August MMA News

BUCSnotYUCKS

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 6, 2007
11,839
28
0
39
Ohio but not a Buckeye
Rumor has it, there could be a possible block buster for the UFC ON FOX debut depending on UFC 134s outcomes.

Hendo vs Silva?
Hendo vs Forrest?
Hendo vs Shogun?

stay tuned my friends...

Dana must have other plans because today Anderson pretty much made it clear that he doesn't want to fight/won't be ready for the Fox fight, win lose or draw no matter how the outcome is.

I'm pretty interested to see if Hendo wants to fight at MW or LHW. I think at this point in his career he'd rather fight at LHW because of the weight cutting process.

I could see a situation where he fights the winner of Forrest/Shogun on FOX and the winner of that fight would be #1 contender for the Title.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
27,727
1,093
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
But the way you defeat your opponent is through violence.

Really? The most violent fighter wins? I would argue the smarter, more skilled competitor wins.

If you don't like a sport, you can paint it into a real ugly corner. How many people have been killed playing baseball. Children have been killed. Fans and coaches have been killed. Where's the uproar?
 

layinwood

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2001
4,771
40
0
Dallas, TX
Really? The most violent fighter wins? I would argue the smarter, more skilled competitor wins.

If you don't like a sport, you can paint it into a real ugly corner. How many people have been killed playing baseball. Children have been killed. Fans and coaches have been killed. Where's the uproar?


No doubt, see Diego vs Martin and you'll see violence doesn't win. Taking your opponent down once or twice does.
 

BUCSnotYUCKS

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 6, 2007
11,839
28
0
39
Ohio but not a Buckeye
Also that fight with Melvin Guillard. Who was the dude he beat up pretty good and came back to win?

Brock Lesnar was pounding on Mir the 1st fight and lost without any real violence.

DFC, are you just playing devils advocate just for someone to be on the other side?
 

DeFactoCrippler

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 8, 2010
625
5
0
Really? The most violent fighter wins? I would argue the smarter, more skilled competitor wins.

I think we are just misunderstanding each other when it comes to the definition of terms. So, I put up the definitions of violence that I'm using as the premise...

Violence is the exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse - Websters

Violence is the use of physical force to apply a state to others contrary to their wishes. -Wiki

I would undoubtedly agree that the smarter, more skilled competitor wins. But the more skilled competitor is the one that is more adept at using violence in a controlled manner.

So the more skilled fighter is better able to injure his opponent through physical force and put them in a state of injury that is contrary to their wishes. Whether that be an unwanted state of unconsciousness, or of extreme pain caused by joint manipulation.

Everything that occurs in an MMA fight fits the textbook definition of violence to the letter.

It would be like saying war is not violent. But just because war is violent doesn't mean it is not necessary or justified in certain situations.

Let's look at the definition of the term "Martial Arts".

The term "martial arts" today has become heavily associated with the fighting arts of eastern Asia, but the term's origin is distinctly western. It is from the Latin that we actually derive the English term, "martial arts" - from "arts of Mars," the Roman god of war.

I have nothing against MMA, im obviously a big fan. I just have something against Dana White acting like a hypocrite. :shrug:
 

BUCSnotYUCKS

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 6, 2007
11,839
28
0
39
Ohio but not a Buckeye
Do you have any direct quotes to where he says MMA isn't violent? You're trying to shred the man from a debate/discussion he had with a clueless man that was kind of spur of the moment. It's not like there was this big seminar being held.
 

DeFactoCrippler

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 8, 2010
625
5
0
Do you have any direct quotes to where he says MMA isn't violent? You're trying to shred the man from a debate/discussion he had with a clueless man that was kind of spur of the moment. It's not like there was this big seminar being held.

I thought it was pretty clearly stated in the video

<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/umUOm7bsRtE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He speaks about the protesters in a condescending manner to us through the camera as if what they are saying holds no merit, and basically says "watch this" and struts over to correct their misconceptions. I have transcribed some of the more humorous aspects...

Dana: "How come you guys don't like the UFC"

Old Guy: "Because I don't like watching people beat each other up"

Dana: "How come?"

They continue to discuss violence in sport, boxing in particular, then...

Dana: "Have you ever seen the NFL?"

Old Guy: "Oh, I know, I know, but at least the goal isn't to hurt people, it's to move the ball."

Dana: "Well the goal here (MMA) isn't to hurt people, but to who the best in the world is"

Old Guy: "I know, but the way they can win is to hurt people the most."

Dana: "Huh?"

Old Guy: "The way they can win is to hurt people the most."

Dana: "Well no, it's...it's...it's...theres a point system"

So the guy said that the goal is to hurt people (violence) and Dana denied that, which is tantamount to a direct quote saying the goal isn't violence.

Lol at his justification, "there is a point system". A point system that is based on how much violent injury you can inflict on your opponent, with bloodshed being one of the criteria :facepalm:
 

BUCSnotYUCKS

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 6, 2007
11,839
28
0
39
Ohio but not a Buckeye
I don't get you. If you're such an advocate of how violent it is, why are you here? To me, you seem pretty clearly to me that you're just trying to argue a side just cause.
 

DeFactoCrippler

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 8, 2010
625
5
0
I don't get you. If you're such an advocate of how violent it is, why are you here? To me, you seem pretty clearly to me that you're just trying to argue a side just cause.

MMA is a violent sport, that is a fact. I'm a big fan of MMA, but I can admit to myself that I enjoy violence :shrug:

But, to many detractors of the sport that would seem like an "uncivilized" or "barbaric" comment. What is the answer to that? To try and delude myself and deceive others by misrepresenting the UFC as non violent? :shrug:
 

DeFactoCrippler

Registered
Forum Member
Oct 8, 2010
625
5
0
i dont think anyone here has said it isnt violent. were arguing it's sole purpose isnt to be violent. while you're trying to say it is...

We keep going in circles. The purpose is to "win", that much is correct. But, the purpose of every sport is to win, so that is not a sufficient answer.

In basketball, the purpose is to put the ball in the net as many times as possible in an attempt to "win" the game by outscoring your opponent.

So, simply put, the sole purpose of basketball is to put the ball in the net and prevent your opponent from doing the same.

In MMA, the purpose is to "win" by violently injuring your opponent and preventing him from doing the same to you.

So, would logic not dictate that the sole purpose of MMA is violence, albeit in the spirit of competition and entertainment?

If this is not true, can anyone provide and explanation of the purpose of MMA other than simply "winning"?

The fact that Dana white was unable to tells you something...
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Six Five isn't gonna like this

Many, many fans and fighters alike have made it known to the world that they don't appreciate the grinding style brought on by fighters with wrestling backgrounds, and Olympic wrestler Daniel Cormier had a little something to say to them on todays Heavyweight Grand Prix conference call.

"It's not my job, it's not Jon Fitch's job, it's not Josh Barnett's job to actually teach someone takedown defense," "It's their job to learn takedown defense. If they can't defend the takedown, then they deserve to lay on their back for 15 minutes."



"I think it's always good to put on exciting fights," Cormier said. "I like to fight. This is my job. If that means I have to stand with him and fight, then I have to fight. What if I can't take him down? But at the end of the day, it's about winning."

"Why should I or anyone else that knows how to wrestle give up their biggest advantage? If a jiu-jitsu guy can get you down, he's going to use his jiu-jitsu. If a striker can keep you standing, he's going to use his standup ability. It's your job, which MMA is, which fighting is, to learn all areas of the game."
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top