« IFL aims for free TV | Home | A cozy relationship »
More mainstream dribble about UFC.
By Luke | March 24, 2006
I was just scanning the news-pack at wrestlingobserver.com today, and I came across a link to a poor mainstream piece regarding UFC, and its health issues compared to boxing. This is worth checking out. And, be sure to e-mail your feedback to the lazy ‘tard who wrote this.
Basically, it alleges that UFC is more dangerous than boxing, but it didn’t examine any injuries. It just used the finishes of all the fights that ended by strikes, and assumed all of them resulted in concussions. And, then based on the percentages taken from that, claimed that UFC was more dangerous. This is a pitiful excuse of a study that the British Journal of Sports Medicine should be ashamed of, and should never have published. (Credit: wrestlingobserver.com).
Although, Reuters did acknowledge the flaws in the study, it doesn’t excuse the fact that such a surface level look at something as complicated as head injuries is pretty lazy for a Medicine Journal.
Update: MMA Blogger weighs in on the issue.
Topics: All Topics, Luke Nicholson, MMA, UFC, UK | | Permalink | Trackback | Share This
Luke — I caught this article earlier today. The only way to describe it is as uneducated and unresearched. There is a feeble comparison of MMA finishing results to that of kickboxing, but none to boxing. Additionally, his numbers are “estimates” based on video footage — no report of medical reports, no report of fighter interviews. What’s more, how do you explain the comparison of boxer deaths to MMA deaths? I know it’s a comparison that’s blugeoned to death (no pun intended), but it’s true and something that boxing is trying to overshadow in their attempt to maintain their hold on the combat sport majority market share. Reuters tends to be a relatively decent news source, however, their acceptance of this “report” as worthy of publishing is sorely disappointing.
Luke - I found an archive of the article and was I going to do a breakdown response to it, but it’s behind a pay firewall of $12 USD for 2 days. No way I’m paying $12 to make a rebuttal to a flawed medical study.
Here is the link if someone wants to do it, however:
http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/content/vol40/issue2/
The name of the doctor who did the study is Dr. George J. Buse.
Dudes
I was able to check the whole article out from Brit Sports Med Journal at my school’s library and the author admits the limitations of the study…so at least he pointed out the “flaws.” There are things that could be done to improve its validity (like a future study that involves medically checking out the fighters after each match, instead of watching video footage).
He also mentioned that not every stoppage due to head blows necessarily meant “concussion,” and that brain injury can occur without being knocked out, which I think is true. He showed the max POSSIBLE concussions, and commented that future study is needed to determine the actual number. Buse didn’t come across as being anti-MMA, just wanted to look for the biggest medical issues and ways of making it safer.