# Mma v bma



## PrideNeverDies (Sep 28, 2008)

Michael Bisping - "It's a clichÃ© but if you don't understand something, you're quick to criticise it."

I recently got into a heated argument with a friend of mine regarding MMA. I told him that I felt MMA was safer than boxing, yet he argued that the British Medical Association were correct in their views on MMA. He also argued that MMA was more dangerous because you can use knees, elbows and kicks, where as boxing is solely punching. I personally disliked the BMA before this, because of their views on assisted suicide. I believe that if a person is in pain, and not seeing an improvement to their standard of life, they should have the right to end their suffering.

I strongly believe that Mixed Martial Arts is not the barbaric sport that was first introduced to the world almost 2 decades ago, the unification of rules supporting this statement. The world has seen fighting as an entertainment sport for thousands of years, and will always have risks. The world of MMA does everything possibly to control these risks. It's clear that MMA fighters are not forced to fight, it's their CHOICE.

There is a clear lack of respect, and ignorance shown towards MMA. It's often stereotyped that fighters are nothing but thugs, when in reality most are down to earth guys, many educated. The hard work fighters put in, is ignored by critics, the discipline they learn from martial arts is ignored. Yet, many parents sent children to boxing to improve discipline! The government even run boxing programs in deprived areas to stop children from joining gangs and to improve discipline! Yes, fighters for 15-25 minutes will beat each other up, but afterwards a hug and a laugh shows signs of respect, its incredible how many former opponents end up training with one another after their fights. This is down to the respect gladiators have for one another.

I decided to go on The British Medical Association website and search for MMA, and could only find 2 articles, and the mention of MMA was only small in comparison to boxing in the articles. If there was as much outrage as they claim, surely there would be more mention? They made note that it's not right for doctors to stand by and accept this violence, yet they don't say the same in regards to rugby or cheerleading. I find it laughable that they use the term "premature death", just how many deaths are related to MMA ? Especially In comparison to boxing and cheerleading ? This brief noting on their website is supported with ZERO evidence

The British Medical Association refers to MMA, as "Ultimate fighting", clearly there is a lack of research, "Ultimate Fighting" is a brand (UFC), and the sport itself is called MMA. Would you call football, "Premier League" or "La Liga" ? A clear lack of ignorance is shown. The BMA'S Dr Vivienne Nathanson, Head of Ethics, said "Ultimate fighting can be extremely brutal and has been described as 'human cockfighting', former U.S presidential candidate John McCain made the "human cockfighting" comment, clearly done to show the public that big named politicians opposed the sport, yet they seem to forget these comments were made in regards to Pre Zuffa UFC, and they fail to note that since, John McCain has said "They have cleaned up the sport to the point, at least in my view, where it is not human cockfighting any more. I think they've made significant progress. They haven't made me a fan, but they have made progress." We all know that MMA isn't for everyone, but I find it embarrassing that the BMA fail to note that a prominent politician has changed his views on MMA.

The BMA openly acknowledge that there have been very few deaths linked to MMA, but that this should not be important yet as MMA is still relatively young. I believe this argument is wrong, on average there are 18 deaths related to boxing, how many related to MMA each year ? It's unfair to compare the sports as a whole as boxing is older, but it's clearly right to compare the deaths and injuries in the last two decades. They note that in MMA , you can receive "traumatic brain injury, joint injuries and fractures", but isn't that the same in every sport ? Isn't that the same in falling down stairs?, aren't the risks the same when driving a car or riding a bike ? They also call the sport "no-holds barred" which implies a lack of rules, when any person who has even wikipedia'd MMA will find a long list of mma unified rules used around the world.

There are more deaths in cheerleading every year than there have ever been in MMA! Why are there no calls to ban cheerleading? The intention might not be violence, but the outcome is clearly much more dangerous on a regular basis. There are scenes of violence and horrific injury in rugby and ice hockey. The sports might not be violent, but the competitors know of serious injury risks, yet the BMA accepts that these sports are CHOICES. It is not necessary to drive a car, or ride a bike, yet they acknowledge the choice, despite their being clear dangers to life in both situations. There should be calls to ban the WWE! There has been a study that showed former pro wrestling star, Chris Benoit (who committed suicide and killed his family) had the brain of an old man with Alzheimer's due to all of his diving headbutts, yet I have never seen public criticism from the BMA! in WWE and American Football, you're applauded for an early return from a concussion, whereas MMA has a mandatory 93 day suspension

The American Medical Association, with help from Nevada State Commission found that a third of MMA fights in their study ended in submission, and another third from referee stoppage, and only 3% in true KO's. They found that 40% of fighters suffered an injury, and the highest majority , 47% were found with facial lacerations, which doesn't explain whether it was a serious cut, or a small cut to the face. I bet rugby players wish that the majority of their injuries were just "facial lacerations". The Nevada state commission notes that body lacerations and broken bones are the most common injuries suffered by MMA fighters.

The British Journal of Sports Medicine, studied real fighters in Nevada, and found that only 1.5% of MMA fighters had concussions, where as in that same period of study, they found that 10% of boxers had concussions. The BJSM used actual fight situations and fighters, where as the BMA simulated fight conditions through physics, I wonder which one is more reliable. The study that looked at actual fights, or the one that created situations using science. The BMA study looks at "probable" movements in mma fights, and only 2 of the 4 situations were in serious situations, and were on par with car accidents. It's important to note that the Johns Hopkins Journal of Sports Science and Medicine "Incidence of Injury in Professional Mixed Martial Arts Competitions" report found that MMA fighters had higher number of small injuries (lacerations), the number of major injuries or brain damage was very low in comparison to boxing.

Boxing, is the older sport, a contest that can last for 12 rounds, with non stop punches to the head. Whereas, MMA gloves are lighter, meaning that if you take a hard punch, you're more likely to get knocked out, where as in boxing, with the gloves being thicker, you take a similar amount of power, except you don't get knocked out, you just take constant blows to the head, which is clearly the worst for long term health. Is it safer to get knocked out via one punch but be back in condition soon, or is it safer to take 12 rounds of powerful punches to the head? I think I'd let Shogun Rua punch me in the head! Than let Audley Harrison punch me for 12 rounds!

The Boxing 10 count is clearly dangerous; in MMA the referee is more open to stop a fight if he feels the fighter isn't able to protect himself, where as in boxing a fighter is given a 10 count to regain his footing and balance. A big name fight in the USA, saw a boxer get up at the count of 8 and continue the fight, when clearly the public could see that the fighter was in no position to take any further hits to the head. Yet, the referee did nothing.

In boxing, fighters will always look for a punch to the head, in MMA, fighters use knees, punches, kicks, elbows to not only the head, but to the rest of the body, and the use of Brazilian jiu jitsu also means that fighters look for submissions. So, in boxing there is only one target throughout a boxers career, in MMA, there are multiple, meaning less force towards the head. The variation is key in this argument, there is only ONE target in boxing, in MMA there are multiple.

The BMA, have clearly not researched MMA as they should have, making reference to decade plus old comments, referring to the sport via a brand name, and not studying actual fights like American counter parts, or like the BJSM, instead relying on physics. I agree that MMA is a violent sport, I believe it's not a necessity, it is however a choice, that only hurts those that take part (who have clearly used their freedom to choose). If MMA was being forced on people, then I understand the outrage, but MMA fans acknowledge the sport is not for everyone. There are of course risks of injury, but isn't that clear in every sport ? or in most situations in life ? There have been VERY FEW premature deaths, yet the BMA make a big point in premature deaths, ignoring that more deaths occur in cheerleading, boxing, driving cars, walking down stairs. Having spent half decade training, I know I am better off with everything I learnt from MMA. I improved my discipline, my fitness, and gained a lot of friends through the sport. I have taken blows to the head, the legs, been submitted a few times, but it's my choice, and I Love everything that MMA stands for.

I am not a thug, I am an educated man who has used my freedom, and research the risks of the sport, and made the CHOICE that MMA is for me, as it's a more complete form of fighting and safer than boxing.


----------



## PrideNeverDies (Sep 28, 2008)

What dya think ? Have i got anything wrong ? you disagree with ?

KEY POINTS

There are only 2 references to MMA on the BMA site (both very brief)

They use the term "premature death" , absurd considering the low number of deaths in mma, especially in comparison to cheerleading! And boxing

They make note of John McCain's famous "human cockfighting" reference, yet no mention of the fact that since Zuffa changed MMA, he has changed his stance (although still not a fan, understandable)

They refer to the sport as "ultimate fighting", which is a brand, its like calling football "premier league" or "la liga"

More deaths in cheerleading, boxing, wrestling than ever been linked to mma

In things like pro wrestling and american football, people are applauded for an early return from head injuries such as a concussion, where as MMA has a mandatory 93 day ban from sparring

The BMA study didn't use real fights, instead used 4 situations using physics, and only found 2 to be dangerous. The American counterparts studied actual fights, 40% MMA fighters suffered an injury, 47% of them were facial lacerations (no detail if minor or major) , a third of fights stopped by referees, a third were submissions, only 3% were true KO's

British journal of sports medicine found that 10% of boxers ended fights with concussions, opposed to just 1.5% in mma. There are more smaller injuries in mma, but clearly more dangerous ones in boxing ! Either end up with a facial laceration/broken bone or a concussion ?

The MMA glove is safer, 1 true KO punch will KO you, in boxing, the bigger gloves give almost as much power, but usually for 12 rounds, so you take 12 rounds of punches. Either take 1 shogun punch or 12 audley Harrison punches ? rather let rua punch me

In boxing, there is only 1 target, for 12 rounds, the head. In MMA, the entire body is a target, and submissions too, meaning less pressure put on head

In MMA, referees will STOP fights when they believe a fighter is not able to defend himself. In boxing, the famous 8 count controversy means that boxers can continue, even with concussions (a big name vegas fight a few weeks ago, being an example of it, anyone remember which fight it was??)


----------



## joeedoom (Jul 31, 2009)

Benoits brain damage was from chair shots (which he took hands down,) not headbutts. Other than that your on the money.

Thing is, why should they bother looking at it again? How many people in the UK even train at an MMA gym countrywide. At 61m people in UK, I bet not even 1/2 a % do.


----------



## PrideNeverDies (Sep 28, 2008)

Chair shots were perhaps the major part, but his finisher for over a decade was a diving headbutt from the top turnbuckle onto the mat .. most chair shots, are in fact blocked by a wrestlers arm/hand

The growing number of mma events, fans, gyms, popularity ..

Im not saying look at it again, I'm saying, their first view was full of bullshit and ignorance .. Their first study showed a complete lack of respect, and instead of analyising fights like the AMA, they used physics

The BMA look at things that have any effect on health .. It doesnt matter if its 10 percent, .01 percent, they are wrongly telling the public that mma is ****ed up .. and Especially with more MMA gyms offering classes to children .. Parents will still be basing their viiews on ignorance and wrong studies like the BMA ..

If we want MMA to be appreciated in the uk, and to grow here .. then we need to recognize that we need to show the BMA's failures


----------



## PrideNeverDies (Sep 28, 2008)

The bma have 140,000 members! Imagine how many read tje flawed

Mma report and told people about it!

The BMA again showin they are muppets, the entire country and most doctors have said that plans to reform the nhs and change budgeting powers is wrong as doctoes shouldnt be ones deciding treatment spending,

Expert managers should. This has been going on for months,yet the bma are only holding a vote to decide their stance today! Idiots


----------



## christomo (Nov 20, 2007)

i couldnt agree more with this, its still widely talked about as 'cage fighting' and barbaric. whenever i explain to people that i train in mixed martial arts, they instantly call me a cage fighter and can see in there face they think im a phycho or something. the media needs to get more involved with this and show the real mixed martial artists, mostly normal everyday lads with normal jobs and alot of respect for each other


----------



## joeedoom (Jul 31, 2009)

Doesnt help with some events being called "Battle of the Brawlers."

Benoits headbut connected with the chest shoulder and famously kept his hands down for chairs, not that this is worthy of discussion.

Your right BMA, is wrong and it shouldnt be. However, when was their opinion formed? I would of agreed with them circa UFC 1. I wouldnt take part in that, I wouldnt even watch it.


----------



## PrideNeverDies (Sep 28, 2008)

I believe in 2007 ,something like that


----------



## joeedoom (Jul 31, 2009)

jeevan said:


> I believe in 2007 ,something like that


Cant be defended.


----------



## PrideNeverDies (Sep 28, 2008)

My cousin did a work placement at One of the biggest finance law firms in lo don, and one of the guys on placement was pro mma fighter, i cant remember his name now (wasa while bacl)

But if the media had that .. Or some drunken thug learnin muay thai n usin it in public, which one dya think they'd pick

People tend to support boxing more, because they're idiots .. If they did research or even read something like i posted they would realise mma is safer

The BMA are gay .. Simple as

Their views on assisted suicide

Their delay in opposin nhs reform, which doctors have complained about

Their ignorance and flawed look at mma physics


----------



## Agentman (Jul 1, 2010)

Ultimately organisations like the BMA may have ulterior motives when spouting off about sports like MMA and it has never once been necessary to do actual research or support your argument with actual facts when looking for a soap box to stand on. Hell, look at religion - a system not supported by a single fact and disputed beyond a measure of doubt by all manner of research!

Thats a debate for another day but it serves as an example of how people will cling to whatever idea makes them comfortable, allows them to sleep at night, get up the the morning or serves their own purposes even if that idea fails to stand up under scrutiny, lacks credibility or is disputed by more credible sources. Rallying against 'horrible men beating each other to death' is as good a soap box as believing that some mystical father figure in the sky is responsible for the sun coming up today and the food we eat...

Is there a high risk of harm from MMA? Sure, but a high risk of serious harm or death? Absolutely not however the brutal nature of MMA - at least to an untrained eye - makes a popular bandwaggon because its a sport that invokes alot of knee jerk reactions and strong feelings from the public whilst also being something that has ruffled alot of feathers elsewhere in the sporting world due to its meteoric rise to success at the expense of established sports like boxing.

MMA has upset lots of powerful people who would love nothing more than to take it down (no pun intended). Take the BBC for example who refused petitions to include an MMA section in their online sports forums (the biggest online forums in Europe), despite including a boxing section (a sport proven to be far more dangerous) and sections such as skating and sailing (much less popular sports). One can only presume that this was done on so-called moral grounds and in line with the BBC's promise to protect the public from 'unsuitable' material because it clearly wasnt the case that MMA fails to fulfill the BBC's mandate to 'inform, educate and entertain'.

Sadly there will always be a number of people who when someone in a posh suit or wearing a white coat has a high profile opportunity to say something that is in actuality complete bullshit will then take that statement to be 'fact' simply because they are too ignorant to know better, too gullible to question what they are being told or the 'fact' being stated suits their own agenda and hence they chose not to question it.

Back to the BBC, I saw an 'expert' on the news last week who stated that public sector pensions were entirely funded by the tax payer. Nothing to do with MMA and completely untrue (a whopping 11% of my wage goes into my pension) but if you dont know any better and the person speaking seems credible then what he says becomes true as far as youre concerned and then you move on at which point you meet other people and share this 'truth' with them. In the case of the BMA you have a massive organisation with huge amounts of support and many influential members selling lies and half-truths as being gospel.

Whats most damaging is that people dont question what theyre told or they choose not too. In the case of the BBC they elected not to correct their 'expert' statement despite surely knowing that it was false and potentially damaging to those who work in the public sector as it effects the publics perception of their plight. One can only assume then that as with the BMA who must surely know that scientific fact and research suggests if not proves that MMA safer than many other popular contact sports that there is some motive that keeps them from simply admitting the truth of the matter.

For those frustrated by this issue I would simply tell you to be patient. Ultimately the facts will come out and eventually the likes of the BMA will have to accept those facts whether they like it or not or risk becoming irrelevant or being exposed as frauds. Remember that it took many, many years for boxing to earn any legitimacy and frankly MMA has probably made more progress more quickly than boxing did in the years following its birth.


----------



## photographymatt (Dec 2, 2009)

Interesting thread/post, but I have to say...your cousin's first in law, unless he did a medical degree before hand doesn't make his opinion are more valid than any other random person on the street/this forum. if it was about the legal side of fighting, and only IF his area of experience was in that area then yes 100%.

I think the "mma is dangerous/boxing is not" will carry on for along time. We will always stand up for what we know/enjoy/believe in and it isn't a argument led by rational but emotion.


----------



## PrideNeverDies (Sep 28, 2008)

I think you missed the point mate,i made the law reference because i was pointing out that even a very educated man firm bases his views on a bma study, and i perhaps would have too if i had not researched the points i made.


----------



## photographymatt (Dec 2, 2009)

I apologize, I didnt mean any disrespect by my comment. I must have read your post wrong  :gh

your right, it is very dangerous when respected groups say anything as it is taken as fact, rather than opinion.(for example P.E.T.A)

I struggled to find 10 deaths from mma in 20 years(injurys caused in a fight that led to cod I mean). Has there been a death that happened in the ring?


----------



## PrideNeverDies (Sep 28, 2008)

no disrespect taken mate, i can understand why ya made that comment

i think there have only been like 3-5 recorded deaths relating to mma


----------



## stevecollins1988 (Mar 20, 2011)

Nice post, enjoyed reading it. Ignorance is the main enemy for MMA in the coming years, like Dana White says when discussing legislations in the likes of New York, Toronto, etc. "It's an education process"

The other week in work it cropped up in conversation with a lad that I was a big fan of MMA, he told me that a friend of a friend of his was "taking part in that cage fighting" and it really shocked him because the lad is a really nice, placid, smart lad. I had to tell him that you'll find that in 90% of cases of MMA fighters and the guys are athletes.

The education process Dana talks about isn't just for him and Lorenzo Fretita talking to politicians, it's every time we open our mouths and speak to people....but idiots like the BMA clearly don't help this.


----------



## PrideNeverDies (Sep 28, 2008)

If I won the euromillions, I wouldnt send money to japan (mainly because india will always be my main concern), but first thing id do is, set up an mma commission here

Cage Fighters are either seen as ..

1. BARBARIC THUGS (And in all honesty, there are too many of them actually training)

2. WEIRDOS (Alex Reid, or cross dressers)

I suggest you make your colleague read my first post on this thread and see if he changes his stance


----------



## PrideNeverDies (Sep 28, 2008)

MIXED martial arts is one of the fastest-growing sports in America. Yet for years the New York State Legislature has refused to sanction M.M.A. - making New York one of the last states holding out against the sport's expansion. (Connecticut is a holdout, too.) After helping to block a clause in last year's budget that would have legalized M.M.A., Bob Reilly, a state assemblyman, called it "a violent sport not worthy of our society."

Enlarge This Image

Hannah K. Lee

Related

Times Topic: Mixed Martial Arts

As the editor in chief of Men's Health, I'd been a de facto supporter of New York's ban by refusing to put a mixed-martial artist on the magazine's cover - despite the entreaties of several editors and even my own brother, Eric, who trained in M.M.A. I edit a health magazine, after all, and this is a sport in which men use nearly every means available to beat one another into submission, from jujitsu to kickboxing to simply slugging one another in the face with nothing but lightly padded gloves on their hands.

But I've come to believe that, in fact, the New York Legislature is wrong. Mr. Reilly is wrong. And more to the point, I was wrong (an admission my brother will hold over my head as long as I live). Mixed martial arts may be a violent sport, but it is much safer than other, supposedly more civilized competitions, and New York and its fellow holdouts should finally sanction it.

We think of more traditional violent sports like boxing and football as safer in part because of the helmets and padded gloves their athletes wear, and that supposedly protect them from harm. These are, in fact, more like the equivalent of poorly designed sunscreen - "protection" that allows athletes to submit to even greater levels of punishment.

For instance, studies show that up to 40 percent of former boxers have symptoms of chronic brain injury, the result of repeated, if padded, blows to the head. And recent studies have demonstrated that most professional boxers, including the majority who show no outward signs of impairment, have some degree of brain damage.

In comparison, a 2006 Johns Hopkins study noted "a reduced risk of traumatic brain injury in M.M.A. competitions when compared to other events involving striking." The reason is simple: Boxing's "protective" padding, coupled with its 12-round bouts and rest periods, means the boxer is subject to dozens of brain-jostling head blows in each fight. In M.M.A., most bouts end in a wrestling match, with one opponent forcing the other into submission; only 28 percent of all M.M.A. bouts are decided by a blow to the head, according to a study published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine.

As a result, M.M.A. fighters have not only a lower risk of cognitive impairment, but of death. There have been only three fatalities in the 17-year history of American M.M.A. But we average almost that many in a single year in boxing: 129 fighters have died in American rings since 1960.

Some might argue that such statistics only make the case that boxing, too, should be banned. But what about hockey or football? Men's Health has proudly and without controversy featured Drew Brees, Tom Brady and other N.F.L. stars on our cover - despite the fact that football and hockey combined sent 55,000 Americans to the emergency room for head injuries in 2009 alone.

Hall of Famers like Harry Carson, a former linebacker for the Giants, and Pat LaFontaine, who played center for the Islanders and the Rangers, have talked publicly, even courageously, about the physical and emotional toll of their multiple concussions. And watching 41-year-old Brett Favre dragging his swollen body onto the field week after week last season was an exercise in spectator-sport sadism.

Compare that to the Ultimate Fighting Championship, the premier M.M.A. league, where 23-year-old Jon Jones recently won the light heavyweight championship but injured his hand in the process; as a result, he is barred from competition until doctors say he has healed. In fact, fighters who suffer knockouts are suspended and barred even from sparring for three months; in the N.F.L. and N.H.L., we cheer when a player leaves the game on a stretcher and returns the next week - and even louder if he comes back the next period.

The New York State Assembly and Senate both have bills in committee that would allow M.M.A. into the state, and it only makes sense to push them through. In the meantime, I've changed my policy: This month Men's Health features the U.F.C.'s reigning welterweight titleholder, Georges St-Pierre, on its cover. Sometimes the more raw and visceral a sport appears, the more humane it may actually be.

David Zinczenko is the editor in chief of Men's Health and the editorial director of Women's Health.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/opinion/02Zinczenko.html?_r=2&emc=eta1


----------



## PrideNeverDies (Sep 28, 2008)

you might like reading this

http://www.jssm.org/combat/1/18/v5combat-18.pdf


----------

