting consciousness.
With the NFL concluded for another season, the cricket failing to excite, and the domestic football codes yet to kick off, UFC 127 seemed to fill a short void in the sporting landscape.
In the days leading up to the event, mainstream newspapers featured interviews with names like George Sotiropoulos, Chris Lytle, and James Te-Huna. It worked well to build up awareness and anticipation for the event.
Personally, it’s taken a hold of me in a way that boxing never did, to the point where I’ve been considering muay thai and sambo as, if nothing else, worthy additions to my fitness regime.
However, since the Octagon was dismantled and removed from Acer Arena, the feeling of media commentators and the general public seems to have shifted.
The Telegraph printed an article in the front pages about their journalist’s experience at the event, and the unease and distaste with which she viewed it.
The letters section featured commentary from readers denouncing the sport as barbaric, comparing it to the bloodsports of Roman times, and complaining that it will inspire drunken punters to lead with their fists in Saturday night disagreements.
As one of the newest fans of this sport, I’m sure I’ll surprise some of you when I say I totally agree with them.
In terms of mainstream sport, the UFC is as close as we can get to the sacrificial days of the Colosseum. While football codes may make a point of the physicality between, say, a ball-runner and a defender, the impacts and violence are merely a sideshow to the ball sport on offer.
The UFC offers no such diversion. A fight is just that; a fight. The participants hit and abuse each other until one is unable to continue or until the fight is stopped. There’s a level of savagery there that doesn’t exist in any other sport today.
It’s presence is, for lack of a better word, refreshing.
As the AFL looks to sanitise the contact with rules outlawing front-on tackles, and the NFL looks for ways to protect players from big hits, the UFC’s approach is unapologetic.
And why shouldn’t it be?
Unlike the Roman gladiators, these men all step into the ring of their own accord. They’re all aware that they’ll be punched and kicked in the head, possibly while on the ground. In fact, they’ve spent years training for it.
The UFC’s original catchcry of ‘There Are No Rules’ has been lost to the introduction of certain measures to protect competitors; but the sport is still as brutal as possible.
(As an aside, with scientific studies now linking boxing and football related concussions to Parkinson’s disease and forms of dementia, shouldn’t we be more receptive to a type of sport that can occasionally be decided by comparatively docile wrestling techniques?)
As for those late-night heroes that Telegraph readers fear will try to emulate the athletes of the UFC – big deal. That may sound callous and uncaring of me, and I wish to stress that in no way do I condone bashings or street violence.
But if those writers cast their minds back far enough, they may be surprised to find that violence predates the formation of the UFC. In fact, some historians are now beginning to suspect that violence has been around long before ANY sport.
To imply that the meat-headed dropkick with two-dozen beers under his belt would resort to healthy debate to settle a difference of opinion if not for televised violence is ridiculous.
The late Hunter S. Thompson once referred to the NFL as “a frenzy of subhuman violence”. The phrase certainly doesn’t out him as a committed fan of the sport, which he was, spending his final years as an ESPN writer covering it.
But in addition to being a fan, he was also honest. Football is violent.
If he can refer to the most regulated team sport in the world in such a manner, fans of mixed martial arts need have no shame in saying the same about their code. It IS violent.
Why is that a bad thing?
karlos
Guest
I admire the power, fitness, bravery and skill of these blokes, but I do see it as very raw violence which knob heads are going to use on the streets and in fact, already are.
Jon
Guest
Basically under this premise all contact sports should be discouraged. Indeed any dangerous sport/liesure activity should be opposed. Skiing, NFL, rugby, ice hockey, soccer (loads of injuries), tobogoning, any martial art, boxing, flying, motor sport, MMA, AFL, lacrosse, water polo, wrestling, sumo, European handball, even baseball or cricket can result in serious injury. The premise that these result in injury (sometimes crippling injury or even death) and should be banned is the only logical conclusion you can draw from your argmuent. Because statistically, MMA is much less dangerous to a person's health than many of these sports, notably rugby (scrums are much more dangerous in terms of spinal damage than anything in MMA), NFL (you are completely wrong about NFL in relation to MMA - people are at far more risk of crippling injury, brain damage or even death in NFL statisticaly), boxing or skiing. Or should we accept that people enjoy these sports and activites, take part in them knowingly and are fully aware of the risks. The point Hunter S Thompson was making is that we enjoy violence, and shouldn't pretend otherwise. It's why we have a million action movies and tv shows, and contact sports. The UFC and MMA generally is a fairly healthy way to enjoy it.
mushi
Guest
I enjoy the UFC but I think this is a bit of an apologetic view of the sport. It is a pretty long bow to draw that we should encourage it given the links to various neurological diseases from hits in boxing and NFL. Yes many of the contests end in holds but many also end via repeated brutal blows to the head against a person who is virtually defenceless I don’t think we need to go get a Neurologist before suggesting this may not be the best outcome for the human brain. Nor is starving someone’s brain of oxygen. Pointing out that yes violence has a place in our history is great that is kind of the point that it is a devolution of social norms. You know human history also has a fair amount of paedophilia, forced sacrifice, drug abuse, torture, genocide and rape. Should we add those in and get a heptathlon happening? Also it is very difficult to understand your use of the Hunter S Thompson quote in support of a sport more violent than American football. Given he describes the NFL as sub human it is difficult to see how it is an endorsement of a sport far more brutal than what occurs on the football field. Again as I said I enjoy the UFC but this justification is wild swinging brawler hoping to land the quick knock before all the obvious opening are exploited.
Chris Duke
Roar Rookie
I possibly could have worded it better, but the point of my statement was that street violence and violence in sports/TV/movies/videogames etc are largely unrelated to each other. The majority of street fights have their roots in what the participants have been drinking in the hours leading up to it. In addition to that, if these guys are trying to emulate UFC fighters, they're doing a terrible job. Gang bashings and wild, flailing punches are the norm in late night fights. I don't think it's hypocritical to say that I don't condone street violence, while at the same time praising combat sports. There is a time and a place for everything. I abhor people hooning through the suburbs and putting lives at risk, yet am quite happy to watch Formula One. The difference between those is, for my money, the same difference between bar fights and the UFC.
Jon
Guest
I guess it really depends who you're fighting. If the guy you are sparring with or fighting has no real background in Graeco-Roman wrestling or ju-jitsu, then absolutley you can win a fight through your superior striking. And even if the guy has a good ju-jitsu background but no real take-down ability (Sotiropolous is an example) you can win the fight with striking by blocking take down attempts and striking. The Siver-Sotiropoulis fight last UFC (127) is a great example of that. Sots is probably the best Brazilian ju-jitsu expert in the lightweight division, but his take-downs (whch are more of a wrestling skill) are sub-standard. So Siver developed a great ability to sprawl and keep his balance, and Sots couldn't take him to the ground. Once that happened, Siver (who was German kickboxing champion) simply punched and kicked his way to victory. But ultimatly if a guy can get you to the ground and has a strong wrestling/ju-jitsu background, you are screwed if you don't share those skills. But there's a million variables, as you say (particularly in a street fight which is obviously a different kettle of fish) and that's what makes it interesting. Of course the new wave of fighters who are dominating MMA currently (Machida, Silva, GSP, Valasquez, etc) have both an outstanding ground game and superior striking. And that's the way the sport is evolving.
Pete
Guest
"...if you have a good ground game (or even just a quality take down defence and a good guard on the ground), you can dominate with your striking skills." Now that's what I want to see! I agree that without a ground game you will not survive in MMA, but I would like to see better defences against the grapplers. More use of ranges, more lateral movements and keep that bugger away so he doesn't get you down! Not a big fan of the unrestricted ground and pound either. I'm still hesitant to class MMA as a martial art on its own. But, I've never understood people who limit their martial art to their style without adapting. I once sparred with a guy who didn't bother guarding against a punch to the melon because I did Tae Kwon Do. His head was there to punch! What did he expect me to do?! To me, it's all martial arts and it's all just technique. I'm not sure I agree that you are screwed in a real fight without a ground game. The environment can be an ally and is not always condusive to a wrestle. Of course, you do have to be aware of that someone may try grapple, but being aware is just par for the course.
Jon
Guest
Let's leave aside the street fight thing, as I've made my point on that, and the discussion about fighting styles is much more interesting, in my opinion. What I think you might be forgetting, is that in the early days of MMA and the UFC, it was as you describe. Completely different fighting styles (and alot of nutcases and people who didn't belong in the cage). But what emerged was that the two fighting styles that dominated were Graeco-Roman Wrestling and Ju-Jitsu. And I mean dominated. Gys like Royce Gracie, Dan Severn and Ken Shamrock showed that having a background in either brazilian ju-jitsu or american wrestling was almost a pre-requisite to success. And remember, this was before any real rules had been introduced. Despite the fact that you could strike with elbows to the spine, headbut, knee people in the head on the ground, stomp (even striking the groin was legal) and there were no weight classes, the 190 lb Royce Gracie won three of the first four UFC compeititons. He would have won the other one too but had to retire hurt. He did it by going to the ground and putting guys into submission holds. And these were guys who were sometimes more than 100 lbs heavier, massivley more muscular, and came from a variety of fighting backgrounds (karate, judo, wrestling, boxing, etc). So what people have learned is basically that without a ground game, you are completely screwed. Anyway, flash forward 15 years and almost every fighter bases their game on the fundamentals of the ground game. They almost all have either black belts in ju-jitsu or a history of collegiate wrestling. Like 90% of fighters. What else a fighter has to go with that is another story and is what makes it interesting. Like you, I enjoy watching Machida, simply because he has managed to make karate a viable fighting style in the UFC (combined with his black belt in Brazilian Ju-Jitsu). And the sport is starting to evolve to the point where if you have a good ground game (or even just a quality take down defence and a good guard on the ground), you can dominate with your striking skills. So you get guys like Machida (karate), Anderson Silva (Mu Thai) and Jon Jones (who the hell knows but it's damn entertaining and extremely unorthodox). But it is a martial art. And without the requisities of wrestling or ju-jitsu, you are pretty much screwed, in a real fight or an MMA contest against a guy who has those skills.
Pete
Guest
Clearly you have strong feelings about this, and I'm not trying to be smart. I didn't mean to suggest that UFC is the cause of any increase in violence, but it does need to be mindful of the society in which it operates. I have not conducted research as this is a forum and not a peer reviewed journal. Everyone's eveidence here is anecdotal. It comes from stories over the years from my cousins and brother who spent a great deal of time getting into trouble in their youth and later working as security to make their way to another job. Whereas a street fight in their day was strictly one on one and no weapons, now it's more of a free-for-all. I also doubt the mental ability of thugs to distinguish between kicking while a man is down and a ground and pound. Furthmore, maybe a reason you don't see rear naked chokes etc on the street is because you need some skill to execute those sort of techniques, and some discipline to learn them. So again, I never said UFC is the cause, but it can have a positve influence if it tried a bit. Back to the first point. Machida is my all-time favourite UFC fighter, for many reasons. I like his technique and beyond that, I like how he is all about the fight. There is no crazy hair do, there is no over done body art. I agree that the most effective MMA style is emerging, as it naturally would, but I don't think it needs to be that homogeneous. The early days was interesting to see how different styles matched up. I'm not silly enough to think I could take any of those guys on, but some fighters don't seem to fight with much nouse. Many of the bouts that I watch are dominated by linear attacks and footwork. I don't really see many fighters working the triangles to get in counterattacks. There is a lot of force on force type stuff. That's while on their feet of course, I know nothing about the ground game. And the MMA style that is emerging may only be effective in the ring, with those rules. I see many fighters exposing their spines while attemting takedowns without a care for copping an elbow between the shoulder blades, because that's against the rules. Yes it needs rules, but I'm just saying, that's what bugs me about many of the fights. You may say that they wouldn't use that style exactly on the street, but motor programming plays a big factor when you have to simply react.
Jon
Guest
I disagree with a fair bit of what you've said. MMA has become it's own martial art. It is a fusion of Graeco-Roman Wrestling, Brazilion Ju-Jitsu, Kickboxing, Shute fighting and a few fighters have other influences (eg Machida has a strong karate background which is why he fights differently to any other light-heavyweight, while Parysian was one of the worlds most accomplished Judoko when he came in and could throw people like no other UFC fighter). What has happened is that the most effective fighting styles have essentially emerged. Wrestling and Ju-jitsu dominated early UFC, and are still the primary styles that are effective, though striking has evolved. Kickboxers are having more success now as they have honed their take-down defence, and guys like Machida who are also strong ju-jitsu experts, have shown that karate can be effective if combined with a strong ground game and some kickboxing. What has happened is that all the different styles are combining into MMA. And while different fighters have different strengths, they all follow similar principles. But the sport is still evolving, it's only really fifteen years old. And that brings me to the other point. The idea that the UFC has somehow contributed to street violence is absurd. The UFC is fifteen years old. It has only entered mass market popularity in Australia in the last year or two. Even now it is largely a fringe sport. The idea that it has somehow permeated society to the point that it has influenced large numbers of people to violently attack other people is absurd just on that basis. Most people don't watch it. Alot of people are barely even aware of it's existance. Also, your points are absurd on another point. You say people kick people on the ground more now. What do you base that on? A study or research? Are you running around troubled arease analysing fights? Have you collatted some data about this? Also, if that is the case it can't be a UFC influence, UFC bans kicking people in the head on the ground (or kneeing them), and bans stomping altogether, so they haven't seen it on a UFC fight. Also, if what you said was true wouldn't there be a sudden wave of ju-jitsu attacks? Wouldn't fights, if UFC somehow had this influence you attribute to it, suddenly be dominated by take-downs, followed by arm-bars, rear naked chokes and guillotines? The whole premise is flawed and absurd. Also it's based on absolutley nothing empirical, evidence based or studied and researched.
Pete
Guest
I'll admit to being fixated by UFC bouts, even though it has lost some of its rawness since the early days. There aren't many true martial artists left in there either. Some of the rules now, while neccessary to stop severe injury, allow fighters to use body postions that give them a huge advantage but would otherwise get them killed in real life. My biggest concern is the translation of UFC onto the street. Theres seem to be no qualms about kicking a man when he is down or stomping the head. We've have a spate of car loads of guys searching for random people to beat the crap out of. The victims are often alone. Wider social problem or not, I don't think the UFC is doing enough to link the act of fighting with the required honour.
Jon
Guest
Good points. Interestingly a host of sports are more dangerous than MMA (UFC is one MMA organisation). Skiing is far more dangerous. Rugby, NFL, ice hockey, all result in more injuries and a greater chance of crippling injury or death during participation. Boxing has resulted in thousands of deaths. It also, ironically due to measures designed to protect fighters, results in far greater damage to fighter's brains. The gloves in boxing actually result in boxers sustaining literally hundreds of blows in any bout, and the glvoes do exactly nothing to prevent any brain injury. In UFC the record for strikes sustained in a fight (head, body, anywhere) has yet to exceed 100 in a fight. Because of the gloves in boxing, fighters don't feel as much pain, suffer as many cuts or suffer as much soft tissue damage, meaning they can sustain more blows. It then means they suffer far more damage to their brain.
TomC
Guest
This is the second Roar article I've read in a week where someone has stated that they 'don't condone violence' while defending violence in some form. It seems to be becoming a throwaway line that people use without feeling the need to stick to it. I don't think the dismissive and sarcastic paragraph about violence predating the UFC is really consistent with seeing violence in society as a genuine problem that needs to be addressed. I've never really paid any attention to the UFC, or bothered to compare it to boxing, but I do think we need to be careful how we talk about violence in a social context. I don't really think there's a link between professional fighting and violence in society but I don't think we should try and dismiss the significance of street violence just so we can defend our favourite sports.
tom firth
Guest
An honest and refreshing article. I was expecting scare-mongering or ignorant conservative rhetoric, instead i'm pleasantly surprised.
Mattay
Guest
As you quite rightly say, as UFC matches are quite often ended through submission, the matches can be far less brutal than boxing where the aim is to knock the other guy out. And I'm sure a study will show AFL players are at a higher risk of injury than UFC competitors. At least the UFC competitors can see what's coming. What is barbaric is how players like Justin Koschitzke can be knocked out by a player out of sight. How many times do you see AFL players lying on the ground, eyes rolling back in the head, getting up looking dizzy. I read the media reports from UFC - pure baiting on the media's part. I would bet that journalist went to the UFC event with every intention of writing a negative article about it, just to get the reaction. Reminded me of that idiot that writes for the Adelaide Advertiser who wrote a negative article about attending an A League game, centred around how he got hit with a sausage roll.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
"Why is that a bad thing?" I don't think it is. Ultimately, when we are talking about a controlled environment in which the participants have the capacity to consent, and do so, I don't think it is a bad thing at all. Like with boxing, it will always have its critics, but there is a key difference between your average mixed martial artist and the average barroom brawler; the mixed martial artist possesses a lot of skill.