New York Times editorial board takes a swipe at MMA regulation in the state

speeds · Jan 23, 2009

The latest from the NYT...

The Disturbing Rise of Ultimate Fighting

Promoters of ultimate fighting, or mixed martial arts, are eyeing New York State as a new venue for their blood-soaked slugfests.
Click to expand...

Ok, mistake number one is that it isn't called ultimate fighting, and the competitors aren't ultimate fighters. It is called mixed martial arts. UFC is a brand. You don't go outside with your friends and play NFL, you play football. Know thine enemy.

Big companies from Las Vegas are promoting the new sport — which has much the same flavor as a particularly vicious street fight — in more than a dozen states and on television. In New York, they have hired some of the oiliest lobbyists to start the legislative version of arm twisting.
Click to expand...

Big companies from Las Vegas? Such as the UFC, and... Maybe not mentioning the UFC makes the article seem like it is covering everyone. Also, It's not a new sport. It's been around for 15 years. Maybe it's new if you're a 60-year old rag writer who has just noticed it and dropped your monacle into your glass of sherry in astonishment.

Assemblyman Bob Reilly of Albany is one of the few brave voices standing up against them, and he he must feel like a poor wrestling jobber preparing to do battle with a hulking world champion.
Click to expand...

Brave indeed. He is also the same guy that said he didn't care about the UFC, it wasn't his issue. He's more interested in agriculture. Some leader. He could be a heavyweight contender against your hulking world champion if he knew what the hell he was talking about, but he doesn't, so of course he looks foolish, like the Brooklyn Brawler.

Proponents of ultimate fighting concede that, yes, in the old days their sport was brutal and ugly. That was back when Arizona Senator John McCain called it “human cockfighting” and went on a campaign to ban it. Now, they insist, the rules have changed and many of the lowest blows — like eye gouging and groin attacks — are outlawed.
Click to expand...

They don't have to insist that the rules are changed--the rules ARE changed. Also, please don't mention that John McCain no longer has an issue with the sport as a result of the rule changes and it is allowed in Arizona.

“What they don’t tell you is what is allowed,” Mr. Reilly points out. “Kicking in the head, kneeing in the head, hitting in the head.” Ultimate fighters do not wear helmets or shoes or full, padded boxing gloves.
Click to expand...

Shoes would make it worse. Also, the knockout rate for MMA is lower than in boxing, so the TBI rate is lower as well. So the aesthetics of what Reilly sees are the issue, not the results.

Ultimate fighting’s supporters also argue that at a time when funds are hard to come by, the state would earn a percentage of the big money from these spectacles, which can cost $200 to almost $400 a ticket.

But it would be — literally — blood money.
Click to expand...

As opposed to good sporting revenue, like betting on racehorses. There is an upstanding sport.

The most forceful arguments against this “sport” come from the British Medical Association, which is battling to ban both ultimate fighting and boxing. A quick read of their take on ultimate fighting makes it sound barbaric indeed.

The British medical establishment declared that
doctors cannot stand by while violent fighting tournaments are allowed to take place. Large amounts of money can be earned by participants, promoters and others linked to ultimate fighting but no amount of money can compensate for permanent brain damage and premature death.
Click to expand...

Congrats to the BMA on worrying about MMA for us. No permanent brain damage or premature death has occured in the UFC. What about boxing?

The rise of ultimate fighting, which is becoming a staple of cable television, is a tribute to the large amounts of money to be made — and to the nation’s bizarre double standard about violence and sex.
Click to expand...

What Century is this that such a revelation must be noted?

If there is a “wardrobe malfunction,” and a usually covered body part is briefly shown, the government reacts swiftly and punitively. If a young man bashes another young man’s face into a bloody pulp, well, that’s entertainment.
Click to expand...

Coming up next weekend, Superbowl Sunday! Read all about it in the New York Times twenty page preview! A gentleman's game!

¹²³ · Jan 23, 2009

They sure don't know enough about the sport to write an editorial about it. Great break down, speeds.

Here is the link.

speeds · Jan 23, 2009

¹²³ said: ↑

They sure don't know enough about the sport to write an editorial about it. Great break down, speeds.

Here is the link.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Looks like fanhouse thinks like I do...

The New York Times' editorial board has posted an online editorial, titled, "The Disturbing Rise of Ultimate Fighting," that shows an appalling ignorance of MMA and the issues surrounding the effort to get it legalized in New York.

The editorial begins:

Promoters of ultimate fighting, or mixed martial arts, are eyeing New York State as a new venue for their blood-soaked slugfests.

Look, when you start writing about MMA by referring to it as "ultimate fighting, or mixed martial arts," you're announcing that your ignorance of it is so great that you don't understand the difference between the sport itself and the sport's biggest promoter. The sport is called mixed martial arts. Its biggest promoter is called the Ultimate Fighting Championship, or UFC. If you know anything at all about the sport, you never call it "ultimate fighting" and you never write the words "ultimate fighting" unless they're capitalized and followed by "Championship."

Later, the Times suggests that the UFC is sugarcoating issues related to MMA's safety:

Now, they insist, the rules have changed and many of the lowest blows - like eye gouging and groin attacks - are outlawed.

Wrong. The ban on eye gouging isn't an example of how "the rules have changed." Eye gouging has always been against the rules, since UFC 1. And the words "they insist" are unnecessary before the words "the rules have changed." It's a simple fact that the rules have changed, and even a modicum of research would have revealed a long list of examples -- and revealed that eye gouging isn't on that long list.

Then the Times quotes approvingly from Assemblyman Bob Reilly:

"What they don't tell you is what is allowed," Mr. Reilly points out. "Kicking in the head, kneeing in the head, hitting in the head."

Actually, yes, they do tell you what is allowed. Of course they tell you what is allowed. How could any sport even exist if no one knew the rules? Just because Reilly and the Times editorial board members are too lazy to learn the rules, that doesn't mean it's because "they don't tell you."

This passage is also rather laughable:

Ultimate fighting's supporters also argue that at a time when funds are hard to come by, the state would earn a percentage of the big money from these spectacles, which can cost $200 to almost $400 a ticket.

Uh, I hate to break this to you, but tickets to UFC events can cost a lot more than "almost $400," and it would have taken the Times' editorial board less than a minute of research on a site like StubHub (where UFC 94 tickets are listed as costing between $300 and $8,995) to learn that.

And then we learn that the "most forceful arguments" for banning MMA come from this BBC article, which talks about how it's possible that people can suffer injuries in MMA. Of course, the UFC has never had a death or serious injury, but I guess the mere potential for injury means the UFC should be barred from doing business.

The potential for serious injury exists in football as well. And unlike the UFC, the NFL actually has had deaths and injuries causing permanent disability. Does the Times' editorial board propose a ban on football? If not, why not?

The answer, of course, is that the members of the Times editorial board understand football. They don't understand what they call "ultimate fighting." Until they can be bothered to learn something about it, they should refrain from writing about it.
Click to expand...

http://mma.fanhouse.com/2009/01/23/the-new-york-times-disturbing-ignorance-of-ultimate-fighting/

rocketeer · Jan 23, 2009

that entire article is ridiculous.

the one thing that actually does bother me about mma(well i guess ufc specifically since that's most of what i've seen), is when a guy clearly knocks out his opponent and then pounces on the guy anyway to get a few more shots in before the ref can pull him off.

Log in or Sign up

New York Times editorial board takes a swipe at MMA regulation in the state

speeds $2.50 highball, $1.50 beer Staff Member Administrator GFX Team

¹²³ ¼½¾

speeds $2.50 highball, $1.50 beer Staff Member Administrator GFX Team

rocketeer Active Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

New York Times editorial board takes a swipe at MMA regulation in the state

Moderators

speeds $2.50 highball, $1.50 beer Staff Member Administrator GFX Team

¹²³ ¼½¾

speeds $2.50 highball, $1.50 beer Staff Member Administrator GFX Team

rocketeer Active Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches