When writing this blog, I specifically had in mind people who view mixed martial arts as an untamed, angry brawl between two people that genuinely do not like each other. As I have done research however, I have found that there are other opinions that play along the same lines, but use other reasons as an excuse. Take this article for example http://www.ethicsdaily.com/mixed-martial-arts-new-entr-e-on-violences-menu-cms-14661.
This author of this article is a preacher who challenges the legitimacy of the sport. Sheely argues that “mixed martial arts (MMA) fighting as mainstream “sport” has become another item on our menu of violence.” There are many illegitimate assumptions made about the nature of the sport in the article, that if true would in fact make the sport violent both physically and emotionally. Sheely believes “it is street-fighting with rules” and “the sport is violent and the violence spreads beyond the ring.” He does a wonderful job of reducing the sport to a minimalistic, one sided view that if true would make everyone feel uncomfortable with a sanctioned league. At the same time, he far under exaggerates the time and effort put in by fighters to train for an event. The preacher does not take into consideration that the best in the sport do not take this approach whatsoever. The current welterweight champion, George St. Pierre, says “Chess is all about using your opponent’s insecurities and weaknesses against him and strategizing a way to win. It’s exactly the same in mixed martial arts, only a little more physical.” Just because a sport is physical does not mean that it is spreading violence to areas outside where appropriate.
He attempts to make his audience feel that all competitors aim to harm their opponent. This is done through word choice. He uses phrases such as “competitors could kick and choke” and says the only way to lose is to “get knocked out or injured (snap) or pass out from being choked (nap).” While these are legitimate ways to earn a victory, they are portrayed in a way that connotes pain and suffering, as opposed to methods to win. Just like any other sport, the goal is to win, and there are certain rules by which the competitors must abide in order to do so.
Sheely recognized “Some spectators cheered for specific fighters, but most cheered for a hard hit or kick to the head.” He is most certainly appealing to people’s moral values through this statement. He wants people to question; do people really just want to see violence? The answer is no. Football for example, is a physically violent sport that is well controlled to reduce the risk of injury on the field. In both sports people will cheer more for a good move or play, than for the actual players. Just as people would cheer if a 60 yard run ended up in a touchdown, people will cheer for a well set up and executed head kick in mma. It is about the skill and execution people know is difficult. One must understand the game before they can appreciate it.
Sheely, Steve. "Mixed Martial Arts: New Entrée on Violence's Menu on EthicsDaily.com." EthicsDaily.com. 27 Aug. 2009. Web. 21 Sept. 2011. <http://www.ethicsdaily.com/mixed-martial-arts-new-entr-e-on-violences-menu-cms-14661>.
"GSP Compares MMA To Chess." MMAOUTSIDER.COM. 25 Nov. 2009. Web. 21 Sept. 2011. <http://www.mmaoutsider.com/?p=8732>.
I feel you do a good job both analyzing the methods of the article to make MMA events look barbaric as well as stating and defending your opinion of such events. I have watched a fair share of boxing or UFC events and did not get the same impression as Mr. Sheely. Most of the fighters do not display a deep hatred for each other. Most of the fights end with a fist bump, high five, or embrace. I like the part you say about the spectators wanting to see great skill and execution.
ReplyDelete