Was a very weird event overall and I was really looking forward to it =(

And no more Cerrone vs Lawler at 205 is a real bummer.

It is a real bummer. Hopefully Cerrone gets a good new opponent.

.

really not bothered about that fight now

"Another Croatian" does not equal you.

Also:

ure just mad cuz we are cut from the same cloth, the strongest and most powerful man on earth

trying to steal someone else's spotlight based on a trivial variable, I see. is that also a hereditary trait of croats? i bet you didn't even know who he was until couple hours ago.

ure just mad boy cuz we got premium genetics im another proof of that

so what have you achieved with your premium genetics apart from ruining ctfpickups and posting naked pictures of yourself to other males?

jeez this is all coming from 30y old guy having emo haircut and probably still living in moms basement?, cmon shit bird get a grip on yourself

vanity is a trait of females, makie

take it easy man

;)

don't worry, rehepapp, you won that one ;) makie just keeps diggin'. reminds me a lot of zhu!

won what ? internet [+] gz, lol. u guys are funny keep it real shit birds

makie, you are hyperventilating

i know who and what makie is for years now so there was never much to be worried about :D

why would u need be worrying about anything, wtf ?? u sound like paranoid schizophrenic now, srsly get your shit together, see that flag of yours suits you perfectly an little yellow shit bird.

well i don't know, he brought it up not me

nutjobs

i think vid might have been right when he said that you are legit going insane alone at home. because as ebureck said, you've turned into zhu. with all your huff and puff general consensus is that you're a clown so you are doing something wrong. get it checked before it's too late.

vid might be right? how the hell vid could know anything about me
what the actually fuck r u talking about now hahahh

r u guys stalking me irl now?

u sound like paranoid schizophrenic now, srsly get your shit together, see that flag of yours suits you perfectly

yes yes i just missed u buddy hahahah

check this out hahah http://www.starsandgarters.com/photos/doodles/shitbird.JPG
first pic on google image, now this is officially u and it even looks like u, now every time some1 mention shit bird your face will pop out in your heads guys. u win.

ah come on makie, that's some next level try harding. you really think most people here care about some forced meme by a village clown? there's a much higher chance that if i start calling you "bitch tits" it will be your new middle name so i don't know why you want to play this game.

cmon now shitbird ssshhh

lets force it, mr bitch tits, lets force it together!

why bitch tits elaborate? i dont follow you

you're really that bad at self-reflection and analysis? well, there will be a point when you'll look at yourself and say "fuck, rehe was right", a point when it all makes sense and from there onwards the healing process begins. you'll still be mr bitch tits, but you'll accept the new you.

no man but 100 % honestly now, im laughing my ass off by reading your comments, how clueless u are a fucking bitch tits man? hahahah

okay then im gonna give you more time to elaborate why ppl should call me bitch tits. my "shitbird meme" holds water much better, and that freaking duck even looks like you. okay man stay healthy and BITCH TIT IT!

you're hyperventilating again. you've double-replied to me twice already.

yes omg, its all from these fucking bitch tits u managed to elaborate omfghkjhahjajkh!!!

bitch tits ))))

The eyepokes are real. Travis Browne is a cunt worthy of his coach. CM Punk was hopefully a lesson for the UFC; I'm surprised Helwani thinks this could happen again.

Werdum's awesome, became a fan of the guy this event. He handles himself well in interviews. And what a kick. Hope he gets the title fight.

Was pulling for Overeem, but what an exciting fight. He shouldn't have gone for the Guillotine :D

Jesus, that's quite a way into his brain. What about Werdums front flip thing! Shit fight though otherwise, Browne didn't do a thing.

Love Overeem but he didn't look that great on Saturday, he gets knocked out quite a lot too but that could be the division as a whole I guess.

Rivera was very impressive against Faber... man his leg was fucked.

i dont get how overeem lost, he seemed so much better lool but I guess it's just like the nate diaz fight, anything can happen

also, the cmpunk thing was a nice favor by a friend (dana to phil) but we see yet again why UFC matches shouldn't be booked like WWE matches, another example being lesnar/fir for the title.

Seemed like Overeem didn't know how to neutralize Miocic's offense, once he got walked down into close range he would just try to run, or block. Surprising for such a striker to feel so inadequate. Maybe he was rocked? I'm not sure. I'll wait for some analysts to chime in.

Stop the CM Punk & Lesnar comparisons. Lesnar's a great athlete and has serious combat sports experience, and he was also the UFC champion. Nothing like CM Punk.

I don't think CM Punk was a favor either.

Edit: Also https://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/529p46/...ys/d7igsqj In the end this was profitable for the UFC at least short term. It probably left a sour taste in fan's mouths tho, and further fights would probably look worse.

did u not read? I never compared the athleticism of the two, I'm saying the Punk/Gall match was booked like a WWE match, just like the Brock/Fir match was, out of place and not how a real fighting match should be booked.

Also, the punk thing was a favor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p3AFt3DPVM

but like you said, UFC is a business just like any other promotion, so he'll probably get another fight

It is not completely clear what you mean by UFC matches shouldn't be booked like WWE matches, but it seemed like you meant it as compromising the product by booking a match that shouldn't be in the UFC.

Looking at what Brock did before the match, seems like the fight wasn't WWE at all. At worst it was an unfair titleshot given to sell PPV - much like Mcgregor at 155 (before and possibly now), Sonnen, the current Bisping fight lol. But that's just the UFC, they do this all the time.

[Edit: Lesnar seems far from the worst in this regard]

Much more similarities between those than a fight between a 37yo celebrity with 2 years of training and an amateur prospect who wouldn't be in the UFC. This isn't an alteration of the championship queue, this is like a side show with strippers to make it more fun for casual fans. So it's still suspect why you put Lesnar there instead of, say, Sonnen. Seems like the reason is the WWE connection.

What would you expect Dana to say? He can't say we did it to sell PPV to schmucks. Of course he'll spin it. But clearly, that's not the actual reason.

reem is just a roider.

yeppp, croatian genetics prevail

ONce reem stopped roiding, and lost all the muscle mass... ....

Why the FUCK did he not get some of that speed / unpredictability / creativity / BALLS back that he used to have in pride before he BLEW up with roids.

Was nice by Miocic, ever since the first time i saw him I thought CroCop, then i herd he was born croatia, done deal!

The weirdest card ever so far. Add to the list that prior of the fight, a fighter got injured because the elevator he was in fell off for a while.

Respect to Punk, he got the balls to step in the cage against a real fighter. He could have choosed a bum at least for his first fight. They mismanaged him.

Nothing strange with Overeem. First, this is not his ultraroids version, second, he now seems conscious of that glass chin of him, that's why he was running.

barbarians

People actually watch this crap?

...says the average gamer that accidentally opens a quake stream.

I expected more solidarity toward another fringe conmpetition based on speed, coordination, violence and guts. But i guess quakers just like to shit on anything

The difference is I actually play Quake versus the vast majority of MMA fans who have probably never been in a fight and are in terrible physical condition.

Surely there must be a few people who watch Quake that have never played it and would be terrible at it if they tried. But probably they are motivated to do so for less pathological reasons than those who watch MMA from the same inexperienced, ineffective perspective. I'm sure Freud would have a field day with MMA fans.

Another big difference is that MMA is a real-life, bloody, violent "sport", while Quake Live is a video game. Not really a comparison there, but it should be clear to any educated, civilized person that glamorized real-life violence like MMA fighting is bad for society and should be relegated to the fringes. In my view, the positive elements that make MMA a good "sport" (strategy, athleticism, etc.) are far outweighed by the negative impact on society when consumed en masse as it is in places like USA. And like it is by that little bitch-tits Makie, who idolizes this garbage like no well-adjusted adult ever should.

this has nothing to do with idolization read my post again, im giving my croatian brother well deserved props for beating this roided up bitch, do u even know there is only 4mil of us, how fucking impressive is that?? crocop now this guy??

now bit off topic, just imagine u laying down in ring on the ground and this python looking arm around your pencil neck, making u say makie sir im shit bird with bitch tits hahaha

https://s10.postimg.io/up866zlbb/pythonius.jpg

yes im bulking atm bruvs

I literally don't understand what you wrote in this post...can you go back and edit please? And yes, some random picture of how buff you are is completely off topic. Get over yourself, loser.

aaaaaaaaaaahahahahhh

Not really a comparison there, but it should be clear to any educated, civilized person that glamorized real-life violence like MMA fighting is bad for society and should be relegated to the fringes. In my view, the positive elements that make MMA a good "sport" (strategy, athleticism, etc.) are far outweighed by the negative impact on society when consumed en masse as it is in places like USA.

So should it be clear to every educated, civilized person, or is it just your view?

Another thing, let me ask you, have you watched a UFC broadcast? Is it violence that they glamorize there? Does Joe Rogan focus on the blood, or on the skill? Even when they speak about damage, they point it out when it speaks to the skill of the opponent or the toughness of the competitor. They definitely do not support late stoppages or bad matchups.

MMA journalists frequently talk about the contradiction with TBI, and typically support fighters ending their careers when they can't get much more out of it / are under risk. But these are fighters, they chose this and do it for a living. Saying this impacts society negatively as a whole is a serious claim that need some support. Especially given the beneficial aspects that martial arts, which MMA promotes, have.

But probably they are motivated to do so for less pathological reasons than those who watch MMA from the same inexperienced, ineffective perspective.

What does that mean

Like eburbeck said, this is real life violence. Given how violent it is and that this is, inherently, part of the appeal given the rules, there's some parallels with dog fighting (animals, not planes). That some find this entertaining -- that people are injured through the process of entertaining spectators -- is not healthy. A healthy response to watching someone be physically harmed should be distress (ie, empathy).

That is part of the appeal generally and it is appealing to some people, but that's not the only nor the major reason people watch it. The other parts are what the commentators, experts, journalists and fight media point to - the skill, the fitness, the personal growth, the ambition and determination are very impressive and oftentimes inspirational, let alone enjoyable to watch. For many people the violence is a detriment, but they watch anyway, for these other reasons.

If you just come out with blanket statements like that and comparisons with dog fighting (dog's didn't agree to this, nor do they get paid, lol), it's hard to take you seriously.

The difference that makes the difference is the violence. If people were more interested in those things (skill, fitness, blah blah blah), there's tons of other sports/activities they could spectate which have those to greater degrees and no violence. The only aspect where MMA exceeds that of others is violence.

Yours is the rationale people usually use to defend MMA and what the promoters of the sport have worked hard to emphasize. But it a self satisfying rationale. Anyone looking at the sport for the very first time isn't going to be saying to themselves, "Ooohhh! The skill! The fitness!" They will inevitably be either interested or immediately repelled by the violence.

Okay so let's go over this

You start off with a classic lazy bait of People actually watch this crap?. Then you diss MMA fans saying they've never been in a fight (which would suggest that they aren't, contrary to what you are saying, a violent bunch). Then you say that they're in bad shape. Considering that sports probably are more likely to get people moving than say, TV series, that's a positive for MMA. Then you invoke pathology and Freud out of your ass, even though you just argued against it. Let's see how you defend it.

The difference that makes the difference is the violence. If people were more interested in those things (skill, fitness, blah blah blah), there's tons of other sports/activities they could spectate which have those to greater degrees and no violence. The only aspect where MMA exceeds that of others is violence.

Okay hanslolo, researcher in psychology, focusing in reasons people watch sports for. Thanks for your testimony. We will take it into consideration when looking into what clueless internet commentators think are the reasons for MMA's success.

Longtime fans of MMA would point to the other differences MMA has when compared to other sports. But since you just flat out said this confidently without any evidence, I guess we'll just have to take your word for it and don't bother with any of the other reasons.

Yours is the rationale people usually use to defend MMA and what the promoters of the sport have worked hard to emphasize. But it a self satisfying rationale.

I guess when the commentators, journalists and almost everyone else in the sport that matters focus on these, it's just talk. Certainly ropes fans looking for violence in, and when it shapes the discourse of the sport in general, it's all a facade. They're just spending all day talking their faces off to mask the violence. lol.

Anyone looking at the sport for the very first time isn't going to be saying to themselves, "Ooohhh! The skill! The fitness!" They will inevitably be either interested or immediately repelled by the violence.

This is a confusing point. MMA is known for grappling which gathers boos from people who bought tickets without knowing what to expect, and is generally considered boring among newbies. Which begs the question, why is the UFC so popular when kickboxing, currently half-dead on life support, offers more of the violence without the boring grappling parts? Could it be that the variety of skillsets, while it is boring for newbies, ropes people in and keeps people interested? Of course not, Mr. hanslolo just confidently claimed the difference was violence!

Even then, thinking people would watch even kickboxing or boxing for long periods of time just for the violence seems a curious phenomena. Fighters are great at avoiding damage and neutralizing their opponents offense. Clearly, there must be something about the skill in that that makes people watch, and focus on the best of fighters, when instead they could just turn to liveleak. Where you can see people exploding, stabbed to death, gore all over the place. Without any of the stalling, and certainly without stupid ass boring grappling.

I think you're going about this the wrong way. You should OWN the fact it's violent and that that's really the fundamental appeal of it. Make my criticism your strength. This is a better argument than trying to deny the obvious.

Those who want to turn a blind eye to violence are burying their heads in the sand. The Romans knew it when they celebrated life through the gladiatorial games. We are only on Earth a short while and happiness and life is nothing without suffering and death. Man is animal and we can never lose sight of this lest we lose sight of what we are. Appeals to "higher minded" dribble is just self delusion. One cannot, should not, sterilize life. Nietzsche very quotable on this topic.

I think you're going about this the wrong way. You should OWN the fact it's violent and that that's really the fundamental appeal of it. Make my criticism your strength. This is a better argument than trying to deny the obvious.

I provided some reasons supporting the conclusion that it's not. It's also obvious that you're not supporting your hypothesis that the most fundamental aspect of MMA is the violence.

How about you own that.

Your reasons are poor.

this is nearing hitsu level of discourse

I'm not going to spend all night rehashing everything I've said over and over because you cannot read what I've already written or if you're intent on thinking I've said things that I haven't. That's on you.

Here's my last post:

I never said MMA didn't require skill, strategy, or physical fitness (I think I said as much in one my very first posts). It's undeniable it does. I imagine the top fighters spend enormous amounts of time training both their techniques and their physical shape. But that does not change the fact that what defines MMA is that it is violent. You cannot get around this fact: The goal is to inflict as much pain on the opponent as possible to get them to tap out, knock them unconscious, or physically harm them more than they harm you.

There's a continuum, naturally, of how f'd up people are. Of course there's grotesque stuff on the internet which people get off watching. But that fact does not change anything about MMA. It's still a problem to enjoy watching people in a contest where the goal is to harm the other person more than they harm you. You talk about grappling as if it is not painful... What?!

Lastly, coconuts: MMA simply does not have the history that handegg does. One, therefore, cannot say because MMA cannot be as rigorously studied as handegg that it does not have the same issues handegg does w/r/t CTE. Handegg has been around for well over 100 years with largely the same rules. It has also been a vastly more popular sport, historically speaking, than MMA. As a result, there's a huge population that can be studied and the correspondent public interest. The same cannot be said of MMA. Years from now, it is very likely, that based on what we know of CTE, that MMA is as much affected by repetitive head trauma as is boxing and handegg. As I mentioned multiple times in this thread, it is not solely about "big hits" but repetitive small hits that happen in training (sparing, scrimmages, etc.) that cause the most damage. It is an accumulation of impacts over time. This is well documented at this point. Please feel free to Google this to your heart's content.

I'm not going to spend all night rehashing everything I've said over and over because you cannot read what I've already written or if you're intent on thinking I've said things that I haven't. That's on you.

I mean, I don't know what prevents you from looking at your own posts and seeing that they're full of assertions and light on evidence. It seems like you think asserting something you personally believe means I should believe you, and if that doesn't happen then I can't read.

But that does not change the fact that what defines MMA is that it is violent. You cannot get around this fact: The goal is to inflict as much pain on the opponent as possible to get them to tap out, knock them unconscious, or physically harm them more than they harm you.

Violence clearly doesn't define MMA. Otherwise, torture, murder, hunting, self-defense against an attacker on the street would be the same thing as. Other combat sports would be the same as MMA. If MMA is defined by anything, then violence is at best one component of several.

Sure, the goal looks the similar, often outwardly the same as violence if you didn't know what you were watching. But competing, showing of martial arts skill, winning, impressing the judges seem more direct, and relevant to the sport.

We could look at the reasons fans enjoy this sport. We could look at the reasons they enjoy it over others. We could look at what features make it distinct from others. We could look at what the ruleset seems to be aiming to do, and what direction changes to the ruleset show. It'd be fairly trivial to show that many of these are moving away from violence, and towards something else, showing that that is the more fundemental aspect of MMA.

One could make a good case that that MMA is about showing you're a better martial artist, or showing the superiority of your skillset (or martial art, or combination of those) over others. But this is all secondary. What is important is that you've asserted the MMA is mostly about violence thing, and you haven't proven it or even given compelling reasons to believe you.

But that fact does not change anything about MMA. It's still a problem to enjoy watching people in a contest where the goal is to harm the other person more than they harm you.

It's a problem drinking alcohol, or supporting someone doing that on TV. It's a problem doing drugs or eating junk food. It's a problem doing or supporting sports with high injury rates. Sure. Doesn't mean we should stop. Maybe we should, but we haven't established that.

Edit: I should point out that I'm not saying these things are bad, but maybe we should do them anyway, maybe not. I'm saying they have good and bad aspects, and simply pointing to the bad aspects, if they're not insanely terrible, won't be enough.

I mean, I don't know what prevents you from looking at your own posts and seeing that they're full of assertions and light on evidence. It seems like you think asserting something you personally believe means I should believe you, and if that doesn't happen then I can't read.

Regarding CTE, go look it up. Read about it yourself. No need to take my word for it. But I'm not going to copy+paste every article on it for you.

Furthermore, you're doing no more than sharing your personal opinions. Who is going to be the objective, absolute arbiter of truth when it comes to whether MMA is violent or not? YOU? The commentators or journalists who follow and report on the sport? Please, give it a rest.

Violence clearly doesn't define MMA. Otherwise, torture, murder, hunting, self-defense against an attacker on the street would be the same thing as. Other combat sports would be the same as MMA. If MMA is defined by anything, then violence is at best one component of several.

If I understand what you're trying to say, are you aware of the glaring logical fallacy here? You cannot say a thing does not contain a quality because other things have it to a larger degree. Yes, murder and torture are really fucking violent. Do you think that really proves that MMA is not violent? A Cessna 172 (a small prop plane) is no less of a plane than an SR-71 (supersonic, high altitude jet plane) because the SR-71 can fly higher and faster.

How would a fan or employed by the sport in some way actually have an objective opinion about what defines MMA?

...and you haven't proven it or even given compelling reasons to believe you.

this is nearing hitsu level of discourse

whether MMA is violent or not?

If violence is the use of force which results / is likely to result in damage, then of course MMA is violent. I never denied this. That's utterly obvious.

What I am arguing is whether violence is the most fundamental aspect of MMA, if it defines it, if it's the one most attractive to fans, pathologically attracting them to watch. I'm saying that your assertions about this aren't true, and that you didn't meaningfully back them up with evidence. Reread my post with that in mind.

I also provided, and in some cases pointed to reasons to believe that other aspects are the ones that draw & keep fans in, and were more important when designing and altering the rules. Now that you know that I'm not arguing about the absence of violence in MMA, hopefully you'll be able to see that they're not just opinions.

"...not just opinions."

I'm sorry, but they are just that. Do you understand the difference between opinion and empirical evidence or proof?

Uh, well typically I use opinion synonymously with belief - something you think is likely to be true, for various reasons - from faith to real knowledge. So it would include just about anything.

But you seem to be using it to mean a belief about a subjective question, meaning something with no right answer. Which would also mean that your opposition to my POV is just opinion too, making this discussion void in your mind.

In either case, I have presented arguments. Not in the form of a tidy list of premises and a conclusion, but clear enough. Confusing how you can't see them.

One, therefore, cannot say because MMA cannot be as rigorously studied as handegg that it does not have the same issues handegg does w/r/t CTE.

Sure, we can't say that. We also can't say that if statistics show something, it's because of a lower amount of data. Statistics can't show that, it just gives you an error rate, or you can point to the fact that we don't really have statistics of the relevant data yet.

That's why I was pointing to your previous post, where you were saying that statistics of something are lower because of less documentation. They aren't, they simply aren't there, or they have high error rates because of less datapoints. But they could conceivably and very possibly be less than other sports once we do get them, so you can't make the claim you did.

Given what we KNOW about chronic traumatic encephalopathy, its causes and effects, it is very reasonable to say it is very likely happening to a significant degree amongst professional MMA fighters.

Statistics is such a misunderstood subject. Statistics alone proves nothing. If you find a relationship between two variables, it doesn't matter how strong or how weak, the basis of your argument is only as good as the theory (and support for that theory) that underlines it. We KNOW the root causes of CTE. We know even mild hits during sparing/training can lead to CTE over time. Hell, there's even evidence of CTE amongst football (soccer) players caused by practicing headers. Those aren't exactly huge punches to the face...

Dunno about how likely CTE is; I don't know much about it. I never argued about it either.

Someone said injury was "rare" in MMA. CTE is a long term, profoundly disabling injury. That's why I brought it up.

I said in modern day UFC.

As opposed to prehistoric MMA?

There's still lots of injuries -- your definition of "injury" is apparently relative to the sport (an indication of how violent it is). Guy spraining ankle playing football, that's an injury. Guy breaks nose in MMA fight, it's what? A cuisinart?

Yep, you didn't read a thing I wrote.

It's martial arts, in a very much controlled environment. A professional competition, not a blood bath.

In UFC injuries are extremely rare. In over 20 years of history, out of thousands of fights there's never been a single severe, permanent or career ending injury; nor a single death either. Maybe three or four open fractures tops and that's it.

That record is much, much better than of any other sport with any kind of contact, whether combat based or not. UFC is safer than say a professional Soccer or Basketball league, and certainly much safer than Boxing despite UFC fights having less protection for fighters.

lol. go talk to one of those guys in 5-10 years, see how "uninjured" their brain is.

Way less so than of any boxer, american football player or pro wrestler.

Plus, the sport is getting safer every day, so that current fighters and those to come won't get injured at all. Those fighters that have experienced early symptoms (no one has been tested for actual damage yet) are the veterans that also fought during the early days of MMA, in organizations where rules were more lax. It's totally different to compare a fighting career in which fights were stopped only after the opponent was completely knocked out after a soccer kick to the head, than to a career in which fights have the current UFC rules.

If the statistics show that it happens less to pro MMA fighters, that is simply because it is much more studied, documented, and diagnosed in boxing and handegg.

If the statistics show that it happens less to pro MMA fighters, that is simply because it is much more studied, documented, and diagnosed in boxing and handegg.

Something is less studied, therefor the rate is higher?

Thanks for more of your insights Dr. hanslolo

Trying reading. It helps.

Here it is in terms you might understand, little one: if I went to island 1, and counted 50 coconuts, I can claim there's 50 coconuts on island 1. But since I haven't been to island 2, I can't say island 2 has no coconuts simply because I haven't seen them. In fact, it is probably safe to assume that there are coconuts on island 2 because the conditions are right for coconuts to grow there.

So, handegg and boxing have high rates of documented CTE cases because people are studying those sports a lot (especially football given its popularity) whereas MMA is comparatively less studied. Why? Because it has only recently become popular and has not had a large population of retired fighters that can be studied.

Ironic, suggesting that and getting the suggestion wrong.

Here it is in terms you might understand, little one: if I went to island 1, and counted 50 coconuts, I can claim there's 50 coconuts on island 1. But since I haven't been to island 2, I can't say island 2 has no coconuts simply because I haven't seen them. In fact, it is probably safe to assume that there are coconuts on island 2 because the conditions are right for coconuts to grow there.

Being the little one, I can't really understand how this pertains to our situation.

If the statistics show that it happens less to pro MMA fighters, that is simply because it is much more studied, documented, and diagnosed in boxing and handegg.

Is your coconut example supposed to show that the statistics for island 2 (of which we have none) show less coconuts there because it is less documented?

Being charitable, is it supposed to show that if we got preliminary statistics for island 2, and there are low numbers of coconuts, we should assume that this is because the study is not representative, and not because there are actually few coconuts on island 2?

I can't really see how it shows that, and I can't figure out what hidden reasons would be there for these conclusions. I don't see what other relevant conclusions can be drawn from the coconut example. For that reason it seems unrelated. But again, maybe that's cause I'm the little one.

it is much more studied in boxing and handegg.

Whooshhhhhh

You're going to have to make your point. You can do it with a coconut analogy for all I care, but make sure it's relevant this time.

First, injuries are quite common. Rousey said it took at least a month before she could bite an apple after her loss to Holm. Broken noses, concussions, dislocations, etc., are common, not rare. Your definition of "injury" seems distorted.

Furthermore, as for permanent damage, chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is an ailment that leads to all sorts of neurological problem (dramatic memory loss, loss of motor control, mood disorders, etc.). It has gained a lot more attention in recent years with respect to American football (handegg), but recent research indicates that it is not really the "big hits" that cause the most damage. Instead, it is the smaller, more frequent hits commonly taken during training that cause the most serious issues. These MMA fighters who train and fight are turning their brains to mush.

In MMA fighters receive way less hits than in Boxing or Handegg. Way less fights a year, way less hits in them, way less chance of experiencing CTE.

I mean, of course MMA is a dangerous sport and injuries can potentially happen. However, lets compare the UFC vs the NFL. In the UFC fighters have one or two fights tops a year, with ample recovery time before resuming training and fighters receive very few hits to the head a year. In Handegg players receive hits to the head pretty much every day of their careers, a ton in each match, with almost zero recovery time.

Some veterans have experienced early symptoms of CTE -yet not actual CTE damage-, and it's likely at least one veteran will be diagnosed with proper CTE in the future. That is true. However, that's still comparing apples and oranges. Not the topic in discussion. We are talking about current day UFC, not the MMA organizations those veterans fought at for most of their careers.

Those organizations had little to no measures to protect their fighters, with 10 and even 20 fights scheduled per year (little recovery time), fights were only stopped after they were a blood bath already and the rules allowed the use of kicks when the opponent was on the ground. It really would be like comparing a sport in the 1930s (how MMA was in the 90s. Everything goes) vs the 2010s (modern era). Plus, those issues of theirs can be explained not only by CTE, but also due to the immense amount of drug abuse during the early days of MMA. Many if not all of the veterans with early symptoms of brain damage were alcohol and overall drug addicts, both recreationally and to make weight.

Things are not like that anymore. There's no modern era UFC or Bellator fighter that's shown any early symptom of CTE. Obviously to be totally sure we would have to wait some years until they grow older, but still a record of zero cases is quite impressive and certainly much better than in say modern fake wrestling. Nowadays (UFC 203 -- the topic in discussion) the fighters receive very few hits to the head, have mandatory breaks after fights, very few fights a year, can't take drugs that can increase the effect of said hits as a side effect, fighters are professionally trained nowadays (gyms aren't slugfests every day anymore). Totally different conditions.

The last time a fighter in UFC received an injury with a long lasting or permanent consequence was..... never. Not once it has happened. In soccer a bunch of active players die every year, and when retired they have to deal with constant pain. http://www.worldsoccer.com/news/gabriel-batis...ted-356207

The problem is that MMA has not been a large sport for as many years as handegg. Researchers can find thousands of ex-handegg players at various ages to study. This is a much larger population than retired MMA fighters currently. To get the same evidence as there is for handegg, researchers will have to wait a while until there is a larger population to study. But, given what we know of CTE, it is safe to assume that MMA fighters are also likely affected by repetitive trauma to the head.

Again, most CTE is caused in training, not actual games. It's not big hits, as well. It's the repetitive, relatively lighter hits during training that cause the most damage. Basically, it is an accumulation -- the brain can only tolerate so much.

Why do you even care to argue with facts? Violence is a big part of the show (and so are drugs..). No one gives a fuck if their favorite fighter is a cripple in 10 years.

I agree this is why horse racing is dying, the vanishing of the middleclass between horses means they dont have the money to go and watch their national sport.

So your reasoning is that if someone doesn't practice the sport he follows, he shouldn't be following. Solid logic here. But i bet you watched the olympics.

Nope, didn't say that. I open a Quake stream to watch a game that I actually play.

People tune into Olympics to watch people who represent their nation or at the very top of their respective events. Furthermore, there's a big difference between the Olympics which happens every few years and MMA fights which happen all the time throughout the year.

If someone were to watch athletic events year round, though, and does not participate in them, yeah, frankly that's weird. Also, I somewhat share this attitude towards people who religiously follow sports that they have never played. Clearly they are trying to fill a void in their lives.

so judgemental, like all CPMA players

Who knew MMA fans were so insecure about their sport?!

Yes, that was the concept of what you said in your post. And you just keep adding ridicolous points: so the difference in legitimacy between the olympics and a combat sport is that the olympics happens only once in 4 years?

And you are also saying that if someone often follows something that he doesn't personally practices, he's... "weird"?!?

Do you even realize how ridicolous that is?

Four years (and the spectacle that comes with these huge international events as a result of them not happening every weekend), national pride, passing curiosity/interest about a particular event. I think that sums it up for the vast majority of people.

As someone who ran track, I enjoy watching the track and field events but I have not much interest in following those events throughout the year in other competition (local, regional, national, etc.). It's frankly boring to watch a lot of these events unless you're really close to them in some way. Those who have never participated and watch those events on a regular basis... Why? Why do you think they would? Maybe they have a family member competing. Otherwise, why?

Yep, it's weird for someone to follow a sport like the 4x400 dash or the 800m who hasn't ever actually done it. Who does that?

"Yep, it's weird for someone to follow a sport like the 4x400 dash or the 800m who hasn't ever actually done it. Who does that? "



...about 99% of the people watching the olympics

Do you really believe 99% of people know who came in first at the 4x400 IAAF championship events? Someone who knows that and FOLLOWS the sport but has never run a 4x400... That's 99% of Olympics viewers? Gotcha.

If someone were to watch athletic events year round, though, and does not participate in them, yeah, frankly that's weird. Also, I somewhat share this attitude towards people who religiously follow sports that they have never played. Clearly they are trying to fill a void in their lives.

lmao. You're either trolling, or trying to fill a void in your life, unlike those people, or both. Seriously that's some sad shit.

Explains how you can't see anything but violence in MMA, too.

Why is that? Explain.

I used to watch MMA, actually. First fight I saw was Kimo v. R. Gracie (on tape, circa 1999) at a friend's place. I think my reaction was the same as most people's -- shock at the violence. Eventually the shock wears off. You get used to it. And that's the problem.

You show a clear lack of understanding why people watch sports / what they get out of them, and apparently think it's generally a sad, pointless affair used to burn time to fill the void. Unless they do them, apparently.

I'm not going to explain why watching sports aren't as useless as you describe. You might call my bluff, but I'd be a fool to try to explain to you when 32 years on earth haven't succeeded.

It's the kind of a comment I'd expect from a stereotypical woman looking down on sports, perhaps jokingly. Or someone isolated in his shell, unable to understand most of what other people do. I'm not accusing you of these things, but it's this sort of level of ignorance we're talking about.

You won't or can't explain? Seems like the latter...

As I said, if life hasn't so far, and you're boldly opining anyway...

this is nearing hitsu level of discourse

Dunno about fringe anymore it's replacing boxe and sold recently for 4 billions while it keeps trending up

Rehe and Makie, go settle it on thunderstruck

still dont understand why would someone jump in aggressive in ppls journals like this, in quake im complete ignoring him, his vote kicks, trash talks and god knows what and btw i never said a single bad word to a poor fella... noting to settle this just proves how limited is he. h8rsgnh8

Im pretty sure he said u a fag

dude he needs to get proper mens haircut first to do that

you never heard of "it takes one to know one"?

cmon u can do better

oh shit, it's a journal, didn't notice. my bad. next time i'll make sure it's a public board before i point people's deficiencies out.

u have proven yourself buddy no need to do anything else

fuck yes, i got the approval finally

yes yes, internet approves your shitbirdness ure full legit now

it's called winning, mr bitch tits, i'm winning

yeah i heard they call this winning in shitbird world where all shitbirds like u gather and try to sound funny but in reality it doesn't work for them

don't care, winning

cringe

fuck, it's the cringe cop!

you talking about cringe while your posts are mixture of zyzz_bra, pewdiepie and every other random low iq patriot.

now this is next lvl cringe

tip me your fedora next

high myostatin cringe worthy fella

and we're back to mr bitch tits

oh noes

MMA, and any other fighting sport, is not about the violence. Violence is a part of it, but people, or most people, don't watch it for that.

You watch it because you want to see two brave fighters use their athletic skills, strenght, stamina and punch resistance to outsmart and outskill the opponent, like in any other sport and esport. The victory is more direct than in other sports, but the other sports just take a longer route to do exactly the same.
Most mma or boxing fans love when, maybe after an intense rivalry and build up to the fight, the two opponents respect each other after the fight, win lose or draw.

In addition to this main aspect, there's all the world around it: Joe Rogan with his crazy podcasts, Dana Whyte with his statements, the fighters personalities, the teases between opposing camps, the negotiations, how you can learn about different fitness techniques following the training, the "gossip" around the scandals and the injuries, etc. etc.

It's a whole world, and dismissing it as "two brutes pounding each other" to sound like a snobby apple customer doesn't make you sound smarter or edgier anymore.

You want to see some spectacularized violence? Turn on the television, or go watch the latest superhero movie. There you'll find plenty of violence for shit and giggles, spectacularized and even ridiculized. People rolling in pain and people laughing at them.

Or people slaughtering other people in a shower of blood and being called "cooOOOOoooool"

You can convince yourself all you want that "most people don't want for that [violence]", but anecdotally, I'm willing to bet that more than 50% of the near-one-million viewers (in the US, on Fox) are the ignorant, degenerate, redneck idiots that I see watching MMA sports - whether it be at a hoppin' bar in NYC, or a dive bar in rural North Carolina. And even recently, I went to a watching party with a family friend that I really like and respect, and the crowd there was still overwhelmingly caught up on the violence and blood, despite the fact that they were seemingly quite well "into" the sport, quoting many statistics, past bouts, etc.).

So that's all just to say that I'm pretty sure the reason MMA is so popular in America is not the supreme sportsmanship, but the visceral appeal of two incredibly honed fighting machines beating the shit out of each other. Which is also to say that I have a high respect for the fighters, but very little respect for the MMA discipline, because of what it represents to society.

Violence is part of us, you can try to deny it but truth is truth, its in our DNA. MMA gives violent people a way to earn their living doing what they like, so instead of kicking your nerdy ass in the street, they do it for money on big stages. Dont like it? Dont watch it. I started watching GoT with my wife some weeks ago, and had been a hardcore MMA fan for many years. The things ive seen on GoT, like knifing the gut of a pregnant women, is way more violent and repulsive than the worst things ive seen in my years as a MMA fan.

Ignoring the violent nature of human beings doesnt makes us less violent, but it makes you look dumb for sure.

Was about to cite "game of thrones" as an example of a completely fucked up show that millions of people follows, a show that depicts incest, castration, torture, rape, sadism, mutilation, and every other "nice" thing you can think of.

But that is perfectly fine, culturally, for hanslolo and the other millions of nerds that think they appear "refined" in condemning combact sports. And that also play bloody videogames and try to claim them as "art" and "sports"

edit: forgot rape

I don't give a fuck about violence at the UFC, they are all adults who signed up voluntarily for the show. I did martial arts in the past myself for years and I do enjoy watching K-1 and boxing.

But comparing it to a TV show and video games? You know that those people and pixels do not really get hurt, right? Do you really think that acting on a stage is even remotely comparable to a real, full-contact fight in a ring? Typical shit talking of a nerd who has never used his hands for anything other than typing the keyboard and wiping his ass.

i feel like your instant defensive stance is making you misread/misinterpret what i'm saying. it seems like you're saying that i'm ignoring the violent nature of humans, when that's not true at all. i'm saying that humans have a violent side, but civilized society seems to do better when that is not a big part of everyday life. let me put it this way: if you had a choice between walking down the street with your coffee and saying "hi" to someone that looks friendly, or instead having to carry a gun and shoot someone that was threatening you with a knife, which would you prefer? the majority of people would prefer option 1 (no violence), and i'm suggesting that the more violence (including people watching MMA fight broadcasts) pervades society, the less "nice" life is for the large portion of the population that would prefer non-violence. further, those same people that would prefer to keep violence out of their lives oftentimes don't have the self control to avoid watching it. i'm not saying they aren't responsible for their actions, but i am saying that the simple fact that MMA fighting is mainstream and takes such a central stage in society makes that "slip-up" far more easy for many people.

in short, you're not reading me right, i know violence is part of us, i just think we do better when we try to reduce its presence/impact on our lives. and one additional point: GoT is a fictional TV show, so you're mixing apples and oranges.

GoT is fictional, yes. But when you watch it, suspension of disbelief kicks in, otherwise you wouldnt watch it. When i saw the knifing of the pregnant women, the repulsion was because obviously im not thinking "its just an act", otherwise tv and cinema wouldnt exist.

suspension of disbelief and reality are still two different things. just think about the difference between seeing a war depicted in a movie, and then seeing a newscast of tanks rolling down the street in Montevideo...i bet you interpret the two events quite differently, as an Uruguayan.

My country has nothing to do with it, as i said, if poeple were constantly thinking "its not real", movies and seasons wouldnt exist because nobody would watch them. Im sorry to have found a flaw in your logic.

This is a much better argument than trying to say MMA isn't violent or that people don't watch it for the violence.

but anecdotally, I'm willing to bet that more than 50% of the near-one-million viewers (in the US, on Fox) are the ignorant, degenerate, redneck idiots

you're probably setting the bar for degenerate and idiot low there. Likely thinking average people + a couple offputting characteristics = degenerate / idiot.

I went to a watching party with a family friend that I really like and respect, and the crowd there was still overwhelmingly caught up on the violence and blood, despite the fact that they were seemingly quite well "into" the sport, quoting many statistics, past bouts, etc.).

Well, the people there really might be violence hungry cretins, I don't know. But a typical problem with this is that the idealistic outlook (skillful technique, footwork, good timing, resulting in a powerful strike), the fan outlook (my fighter is scoring and winning) and the idiot outlook (lol look at that damage to his head, ownage) are typically described in the same sense, as physical actions (holy shit that left hand from the moon, insane). This applies to many ways of describing things happening in an MMA fight.

Especially if the fans can feel the technique in some sense, but aren't good enough at describing it, they simply won't. And oftentimes they'll sound just like the degenerate looking for blood. Even more likely if they're not thinking of the technique, they're just impressed by the fact of something happening - their favorite fighter taking the lead, gaining an advantage. Essentially same as scoring in basketball. Same thing happens, it might sound like bloodlust if you don't know them well (in this area).

Which would in many cases create a difficulty in judging what expressions represent what kind of states of mind. Clouding public perception of what people enjoy.

We can also point to the fact that they didn't watch a sport with grappling ('booo, boring!"), and a sport in general, rather than liveleak. It's not an accident.

You're willing to bet? So you're not sure, but you argue all followers are "rednecks".

Based on what, exactly? There are people of every single nationality on earth competing in MMA.

It's actually one of the most diversified sports.

And it's followed all around the world.
Sure the majority of followers are Americans (and it's disrespectful from you to call them rednecks, a derogatory racial insult), but that's because MMA was born there, and it's still in its baby steps not only in America, but even more outside of it.
With time, its populatity will grow all around the world.

Also you seem to have something against the social status of the followers. Hystorically, it's always been the poor people that followed more and practiced the combact sports. Nothing wrong with that, as combact sports are full of redemption stories, people literally saved by starting to boxe etc.

A lot of MMA experts in here, interesting.

I watch porn for the dialogue and MMA for the skill and technique involved

nex1 and the majority of people in this thread would actually have you believe that - that most people watch porn for the dialogue, acting skill, etc. because they're looking for something more than just entertainment.

nex1 and the majority of people in this thread would actually have you believe that - that most people watch porn for the dialogue, acting skill, etc. because they're looking for something more than just entertainment.

Confirmed can't read and also thinks a very competitive sport being appreciated for skill is as ridiculous as watching porn for the dialogue & acting skill.

It's funny, you're displaying similar problems in reading comprehension and not being able to understand people at a basic level to hanslolo.

I'm pretty sure he was comparing the claim that the majority of people watch porn for the dialogue to the claim that the majority of people watch MMA for the skill and technique - both are equally ridiculous. Instead, I read it to mean that most people watch porn for the sex (visceral, raw, primal), just as most people watch MMA for the violence (visceral, raw, primal). Can you explain how I misread that, and maybe have Meph1stoo explain further if you think I got it wrong?

P.S. I'm not precluding the idea that some people watch porn for the dialogue, just like some people watch MMA for the skill/technique, I'm just saying that at least in America, that's not the case for the majority of viewers.

P.P.S. Also, we're actually having a reasonable discussion here, so take your attitude elsewhere. If you don't agree with my interpretation, explain how you think it's wrong, don't attack my ability to analyze and synthesize the thoughts of another equally-intelligent person.

yep. To me it's really weird that hans can't comprehend the appeal watching sports has for regular people. It really is obvious, and it is not violence itself neither the technique itself.

It is weird, although one easy explanation could be that he simply doesn't want to comprehend it. People frequently assume the worst about popular hobbies in order to feel superior.

There's a common thread of appeal in most popular sports, let's say we're talking about sports where competitors compete vs one another rather than race for time / points.

They are, obviously, competitive. The competition is made meaningful by the technique, fitness, strategy, devotion of the competitors etc. These make for variety, progress, questions (who beats whom? what's the best style?) among spectators, etc. Otherwise the competition would be boring and few if any would watch it.

There's the suspense that is created in competition, which makes watching it exciting, especially as it unravels so visually in front of you, live.

Then the competition is infused with spectators & fans cheering for their team / player / country; essentially tribal instincts. Making the stakes high, the competitor social status high and the sport socially valuable / attractive, especially as people appreciate the talent, drive and technique of the competitors. Furthermore people form into groups and enjoy this with friends, making this inherently social activity even more attractive/fun/engaging.



This isn't just skill, obviously. This is mostly excitement and entertainment, tribal instincts (in a fairly innocuous, often positive form, I'll add) but in the end the sport does have to include the skill for all of this to work.

This is common for most of the popular sports. As you've said you respect martial artists, I think you would agree that it's true for MMA. And people all over the world watch sports for these reasons. So there are obvious popular reasons to watch MMA too.

And then you seemingly pretend to not know this and compare watching MMA for these reasons to watching porn for the acting. You might well believe that violence is a huge factor in the MMA, but clearly, the other aspects are very compelling. So the comparison seems disingenuous to me.

You might object that skill/technique != the overall excitement/entertainment of the sport. Sure. But as I've explained, they're a core component of that. You can't pretend like they are not a huge reason for watching the sport.

It was hard for me to believe you were genuine with that comparison. No reason to be mean though, I'll admit. Sorry.

Thanks for the apology :)

Ok, so to respond to your point that I might be pretending to not know that there's tribal instinct, social activity, live competition playing out to make MMA so popular, I still am not refuting that. What I'm getting at is that the high level of popularity with the general populace in the USA right now goes beyond those appeals...beyond in the sense that those bring it to a level of maybe 100,000 viewers per week (completely fictitious number), and then good marketing brings the violence and visceral appeal to the fore and raises that level to 1,000,000 viewers per week (again, fictitious).

Going back to what I said before, you can say it all you want that people watch the sport for the skill/technique, and yes that's true, but then I challenge you to then convince me that the majority of people watching MMA in the USA right now are doing so for those reasons. I think if you analyze why the general populace tends toward a particular type of entertainment, you'll find that by-and-large, that tendency is driven by very basic instincts and feelings, like sex and violence. Still not to say that there isn't a significant portion of viewership driven by the "right" reasons (skill, technique, etc.), it's just that when something hits a very high level of popularity, I believe a large portion of that is due to the "lesser" reasons for consumption.

At this point, I think I really do understand your point of view and am willing to accept that your's is a completely reasonable and well-supported viewpoint. I still don't quite agree, and have my own thoughts on MMA, but hopefully that's ok with you and we can go into the weekend with open hearts and minds.

It was good debating this with you, and I'm sorry to basically cut the conversation short if you wanted to keep going, but I think I've hit the limit of how much time and thought I want to put into this topic. Hope you have a wonderful weekend!

One point.

I think if you analyze why the general populace tends toward a particular type of entertainment, you'll find that by-and-large, that tendency is driven by very basic instincts and feelings, like sex and violence

Excitement and suspense are as basic as those. Skill, fitness are core reasons for excitement and suspense in sport; they can be (at least partially) recognized very quickly too, as evidenced by people who enjoy watching sports for the first time or pick them up quickly. Skill and fitness also feed more excitement and appreciation in the sport once people start understanding them more, explaining longtime fans.

This holds true for most of the popular sports. MMA isn't different.

Enjoy your weekend.

Trust me, I get. People obviously enjoy watching sports and cheering for their team or favorite player. I work at a university where, every Saturday during the fall semester, the campus shuts down while people tailgate and hangout while watching the game. I've done this myself many times. But you have to ask yourself, why? Do I actually like the sport? In my case, no. I just like hanging out with friends. It's purely social. That a game is happening is incidental. It's just an excuse to hangout, BBQ, drink beers, etc..

But then there are others who may enjoy watching the game more than the social aspect. They spend time reading stats, seeing who is injured, new recruits, and so on. These are the type of people I say "follow" the sport. They are into the sport. I know lots of people like this. They read post game analyses and interviews with players and coaches. Etc. It goes beyond the social.

And I wonder, that's a lot of effort. It's like studying a subject that is always changing and ultimately unknownable. If they happen to be ex-players themselves, I chalk that up to a deeper appreciation, a fuller lifelong commitment to the sport. When you pour yourself into a sport, give it all those effort, of course a natural result of that is a deep connection to the sport. BUT, for others who have never played, where does the connection come from? We develop an interest and the interest turns into habit. But life is full of interesting things and things you could spend time and effort on rather than this. Why spend all this time focused on a sport that has a tenuous connection to your own daily life?

Put it this way: Think of a video game you've never played. Now, what would compel you to follow that video game's tournaments, who won each game, their config, etc., with total disregard to the social aspect? I struggle to come up with a reason for that other than they must be trying to replace something that is lacking in their life.

And I wonder, that's a lot of effort. It's like studying a subject that is always changing and ultimately unknownable.

Large parts are knowable, and become more interesting when you now more context. Understanding, appreciating and enjoying watching a sport is easier when you've done it, but you can do large portions of it without playing. Easily enough to make it worthwhile activity.

We see the point of watching a sport very differently, and I appreciate it much more than you do. I don't think I can convince you when you think it's something people do when lacking in life :) It's something you'd have understood with your own life experience if you cared to.

I don't know what idea of appropriate life you have that is lacking in people watching sports they haven't played, but it's fairly obvious you can't see beyond your own nose.

To think someone watches a sport to appreciate the skill and technique involved.

Ludicrous, right? That has never been done in the history of mankind.

I didnt thibk this was still possible in esr 2016

didn't think what was still possible?

Don't worry, there are Dizzle and Fizzle for the future times

WE D BEST BOYZ

Can I just say that genetics constitutes to biology; aside from atonomy. somebody with perfect genetics, would never endulge in the behaviour you have shown within the past and present.

In short: your Brain needs to catch Upto your body.
stipe is really good, though :D

hes really good cuz we best boi

miočić isn't even a real Croat

100% pure blooded

yuri boyka would murder miocic

.

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialStipeMiocic/...7400588988

cmon get the fuck out u wannabes, Croatian machinery numero uno.

and hes proud one, he knows having this genes is not small thing.

He really has embraced the whole Cleaveland thing.

Not that appreciative of Croatia. Perhaps people are pushing him to do that for bigger ratings.

u guys are missing the whole point, in his veins runs pure croatian premium blood wich makes him great, its all about premium genetics doesnt matter where he lives.