MMA & the Olympics

[The Last Legionary]

I think there are legitimate arts that deserve a place in the Olympics. I don't count MMA as one since unlike legitimate traditional arts such as Karate, Judo and Kung Fu, MMA is just a bunch of random techniques someone tossed together, usually using a bastardized BJJ base. Disagree? Fine, then what is your curriculum and training structure? How about unique content? Didn't think so. It's a bit of this, a bit of that, punch the bag, roll roll roll, ground n pound, and "The UFC makes me legit". Blech.

 

[Steve]

I think there are legitimate arts that deserve a place in the Olympics. I don't count MMA as one since unlike legitimate traditional arts such as Karate, Judo and Kung Fu, MMA is just a bunch of random techniques someone tossed together, usually using a bastardized BJJ base. Disagree? Fine, then what is your curriculum and training structure? How about unique content? Didn't think so. It's a bit of this, a bit of that, punch the bag, roll roll roll, ground n pound, and "The UFC makes me legit". Blech.

Oh brother. Troll much? since when are the olympics about rewarding sports you deem "legitimate"? While I still think that its a bad idea, suggesting that another style is more deserving because thy are more traditional is idiotic.

 

[Tez3]

I think there are legitimate arts that deserve a place in the Olympics. I don't count MMA as one since unlike legitimate traditional arts such as Karate, Judo and Kung Fu, MMA is just a bunch of random techniques someone tossed together, usually using a bastardized BJJ base. Disagree? Fine, then what is your curriculum and training structure? How about unique content? Didn't think so. It's a bit of this, a bit of that, punch the bag, roll roll roll, ground n pound, and "The UFC makes me legit". Blech.

Unique content, don't know who told you that but it's called mixed martial arts, ie a mixture of different martial arts.

I assume however you aren't looking for a serious answer and are just chucking oil on the flames.

 

[The Last Legionary]

Oh brother. Troll much? since when are the olympics about rewarding sports you deem "legitimate"? While I still think that its a bad idea, suggesting that another style is more deserving because thy are more traditional is idiotic.

Troll? Always. Read on McDuff.

Unique content, don't know who told you that but it's called mixed martial arts, ie a mixture of different martial arts.

I assume however you aren't looking for a serious answer and are just chucking oil on the flames.

I don't use oil, I go straight to bear mace.

But let me be serious for a moment. It will be a strain but I can do it, really.

By it's name, "Mixed" martial arts are just that. Mixed. As I said, it's a bit of this, bit of that, little bit of some other thing. There is no such thing as "The MMA". It's all different. So, how do you judge it? Where is the standardized MMA system? It doesn't exist. So I can take Tai Chi, USMC Sniper tech, 5 pages out of Ashida Kim's "most excellent" ninja books, and a few moves I learned from the TV and I'm now a "l33t MMA dude". Can't say otherwise. I mixed some martial arts together, that's what it means right? "Mixed Martial Arts". MMA. So, don't tell me I'm doing it wrong, I'm not. Just because your gym rolls around on the floor in obscene sex positions with punching bags, and another has a really cool cage that they play slapsy on Saturdays in, doesn't make your mixture of things better or worse than mine.

Don't point at PRIDE, UFC or the rest either. I highly doubt any of those guys will take 2-4 years off of competition so they can live on donations and hand outs for 5 minutes of fame and a $50 medal. So that leaves the "wanna bes", the guys who think the UFC is "IT", and who argue on web boards about "real training" and "NHB" crap, but have all these rules and conditions for a fight.

Even if you can find a few people to live on nothing and devote 4 years of their life to getting in top condition, you still have to define rules and limits, set judging standards. Something you can't do when dealing with a black bag full of mixed up people who picked and chose from a hundred different arts in a thousand different ways.

We have fencing, we have kendo, we don't have "couple of yobs swinging wall hangers with moves they got off the telly".
We have football, we have soccer, we don't however have "street rules, the blue car's the end zone".
We have sharp shooting, we have archery, we don't however have "nerf dart shoots".

MMA is a nice fad for PPV. It's value as an Olympic Sport however is minimal. Something 30 years old or less, certainly we have many more established and legitimate sports to include. Roller Derby for example, which is older and more respectable, yet shares many similar traits.

If I'm wrong, point me at the MMA system information, a non-UFC MMA Sport group, and a proven scoring system for it, and I'll be happy to reconsider my position that it's little more than a program for people who can't hack it in a real martial arts school past white belt.

Hell, why not just add in roller ****ing? It'd boost the ratings at least. Can you read between the lines here, or should I highlight the letters of the sekrit missige?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Enough.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I think there are legitimate arts that deserve a place in the Olympics. I don't count MMA as one since unlike legitimate traditional arts such as Karate, Judo and Kung Fu, MMA is just a bunch of random techniques someone tossed together, usually using a bastardized BJJ base. Disagree? Fine, then what is your curriculum and training structure? How about unique content? Didn't think so. It's a bit of this, a bit of that, punch the bag, roll roll roll, ground n pound, and "The UFC makes me legit". Blech.

Well, I'll go ahead and disagree on multiple counts.

A)MMA isn't legitimate
Well, that depends on what you define as "legitimate". Let's analyze 3 possibilities:
1
a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock

b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>
2
: being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false <a legitimate grievance> <a legitimate practitioner>

3
a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government>
b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>

4
: conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <a legitimate advertising expenditure

(source: mirriam-webster online)

So for the first definition, I would take your meaning of "legitimate" to be synonymous with "traditional". If so, then it would be a tough call to declare Judo "legitimate" when it was first demonstrated in 1932 (with it's founder leading the demonstration, no less), or even in 1964, when it was a mere 80 years old (the blink of an eye, compared to jujutsu--from which it derived-- which had a couple hundred years on it). Or we could look at Taekwondo, which was formed around 1955, and became an official olympic medal event in 2000... 45 years. Even less time than judo.

In comparison, if we were simply going with the term MMA, we could ostensibly say that MMA's tradition only goes back 17 years to the first UFC event. However, the UFC was an extension of Brazil's Vale-Tudo which in turn began in the '20s with the Gracie Challenge. And really, mixed-art challenges go back a lot further. So if "legitimate" is "traditional", than MMA would have more "legitimacy" than Taekwondo had from inception to inclusion as a medaled event in the Olympics,and about as much "legitimacy" as judo had.

For the second definition of legitimate--being exactly as purposed; neither spurious nor false-- you would have a tough time showing that MMA is: a)anything other than what it is purposed to be, or b)spurious or false. And I say you can't prove MMA to truly be spurious because of its Vale-Tudo pedigree.

For definition 3a, MMA operates in accordance with established legal forms and requirements, and for 3b, I don't think it applies. (and if 3b DOES apply, I re-posit my arguments from definitions 1 and 2).

For definition 4, MMA conforms to recognized principles and accepted rules and standards... atleast within itself.

B) Unlike Karate, Judo, and Kung Fu, MMA is a bunch of random techniques thrown together...

Well, I have two objections to this:

1) Of the three counter-examples you listed, only Judo has a single unifying set of techniques. Karate and Kung Fu are both umbrella terms that apply to a large number of styles, many of which, under each umbrella, will often have divergent techniques. As far as whether or not they were thrown together.... who can say? This is especially true with kung-fu...

2)MMA, in all its names, has had at least 80 years to test their techniques in the ring, and what doesn't work gets thrown out. Especially in the current of competition, a fighter that doesn't have a systemized strategy and set of tactics just won't be able to react quickly enough on the professional level to last long. Name me one top-performing Mixed Martial Artist who has a belt AND a bunch of techniques "thrown together.

3) It would be tough to say an organization like Mileti

C)...usually using a bastardized BJJ Base.

This actually shows you aren't very knowledgeable on MMA in general. A number of different bases are used, the most common being boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, or og course BJJ. Here's a sampling of some of the well-known, recent names:
1) Rashad Evans: While he has a black belt in BJJ, he only got it at the begining of this year. His base is in wrestling.
2) Chuck Liddel: has studied BJJ, but his primary arts are Kenpo, Koei-kan, and kickboxing. He also has background in wrestling.
3) Matt Hughes: Wrestling, followed by Milletich Fighting Systems
4) Randy Couture: Wrestling (in fact, her was an alternate for the Olympics), though he has boxing and bjj.
5) Anderson Silva: 1st bb: TAEKWONDO. 2nd bb: JUDO 3rd: BJJ.
6) Brock Lesner: Oh snap! Another wrestler! NCAA and... WWE!
:rock:
D) MMA lacks curriculum and training structure.
Go actually look up different MMA camps. You'll find you're mistaken. Many camps have an established curriculum and training structure. They're just not unified in their structure. Then again, neither is Karate or Kung Fu.

E) MMA lacks unique content.
Well, so what? Why does it have to be unique content to be legitimate? And really, since you value tradition AND uniqueness? Generally, if something is unique, it's not traditional.

F) MMA is a bit of this, bit of that, roll roll roll, ground and pound, and "UFC makes me legit".
Shall we go with reductio ad absurdum, or is a simple strawman fallacy enough for this one?

Seriously, man, you just posed the exact same generalized stereotyping Tez3 said people DO with MMA. Your argument is just asinine, and frankly it's insulting to people who take the time to hone their skills in MMA.


(See, Tez, I'm an equal opportunity bastard. And I think there are many who could argue that point. It is quite an easy argument to make!):wavey:

 

[Josh Oakley]

Oh, goody! More!

By it's name, "Mixed" martial arts are just that. Mixed. As I said, it's a bit of this, bit of that, little bit of some other thing. There is no such thing as "The MMA". It's all different. So, how do you judge it? Where is the standardized MMA system? It doesn't exist.

The state of New Jersey created unified rules in 2010, and since then most states have conformed to this rule-set.
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/sacb/docs/martial.html

So I can take Tai Chi, USMC Sniper tech, 5 pages out of Ashida Kim's "most excellent" ninja books, and a few moves I learned from the TV and I'm now a "l33t MMA dude". Can't say otherwise.

No more than you can do that to any other art to set yourself up as an overnight master. But no, generally you won't get away with that, since success in MMA depends on your actual fight record.

I mixed some martial arts together, that's what it means right? "Mixed Martial Arts".

I guess we're back to reductio ad absurdum, or straw man. But I should point out a number of "legitimate traditional" martial arts are a mix of multiple arts: many forms of Karate, (ie: shotokan), many forms of Kung Fu (Shaolin's been mixing it up for centuries!), Taekwondo, etc.

But we don't really call these MMA, right? Of course not! That is because MMA has developed distinction from other arts as a result of state laws and competition.

So, don't tell me I'm doing it wrong, I'm not. Just because your gym rolls around on the floor in obscene sex positions with punching bags, and another has a really cool cage that they play slapsy on Saturdays in, doesn't make your mixture of things better or worse than mine.

I guess we're back to reductio ad absurdum, or straw man.

Don't point at PRIDE, UFC or the rest either. I highly doubt any of those guys will take 2-4 years off of competition so they can live on donations and hand outs for 5 minutes of fame and a $50 medal. So that leaves the "wanna bes", the guys who think the UFC is "IT", and who argue on web boards about "real training" and "NHB" crap, but have all these rules and conditions for a fight.

Compared to what? ACTUAL practitioners of traditional martial arts, or the wannabes who think Kodokan is "IT" and argue in web boards about "tradition" and "legitimacy" crap, but post under a pseudonym and don't bother to post their actual martial arts experience?

Even if you can find a few people to live on nothing and devote 4 years of their life to getting in top condition, you still have to define rules and limits, set judging standards. Something you can't do when dealing with a black bag full of mixed up people who picked and chose from a hundred different arts in a thousand different ways.

So... are we keeping, or throwing our our previous statement of it all being bastardized BJJ?

We have fencing, we have kendo, we don't have "couple of yobs swinging wall hangers with moves they got off the telly".

We have football, we have soccer, we don't however have "street rules, the blue car's the end zone".
We have sharp shooting, we have archery, we don't however have "nerf dart shoots".

Huh?

MMA is a nice fad for PPV. It's value as an Olympic Sport however is minimal. Something 30 years old or less, certainly we have many more established and legitimate sports to include. Roller Derby for example, which is older and more respectable, yet shares many similar traits.

Roller derby would be more comparable to pro wrestling.

If I'm wrong, point me at the MMA system information, a non-UFC MMA Sport group, and a proven scoring system for it, and I'll be happy to reconsider my position that it's little more than a program for people who can't hack it in a real martial arts school past white belt.

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/sacb/docs/martial.html
or any state that falls along the same lines.

I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess you've never sparred with an MMA guy, or run a martial arts school and had an MMA guy sign up?

Amazingly, there are differences in quality in almost EVERY art. MMA is no exception.

Hell, why not just add in roller ****ing? It'd boost the ratings at least. Can you read between the lines here, or should I highlight the letters of the sekrit missige?

Is the secret message that you would rather generalize and stereotype based on a highly speculative, heavily biased, seemingly unreasearched personal viewpoint than actually take the time to develop a cogent argument?

Is it that you'd rather tangent ad nauseum than string together your random statements into a straightforword position?

...Is it that you're maybe a little too much into roller derby?

Failing any of those, you may need to break out the highlighter.

 

[The Last Legionary]

The highlighter fumes make my posts incomprehensible. Problem with going back to the Gracies is the Olympics won't let them rig the matches in their guys favor, so maybe that's a bad historical reference? Either way, you missed my point.

Straight forward position? Straight forward position? I would have thought that was obvious. My position is that MMA is already a sport, just one where you make it up as you go. It's the Calvin-Ball of the arts. As to my art's effectiveness in the ring, well, toss out that silly rule book that just makes it favorable for the groundies, and let me use all my stuff. Love to see Bas or Tank or Shamrock try and take me down while I've got a steel spike up their noses. hahaha. As to competition success, I'll have you know that once we took take downs and hitting out of the mix in our fed, those Ashida Kim techs made me the local world pooterweight champion. Belts on back order though, so you'll have to wait for the pics. :rofl:

And what's wrong with roller derby? Those chicks is tough, hot and vicious. Much better competition than that skinny kid trying to get in the UFC on SPIKE.

You point out all the wrestlers. Well, the Olympics already HAS wrestling, and it HAS Boxing, so adding in MMA slap fights would be redundant. TV time is limited as it is. Why add something that people can say "eh saw it already".

Adding MMA to the Olympics is plain stupid. There are better and more deserving things that should be in there.

 

[Carol]

enough.

qft.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

As to my art's effectiveness in the ring, well, toss out that silly rule book that just makes it favorable for the groundies, and let me use all my stuff.

Be careful what you wish for. If that silly rule book gets tossed out, they can use all of their stuff too, from spikes to guns to knives to GTO's. Funny how most of the time, the guys who make the 'throw out the rule book' comments are usually the guys who really can't fight and use the 'rule book' to give themselves a false sense of superiority over the guys and gals who did the work to actually be able to fight.

Not saying that you fall into that category; I've never seen you train, so I won't make assumptions about you personally. I will say that your arguments against MMA in general are poor and lack any real substance.

Most of our 'so called' traditional arts are cobbled together and really the only traditions that they have are cultural and unrelated the actual practice of the art.

So I can take Tai Chi, USMC Sniper tech, 5 pages out of Ashida Kim's "most excellent" ninja books, and a few moves I learned from the TV and I'm now a "l33t MMA dude". Can't say otherwise.

Actually, I can. Being an elite MMA player requires an excellent fight record against top fighters in your weight class.

Also, MMA and Mixed Martial Arts are accepted nomenclature denoting a specific type of competitive rule set. You cannot do what you describe and claim to be an MMA player any more than I can make up my own game using an eliptical ball and claim to be a football player.

Using your logic, you could call almost any martial art taekwondo. Taekwondo essentially 'way of the foot and fist' but everyone knows that the term taekwondo and the initials TKD apply to a specific Korean art with three large and established branches (Kukki, Chang hon and Songahm). Hapkido, Kuksulwon, Tangsudo, Hwarangdo, and a variety of other Korean arts use feet and fists too, but nobody calls them taekwondo. Because they aren't.

By the way, the result of assembling pieces of different arts together to make one art is not MMA. Those are called hybrid arts, such as hapkido and (believe it or not) taekwondo (the KMA, not the WTF sport).

And at long last, you address the OP:

Don't point at PRIDE, UFC or the rest either. I highly doubt any of those guys will take 2-4 years off of competition so they can live on donations and hand outs for 5 minutes of fame and a $50 medal. So that leaves the "wanna bes".

This is essentially true, though it doesn't leave 'wanna bees'; it leaves amateurs. Not the same thing. Given that the Olympic competitors were required to be amateurs until the nineties, and are still overwhelmingly made up of amateurs, this probably would not factor into olympic inclusion.

You point out all the wrestlers. Well, the Olympics already HAS wrestling, and it HAS Boxing, so adding in MMA slap fights would be redundant. TV time is limited as it is. Why add something that people can say "eh saw it already".

This is probably the primary reason that MMA will not make it into the olympics. The IOC seems to want little overlap between the sports included in the olympics and, as you say, TV time is limited.

Daniel

 

[Josh Oakley]

The highlighter fumes make my posts incomprehensible. Problem with going back to the Gracies is the Olympics won't let them rig the matches in their guys favor, so maybe that's a bad historical reference? Either way, you missed my point.

Neither will the UFC

Straight forward position? Straight forward position? I would have thought that was obvious. My position is that MMA is already a sport, just one where you make it up as you go.

Again, showing you have no real knowledge of the UFC, or MMA in general. You seem more content with your strawman than with actual knowledge.

It's the Calvin-Ball of the arts.

Guess you didn't actually READ my link. I can't say I'm entirely supprised. That would make you have to reconsider your position, in your own words. The Unified Rules have been around for 10 years!

As to my art's effectiveness in the ring, well, toss out that silly rule book that just makes it favorable for the groundies, and let me use all my stuff.

Love to see Bas or Tank or Shamrock try and take me down while I've got a steel spike up their noses. hahaha. As to competition success, I'll have you know that once we took take downs and hitting out of the mix in our fed, those Ashida Kim techs made me the local world pooterweight champion. Belts on back order though, so you'll have to wait for the pics. :rofl:

Anderson Silva usually wins by knock out. And what is your martial art and organization? What is it that you do? Also, you're pretty much the only one laughing at your jokes. Either try harder to be funny, or be serious.

And what's wrong with roller derby? Those chicks is tough, hot and vicious. Much better competition than that skinny kid trying to get in the UFC on SPIKE.

Other than their smell, loudness, and poor fashion sense? Nothing. But mostly, they have absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

You point out all the wrestlers. Well, the Olympics already HAS wrestling, and it HAS Boxing, so adding in MMA slap fights would be redundant. TV time is limited as it is. Why add something that people can say "eh saw it already".

Well, greco-roman and freestyle wrestling are both olympic events. Moreover, MMA has its own flavor. I don't think it would be redundant.

Adding MMA to the Olympics is plain stupid. There are better and more deserving things that should be in there.

See it's hard to agree with you, since you don't judge MMA based on its actual merits or deficiencies. You have, to this point, built up a strawman, and are so focused on it, that trying to hold a conversation with you about this subject is impossible. So when you're ready to have a REAL discussion, I'm around. Frankly, I don't think you have what it takes to form a cogent argument.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Well, greco-roman and freestyle wrestling are both olympic events. Moreover, MMA has its own flavor. I don't think it would be redundant.

I do agree with you. And to those of us who know what we're looking at, no, it is not redundant. But to the general public, and likely the IOC, it would certainly appear to be redundant.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Frankly, as the olympics are now, I would say that MMA should not be included. Primarily because there are way too many events in the olympics already, some of which are, to me at least, absurd.

There is no way to adequaetely cover and televise every event in the olympics. And I really don't think that the olympics need another event.

Is MMA deserving? Definitely. But so are many other sports.

Another issue is that for many sports, the olympics are either a vital or viable part of success (boxing and wrestling, for example) or are the ultimate goal (figure skating, gymnastics, WTF TKD) mainly because those sports do not boast high salaries and are dependent upon sponsors and such, and the olympics are a great way for amateur athletes to obtain sponsors.

MMA is like NFL football and does not have, nor need that component. MMA has at least one well established league that is international if I am not mistaken (the UFC) which manages plenty of air time on cable networks.

Now, if the IOC decided to start with a clean slate and begin including sports based on merit, by all means, I believe that MMA should be included. But the IOC is not going to do that.

Daniel

 

[Steve]

legionairre, the unified rules for MMA can be found online. These have been the de facto ruleset for all sanctioned USA events and most events overseas. Like in Boxing, there are exceptions, but again, like with Boxing, the rules are pretty consistent from promotion to promotion. These are the rules that most professional promotions use. Just do a quick google search and you'll run across them. Or just take a look here: NJ, back in about 2002/2003 was the first State to propose them and Nevada was the first State to sanction an event under them: http://www.state.nj.us/lps/sacb/docs/martial.html


Regarding the rest, I just can't understand what makes you think that a codified sport has to be something more than that in order to be in the Olympics. Your entire argument seems to boil down to an Olympic sport has to be Asian, more than 30 years old and liked by you. Weird criteria, if you ask me. Again, you're blatantly trolling the thread, and so far seem to be getting away with it.

 

[The Last Legionary]

Your comments show a distinct lack of knowledge and are intentionally inflamatory.

Yes, yes they are. My argument is this: "MMA" belongs in the Olympics as much as Paintball does. Actually, Paintball and Roller Derby both have more right to be in there as they are unique. MMA is just "boxing" combined with "wrestling", both of which already have their spots. Doesn't have to be "Asian" Steve. As to trolling, sure I am. I'm not a Gracie Nutrider Fan Boi, so I must be trolling. After all I'm against cuddlebudding for medals. The only reason you people want MMA in the Olympics is so you can finally be seen as a legitimate art, and not the "couldn't hack it in a real dojo" crowd. But of course I'm a troll. I'm off topic here, what was it again? Oh yeah "Should MMA be in the Olympics". Nope. Not off topic. Wait, maybe I'm not being respectful enough to the memory of Graciedom? Well, you gots me on that one as I don't consider them anything special. Ah, I must be trolling because I disagree with people and have actually pointed out very specific reasons why MMA doesn't belong. By my same argument, "Western Sword Fighting", SCA Larping and American Pro Football also doesn't belong in there. Neither does Iron Chef. UFC style belongs as much as WWE/TNA does. No scripted or predetermined sports-entertainment does.

So in conclusion, I say no to MMA. It doesn't belong, it doesn't deserve to, and it never will. Pfffft!

 

[MJS]

:drinkbeeropcorn: Well, this thread will probably implode shortly, so on that note, I'll just bow out, kick back and watch the show. I'll just go with what I said earlier...odds are, you'll never see it in the Olympics, given the fact that many people already have a distorted vision of what MMA is, some sort of change will probably have to be made, in addition to the current ruleset that we already see. OTOH, whats the worst that could happen if they did include it? Trial basis perhaps?

 

[The Last Legionary]

Reasons for MMA to NOT be included in the Olympics:

- Main components are wrestling and boxing. Both are already in the Olympics. Inclusion would be redundant.
- MMA already has an established amateur system, as well as professional coverage via UFC.
- Lack of a definite "MMA System". The only requirement for a technique to be considered an MMA Tech is "someone used it in a competitive fight".
- Low Standards.
- There are many requirements to be considered, including the existance of an international regulatory body and what percentage of countries practice that sport. MMA is NOT big outside of a few nations.
- American MMA fighters would get their asses beaten regularly by government funded brutes from Russia.
- The established MMA rulesets would have to be greatly dumbed down to meet Olympic safety guidelines. Hard to do a takedown right when you're wearing giant mittens.
- There are numerous other competitive arts that deserve a spot. Arts such as Paintball, Roller Derby, Laser Tag, and snowball fights to name a few. One could also argue that Kick Boxing and Muay Thai belong in there, however Female Boxing is supposed to be included in 2012, making it less likely either will qualify.

Also:
- Removing top current competitors from the UFC and similar pro leagues for the time period needed for them to heal and train to compete is unrealistic. Most will not go for the income cuts it would entail or the loss of limelight. Promoters will likewise be resistant to losing top drawing stars for PPV's.
- Politics. Sure am American wouldn't have a problem smacking another Yank around, but lets see you get the Brazilians to fight each other. I hear they don't like the idea, so you'd have a lot of quitters to contend with.
- The Promoters will lose millions. Put 2 top contenders like say, Silva and Lawler head to head in the Olympics. That's a big ticket pay out on PPV regardless of outcome, but you'll see it free on NBC. I don't think so Charlie.
- Can't limit it just to Amateurs. The Russians will field a competition team that ate, slept, and breathed training for 4 years, all subsidized at gov. expense. If the US sends wannabes, they'll get destroyed. Hey, it's hard to work out 8 hrs a day while flipping burgers to pay the rent.
- MMA has a reputation of being barbaric, blood and thuggery. MMA fights aren't legal in many US states. How can you field a team that can't even compete in half the country legally?

Chew on that if you will. I'm done. MMA will never be in the Olympics. Period.

 

[Steve]

Yes, yes they are. My argument is this: "MMA" belongs in the Olympics as much as Paintball does. Actually, Paintball and Roller Derby both have more right to be in there as they are unique. MMA is just "boxing" combined with "wrestling", both of which already have their spots. Doesn't have to be "Asian" Steve. As to trolling, sure I am. I'm not a Gracie Nutrider Fan Boi, so I must be trolling. After all I'm against cuddlebudding for medals. The only reason you people want MMA in the Olympics is so you can finally be seen as a legitimate art, and not the "couldn't hack it in a real dojo" crowd. But of course I'm a troll. I'm off topic here, what was it again? Oh yeah "Should MMA be in the Olympics". Nope. Not off topic. Wait, maybe I'm not being respectful enough to the memory of Graciedom? Well, you gots me on that one as I don't consider them anything special. Ah, I must be trolling because I disagree with people and have actually pointed out very specific reasons why MMA doesn't belong. By my same argument, "Western Sword Fighting", SCA Larping and American Pro Football also doesn't belong in there. Neither does Iron Chef. UFC style belongs as much as WWE/TNA does. No scripted or predetermined sports-entertainment does.

So in conclusion, I say no to MMA. It doesn't belong, it doesn't deserve to, and it never will. Pfffft!

More evidence that you haven't even read the thread in which you're trolling. Most people are against including MMA in the Olympics, just for... you know... actual, reasonable, rational reasons.

MMA is a sport that has participants from just about all over the globe. It's trained in the middle east, asia, europe, australia and the americas. The rules are codified. The promotions are successful. To suggest that it bears more of a resemblance to paintball than tai chi, kung fu or most karate styles is just you stirring the pot. I'm not sure what got into you, but you're blatantly violating the ToC and making no bones about it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

MMA fights aren't legal in many US states.

In NY, it's only allowed on indian reservations AFAIK.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Final Warning. Enough!