ban mixed martial art fighting or not?

One of our esteemed councillors is thinking of trying to ban Mixed martial Art fighting after the incedent over the weekend that the kid got the crap beat out of him.

One of his comments was... well we dont allow dog fighting or c**k fighting. Yeah well my councillor there is a reason we dont allow it. Because of free will, or rather the lack of it. Forcing animals to fight is vastly different then allowing a adult human to decide to fight.

Martial arts fighting is just like hockey without the sticks isn't it?

Ban doctors in the corner who are inept and allow a fighter to continue into the 3rd round when it's clear that it medically necessary to stop the fight regardless of the fighters will to continue.

I know some people who train, and promote some of these events and they all stated their was no way he should have been allowed to enter the 3rd round.

Blame the ringside officials, not the sport.

I'm afraid I didn't hear about the incident...did it involve one of the fighters? or some kid emulating one of the fighters?

If it's one of the fighters...then the councilman is being ridiculous. Those fighters chose to be there...they signed their contracts allowing them to fight.

And, you may not be able to blame the officials or the doctor. Typically, a fighter will go out and fight despite an injury or what the doctor says. They don't win money if they don't fight.

That said...I don't really agree with the "sport" myself. I don't think I'd ever go, or allow my kid(s) to go. I do understand the draw...and the adrenaline rush for the fighters...but there is too much risk of injury and possibility of kids emulating the athletes without the support structure of medical assistance. Just look at how many kids (myself included) who would practice elbow drops and full-nelson holds on our friends from watching the WWF...only this time...the punches and kicks are real.

one of the fighters.. got beat so bad went to ER. doctors have told him he will never fight again.
sorry thought it was in the news enough... here is today's link on it
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/councillor_promoter_in_war_of_words-39356527.html

I don't much care for the sport either. I can't watch it. It is brutal brutal brutal.

That said at least three officials allowed that fellow to continue fighting: the doctor, the referee and his own trainer. I imagine head injuries might be a little difficult to determine severity if there are no symptoms.

AA, typically in sancitoned MMA and Boxing bouts it is the referee along with the ringside doctors that have the final say on wether or not a fighter is allowed to continue regardless of the fighters wishes. This is done in the interest of fighter safety, as often the fighter is willing to continue fighting no matter what.

In these circumstances it is the doctor's duty to step up and put and end to the contest. It is in no way uncommon or unusual for a fight to end this way.

Some recent examples that come to mind of doctor stoppages include the recent Georges St.Pierre vs. BJ Penn fight (doctor ruled BJ could not continue after 4 rounds), and Frank Mir vs. Tim Sylvia (Mir broke Sylvia's forearm and Sylvia still wished to continue).

The ringside doctor failed in this case to put the fighters safety above all else. I know some people who were there and they all agreed there was no way he was in any condition to continue fighting.

This is just a stupid sport, can't see the point of 2 guys just beating the sh1t out of each other and calling it entertainment.

Interesting that the first instinct is to blame someone else (the doctor), why not blame the idiot fighter for getting himself into the situation to begin with?

the fighter actually accepts responsibility

I'm not sure if these fighters have "free will" in this case. Do they really have the option of giving up? That would hamper ones career I would think. Plus the circumstances of why they are in the sport in the first place... they must not have had a lot of options. And after a few hits to the head, I'm not sure these fighters are any smarter than a dog - so why differentiate between this and dog fighting?

/stirring the pot

nobody said you had to be smart to have free will.

If free will was based upon IQ...it would be easier to castrate the rapists, fix the welfare dependent mothers, and fire idiot workers.

Deank wrote:the fighter actually accepts responsibility

That would seem to make sense, so why try to deflect blame to the doctor, or ringside or event or sport (and I use the term loosely) officials. He stepped into the ring, with full knowledge that the other guy intent was to beat the snot out of him.

I didn't say free will is based on IQ. I presented 3 separate arguments against supporting this type of "sport".

it's probably just someone trying to cover their a$$

and someone to blame for this politician to stick his nose in.

The "officials" are supposed to be the smart ones...doctors (they don't hand those out loosely), trainers (a license again is required), and referees (who probably have some sort of training)...who didn't act on their training.

When you have movies though, that glorify the "athlete" who tell their trainers to "go to hell" and walk back in the ring to fight (of course they usually come out a hero)...it's hard for you to blame anyone than the fighter...they know they are injured...they should concede....but still want the glory.

Fighting isn't just for stupid people or a last resort for people who have no other alternative. Some fighters are very intelligent and could be successful in any number of careers. But fighting is a physical and mental challenge that some people feel compelled to take on. There's nothing wrong with that.

one of the other issues here.

"Nordman, who sits on the convention centre's board, said he is curious as to why mixed martial arts events are held in the government-funded facility."

So he would rather the funded building sit idle that day, then make money off the rental? If its a legal event and a legal organization hosting the event, what message do we send if we start picking and choosing who we rent to?

Anyway, I would never pay money to see one of these fights, as a consumer, I speak with my wallet. Then again, I might just be cheap!

thats why you need to ensure you have spike TV....MMA is on about 11.3% of the time on that channel

Deank wrote:one of the other issues here.

"Nordman, who sits on the convention centre's board, said he is curious as to why mixed martial arts events are held in the government-funded facility."

So he would rather the funded building sit idle that day, then make money off the rental? If its a legal event and a legal organization hosting the event, what message do we send if we start picking and choosing who we rent to?

To me, this would be the bigger issue.

If there's enough of a draw to put that many people at the event...then the rental should not matter who's going in there.

It would opening up all new problems if they start discriminating against who can rent and who can't.

What if he's an NDP supporter, but the Liberals want to hold a convention? Is he going to stop them because he's against their policies?
What if he's against gays? or the KKK? What if he's prejudice against Natives? or women? If PETA wants in...does he tell them know because he likes pork?

If there's an issue of someone being injured...it's really the business of the sport and regulatory body of that sport to determine the outcome.

The renting facility should not get involved.

Trust me, Grant Nordmann is not an NDP supporter. Anyway, he's entitled to his opinion, afterall, we have to hear when Harvey Smith thinks about things, so why not Nordmann.

because nordmann is the council rep on the CC board and he should really talk to the rest of council before ordering City employees to investigate shutting down MMA in the city.

Naw, he just shouldn't have talked to the media until after he heard from the administration. It may well be that there is nothing that the City can do about this type of event, so no point getting into a pissing match until he had more facts. If he did propose a change, council would have their chance to pick at it when it was presented.