Quake3World

feedberg's PRIDE thread brought this up, and I think it's a worthy debate. Seeing as I'm never wrong, this is obviously a discussion that has merit.
I've always been a martial arts fan, and I used to be very interested in competing, but not anymore. I train BJJ, and I'll compete in tournaments, but I won't move to MMA. I don't want cauliflower ears and brain damage. Now, not every fighter ends up with either or both, some form of injury is likely, and head trauma is very likely.
So, are we modern day Romans, cheering on the gladiators in the octagon? Is boxing nothing but a way to vicariously slake our bloodlust? Have we not evolved beyond this primitive entertainment? Or, are we just appreciating the years of hard work, finely honed techniques, sheer guts and iron determination that constitutes these clashes between amazing athletes?

I am going to go with no for most of the first few questions, mostly because there are ref's and rules. Much like all sports, I beleive we are appreciating their hard work. It seems like it is actually one of the few sports left where you CAN appreciate all their hard work. Boxing is a joke nowadays, and most sports have been ruined by steroids.
This is as raw as it gets! I like wrestling more though. Not wwf shit, but real wrestling. you know the kind.

i'm still trying to work this out in my own head.

I fucking LOVE this sport - it's the first sport i've ever truly loved watching - i've never watched or followed a sport in my life before, or learned about the athletes etc.

I can see MMA fulfilling my sporting needs (as an observer) for the rest of my life. I could also see myself getting casually into BJJ and boxing, just to see what it's like.

There is also great art in it, and skill, etc.

That said, the object of the game is to beat the shit out your opponent.

I'm not sure if this is violence per se, as both fighters are agreeing to this - it is not as if we are paying to watch people beat up on innocent bystanders.

There are 2 areas of concern:

1) what are the risks of long term damage versus other sports.

2) what does this do to the mind of people who watch it. Does it make them less compassionate/peaceful/etc?

k gotta run, else would write a better constructed post. bbl - good thread!

[xeno]Julios wrote:
I fucking LOVE this sport - it's the first sport i've ever truly loved watching - i've never watched or followed a sport in my life before, or learned about the athletes etc.

Same here, it's also the only sport I've dedicated more than a couple years to.

i have 14 full pride events on my hard drive (backed up from the dvds i purchased ) and 2 more on the way.

I can watch them again and again and appreciate the fights more each time.

Fact is, humans are driven by blood lust. Humans have a component in the brain that makes them happy when they see pain.

This same chemical drive is why we have sports. And if you really thought about it, that same drive of sports pushes war.

Some people love to see people die. Some like to see people bleed. Some just Like it, no mater how it is, as long as there is pain.

This is why I don't watch sports. For one day, some bowler will go ballistic on a competitor and bash his head in with a bowling ball.

hello there mr. debate!

So, are we modern day Romans, cheering on the gladiators in the octagon?

as long as the participants are in the ring by choice, then the comparison to the romans isn't wholly accurate.

Is boxing nothing but a way to vicariously slake our bloodlust? Or, are we just appreciating the years of hard work, finely honed techniques, sheer guts and iron determination that constitutes these clashes between amazing athletes?

depends on the person. is this a person who also likes to watch WWF? then maybe so... bloodlust ftw. on the other hand, is this a person who practices martial arts and loves the technique involved? then by golly i believe it ain't nothing but.

Have we not evolved beyond this primitive entertainment?

i'd gander a no. should we? who sets the standard that says primitive == bad == banned? why should this standard exist? and i think you are implicitly saying that by following this standard we will in some way be more refined and cultured. what does it mean to be refined and cultured? why would i want to be refined and cultured? fuck refined and cultured. fuck it.

hey wait a second, you calling me feedberg because my parents are yids, nachtshade?

feedback wrote:hey wait a second, you calling me feedberg because my parents are yids, nachtshade?

rofl

Nightshade wrote:feedberg's PRIDE thread brought this up, and I think it's a worthy debate. Seeing as I'm never wrong, this is obviously a discussion that has merit.
I've always been a martial arts fan, and I used to be very interested in competing, but not anymore. I train BJJ, and I'll compete in tournaments, but I won't move to MMA. I don't want cauliflower ears and brain damage. Now, not every fighter ends up with either or both, some form of injury is likely, and head trauma is very likely.
So, are we modern day Romans, cheering on the gladiators in the octagon? Is boxing nothing but a way to vicariously slake our bloodlust? Have we not evolved beyond this primitive entertainment? Or, are we just appreciating the years of hard work, finely honed techniques, sheer guts and iron determination that constitutes these clashes between amazing athletes?

I suspect you're thinking about what it means to be American today in the context of decadent Roman distractionism... Someone's been watching Gladiator

[xeno]Julios wrote: 1) what are the risks of long term damage versus other sports.

2) what does this do to the mind of people who watch it. Does it make them less compassionate/peaceful/etc?

How is this relevant to the discussion whether this stuff is barbarism or sport?

Long term damage has never stopped any kind of sport, it's always the short term damage that gets limited. And i can't think of any sport that makes the people who watch it more compassionate and/or peaceful.

Dave wrote:I suspect you're thinking about what it means to be American today in the context of decadent Roman distractionism... Someone's been watching Gladiator

America's distractionism (i like this word ) lies not in sport but in it's foreign and domestic politics.

feedback wrote:hey wait a second, you calling me feedberg because my parents are yids, nachtshade?

lol

Ryoki wrote:

Dave wrote:I suspect you're thinking about what it means to be American today in the context of decadent Roman distractionism... Someone's been watching Gladiator

America's distractionism (i like this word ) lies not in sport but in it's foreign and domestic politics.

I believe the two are linked, hence the comparison.

...hmm, i think i disagree.

To distract the public in such a way means not necessarily to purely entertain, but to appear to be handling a problem (fictitious or no), right? IE making the Christians kill each other in the colloseum, or to make a huge media fuss about an invasion of terrible killer bees.

Otherwise anything devoid of content, like soap opera's, could be described as deliberate attempts to distract the public from the bigger issue at hand… while imo those things are most often purely a way of making a buck.

i don't watch mma/pride/whatever, just don't get into it, but i think it's a cool sport and i can see why people find it entertaining. it's a proper scrap in a controlled environment - so you can absorb what's happening without flinching.

doubt we'll ever stop finding punch ups entertaining, we'll just keep finding new ways (like the emergence of this organised mma stuff) to make it safe, at least for the viewers. if that star trek holodeck thing ever happened for real, the first thing we did after fucking each other in it would be killing/fighting each other.

Ryoki wrote:

Dave wrote:I suspect you're thinking about what it means to be American today in the context of decadent Roman distractionism... Someone's been watching Gladiator

America's distractionism (i like this word ) lies not in sport but in it's foreign and domestic politics.

You'd be surprised how tightly sports ties into the national character even if there is no apparent connection between the sport and world events. You can look back to the beginnings of nationally organized sport in the late eighteenth century in Britain where amateurism and professionalism were prized above all other characteristics during the age when acting like a proper gentlemen was society's greatest demand (despite the near simultaneous rise of colonialism). Up until the murder of that Pakistani cricket team coach last week, cricket was known as the gentelmen's sport.

The 1980 Olympic hockey upset by the US over the Soviet Union is a perfect example of how sport and political ideology collide on an international scene. The only people who probably remember it as an American victory over a superior opponent and not over the whole of communism are the players.

I can't answer whether or not PRIDE and others are another example of this, but if you watch Gladiator and think of how American way of life is quickly moving towards flashy distractions from the world around us, I can see why nightshade might be aware of how the sports we consume reflect national character.

peeple are so not gentlemenly anymores

Ryoki wrote:...hmm, i think i disagree.

To distract the public in such a way means not necessarily to purely entertain, but to appear to be handling a problem (fictitious or no), right? IE making the Christians kill each other in the colloseum, or to make a huge media fuss about an invasion of terrible killer bees.

Otherwise anything devoid of content, like soap opera's, could be described as deliberate attempts to distract the public from the bigger issue at hand… while imo those things are most often purely a way of making a buck.

There doesn't have to be a connection between state and sport, it just happens that sport often reflects the state of affairs in a nation.

I remember the '80 Olympic hockey victory rather vividly, and there was no mistaking the symbolism behind it. Hell, I was in 4th grade at the time and it wasn't lost on me.
The roots of the "distractionism" wasn't my main point, but rather the obvious parallels between present-day America and the declining Roman empire.
I love watching MMA and am not disturbed at all by my enjoyment of the brutality. I'm very much aware of my inner caveman and have no problem with him. What amazes me though is seeing all the women that attend these events and how wrapped up in it they get.

Legalized barbarism or legitimate sport

there's a difference?

Yes.

You can also find the police in legalized barbarism at most riots.

[xeno]Julios wrote: I fucking LOVE this sport - it's the first sport i've ever truly loved watching - i've never watched or followed a sport in my life before, or learned about the athletes etc.

I can see MMA fulfilling my sporting needs (as an observer) for the rest of my life. I could also see myself getting casually into BJJ and boxing, just to see what it's like.

Same here. I've never had the patience or interest to watch or learn much about sports until I saw my first UFC show and later, after reading feedback's posts, Pride. There's definitely something primitive in two athletes beating the shit out of each other but IMO denying our own primitive natures is pointless and something I'll leave to the pseudo-intellectual dipshits debating in Starbucks around the globe.

Nightshade wrote: So, are we modern day Romans, cheering on the gladiators in the octagon? Is boxing nothing but a way to vicariously slake our bloodlust?

Yes. I find all of the "combat sports" completely uninteresting and retarded. Hey lets go watch John beat the fuck out of Jack! Kill him Jack kill him! Wait Jack is passed out with a broken nose and John is still standing, John wins!

The only difference between now and then is that we don't actually kill the loser.