Anyone watch the dog brothers on TV3 last night

Martin25 · 05-07-2008 01:38PM

There are female fighters as well

Scramble · 05-07-2008 03:39PM

Yep, they give females that fight at the gatherings the designation 'cat' as opposed to 'dog'. (Seriously)

I don't think it's that surprising that females participate as well as guys. If women train and enjoy MMA, then I don't think this is significantly different.

From what I take from these guys, my impression is that it isn't just about machismo (although sure, whose to say for a few guys maybe it is... just like in other martial arts). It seems to have started off as them taking their conventional FMA training and just wanting to know if it actually did what it said on the tin. Then they realised they had a format for testing themselves and obviously they liked what happened when they started doing that. If you watch the clips a lot of them are professionals, cops etc. they don't strike me as meatheads just doing it for the self-harm.

DeVore · 05-07-2008 05:01PM

I certainly dont want to give the idea that I think they are meatheads into self harm. My comments were in response to the "thought experiment" of replacing the sticks with sharp weapons, which significantly ups the ante!

DeV.

Yilmaz · 05-07-2008 08:45PM

I thought the programme was interesting enough. I wouldn't fancy it myself but if the fighters are of sound mind and know what's involved I wouldn't disagree with their choice to do it.

Odysseus · 06-07-2008 01:58AM

Nothingcompares wrote: »

The dog brothers thing is more along the lines of NHB VT rather than MMA. MMA is a sport, it's fighting but it's a sport with rules and procedure rather than gentlemanly agreements. I don't condone this type of meet up nor do I condone other extreme hobbys like 200km marathons or sky diving - just reckless endangerment.

Hope I'm not going to far off topic but as an ultra runner and somebody who has had a full malfunction whilst jumping a few years back [I'm not a excellent jumper] but still considerd safe. When it turned bad I was able to follow the required procedure.

I just can't contemplate how you would consider such activities to be reckless. I had a bad run less than two week ago I finished but it took alot for the last 40k the event medic drove beside me at least 6-7 times checking I was fit to continue, nothing reckless there.

Nothingcompares · 06-07-2008 02:14AM

Reckless because I don't think there is anything to gain by ultra running only things to lose (it's not unusual for people to have heart attacks while running regular marathons). Obviously there is personal gain but that's another matter.

Odysseus · 06-07-2008 02:48AM

I ran with a man in his seventies a few times, had done over 500 ultra still running and still a lot fitter than alot of men in his seventies. I know one doctor who connects marathons with heart attacks but to the best of my knowledge they are rare. As far as I know 2 people have died in marathon in Ireland. Last year over 10,000 ran in Dublin alone, for the most part unless your a professional in your sport aren't all our sporting endeavours for personal gain, even the dog brothers.

Cheers for your reply but clearly as a ultra runner I would disaggre, I would say its like getting involved in stuff like the dog brothers and one the person possesses the ability to do so, its an informed choice rather than reckless endagerment.

DeVore · 06-07-2008 10:23AM

Surely its a sliding scale?

I was a snowboarder for many years and have done myself a number of "mischiefs" including a snapped femur and compressed vertibrae. While I would love to irradicate those times of pain, I wouldnt be so quick to do so if it meant losing the memories of standing on top a mountain and realising my place in the universe.

All activities carry danger, all life is risk I guess. The line is drawn by each person individually and I would draw my line well before the Dog Bros sort of activity, but they have their own lines and they arent hurting anyone who isnt fully informed it seems.

DeV.

Dave Joyce · 10-07-2008 09:27PM

replace sticks with live blades and does your stance change?

What is you motovation in asking a question like this???

Nothingcompares · 11-07-2008 02:38AM

Dave Joyce wrote: »

What is you motovation in asking a question like this???

My motivation was to see a better understanding of the basis of devore's (and using him as proxy, other people's) opinions on the subject of reckless body endangerment.

crokester · 11-07-2008 03:04AM

Nothingcompares wrote: »

My motivation was to see a better understanding of the basis of devore's (and using him as proxy, other people's) opinions on the subject of reckless body endangerment.

Kev. Uve got to be kidding!? "Reckless bodily endangerment?" A stick is as hard as an elbow, a knee, or a shin; all of which are planted at great speed on guys heads and faces in an MMA or MT fight.

SorGan · 11-07-2008 06:24PM

crokester wrote: »

Kev. Uve got to be kidding!? "Reckless bodily endangerment?" A stick is as hard as an elbow, a knee, or a shin; all of which are planted at great speed on guys heads and faces in an MMA or MT fight.

rattan sticks are not as hard as an elbow, but more a heavy bamboo.
bloody hurt though.:)

DeVore · 12-07-2008 03:34PM

I think its an interesting topic about the right of self-determination and the level of acceptible risk. From what I can see the Dog Bros are at the top of my comfort zone and probably a bit past it but I would be annoyed if anyone told me I couldnt go Snowboarding or rock-climbing.

However, I dont have children or a wife so I dont have "dependants". When you throw them into the mix, it gets a little more complex. I would still go snowboarding but I would have to say that anyone who recklessly endangered themselves when they are committed to being part of a co-dependant social group are just selfish asses imho. Its one of the reasons I DONT have a family in fact.

In MMA I think its a relatively safe sport believe it or not. Its pretty hard to do serious damage to a trained fighter before any referee worth his salt would stop the fight. For example, I would lay money that being a yachtsman is statistically a lot more dangerous then being an MMA fighter.

Risk is a graduate scale, everyone has their cut off point. I just think that we are too quick to enforce our points on others sometimes.

DeV.

DeVore · 12-07-2008 03:44PM

crokester wrote: »

Kev. Uve got to be kidding!? "Reckless bodily endangerment?" A stick is as hard as an elbow, a knee, or a shin; all of which are planted at great speed on guys heads and faces in an MMA or MT fight.

Yes, but thats why he upped the ante to swords, to test the "edge cases" so to speak. To find out where my support for self-determination would falter. Its a "thought experiement" (I hope!).

If I had changed my mind for swords or my argument became obviously untenable, then we would know that there is some difference between sticks and swords, a sea-change if you like, which would be worth investigation. As it happens, it hasn't really changed anything which in itself is a revelation!

DeV.

12-07-2008 05:12PM

Perception is an amazing thing. I don't get much of a chance to train MMA these days, training rugby instead, but before any kind of MMA league fight I'd be really nervous. Even when I saw say one minor injury out of 60-70 fights.

In contrast I'm cool as a cucumber before rugby matches. Now this season alone I've seen some horrific rugby injuries: broken legs, broken arms, chipped elbows, dislocated knees and so on. Yet I wouldn't hesitate about playing rugby next season.

JK came down to one of our training sessions and I put it to him that I wouldn't think twice about playing a season of 80 minute rugby games on two months training yet I wouldn't accept a fight on 3 months training. I've seen few injuries over 7 years of martial arts training and plenty playing rugby. So the real question is whether it's risk of injury we actually fear?

I would argue that the real fear is one of humiliation. It's easy to get lost in one of 30 players over 80 minutes but you alone standing just as yourself with nobody else to rely on - that's tough. There are no excuses. No bravado. Just bringing what you have with no hiding. The situation is (necessarily) real enough to bring the real you out. I think this is true of any worthwhile combat sport. Maybe this is true for any solo sports.

The difference I suppose with combat sports is that they're a great forum for people to deal with their natural aggressive competitiveness and learn to deal with their "monkey smash other monkey" instincts.

I'd agree with DeVore in terms of being quite libertarian about people's rights to do whatever (knives, swords, whips, tridents). I find it a lot healthier to see people participating in something honest and upfront like the Dog Brothers than doing something rife with self-delusion and fantasy like a lot of martial arts training.

You might question however in a society where people are supported by each other (financially) whether people have the right to risk burdening a society with injuries obtained in extreme personal development but I think that's a whole other argument.

Dave Joyce · 13-07-2008 08:55PM

I'm just back from a few days away with the family so I couldn't reply till now. The DB's stuff might look bad but AFAIK there has been no very serious injuries particularly when you consider what they do. If you look at the prison warden who had a back injury and came out unscathed and the fact that when someone is pretty much out of it, fights get stopped pretty quick, I think peoples chances of getting seriously hurt are very small.

So the real question is whether it's risk of injury we actually fear?

Good question. I played a lot of rugby in my youth and my son plays now which has really rekindled my interest but looking at senior rugby nowadays I'm inclinded to go Fuvk That!! too much chance of been injured BUT the amount of guys I train that have NEVER been injured in MA but have suffered fairly bad injuries in GAA, rugby soccer etc.

Kent Brockman · 14-07-2008 01:02PM

I would argue that the real fear is one of humiliation. It's easy to get lost in one of 30 players over 80 minutes but you alone standing just as yourself with nobody else to rely on - that's tough. There are no excuses. No bravado. Just bringing what you have with no hiding. The situation is (necessarily) real enough to bring the real you out. I think this is true of any worthwhile combat sport. Maybe this is true for any solo sports.

Its probably due more to the fact that your opponents objective is to inflict as much damage on you as he can by pounding on your head, bending your limbs and choking you:rolleyes: in MMA.

In rugby the objective is to score more points than the opposition, so there is not the same worry about getting hurt.Same imo would apply to all one on one non-combat sports.
I would chance my arm against the world champ in tennis, pool, snooker,chess etc,etc and even play have a kick around with world class footballers (and be proud to do it), and get totally hammered with out any fear or even thoughts of getting hurt----But there is no way I would get in a cage to fight with even a novice!

14-07-2008 01:24PM

Objective aside, I risk considerably more physically playing rugby now than I did fighting in the MMA league and yet I know which one would scare me more...

In terms of injuries per man hour rugby is way higher than MMA or even the dog brothers. This is true across the senior levels. Also with MMA you can tap to a choke or armbar or oma plata- it's acceptable and understood. You can't tap out of a double hit or being at the bottom of a ruck.

Anyway I know fine well how tough MMA is as a sport- what I'm arguing is that with the dog brothers for all the ferocity your risk of injury isn't necessarily what's scary. It's more likely to be the fear of putting your ego on the line and coming up short in front of all those people (and yourself). I have enormous respect for the DBs a bunch of guys who make no excuses and hide behind nothing.

Anyone watch the dog brothers on TV3 last night

Comments