The long-term effects on UFC athletes (most of whom are throw-away, and will never be known) is going to make boxing look like handbags at twenty paces.
Admitting the technical and athletic virtuosity of many of the participants, and the honorable nature of many of the fights, it is a disgustingly violent sport.
I'm not a fan of either boxing or UFC, but from what I can tell, boxers take far more headshots, while UFC fighters are hit elsewhere more, and can get other injuries -- e.g., armbars can break arms and tear ligaments (http://www.mma-training.com/arm-bar/). While I'd rather not get any longterm injuries, CTE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopat...) is far scarier to me than most longterm effects I can think of UFC fighters getting.
Hellll no. The addition of grappling / submission as a way to end a fight actually makes mma much safer on the whole than boxing. Striking takes less precedence in mma and becomes more situational. Many fights are won with armbars or similar submissions, which are much, much less traumatic long-term than sustaining nothing but blows to the head in every fight. Additionally i'd argue mma referees are more conservative than boxing refs, stopping fights earlier and being quicker to prevent injury. I can't overstate how fucking brutal boxing is, how many fights i've seen where the ref takes far too long to end the fight. When you talk about people like george foreman, or even a newer boxer like gennady golovkin, these are much more powerful strikers than anyone in mma. George foreman, despite being a good person, probably gave several people brain damage throughout his career. Boxing might not look as flashily violent but it's MUCH worse for the athletes long-term.
I disagree. I can't think of a single sport where the athletes aren't throw-away. That's what sports do. They suck the livelyhood out of their competitors for the pleasure of spectators.
American Football leaves people broken physically and mentally. Boxing causes a slow-building brain damage that leaves legends like Ali a shaking, stuttering mess until their dying day. You're only wanted in Basketball until your knee gives out.
Injuries are career-ending for any athlete, in any sport. I personally find Hockey more "disgustingly violent" than the UFC.
Do you see a moral difference between violence-as-a-byproduct of a goal and violence-as-the-goal? If not, do you see how someone else might? Are you familiar with the tu quoque fallacy?
I will of course not convince you of much via a HN comment thread, this is for the others.
>Do you see a moral difference between violence-as-a-byproduct of a goal and violence-as-the-goal
Yes. I just don't think it applies to the UFC. Violence is not the goal of the UFC. It isn't a bloodsport, it isn't cockfighting. Moral arguments hold no water with me in regards to the UFC.
If you tune in to the UFC just to watch someone get the shit kicked out of them, you're missing the point entirely.
Personally, I watch the UFC to see two athletes of equal skill compete in what I consider a sport. Many fights end with zero blood. Some fights end in seconds. Blood is a very much a by-product IMO, not the end goal.
I think its disingenuous at best to say this is the reason most people watch NASCAR... I only know a few die hard NASCAR fans myself, but they are far more interested in the technical skills of the drivers than seeing someone potentially harmed for a little fireworks show.
Actually, I disagree with this statement, because it conflates UFC and MMA incorrectly.
Unified MMA rules make MMA much safer than boxing. In Boxing, there is a mandatory-8 count rule, which can allow boxer to regain their composure post knockout, which is more dangerous than in MMA, where the ref will stop the fight as soon as the fighter can no longer intelligently defend themselves.
My understanding about CTE, is it's the repeated blows to the head, post concussion that causes brain damage. In the UFC, refs will stop the fight to prevent further trauma. In Boxing, fighters will continue to fight, despite suffering a knock-down.
re: UFC vs MMA:
For the UFC's part, once a fighter has amassed a few knock-out losses, they typically are removed from the promotion.
Outside of the US, the rules and safety for fighters is far more suspect (like classif Saku fights where he is nearly knocked unconscious and is allowed to regain his composure and win.
I totally disagree. Most boxing orgs have a 3 knockdown rule. You can be knocked down twice in each round and still continue. That means, you could get 2 concussions per round, until the end of the fight.
The UFC stops the fight when you are unable to defend yourself. That usually means you can only get one concussion per fight. They are much more rare, however, than that.
Also, you can look at the number of deaths per year in each sport. Boxing has around 10 per year. The UFC has never had a death, but MMA has had a few, over the last few years.
The quick stoppages are key to the UFC being less damaging to the athletes than boxing.
> The UFC stops the fight when you are unable to defend yourself.
Don't boxing refs stop the fight when they think the fighter can't continue (e.g. can't answer/focus)? I'm pretty sure I've seen that.
> Also, you can look at the number of deaths per year in each sport. Boxing has around 10 per year. The UFC has never had a death, but MMA has had a few, over the last few years.
Boxing is equivalent to MMA, not the UFC. I think people on both sides of this particular point aren't being very clear on the distinctions unless it's beneficial to their specific point.
> Don't boxing refs stop the fight when they think the fighter can't continue (e.g. can't answer/focus)? I'm pretty sure I've seen that.
Yes they do. However the important difference is that they allow you 10 seconds to recover. In MMA when you get dazed the fight is usually over because you don't get a chance to recover. IIRC your brain is more vulnerable directly after a concussion.
I'm pretty sure that depends on what organization they are fighting with and the specific rules. It's not hard to find articles about controversy when a referee stops a fight[1]. In the linked case, there was no count, nor even a knockdown. Obviously there are cases, at least in some boxing organizations, in which a ref can stop a fight without a full count.
Boxing is much more dangerous, you have to beat your opponent senseless for 12 rounds in the UFC there is a submission option to win the match instead of only strikes. Just check CompuBox stats for a 12 round match with hundreds of "power" strikes landed VS stats for a UFC 5 or 3 round match.
Do you have any evidence for that? Many MMA proponents claim that the long term effects should be less severe than boxing, because their fights generally involve less repeated head trauma.
I don't know enough about the issue to argue one way or another, but I find it a plausible argument.
Admitting the technical and athletic virtuosity of many of the participants, and the honorable nature of many of the fights, it is a disgustingly violent sport.