Believe me, my knowledge helps a LOT. Also, fighters take me a lot more seriously when I write about stuff that happens in fights becuase they know I actually understand how shit goes down inside the cage.

We’re in agreeance, though I think the figures I used for the hypothetical (I know Gross does, at least) have some prior training.

But that’s dangerous thinking, you know? I don’t think that excuses the rampant careerism in journalism. That kind of thinking is what got the entire industry into trouble in the first place. One can tacitly address serious issues with an objective eye if one cares about the truth. It’s not impossible. But in the MMA media, where decent (if at all financially beneficial) paying jobs are rare, it’s an exceedingly difficult decision to make: risk your contacts and liasons in the industry, or investigate a serious matter. Journalism is hard, but it’s supposed to be that way. If writers don’t want to get to the bottom of things, they’re not to be respected.

But I think one thing is lacking in this thread’s analysis: a longer view.

A lot of the problems that Zach and everyeone else commented on are not unique to the MMA media, even as they are problems that often manifest themselves in young (relatively speaking) forms of journalism, which of course MMA writing is.

Alternative “X-Games” types of sports endured the same struggles in their early years, for example. A lot of them still suffer from the malade MMA media suffers from: a lack of good writing. Take for example smaller-time motorsports like dirtbike racing and stunt driving; there was probably an event in your hometown last week, but the only people writing on it are amateur bloggers, event promoters and the racers themselves.

But back to the MMA media. The politics of MMA are not unique, methinks. A few things I’ve discovered during my tenure as an editor at a newspaper that deals primarily with government and bureaucracy:

1) Person/place/thing wants coverage of event or profile of self.
2) Person/place/thing wants event coverage to be unwaveringly positive and cheerleader-like at best and unwaveringly postive at worst.
3) Person/place/thing will ignore or admonish you if coverage is not up to snuff.

As Zach pointed out in the comments, it comes down to money. Let’s say you’re working for a local news outlet, and there’s an MMA show coming up. That MMA show is actually not operating under your state athletic commission’s supervision, but has a fighter that’s got a background that pulls on the heartstrings. Maybe his brother died in Iraq or something and he was fighting to raise money or some shit. Which story are you going to write? If you value your editor’s opinion of you and any contacts you may have in the industry, it’s an obvious choice.

And as Jordan Breen hinted at, that’s part of the reason the big MMA outlets can appear to not try hard enough sometimes. Regardless of what Josh Gross says, it’s obvious that the big media outlets – which rely on advertisements from big MMA companies to pay their writers – don’t want to risk their credibility or ad revenue on news that could derail the industry they survive on. This means not covering or even commenting on rumors and leaks that could sour sensitive relationships with figures in the industry. The lack of coverage of the PRIDE Yazuka scandal is the most obvious example of this shameless careerism.

Bigger sports could care less about negative press, even from the biggest sports media companies. Bill Simmons made a career out of calling the NBA out. But MMA is young, and is Sherdog or some other ‘respected’ outlet were to leak and something sensitive and unquestionably negative about the UFC, both Sherdog and the source and even the sport could be irreparably damaged.

So the bloggers will have to soldier on, until the trend originators grow some larger balls, or until the sport matures to the point where bad press from a major outlet wouldn’t hurt it so much.

Fair enough, but this only goes so far. First, this doesn’t mean MMA journalists couldn’t train jiu-jitsu at school without a MMA program (and there are many). Or they could train sub wrestling or boxing or Thai boxing. Whatever the case may be, aligning membership in one gym may be problematic, but that doesn’t make training altogether an all or nothing proposition.

Secondly, this seems to me only a problem of the few. I train at Lloyd Irvin schools, so while I’ll interview Brandon Vera or Mike Easton on my radio show, I’ll have to recuse myself for any official journalistic endeavor. But that still leaves 99% of the MMA landscape available for coverage. Josh Gross and Loretta Hunt are in stickier situations, but for your run of the mill MMA journalist – even one working for a prestigious media outlet – there’s no reason why they can’t rack up at least SOME training while covering the sport.

Norstrand and Samedov tested posittive for roids at ther K-1 show. Funny thing is… As I was watching the show I kept thinking Samedov should jump to wrestling with the mannerisms and that physique of his :S

The solution is simple: train.”

Oh, I agree completely. But the larger problem is that you essentially have to find people who trained, and no longer do, or something of that ilk. For instance, what business would I have covering my local MMA scene in Halifax if I was training at Titans MMA, especially given that Titans also promotes the biggest local MMA event here? I would love to go back to the gym in an active capacity, but it isnt really anything I should do. Thats why I laugh when people cry about these “fanboys who dont train”. Would people sit well with Josh Gross training at TQ Temecula and Loretta Hunt rolling at Xtreme Couture?

The solution is simple: train.

Reading Bas Rutten’s Big Book of Combat or listening to The Fight Professor’s opinions on what X fighter should do in Y situation is helpful, but the only real way to understand MMA is to train.

I’m lucky enough to have spent the last few years doing so at a couple of Lloyd Irvin schools, although much less recently due to work overload (that is now changing as I am switching jobs).

I try – at times – to be technical in my analysis. For example, in my debate with Sam Caplan over predictions for the Koscheck vs. GSP fight, I noted how fighting standing up doesn’t allow competitors to protect their hips and legs very much – the precise reason why wrestlers and grapplers “fight” hunched over. On the other hand, fighting with straighter posture levels the playing field in terms of susceptibility to being taken down. Whatever the case, being technical in writing is generally very helpful to readers, but there’s a limit where technical analysis goes from being helpful to annoyingly esoteric and tedious.

I’m very convinced of this. The only real way to understand the sport is to train at least one year. That benchmark is adequate if incomplete, but it’s also what most athletic commissions require of someone who wants to referee fights.