Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Image of MMA

  • 10-10-2009 10:47am
    #1
    Kent Brockman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭


    I noticed the terms 'bad for the good image of the sport', 'reflects badly on MMA', and many similar terms about the good or improving image of MMA coming up often on MMA forums.

    Does anyone actually believe that MMA has any sort of 'good name or image' to anyone outside of the MMA community??


Comments

  • #2
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Well considering the MMA community 10 years ago consisted of tape traders, to a global market today - I'd say it has made an impact. Regulation of the sport in the US helped it become mainstream (and I think it really is mainstream today - ask any kid who chuck liddell is and they will tell you). And with regulation, came a little more respect from sports journalists for the sport, who now give it a fair amount of broadcast time and respect.


  • #3
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    Kent Brockman wrote: »
    I noticed the terms 'bad for the good image of the sport', 'reflects badly on MMA', and many similar terms about the good or improving image of MMA coming up often on MMA forums.

    Does anyone actually believe that MMA has any sort of 'good name or image' to anyone outside of the MMA community??

    I take something which is 'bad for the good image of the sport', 'reflects badly on MMA' as being any act or behaviour which reinforces the views of people who are outside of the MMA community have about MMA.

    Often those terms though are used by self styled MMA elitists to describe anything which makes their sport more popular it seems.


  • #4
    Fozzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭Fozzy


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Well considering the MMA community 10 years ago consisted of tape traders, to a global market today - I'd say it has made an impact. Regulation of the sport in the US helped it become mainstream (and I think it really is mainstream today - ask any kid who chuck liddell is and they will tell you). And with regulation, came a little more respect from sports journalists for the sport, who now give it a fair amount of broadcast time and respect.

    I don't think that regulation had that much to do with achieving mainstream status, regulation was in place well before the UFC nearly went out of business. It's mostly down to Zuffa

    I don't really take stuff like "bad for the sport" seriously. It's an inherently violent sport and some people are never going to like it because of the violence and it will always have a bad image to them


  • #5
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fozzy wrote: »
    I don't think that regulation had that much to do with achieving mainstream status

    Of course it had a lot to do with achieving mainstream status.
    Fozzy wrote: »
    regulation was in place well before the UFC nearly went out of business.

    They are continuing to get sanctioned in states every year. You don't think the sanctioning of MMA in major fight states like CA and NY play a role in MMA's mainstream acceptance?

    Fozzy wrote: »
    It's mostly down to Zuffa

    Of course it is - But without sanctioning across the major states, and the regulation of the sport - they wouldn't have had a hope in hell. It's part-creativity on Zuffa's side, and part acceptance by virtue of it being regulated. Without regulation, the states that now sanction it would never have sanctioned it.


  • #6
    Fozzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭Fozzy


    I'm sure that regulation has helped Zuffa in achieving mainstream status, but if they hadn't come along then the sport just wouldn't be anywhere near as big right now

    The previous owners of the UFC had regulation in many states during their time in business but a lot of people would still argue that they were bad for the sport

    Regulation on its own didn't mean much in terms of mainstream status


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    drdeadlift
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,189 ✭✭✭drdeadlift


    MMA/UFC becoming mainstream was going to happen no matter what,there is enough loo la nut jobs that want to give it a try,,

    I wounder how big will it have become in 10-15 years time?


  • #8
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fozzy wrote: »
    I'm sure that regulation has helped Zuffa in achieving mainstream status, but if they hadn't come along then the sport just wouldn't be anywhere near as big right now

    It was huge in Japan without them. Zuffa did great work for promoting MMA in the Western world for sure. I never disputed this.
    Fozzy wrote: »
    The previous owners of the UFC had regulation in many states during their time in business but a lot of people would still argue that they were bad for the sport.

    No they didn't. It wasn't until the Zuffa takeover that they started getting sanctioned in the major states. Nevada, New Jersey and then later on - California. The unified rules was only drawn up when Zuffa controlled the company.
    Fozzy wrote: »
    Regulation on its own didn't mean much in terms of mainstream status

    Nobody said anything about regulation on it's own - But without regulation, UFC as a company would be dead.


  • #9
    wandy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 123 ✭✭wandy


    rovert wrote: »
    I take something which is 'bad for the good image of the sport', 'reflects badly on MMA' as being any act or behaviour which reinforces the views of people who are outside of the MMA community have about MMA.



    my thoughts exactly. well said


  • #10
    Fozzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭Fozzy


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No they didn't. It wasn't until the Zuffa takeover that they started getting sanctioned in the major states. Nevada, New Jersey and then later on - California. The unified rules was only drawn up when Zuffa controlled the company.

    According to Zuffa's version of history. The truth is that the Unified Rules were drawn up in 2000, before Zuffa bought the UFC


  • #11
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Fozzy wrote: »
    According to Zuffa's version of history. The truth is that the Unified Rules were drawn up in 2000, before Zuffa bought the UFC

    The unified rules were "implemented" in 2001, after Zuffa had bought out the UFC. It doesn't matter when they were written. Shortly after, the Fertittas had MMA sanctioned in Nevada - one of the biggest fight cities in the world.

    You're inability to concede the importance of sanctioning of MMA to aid it in becoming a mainstream sport is silly.

    Look - Without sanctioning of MMA in the US, the UFC wouldn't be worth 2 dollars right now. It would probably be in your interests to research how Zuffa bought the UFC for so little, and how it blew up so quickly. Sanctioning in Nevada is the answer. The forced a low sale with the fear of SEG not being able to sanction UFC.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Mellor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,902 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Kent Brockman wrote: »
    I noticed the terms 'bad for the good image of the sport', 'reflects badly on MMA', and many similar terms about the good or improving image of MMA coming up often on MMA forums.

    Does anyone actually believe that MMA has any sort of 'good name or image' to anyone outside of the MMA community??

    I'm actually surprised that there is a thread on this. I would of thought that it was quite obvious what the statements refer to and how MMA's image is affected.

    Example; If non-sanctioned fights were ran in a paticular location (Ireland for exemple) that were no holes bared, fight to the finish. There would be mass public outcry, and bad for the (legitimate side of the) sport.

    The closer it gets to a martial art, and the further away from brawling the better.


Advertisement