Photos
Blog
NewslettersUltimate Fighting
I've been reading a lot about Ultimate Fighting lately. By the way, you know you are getting old when you discover something five years after it first became popular. It's like my dad calling me up asking, "What's the deal with this 'Seinfeld' show? Is it any good?"
Anyway, I read an article in ESPN the Magazine and I saw Chuck Liddell on Entourage, so I decided to watch a bit of it on Spike TV to see what the fuss is about. The big debate is that it might "replace" boxing. Which is possible — since boxing is basically dead — although I'm still waiting for soccer to replace hockey. (Usually when you hear a lot about sport A replacing sport B it means sport A just signed a deal with a major corporation that is investing a lot of money into it and therefore needs everyone talking about how big it is.)
Anyway, at the risk of angering all of you UFC fans out there, there is one main reason mixed martial arts will never be as big as boxing: There is too much wrestling.
Every fight I watched was about a minute of circling, a few punches thrown, then two scantily clad guys hugging and rolling around on the ground, clenching, with angry faces, like my older brother trying to pin me when we were 12. It was all a bit silly. Meanwhile the announcer was screaming things out like, "He moved from an upper forearm grip to a lower peninsula python. He's going for a triple lumbar spasm. Wait, no, he reversed it." To me, they didn't change. Besides high school wrestlers, who knows what they’re talking about? It's all a bit too .. Greco-Roman.
It's also a bit odd to see two guys in a ring and kicking at each other. Kicking in a fight never looks like a Bruce Lee movie. It's awkward. Legs are too long and don't move quick enough. Although I did see one fight in which Dude A kicked Dude B and knocked him down, which was cool. Other than that, I wasn't that impressed.
So, to sum up, I might get behind the whole Ultimate Fighting thing if they eliminated the wrestling and the kicking. Of course, that would basically make it boxing, which defeats the purpose I suppose.
So, for all of you Mixed Martial Arts fans out there, what is the appeal? Is it just that you hate boxing, or is there more? And when the two guys start wrestling, instead of boxing, do you get bored, or is that the exciting part? I'm efforting to understand the fuss.
- thager's blog
- Login to post comments
- 985 reads
I think it's interesting that you find MMA boring because of all the wrestling and that's the reason you say it'll "never be as big as boxing."
I've always thought that if a boxing match, especially the heavyweights, got out of the fifth round you were looking forward to another half hour of a couple of sweaty guys clenching and hugging until the ref broke them up.
While you're right that there's a lot of wrestling in UFC, it's active wrestling. You need to see the beauty of a guy reversing a choke hold into an arm bar — or a flying python or whatever you called it.
If you're not a fan of MMA (mixed martial arts) and UFC then get yours hands on some tapes of some old Royce Gracie fights. Gracie is a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu champ weighing in at about 180 pounds who back in the day would just sweep the leg of these big 200-pounders, jump on their backs and pummel them into submission.
It was beautiful, and not because of the violence but because of the technique.
So I think UFC actually is much more active than boxing. It's the best of all worlds: wrestling, Jiu-Jitsu, boxing, kick boxing, grappling, judo and everything else.
Combine that with the fact that boxing just doesn't have any relevance anymore, and I think UFC is here to stay.
And if don't think kicks can look good watch the end of this fight — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2UXPw8zj6k
You make some good points, but still ... "you need to see the beauty of a guy reversing a choke hold into an arm bar" is just something that will never, ever happen. And maybe that is the problem. I can watch boxing (and the fighting portion of MMA) and "know" what is happening. He punched, the other guy fell down. I don't need to "learn" to appreciate a good move. THAT is precisely why I think MMA (as long as it allows grappling) will never cross completely over.
And I agree boxing usually becomes hugging after round five, and I admire the UFC's (is it a rule? Not sure. Seems like it) rule of once you're down and out the fight is over. There is no standing eight count. Or at least I haven't seen one. There is something primitive about UFC, with the lighter gloves and the urgency of getting someone down and out quickly, that is appealing. It is like boxing on speed.
And then they end up on the ground, hugging it out, and you're left wondering, "Wait, these are the toughest guys on the planet?"
And I still find kicking odd and kind of wimpy.
OK, I would be willing to make several bets and rarely loose. 1st, UFC has a PPV Event monthly and the demand is outrageous, Floor seats go for 1K each and to watch from home is $39.99. My bet is that PPV makes more money annually from UFC/MMA Events than it's Boxing programs.
2nd, I bet you have never been in a real fight, real fights go to the ground, real fights have chokeholds, real fights break arms and real fights have kicks, wild punches and blood. Boxing, just like many martial arts are basically a religious event. Boxers fight Boxers, Judo Masters fight Judo Masters and Kickboxers fight Kickboxers. In the UFC/MMA you pair people who have totally different methods of combat and they fight it out to see who's the better fighter and who's method is supreme. True, earlier UFCs were more diverse and therefore exciting, watching a Gracie submit a Shamrock or Tank Abbott brawl it out with kickboxer and laugh off roundhouses like King Kong.
3rd, you are strangely obsessed with the "two men hugging" issue, do we need to talk? That is what fights become, they go to the ground because someone takes it there, they become a clinch to gain an advantage over your opponent and blood flows like kool aid. I have been in more fights than most and MMA fights are far more realistic than boxing, or any other sport where each man is equally armed and trained. Just imagine the entertainment factor of watching the Citadel Bulldogs (Football) verses the Duke Lacross Team battle it out in a game of full contact soccer. Now thats entertainment.
MMA is fun, skills and technique is everything, the more motivated man will win as long as he understands his opponent. Try it you might like it, watch it and consider these points and you will see the draw of MMA and the demise of the gentlemans game.
Isn't it odd that we bemoan the ever present violence in the world, yet we flock to see people beat each other up in an arena?
The difference is that everyone follows the "rules" in the arena or ring. Apparently it is not the violence that people object to, but rather the "breaking" of the rules. In war our country insists on rules, even though few other countries will follow them.....they just won't fight "fair." That is what most people seem to find objectionable.....the savage methods employed to kill. Rules would restrict such savage behavior and make killing more palatable.
Crime in our country is another example. There are certain rules that are expected to be followed when it comes to violent behavior. Gangsters killing gangsters is seemingly permissible, while the killing of civilians is frowned upon.
New Orleans provided a glowing example of the outrage that is expressed when rules are broken. Most Americans sat and watched on tv as people stranded in that city suffered for days in and around the stadium. However, the real urgency of getting them out was after certain violent crimes were commited. It was obvious that certain people had not followed the rules for being stranded. It was permissible to be desperate as long as you followed the rules....remember all of the media emphasis on the "shopping" that was done during that time?
I am a big fan of rules, Shadows, just ask my kids. What I don't understand is the mentality that "loves to watch a good fight." Whether in an arena, a schoolyard, a nightclub, or a street, if two or more people are fighting, there is a crowd watching. Perhaps I am the exception, but I do not understand the appeal of people inflicting blunt force trauma (or any other form) upon one another.
Interesting example about the "good fight." I think that such actions are only a small step away from what is often referred to as a mob mentality or action. To use a bar fight as an example, if a bar fight involving many patrons were to break out as a result of an individual disagreement or fight, it is highly likely that few of the participants would know why they were fighting. Mob actions spread like fire and cause people to do things that they would not normally do.
Getting back to "rules," I have sometimes pondered the relationship of "rules" to the concept of dominance in our society. Rules are obviously a means of control for the purposes of order, but are some of them also used as a way for some people to achieve dominance in our society? Do they replace physical aggression in order to achieve the instinctive dominance that is so often displayed by people and animals? Are people watching the "good fight" sublimating that dominance instinct?
Interesting topic.....but maybe a little too serious.