« Bob Arum’s idea of promoting an event | Home | Thursday trash talk: PRIDE never dies »
Quote of the Day
By Zach Arnold | June 13, 2007
From the Salt Lake Community College Globe on the comparison between boxing and MMA:
If you don’t think today’s standards of appropriateness are different than your parents’ standards go to a Blockbuster and buy “Dirty Harry,” an R-rated movie from their generation, and then watch “Saving Private Ryan” (PG-13).
Our society has experienced the same numbing effect that drug addicts face: One hit might get you to a high for a while, but eventually you’re going to need more and more stimulus to reach that level. So you up the dosage, you increase the concentration to get that feeling back, no matter the cost.
And that’s just what MMA does in comparison to boxing.
The article was unsigned. They can be contacted at [email protected].
Topics: Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 21 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Yeah cause when people think of the 70’s they immediately harken back to an age of innocence
A student paper at a community college…hmm. A columnist at Sportsline.com is one thing. But isn’t this fish too small to fry?
Ask Google. 🙂
Hmm…I hearken back to Biblical times when people were literally being nailed to crosses and thrown into the pits with lions. And then there was the entire Roman Colesium in Rome. Severed arms, heads, necks, legs, and fingers makes today’s “gladiators” seem pretty tame by comparison.
SO maybe it is all just one loop?
I disagree completely with this analogy. Fighting and punishment in all its forms has been barbaric for centuries and the serfs flooded their market squares to watch. Boxing at the turn of last century was held on barges in NYC because it was so bloody ( the institution of the lethal 14 oz glove followed ). History is longer than the last 30 years in case no one noticed. But I’ll take this analogy, a fictional cop movie is to boxing as what an as-real-as-it-can-be-without-anyone-actually-dying-WWII-feel-good-about-your-country movie is to MMA.
Not for nothing, but this is the Salt Lake Community College newspaper you’re talking about here. You’ve probably quadrupled their page views by linking to it.
In our Grandparents’ era you were allowed to punch a guy when he was on one knee in boxing. In our parents’ era boxing gloves didn’t have a thumb loop and eye gouging was prevalent. This writer is a stupid pussy who is making superficial points and doesn’t know WTF he is talking about.
Mike – I hope this proves once and for all that I do indeed scour the entire earth for all of the fine readers. I will read anything MMA-related anywhere at any time.
I am just relieved to hear that the Salt Lake Community College newspaper has finally gotten the international, nay universal attention that it so rightly deserves.
Lol, Zach. Google does find the craziest shit sometimes.
I don’t think boxing fans are “looking for a high” to satiate their bloodlust and need for mindless violence – I think they’re looking for excitement and legitimacy.
Boxing provides neither.
PS: Mr. Roadblock, those are some damn good points.
What MMA is to boxing is similar to what a Triathlon is to running.
And we salute you for it Zach. Well, I do, at least.
I don’t remember it ever being allowed. According to the original MoQ rules (#10):
It was illegal pretty much since forever (even under Bareknuckle rules, although there was more controversy there as there was 2 umpires, one for each combatant that had to agree on a foul in order to award a bout).
Don’t forget using the laces! (Think Fritzie Zivic, one of the dirtiest Boxers to ever live along with Harry Greb and a few others) 😀
A community college in Salt Lake City? Could there be a more boring and sad place on earth?
I can’t wait to hear what students of Cal State Dominguez Hills think about MMA.
Punching a guy on one knee is against the Marquis of Queensbury rules, but during Jack Dempsey’s era it was allowed. If you ever catch the Dempsey/Willard fight you’ll see an example of it. It’s really savage and distasteful. ESPN Classics occasionally plays that one.
I completely agree with the point he is trying to make and the analogy is OK. Look, again I think people are being far too precious about the “art” side of things. Most fans are in MMA for the blood and guts whether the purists like that or not, so what he’s saying is totally valid.
To the younger generation, extreme non stop violence in films etc is the norm so to get anything like that excitement from general combat sports, people tends towards MMA rather than e.g. boxing. More importantly though in terms of this article, to the older generation MMA is sometimes too much to handle.
Anyway, I don’t think people should get their knickers in a twist – it’s not like he’s saying that MMA fans are druggies, he’s just saying that people need quick fix action these days, which is totally valid.
Neither the analogy or his reasoning is valid. Both are actually pretty weak to say the least.
Saving Private Ryan is rated R. The controversy was that it should have been rated NC-17 and got the Spielberg discount.
Bah.
It’s not even worth pointing out that the PG-13 rating didn’t even exist until 1984, which is why there was such a fine line between PG and R before that.
I don’t remember Dempsey clocking Willard when he was on a knee, just waiting right next to him and knocking him down again as soon as he lifted both knees and hands off the ground (which was legal at the time due to no neutral corner rule).
I wonder if we are allowed to call Regular News Media “Trolls”.
I won’t even begin to answer the troll because although it might seem he is right on the surface, when you dig, it doesn’t pass the smell test and I really don’t want to spend the time pointing out where he was wrong.
Please don’t feed the Trolls!