No. It’s horrible.
1 Like
There is probably a difference in the quality of enjoyment men and women derive from watching and participating in fights. However, with the burgeoning industry of women’s MMA, stars such as Rhonda Rousey, Meisha Tate et al are fast becoming super stars in their own right.
Which has led me to believe that qualitative difference is probably informed by environment as much as genetics.
Women may not share the same ‘natural’ bloodlust as men, but bygods, they can sure fight if they put their minds to it.
The most surprising thing, I find, about women fighting is that they tend (along with most other sports that include some aspect of physical competition) to rely more on technique and consequently, have more competitive fights (overall). In the world of fighting as entertainment, this is a very good thing.
It’s the techniques which draw the oohs and ahs from the crowd, when it’s not just a slug fest, which can often devolve into an ugly brawl.
I have to admit, I have penchant for the brawls, but the elevation of women’s MMA is certainly escalated through their requirement to focus more on technique. They (mostly) can’t just rely on brute physical force; although there are, of course, exceptions to this rule.
Compare Rhonda Rousey, a medalled, olympic Judoka turned world champion with the wrecking machine that is Cristiane “Cyborg” Justino.
I haven’t seen or read HG, but the Battle Royale novel (which inspired the film and manga) is a lot deeper and more introspective than the movie. The setting is a totalitarian state à la 1984 and there are glimpses of life in that environment through the protagonists’ memories. Also, there are in-depth explorations of many of the students lives and experiences that help explain how they each react to the extreme situation. It is nowhere near as exploitative as the film or comic (the comic has its strong points but, boy, did it amp up the sex to a grotesque level).
1 Like
Dude. Bro! Watch the Mark Hunt Vs Antonio ‘Bigfoot’ Silva fight. My jaw was literally on the floor. UFC Fight Night 33.
It can’t have been healthy for them but… woweee. That fight is probably a very specific line in the sand. If you are not sure where you stand on the subject, that fight will probably tell you.
Made all the more complex because Bigfoot was popped for super-elevated testosterone levels after the fight. One of the contributing factors that led to the commissions eventually banning Testosterone Replacement Therapy in MMA.
But that’s a whole nuther debate right there.
1 Like
Ah. My bad. I thought you were attacking me because you were, you know, a jerk. But it was actually because I (being a stupid dumb-dumb) failed to realise that your blanket absolute statement about the views of all doctors really refered to most, (or at least, like, a hella lot) of doctors feeling that boxing should be banned. Or changed. Or something. Right then. I guess the ad hominem was entirely justified. Carry on.
3 Likes
1 Like
Nods.
I’d also offer the continuing existence of Mick Foley as evidence of Homer Simpson Syndrome.
2 Likes
Why, I could wallop you all day with this surgical 2x4 without ever knocking you down…
But I have other appointments
I recall Dr. Hibbert sounding very disappointed about having other appointments.
2 Likes
Deliberately doing something you know will result in injuring someone is no different than deliberately injuring someone. Pretending it is is just moral cowardice.
And that’s ignoring the fact that in boxing injuries are accidents that result from trying to score points with clean hits, in the same way that in football injuries are the result of trying to end a play by tackling.
So, it’s police state oppression if the government stops you from voluntarily killing your brain with drugs, but it would be righteous and good for the government to stop you voluntarily killing your brain with boxing. Right?
This post is astoundingly incoherent even for BoingBoing.
2 Likes
Might I point you to roller derby? My friend plays it, and it’s fucking terrifying if you ask me. She has, actually, really, maimed someone during a game.
1 Like
Our neighbour is a Rat City Rollergirl. I’ve thought about going before, just never got around to it.
1 Like
Yeah but it’s consenting adults that don’t mind being injured by someone else.
Tying up, gagging, whipping, and penetrating someone with various objects could be horrible sexual abuse - or a night of good fun. Depends on the context and whether such actions were wanted and consented by.
1 Like
Ingesting pot every once in awhile, or even, you know, regularly =/= voluntarily killing your brain with drugs. Do some research.
Hell, there’s more chance of doing that with regular ingestion of that which “the government” is all too happy to let people imbibe all they like – alcohol.
2 Likes
I bet their wives and family members mind being injured/abused later in life by pain-ridden, brain-damaged husbands and fathers. Or dealing with disabled husbands and fathers. And yeah, thanks in part to damages wrought by boxing (and of course, other factors), that often happens to wives and family members, without their consent.
3 Likes
I’d say that’s exactly the problem: sooner or later, almost any activity is “bad” for you. And the majority of people who are against something are usually far from rational in their opposition to it.
Maybe you forget, but the govt already attempted to outlaw that whole liquor fad. How’d that work out for everyone?
Today the hysterical temperance-mentality is still pretty common, whether it’s the anti-smoking brigades who say that smoking a cigarette on Pluto kills 50,000 babies a year. Or the anti-pot crazies who think it leads to heroin and prostitution and murder sprees.
How about we let consenting adults partake in activities they choose to be a part of, whether it’s boxing or pot or running or any other myriad list of potentially harmful activities? Or you know, we can pass yet another law based on specious majority-influenced, moral-judgement grounds.
Laws clearly always fix everything.
1 Like
Hmm. Did I write something about outlawing boxing??
Yes the original MMA without gloves often ended when someone was able to land a half dozen bare knuckle jabs, none of which were knockout blows… Considering that those guys were old school and probably toughened their bare hands by punching boards, blows that would have gone unnoticed in boxing reduced their opponent to a quivering mess.
Agreed. I liked Hunger Games, but Battle Royale, the book, is one of my faves. I think in Hunger Games it kind of… cheaps out, the character is thrown in this horrible situation but we never really have to face it, most of the other kids are easy villains, most of whom get killed off-screen with barely even a description of them given in the whole book. Battle Royale really hits him the idea that these are kids with their own lives, all of whom are star of their own story in their minds, and mostly just trying to do the best thing in a messed up situation (or, some of them, saying $#@! it, I choose me over everyone else).
Honestly, boxing (and other sports, even some of the less-brutal-but-still-dangerous ones like football) itself bothers me less than the industry. If two people want to beat the hell out of each other to prove their warrior spirit or whatever, by all means. That’s stupid, but people have the right to be stupid. The people who pay them $500 to do it while making $10000, that is sociopathic and predatory. So you end up with people who get used up, having destroyed their bodies for paychecks they needed at the time and must deal with that for the rest of their life without much money to support themselves on (unless they’re the .01% of megastars), and the people who got rich off them just find another young, dumb, eager competitor to make the same deal.
Ideally, I’d like some sort of law like “at least 50% of all profits (including gambling profits, advertising revenue, etc) must go directly to the competitors,” but that’s never going to happen.
4 Likes
