Uh-oh.

The point is not that the BMA and AMA should be paying attention to more important social issues. Thats really funny and obviously not my argument at all. and I’m not sure what “particular” level of ignorance I was displaying, but…

The point is that there are many other sports and activities that are equally, if not more dangerous AND socially detrimental than MMA and boxing. And when doctors choose to focus their criticism on MMA and try to outlaw them, while ignoring, and probably in many cases, participating in the many equally risky behaviors (ie, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, skiing/horseback riding) they are being completely hypocrtical.

Now considering that the doctors are not recommending that alcohol and cigarettes and all sports (which are inherently dangerous) be banned, in choosing to make public statements about MMA and recommending that it be nationally banned (as is the case with the BMA) these doctors associations are really making a POLITICAL statement, which, as doctors, should be beyond the scope of their influence.

They are not just recommending that people not compete in MMA. That I can understand that and I acknowledge that it is their responsibility as doctors. But trying to influence politicians to ban the sport is something I simply cannot accept. Doctors’ jobs are to treat people and give them advice, not force them to do things and control their lives. The AMA and BMA have absolutely no right to try to control what adults living in a free country do with their lives, as long as they are not hurting others (well, you understand). Just as they have no right to try and force the government to outlaw smoking, drinking, or driving fast cars.

Actually, a guy emailed me today with this (maybe after seeing the thread):

http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/InmateDetails.asp?PassedId=124583

I’m really gutted over the whole thing. Hopefully the WEC can cheer me up.

Many fighters are very well aware of this, and take every opportunity to emphasize that it’s a sport and they’re just looking to win by whatever means fit within the rules, and that hurting the opponent is not a primary objective.

What I think was a major point for Pride is that in their pre-fight interviews, fighters rarely spoke of wanting to “destroy” their opponent, or use other destructive and threatening language. Instead they spoke of tactics, heart, sportsmanship, technique and conditioning. Well, with the exception of Josh Barnett, who always came across as crude, rude and immature to me.

Compare that with the image portrayed in UFC interviews – it’s bloodlust, hatred and war terminology. I know there are exceptions on both sides and I have the impression that the UFC interviews have toned down the “I will murder him” attitude lately, but I think it would be wise by the UFC and all other promotions to shift focus more to the values I attributed to Pride. Because what happens if someone says “I’ll kill him” and then ends up doing just that?

The fact of the matter is that no physician almost anywhere on this planet can consciously tell you that professional fighting is in your best interests because it isn’t. The act of hand to hand combat for money is inately risky for yourself and your opponent by its very nature, moreso than any other organized sports in the world. Arguing that the BMA and AMA are ignoring more important social issues is just flat ridiculous and shows a particular level of ignorance to the scale at which either operates.

I must say I find it quite weird how none of the UK red top rags are jumping on the MMA bandwagon – it’s certainly an opportunity to win over a few people to their paper. I think they’re underestimating how many people would like positive coverage and also how many people probably know more about MMA than the person writing the article and don’t need to hear the monotonous details.

Whether it be a moral argument or a sociological argument, they are both meritless and utterly preposterous.

The reason I feel this way is because these people are unfairly targeting MMA while ignoring literally millions of other activities. The people who want to ban MMA and boxing choose to ignore the many, many dangerous and anti-social sports and hobbies that Americans choose to engage in on a daily basis. The obvious ones like football, pro-wrestling, car/moto racing, skiing, sky-diving, etc, etc, are all clearly very dangerous activities. And one could argue that hobbies like promiscuous sex, drinking, partying, dancing, etc, etc, are immoral and degrade societal values. Yet these people are generally ignoring these things, because they realize it is a waste of time to try and control them. But because MMA is new and on the fringe and explicitly graphic in its display of danger and risk, they choose to persecute the sport and its community.

That is why I will not for a second entertain the question of whether or not MMA should be banned. Uneven, unfair, and irrefutably biased persecution and criticism does not warrant a response….other than to say that I will not respond…and in doing so, have just responded. Well you know what I mean.