« Josh Gross criticizes Michael Schiavello’s commentary of Overeem/Hari K-1 fight | Home | WEC: Ben Henderson comments about Jamie Varner on Inside MMA »
Transcript of Marc Ratner interview on HDNet
By Zach Arnold | December 10, 2009
Recently, HDNet host Ron Kruck did a satellite interview with Marc Ratner, the former boss of the Nevada State Athletic Commission who currently works for Zuffa (the parent company of UFC). Ratner has been busy lobbying on behalf of Mixed Martial Arts in several states in order to get the sport legislated in the 48 States that have athletic commissions. Here is the transcript of the interview that recently aired on the network.
Ratner: “My main job is one of education and lobbying to get the sport regulated wherever there is an athletic commission and other places throughout the world.”
Kruck: “Marc, you’re doing your job very well because a few more states recently approved MMA regulations. Currently, how many sanction Mixed Martial Arts?”
Ratner: “As of today, 40 states, there’s 48 states that have athletic commissions, 2 states — Alaska and Wyoming — do not have an athletic commission. We’re currently in the legislatures in New York, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, so we’re very, very certain, feel strongly about that uh early next year we will have those [three] states and then start working on Connecticut and Vermont and a couple other ones.”
Kruck: “You mentioned New York, Mark, it seems you’ve been working with them a long time. How far away are they?”
Ratner: “I really, uh, feel that we would have had New York finished this year but their Senate broke down, they’re still not back in session, so there’s a problem politically there. It wasn’t about Mixed Martial Arts. I really think that we will get approved, we’ve gotten through quite a few of the committees. Maybe by February or March of next year.”
Kruck: “So what has been the biggest obstacle in getting MMA into New York?”
Ratner: “It’s about education, uh, Ron. One of the problems in the very beginning, uh, of MMA which was 1992, 1993, the advertisements were No Holds Barred, anything goes. No rules, and certainly you couldn’t have a sport like that that wasn’t a sport with no rules. So there are still people in different places where the sport’s not sanctioned yet who still think it’s a Wild West sport without any rules.”
Kruck: “Great point, Marc. Let’s switch topics now and talk about refereeing in MMA. Are you pleased with the state of MMA officiating right now?”
Ratner: “It’s very important to deepen the pool of officials so one of my goals, once we get the sport very well-regulated and get through with our lobbying, is to get more judges and more referees involved and really have them learn and uh there will be more seminars. I think that the future of the sport, besides getting new fighters, is dependant upon officials and we’re certainly going to work on that end just to keep increasing the knowledge of officials around the world.”
Kruck: “In your opinion, currently what is the biggest issue with MMA referees?”
Ratner: “Well, Ron, what I found on the local level when we go to whether it’s Oregon or it’s to Texas, we look at these new officials and they’ve never had a fight as big as when they have 12-to-15,000 people on them and sometimes they freeze, they have to learn what it is to officiate in front of a big crowd so that’s part of the problem. We have to have the officials really understand the ground game because so many of them don’t, when to stand the fighters up and that’s one of the big problems with what we have. Also, the judges have to be more consistent and that’s going to take some time and we just got to keep making it evolve.”
Kruck: “I couldn’t agree more, Marc. Are there some current rules you’d like to see changed or modified?”
Ratner: “I’m very happy with the Unified Rules, I think there can always be some fine-tuning but until we get the sport fully regulated in America, I would not want any changes.”
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 16 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Thanks for transcribing this.
Great read! Thanks, Zach.
Marc’s doing a good job. Thanks for the transcript
I can’t wait for the sanctioning part of Ratner’s job to start winding down and see what kind of progress he can make on improving the training & accountability of judges/referees.
Those kind of changes are never going to happen as long as the commissions are not being pressured to make them. Things will only change once Zuffa starts throwing their weight around and demanding improvements. Say what you will about the ‘Zuffa myth’ regarding the creation of the unified rules, but the reality is that Zuffa is the only promoter out there with the power to effect regulatory changes and the willingness to devote resources to making things happen.
“Zuffa is the only promoter out there with the power to effect regulatory changes and the willingness to devote resources to making things happen.”
Zuffa absolutely has that power and probably has the will to do it. From what I know, it’s all on Ratner. He’s the guy the commissioners listen to.
I imagine that it has to come in increments. I don’t see that Ratner can simply come blowing in to a jurisdiction and start telling them what to do. There’s probably a tact-factor there.
Zach, I’ve always wondered why you include the ‘uhhh’s and so forth. I mean, it is funny and breaks things up nicely, but still.
Ed. — I put a vote up on the site a while back and asked them if they wanted me to include uh’s, you know’s, so’s, etc. And the general response was leave it in there. Personally, I got no issue with editing out the uh’s — easy Find and Replace in any text editor — and if more people speak up and want me to do it, fine with me. Not hard to do.
I have no respect for Ratner. He’s only in this for the money, he does not care about MMA otherwise. I mean, he can’t even get the year right that UFC began. I understand that UFC had to buy him off to get anything going, and he was very important in regulation (because sending Dana out exclaiming “Yo, regulate this fuckin’ shit because it’s fuckin’ cool you old motherfuckers!” wouldn’t have gone anywhere.) But he is in the old boys boxing network and would never move to have two separate judging pools because that would cost his boxing judge buddies a payday. He has outlived his usefulness and needs to go. Obviously he won’t until he retires, but he’s just harmful to MMA now.
People really voted to leave the meaningless vocalizations in? Love the transcripts, but the uhhh and ehhss are real eye sores.
I don’t remember that poll – if I’d seen it I’d have voted to take it out not just the uhhs but all the “you know”s… damn those drive me crazy!
Thanks for the transcripts.
Add me to the list of folks who hate wading through all the ‘uhhhs’ and ‘you knows’ in your transcripts. I love that you take the time to do it, but all that extra verbiage makes them hard to read. Especially Meltzer transcripts. He has two or three of ’em in every sentence.
Ratner is definitely doing a great job. He has really sped up the process of getting MMA recognized across all the states. Once it’s fully sanctioned everywhere they can push for some changes to rules and judging.
I’m sure Dana and the boys view MMA similarly to most hard core fans. Most people want “elbows on the ground” out. I really hate them. We have such visually brutal displays such as Jon Jones on Matt Hamill. Not that it caused any real damage, just a couple of stitches, it just looks so brutal especially to the non hard core types. The other issue, I want to see skills, dropping elbows isn’t very skillful. If they weren’t allowed to drop elbows, fighters would have to look for other techniques like subs. I prefer that.
I have no problem with the uh’s etc. It’s obviously a transcription of what was said and I just read through it. However if it wasn’t there, that would be fine too.
BTW, thanks for transcribing the interview. I much prefer reading the transcription than listening to the video.
“Most people want “elbows on the ground” out.”
Bullcrap
Every time I have seen anyone do a poll on elbows, the results always seem to come out 3 to 1 in favor of keeping them. Here is a recent example.
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/12/6/1188262/elbows-huah-what-are-they-good-for
The ‘elbows cause fight ending cuts’ fallacy has been exposed time and time again. Even the more expansive ‘elbows cause cuts’ argument is silly. Every strike causes cuts. Most of the nastiest cuts in the sport come from clinch knees, yet no one wants to ban them. Hell, a good portion of the cuts caused by elbows are also caused by standing techniques, yet no one wants to ban them.
Keep elbows and legalize ground knees, stomps & soccer kicks, then all will be right with the world.
I vote you get rid of the uhs and ahs except for Meltzer interviews. Those entertain me and make me think fondly of Eyada.
I agree with Jonathan.
I say keep the uhhs and eehhs…I think it adds some context to the answers. Gives you a better idea of how the question was actually answered, not the cleaned up scripted version of how it should have sounded.
But maybe that’s best saved for situations where it needs to be highlighted as to how someone answered a question…?
[…] Flashback: Transcript of Marc Ratner interview on HDNet […]