Combat sports: Legalized barbarism or legitimate sport?
-
[xeno]Julios
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
Re: Combat sports: Legalized barbarism or legitimate sport?
Really? Uninteresting? You may find it morally questionable, but uninteresting?bitWISE wrote:I find all of the "combat sports" completely uninteresting and retarded.
If a gorgeous naked woman took some LSD, locked herself in a cage with a grizzly bear, and invited it to copulate with her and then eat her alive (say she was really depressed and wanted to carry out a creative form of suicide), I may have problems with a company deciding to broadcast the event...
but it'd be one of the most interesting things I'd've ever seen in my life.
I'd have to say yes with a shade of gray.
It's a toned down version of gladiators in my opinion but it's still the same, even if it is toned down for us modern more moderate watchers.
Of course, you could say the same of any olympic sport, basicly, it boils down to atheletic ability. Whether you're running the 100 meters or beating some other guy senseless they're both forms of physical skill. I guess society has to decide what is considered an acceptable sport and what isn't. So far, we've decided pummeling each other is acceptable in general, so is wrestling, however, sword fighting, not so much anymore, unless you count fencing. However, go back a thousand years and I'm sure sword fighting was a completely acceptable sport. Something society accepted at the time but doesn't now.
Personaly, I think I draw the line at fighting when it comes to sports. As soon as one person is effectively pummeling the other, I see it as a remnant sport of the dark ages of when these things were acceptable, on a much more violent aspect of course.
Not that I don't love watching it.
It's a toned down version of gladiators in my opinion but it's still the same, even if it is toned down for us modern more moderate watchers.
Of course, you could say the same of any olympic sport, basicly, it boils down to atheletic ability. Whether you're running the 100 meters or beating some other guy senseless they're both forms of physical skill. I guess society has to decide what is considered an acceptable sport and what isn't. So far, we've decided pummeling each other is acceptable in general, so is wrestling, however, sword fighting, not so much anymore, unless you count fencing. However, go back a thousand years and I'm sure sword fighting was a completely acceptable sport. Something society accepted at the time but doesn't now.
Personaly, I think I draw the line at fighting when it comes to sports. As soon as one person is effectively pummeling the other, I see it as a remnant sport of the dark ages of when these things were acceptable, on a much more violent aspect of course.
Not that I don't love watching it.
Okay, I'll try to weigh in here without rambling too much. It's an interesting topic, that I've thought about a little before.
I think it's all of the above, depending on who you talk to, and I think that's one of the reasons it is so popular -- there is something in it for a lot of different people, with a lot of varying interests.
I think on the rarest level (like all sports), it's a sport appreciated by other experts or genuine enthusiasts, because they understand all the hard work, training and pure skill involved in excelling in the ring.
On the next broadest level (also like other sports, but not in such a specialized sense), it appeals to a sense in people similar to nationalism. This is the same thing that all sports fans can identify with - team loyalty. Maybe you know somebody on the team, or maybe you're from that hometown, or maybe they were the first person you saw fight and got you hooked, or maybe your parents liked them before you knew much about the sport... I personally think this feeds people's desire to compete, but allows them to do it vicariously through others, in the same way that sports gambling does -- to the point that picking a team to root for can be just as competitive to the spectators as the actual game is to the players.
But then you get to the broader level, the lowest common denominator. Fighting sports appeal to certain people on this baser level, in addition to the others, where other sports don't. This isn't an appeal (IMHO) directly to a lust for violence. I believe it is an appeal to a baser sense of competition. I believe fighting sports are more gratifying because the stakes are higher. You see much more devotion, courage and determination in a sport when what is at stake is the competitors' own physical person. After all, our physical abilities are our only real means of personal independence in the world - the difference between self-reliance and complete dependence on others. It's no coincidence that the better fighters in the sport are extremely independent and self-reliant -- they value it for what it is, because they put it on the line on a regular basis.
It's also no coincidence that fighting is an ancient form of entertainment. The Romans knew well that the fights that proved most entertaining to the people, were fights where the competitors' lives or personal independence were on the line. Unfortunately, they had the power and means to force people into this situation, and were unscrupulous enough to use them.
In today's MMA sports, we don't force people into situations where they have to fight for their personal independence on a regular basis -- they do it voluntarily.
Of course, the reasons people choose to do this are as many as the people who choose to do it. I'm sure there are people who choose to fight strictly to excel at the skillful competition. There also may be people who choose to fight simply due to a lust for violence, and there may be people who choose to fight for a living because there were no other avenues for them to escape their environment. These kind of cases are where I run into cognitive dissonance - especially the latter, where money may have made the difference between someone's fighting or not fighting.
I think if I knew that all of MMA consisted of Mirko Crocops, there would never be a question in my mind about the moral rectitude of watching MMA fights.
As it stands, I love to watch the fights (I think for all the reasons I listed), but every now and then I wonder the backgrounds of the fighters I'm watching, and why they really chose to do it, and those are the only times I even consider that, on a social level, they might not be very good for us.
For the next debate: Why can I not make a post without writing a dissertation!
I think it's all of the above, depending on who you talk to, and I think that's one of the reasons it is so popular -- there is something in it for a lot of different people, with a lot of varying interests.
I think on the rarest level (like all sports), it's a sport appreciated by other experts or genuine enthusiasts, because they understand all the hard work, training and pure skill involved in excelling in the ring.
On the next broadest level (also like other sports, but not in such a specialized sense), it appeals to a sense in people similar to nationalism. This is the same thing that all sports fans can identify with - team loyalty. Maybe you know somebody on the team, or maybe you're from that hometown, or maybe they were the first person you saw fight and got you hooked, or maybe your parents liked them before you knew much about the sport... I personally think this feeds people's desire to compete, but allows them to do it vicariously through others, in the same way that sports gambling does -- to the point that picking a team to root for can be just as competitive to the spectators as the actual game is to the players.
But then you get to the broader level, the lowest common denominator. Fighting sports appeal to certain people on this baser level, in addition to the others, where other sports don't. This isn't an appeal (IMHO) directly to a lust for violence. I believe it is an appeal to a baser sense of competition. I believe fighting sports are more gratifying because the stakes are higher. You see much more devotion, courage and determination in a sport when what is at stake is the competitors' own physical person. After all, our physical abilities are our only real means of personal independence in the world - the difference between self-reliance and complete dependence on others. It's no coincidence that the better fighters in the sport are extremely independent and self-reliant -- they value it for what it is, because they put it on the line on a regular basis.
It's also no coincidence that fighting is an ancient form of entertainment. The Romans knew well that the fights that proved most entertaining to the people, were fights where the competitors' lives or personal independence were on the line. Unfortunately, they had the power and means to force people into this situation, and were unscrupulous enough to use them.
In today's MMA sports, we don't force people into situations where they have to fight for their personal independence on a regular basis -- they do it voluntarily.
Of course, the reasons people choose to do this are as many as the people who choose to do it. I'm sure there are people who choose to fight strictly to excel at the skillful competition. There also may be people who choose to fight simply due to a lust for violence, and there may be people who choose to fight for a living because there were no other avenues for them to escape their environment. These kind of cases are where I run into cognitive dissonance - especially the latter, where money may have made the difference between someone's fighting or not fighting.
I think if I knew that all of MMA consisted of Mirko Crocops, there would never be a question in my mind about the moral rectitude of watching MMA fights.
As it stands, I love to watch the fights (I think for all the reasons I listed), but every now and then I wonder the backgrounds of the fighters I'm watching, and why they really chose to do it, and those are the only times I even consider that, on a social level, they might not be very good for us.
For the next debate: Why can I not make a post without writing a dissertation!
Last edited by R00k on Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
FYI, the fighters I know don't do it for money, because you don't earn shit. They do it because they love to fight, and to quote one of them "better here than some guy in an alley"R00k wrote:Okay, I'll try to weigh in here without rambling too much. It's an interesting topic, that I've thought about a little before.
I think it's all of the above, depending on who you talk to, and I think that's one of the reasons it is so popular -- there is something in it for a lot of different people, with a lot of varying interests.
I think on the rarest level (like all sports), it's a sport appreciated by other experts or genuine enthusiasts, because they understand all the hard work, training and pure skill involved in excelling in the ring.
On the next broadest level (also like other sports, but not in such a specialized sense), it appeals to a sense in people similar to nationalism. This is the same thing that all sports fans can identify with - team loyalty. Maybe you know somebody on the team, or maybe you're from that hometown, or maybe they were the first person you saw fight and got you hooked, or maybe your parents liked them before you knew much about the sport... I personally think this feeds people's desire to compete, but allows them to do it vicariously through others, in the same way that sports gambling does -- to the point that picking a team to root for can be just as competitive to the spectators as the actual game is to the players.
But then you get to the broader level, the lowest common denominator. Fighting sports appeal to certain people on this baser level, in addition to the others, where other sports don't. This isn't an appeal (IMHO) directly to a lust for violence. I believe it is an appeal to a baser sense of competition. I believe fighting sports are more gratifying because the stakes are higher. You see much more devotion, courage and determination in a sport when what is at stake is the competitors' own physical person. After all, our physical abilities are our only real means of personal independence in the world - the difference between self-reliance and complete dependence on others. It's no coincidence that the better fighters in the sport are extremely independent and self-reliant -- they value it for what it is, because they put it on the line on a regular basis.
It's also no coincidence that fighting is an ancient form of entertainment. The Romans knew well that the fights that proved most entertaining to the people, were fights where the competitors' lives or personal independence were on the line. Unfortunately, they had the power and means to force people into this situation, and were unscrupulous enough to use them.
In today's MMA sports, we don't force people into situations where they have to fight for their personal independence on a regular basis -- they do it voluntarily.
Of course, the reasons people choose to do this are as many as the people who choose to do it. I'm sure there are people who choose to fight strictly to excel at the skillful competition. There also may be people who choose to fight simply due to a lust for violence, and there may be people who choose to fight for a living because there were no other avenues for them to escape their environment. These kind of cases are where I run into cognitive dissonance - especially the latter, where money may have made the difference between someone's fighting or not fighting.
I think if I knew that all of MMA consisted of Mirko Crocops, there would never be a question in my mind about the moral rectitude of watching MMA fights.
As it stands, I love to watch the fights (I think for all the reasons I listed), but every now and then I wonder the backgrounds of the fighters I'm watching, and why they really chose to do it, and those are the only times I even consider that, on a social level, they might not be very good for us.
For the next debate: Why can I not make a post without writing a dissertation!
I think there's still some Roman attraction left here. I love boxing, PRIDE, Muay Thai, I'll watch any form of fighting. There's something attractive about the violence on display.
On the other hand, I really do watch to see the various techniques and the fantastic show of heart a lot of fighters bring to the ring. It's just as much if not more of a sport than most others considering the skill, training, bravery and athletic ability required. It's a mix of that and our morbid curiosity.
On the other hand, I really do watch to see the various techniques and the fantastic show of heart a lot of fighters bring to the ring. It's just as much if not more of a sport than most others considering the skill, training, bravery and athletic ability required. It's a mix of that and our morbid curiosity.
Re: Combat sports: Legalized barbarism or legitimate sport?
Well, just because I think its the same as the old gladiators doesn't mean I find it morally questionable.[xeno]Julios wrote:Really? Uninteresting? You may find it morally questionable, but uninteresting?bitWISE wrote:I find all of the "combat sports" completely uninteresting and retarded.
Why do I care who wins? Why do I want to watch a couple almost nude, oiled up men punch, grope and hold each other? What relevance does the outcome of the match have? I just don't find it entertaining, like 99% of the sports out there.
-
[xeno]Julios
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
You might want to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Way-Gladiator-Dan ... 0743413032 (The Way of the Gladiator).
I think fighting is just part of being human for some people. I don't have an interest in it, nor do I understand it, but it appears alot of people do (and did).
Like most things, the interest in violent competition appears to be on a sliding scale rather than totally off or totally on. Daniel Mannix tells about people in Rome that were addicted to the fear of the men/prisioners that were being sent into the ring. These people would run along behind the men, screaming and jeering trying to increase their fear--totally excited by it. One of the emperors (I forget which) got so annoyed by them getting in the way that he once let them run into the ring with the men and closed the gates on them. They started screaming that they were Roman citizens and should be let out immediately, but he let them be killed in the ring with the condemned men.
I think fighting is just part of being human for some people. I don't have an interest in it, nor do I understand it, but it appears alot of people do (and did).
Like most things, the interest in violent competition appears to be on a sliding scale rather than totally off or totally on. Daniel Mannix tells about people in Rome that were addicted to the fear of the men/prisioners that were being sent into the ring. These people would run along behind the men, screaming and jeering trying to increase their fear--totally excited by it. One of the emperors (I forget which) got so annoyed by them getting in the way that he once let them run into the ring with the men and closed the gates on them. They started screaming that they were Roman citizens and should be let out immediately, but he let them be killed in the ring with the condemned men.