Mainstreaming MMA: How to Gain Acceptance among Public Skeptics

"People think our sport's more violent than boxing. Wrong! They're weirded out because it goes to the ground. We grew up with John Wayne movies—you don't hit a man when he's down. It's un-American! John Wayne would deck a guy, stand him back up and hit him again. So when Americans first watch UFC—one guy's on top of the other, hitting him when he's down—they say, 'Oh God, he can't defend himself!' It's not like that in Asia, where they've been doing martial arts since the samurai days." – UFC President, Dana White

Loving and Hating Violence

As Dana White points out in the above quote, Americans simultaneously hold deep a fascination with and disdain for fighting.  And frankly, this conflicting perspective is not unique to the United States.  Across the globe, cultures struggle to balance a craving for violence while knowing full well that once the violence surpasses a nebulous moral threshold, it becomes tagged one of society’s great evils. 

Such is often the case with MMA for skeptic viewers and critics, who tend to quickly and unfairly characterize the sport without objectivity or evidence-based criticism.  In some cases, the criticism stems from sports journalists (see Bryan Burwell, 4 June 2008, NBC Sports), and in other cases it comes from general news outlets, including those that frequently sensationalize stories and rhetoric (see The O’Reilly Factor, 6 June 2008). 

Irrespective of the source, the fact that MMA continues to endure a disproportionate level of criticism relative to other sports indicates that it is not nearly as mainstreamed as much of the hardcore MMA fan-base thinks.  When I was interviewed by Luke Thomas of BloodyElbow.com earlier this month, he asked me why so much of our populace abhorred MMA but was uncritical of other collision sports (e.g., hockey, football) and sports that have a documented history of abusive coaching practices (e.g., gymnastics). 

I believe the answer lies in MMA being the closest sport to the complete act of fighting.  Think about football, which is without question one of the most physically dangerous sports in the world.  Despite the inherent and fairly common physical risks that come with playing football (concussions, torn ACL’s, joint injuries), physical fights are outlawed.  It is perfectly legal, even celebrated, when a 190lb wide receiver runs full speed over the middle and is blindsided by a 220lb linebacker, rendering the receiver dazed and possibly injured.  Football players, coaches, and fans crave those highlights. 

However, if two fully padded football players fight, a penalty and possibly ejection’s are immanent.  This seems odd given that de-cleating an unprepared player is far more dangerous physically than punching someone in the helmet.  Even in hockey, a sport that ritualizes fighting, fights still draw penalties. 

Uninhibited Fighting is Taboo

In other words, fighting is a social taboo, and being taboo, we are concurrently dawn to and repulsed by it.  Thus, while sports fans blindly applaud vicious and dangerous collisions in football and hockey, some of those same fans cringe when fights transpire that appear uninhibited.  And this is what makes MMA so much different from virtually any other form of fighting (sporting or non-sporting).  It appears to be uninhibited. 

Fights almost never last very long and normally involve some type of intervention.  We see fights occur in professional sports competitions aired over and over on ESPN’s SportsCenter.  But how many of these fights last more than 10-20 seconds?  Not too many.  Padding and/or quick intervention minimizes the damage professional athletes sustain when fights break out.  Although there are occasional exceptions, when fights transpire in football, hockey, basketball, baseball, and so on, players are rarely even hurt because the fighting is inhibited. 

Think about bar fights.  Again, most don’t last more than a few seconds before friends, random patrons, or security break them up.  Most people who get excited about a quick scuffle would not want to see one person in a bar beat down on another repeatedly for a five-minute period, completely uninhibited.  That’s when the violence surpasses a moral threshold and becomes taboo.  And that is what critics see in MMA – uninhibited fighting. 

Ostensibly, MMA could very well remind viewers of fighting that occurs not only on the street, but also at schools, or in the home, where violence much more easily transpires without intervention.  MMA evokes memories to fledgling viewers of the uninhibited, merciless violence portrayed in movies like Fight Club.  Furthermore, fights in these domains involve intent to harm.  Conversely, at least within the rule set of most sports, intent to harm is illegal.  In MMA, inflicting physical harm (though not injury) is the primary objective.  Hence, it crosses many people’s moral threshold. 

We know behind locker room doors, some football coaches and players advocate injuring opponents, but it is not within the sport’s rule set.  In boxing, there is also intent to harm, but would-be critics are more likely to tolerate boxing thinking inaccurately that the gloves protect one’s head (they are actually meant to protect the combatants’ hands).  Again, what critics are appalled by is their misperception of uninhibited violence in MMA. 

Active Education

Given MMA critics’ misunderstanding that MMA is uninhibited fighting, it is critical that MMA leadership begin taking steps in “active education,” which means initiating efforts in education.  Defendants of MMA are just that, always on the defense.  Very few organizations or individual leaders are taking the initiative to dispel myths about MMA and its participants. 

Back when the IFL was in full swing, Bas Rutten made a public service announcement (PSA) distinguishing MMA as a sporting competition distinctly different from street fighting.  Aside from this, nationally-based PSAs in MMA are essentially non-existent.  Think about how effective it would be if Gina Carano and Kimbo Slice made the following statements via a pre-recorded PSA during the next EliteXC card on CBS: 

Carano: Hi, I’m Gina Carano. 

Slice: And I’m Kimbo Slice. 

Carano: Every year, about one in every ten women involved in a romantic relationship is physically abused by a male partner. 

Slice: And in a given year, over five million Americans report being a victim of a violent crime. 

Carano: We at EliteXC strongly stand against any form of illegal violence, whether it be on the street, school, or in the home. 

Slice: As many of you may know, I used to engage in backyard street fights.  Now I only fight in sanctioned mixed martial arts and train in a responsible gym that doesn’t tolerate any violence outside of our sport. 

Carano: As mixed martial artists, we know that we compete in a violent sport, but we also know the risks of our sport.  And as trained athletes, we’re able to minimize the risks we take while in competition.  And none of us want to injure our opponents. 

Slice: If you want to do what we do, or just get in a good, fun workout, find a responsible mixed martial arts gym and try a beginner’s class. 

Carano: But never take mixed martial arts into the street, school, or home. 

Slice: MMA is a sport.  Let’s keep it that way. 

A short PSA like that would not take much time or financial resources.  It would do wonders for MMA’s reputation.  Ethically it is the right thing to do in terms of sending nonviolent messages to viewers.  And finally, it is accurate in that MMA is nowhere near the same thing as street fighting despite much of the public’s perception. 

Furthermore, there are numerous mixed martial artists out there who believe in such ideals, including very prominent ones.  Georges St. Pierre has made statements that denounce street fighting and expressed his desire to use MMA as a medium to help at-risk youth.  Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira and Anderson Silva have stated that they hope their MMA Academy in Florida can benefit underprivileged youth.  MMA coaches can contribute to these efforts as well (see here).  Why can’t the UFC work with these fighters (notably, all of whom are current champions) to produce short PSA’s to be aired on Spike TV and pay-per-view broadcasts so these positive messages don’t fly under the public’s radar? 

MMA organizations should also be initiating active education on the sporting safety.  Rather than continuously responding to the incessant criticisms that taint MMA as the most dangerous sport, why not produce brief educational pieces that clearly explain why grappling and the ability to take down an opponent minimize head trauma?  The sight of blood is often noted as “evidence” that MMA is horrifically dangerous.  Have a team of respected medical doctors explain that facial lacerations cause virtually no long-term health risks, especially as compared to injuries more common in other accepted sports (e.g., concussions and torn ACL’s in football and women’s basketball/soccer). 

There is no logical reason for MMA organizations and individual leaders not to carry out such efforts.  It certainly would not hurt business.  No, not every fighter needs to or should be a spokesperson on these types of issues, but seeing a few athletes and organizations take more initiative would be nice, and when it comes to MMA’s long-term growth, it is necessary. 

***

David Mayeda, PhD, is lead author of Fighting for Acceptance: Mixed Martial Artists and Violence in American Society, the first political book on mixed martial arts that attempts to reform the sport by increasing violence prevention measures, based on interviews with forty mixed martial artists, including Randy Couture, Dan Henderson, Guy Mezger, Antonio McKee, Chris Leben, "Rampage" Jackson, "Mayhem" Miller, Travis Lutter, and Frank Trigg. Dr. Mayeda has also published numerous academic journal articles on youth violence prevention and discrimination in sports media.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites