Author: James MacDonald

UFC 159: Dispelling the Myth of Michael Bisping the Point Fighter

As UFC 159 approaches, the myth that Michael Bisping has all the punching power of an atomweight suffering from muscular dystrophy continues unabated, reinforced by those who simply don’t know any better. It’s difficult to determine whence …

As UFC 159 approaches, the myth that Michael Bisping has all the punching power of an atomweight suffering from muscular dystrophy continues unabated, reinforced by those who simply don’t know any better.

It’s difficult to determine whence this particularly robust fable originated, but its perpetuation is perhaps an even greater mystery.

During an interview with Ariel Helwani yesterday, Alan Belcher mocked the notion that he is in any way intimidated by Michael Bisping:

“He’s the least intimidating person in the world…He doesn’t hit hard and he wins by decision almost every single time.”

While that statement isn’t even remotely true, one can almost forgive Belcher for thinking that he has accurately summed up the Brit’s career. After all, it seems to be the popular view within the MMA community.

What’s the reality, I hear you enquire? I thought you’d never ask.

The reality is that Bisping has won 18 of his 23 MMA fights via stoppage, 14 of which were by TKO/KO.

This fact will no doubt come as a surprise to many of you. However, you may choose to rationalise your misconception by arguing that Bisping is, like Nick Diaz, simply a very effective volume-puncher.

The TUF season three winner doesn’t exactly carry the power of Shane Carwin, but nor is he the middleweight equivalent of Dominick Cruz.

Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that Bisping boasts considerable firepower. I’ll allow Chael Sonnen, a former opponent, to elaborate:

Michael Bisping hit me so hard in the first round I didn’t even know what day it was… I remember when I came to, looking at him and thinking, ‘Oh my god you have no idea how bad you hurt me or you’d step in and do something about it.’

That’s quite an endorsement of the Brit’s power when you consider that it comes from a man who, until he fought Anderson Silva for the second time, had never truly been stopped by strikes.

Dan Henderson, another former opponent of Bisping‘s, had the following to say about the myth that his former foe can’t bust a grape:

“Don’t believe the stuff about Bisping not being able to punch. He hits hard.”

With those quotes in mind, it seems hugely unfair that “The Count” is viewed as a point fighter by the majority of the sport’s fans.

Here’s a thought. The next time some oblivious fan claims that Michael Bisping has no power or that he typically tries to win by decision, consider acquainting him with the facts.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com

UFC on Fox 7: 5 Pointless Observations

UFC on Fox 7 is now in the books and there is no shortage of important storylines to follow in the aftermath of last night’s entertainment. Will Daniel Cormier drop down to light heavyweight? Will T.J. Grant or Gray Maynard get the next shot at B…

UFC on Fox 7 is now in the books and there is no shortage of important storylines to follow in the aftermath of last night’s entertainment.

Will Daniel Cormier drop down to light heavyweight? Will T.J. Grant or Gray Maynard get the next shot at Benson Henderson? Is Frank Mir finished as a top-tier UFC heavyweight?

However, I’m going to leave it to my distinguished colleagues to do the heavy lifting and sift through the rubble of consequential carnage.

For a little change of pace, I am going to discuss some of the less consequential aspects of UFC on Fox 7. So don’t expect what follows to be a serious post-mortem of last night’s events.

Here are my five pointless observations from UFC on Fox 7.

Begin Slideshow

MMA: Debunking the Myth of the K-1 Level Striker in Mixed Martial Arts

If there is a pugilistic hierarchy within MMA, the “K-1 level striker” is perceived to be at its pinnacle. The idea that there is a qualitative distinction between “MMA strikers” and “K-1 strikers” is a meme that can…

If there is a pugilistic hierarchy within MMA, the “K-1 level striker” is perceived to be at its pinnacle.

The idea that there is a qualitative distinction between “MMA strikers” and “K-1 strikers” is a meme that can arguably be attributed to Joe Rogan, who has repeatedly endorsed this alleged division of striking talent during numerous UFC broadcasts.

Indeed, the pugilistic prowess—using the term “pugilism” in a more modern sense—of anyone who has even so much as attended a K-1 Grand Prix as part of the catering staff is likely to be embellished to the point of farce.

And if Alistair Overeem is competing inside the cage? Fuhgeddaboutit. Unless he happens to be fighting the resurrected corpse of Bruce Lee, one can expect the striking credentials of his opponent to be buried beneath a mountain of hyperbolic praise for the Dutchman.

Then again, within the context of the current combat landscape, the traditional conception of a “K-1 level striker” is now a total non-sequitur, since an aging Mirko “Cro Cop” is the current standard-bearer for the floundering organisation.

Going forward, we can probably expect the likes of Tyrone Spong and Alistair Overeem to be described as “Glory-level strikers” by analysts keen to highlight the perceived disparity in striking talent.

There is a superficial truth to the perception that MMA striking is generally inferior to what we might see in Glory. For example, if Cain Velasquez decided to compete in professional kickboxing, he probably wouldn’t be contending for titles.

But to view matters in such simplistic terms is a mistake. With the addition of the grappling arts, the nature of the striking game is fundamentally altered.

What works in a pure boxing or kickboxing contest may disadvantage you in an MMA bout. To illustrate this point, let’s look at some of the subtle differences in the stances utilised in each sport.

Speaking generally, boxers tend to employ a narrower stance than either kickboxers or mixed martial artists. Kickboxers tend to stand slightly squarer than boxers, while mixed martial artists stand squarer still—again, this is a very general analysis.

There are a number of reasons for these subtle differences. For example, a narrow stance has the advantage of creating a smaller target. However, it also inhibits one’s ability to sprawl effectively—an obvious disadvantage in MMA.

In truth, mixed martial artists are forced to be much more well-rounded in their striking than either boxers or kickboxers, simply because there are so many different styles they must be prepared to face.

Against a fighter like Tyrone Spong, it might be possible to get away with a narrow stance, since the idea of him shooting a power-double is almost comical. But employing that same style against GSP is likely to get you put on your backside in a hurry.

The point is that we cannot assess the standard of MMA striking in isolation from these salient contextual factors any more than we can judge the quality of MMA wrestling without factoring in the inclusion of striking and submissions.

Is Tyrone Spong a better striker than Cain Velasquez? Is Josh Koscheck a better wrestler than Georges St-Pierre?

Strictly speaking, the answer to both questions is a resounding “Yes.” But these questions take on a different shape once posed within the context of MMA.

Striking within mixed martial arts is routinely disparaged by those who appear ignorant to some of the nuances described, or by snobbish analysts who can’t help but spew their disdain for any deviation from normative striking techniques.

As essentially a hybrid sport, MMA still isn’t fully understood in quite the same way that boxing is. Even 20 years after the UFC’s inception, our knowledge of what works in mixed martial arts continues to expand year after year.

That being said, more “experts” should recognise MMA for what it is, rather than continually trying to convince us that its hybrid nature necessarily means that its constituent parts are inherently inferior.

Not only is it not true, but it hasn’t been true for a very long time.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com

TUF Season 17 Finale: Bleacher Report Main Card Staff Predictions

It has been an interesting week in the world of MMA. From noted gender expert Matt Mitrione making an eloquent contribution to the Fallon Fox debate, to Frank Mir threatening to vivisect Daniel Cormier, talking points have not been in short supply. Sti…

It has been an interesting week in the world of MMA. From noted gender expert Matt Mitrione making an eloquent contribution to the Fallon Fox debate, to Frank Mir threatening to vivisect Daniel Cormier, talking points have not been in short supply.

Still, let’s put those distractions to the aside for the time being and concentrate on the business of fighting. The Ultimate Fighter Season 17 finale is just around the corner and it boasts a number of intriguing contests, including Urijah Faber vs. Scott Jorgensen and Miesha Tate vs. Cat Zingano.

A team of Avengers-esque experts has been assembled to offer predictions for Saturday night’s TUF Season 17 finale. Our panel includes the ineffable Scott Harris, the masterly McKinley Noble, the sagacious Sean Smith, the prodigious Riley Kontek and yours truly, James MacDonald, in all my relative ordinariness.

Read on for our thoughts on what is likely to occur come Saturday evening.

Begin Slideshow

Matt Mitrione: Why the UFC Was Right to Suspend Him for Transphobic Comments

According to a statement released by Zuffa earlier tonight, UFC heavyweight Matt Mitrione has been suspended by the organization for “transphobic comments” about transgender fighter Fallon Fox on the MMA Hour. For those who haven’t qu…

According to a statement released by Zuffa earlier tonight, UFC heavyweight Matt Mitrione has been suspended by the organization for “transphobic comments” about transgender fighter Fallon Fox on the MMA Hour.

For those who haven’t quite caught up to this story yet, towards the end of his appearance on the MMA Hour with Ariel Helwani earlier today, Mitrione launched into a venomous tirade directed towards Fallon Fox, which included the following comments:

“She’s not a he. He’s a he. He’s chromosomally a man. He had a gender change, not a sex change. He’s still a man. He was a man for thirty-one years. Thirty-one years! That’s a couple years younger than I am. He’s a man. Six years of taking performance de-hancing drugs, you think is going to change all that? That’s ridiculous…. That is a lying, sick, sociopathic, disgusting freak.”

As many of you know, I have written extensively on this topic. I have come down firmly on Fox’s side on this issue, arguing that a decade of hormone-replacement therapy and her 2006 gender reassignment surgery have almost certainly removed any advantages she previously would have enjoyed.

Mitrione’s remarks were not only ignorant, but needlessly spiteful. I have debated a number of people on this subject. For the most part, the discussions have been spirited, but almost always civil.

The last thing those people need is a prominent figure within the industry to not only poison the level of discourse, but to undermine their position by resorting to playground-level insults and appeals to emotion.

The UFC’s response to Mitrione’s comments was remarkably swift:

“The UFC was appalled by the transphobic comments made by heavyweight Matt Mitrione today in an interview on ‘The MMA Hour.’ The organization finds Mr. Mitrione‘s comments offensive and wholly unacceptable and – as a direct result of this significant breach of the UFC’s code of conduct – Mr. Mitrione‘s UFC contract has been suspended and the incident is being investigated.

The UFC is a friend and ally of the LGBT community, and expects and requires all 450 of its athletes to treat others with dignity and respect.”

I applaud the UFC for taking a position that is bound to be unpopular with a significant portion of the MMA fanbase. However, I’m somewhat torn on the issue of Mitrione’s suspension.

I am a firm believer in one’s right to freedom of expression. And that must extend even to expression that I find loathsome, otherwise the concept of freedom of expression becomes meaningless.

But, I’m sympathetic to Zuffa’s position. Mitrione’s remarks were truly appalling and, as an employee of their organization, his conduct directly reflects how they are perceived by the public.

For many in the mainstream, MMA is still trying to shake its late-90s image as a barbaric quasi-sport. Having its athletes espouse such hateful views, completely unfettered, is something the sport does not need as it continues to grow.

From a free-speech perspective, Matt Mitrione’s suspension is clearly regrettable. But, for the sake of the sport’s image and continued growth, the UFC made exactly the right call.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com

Mixed Martial Arts, Marijuana and the Problem with Current Drug Testing Policy

Marijuana and its status as a performance-enhancing drug (PED) has long been a contentious issue in sport generally, but particularly in combat sports. With the recent news of several prominent mixed martial artists testing positive for marijuana metab…


Marijuana and its status as a performance-enhancing drug (PED) has long been a contentious issue in sport generally, but particularly in combat sports.

With the recent news of several prominent mixed martial artists testing positive for marijuana metabolites and the obscenely punitive $900,000 fine and nine-month suspension for Julio Cesar Chavez Jr., the issue appears to be coming to a head.

Generally speaking, I adopt the libertarian perspective when it comes to marijuana use (and drug use in general): Do as you please so long as you are not harming anyone else.

Of course, the very nature of mixed martial arts tends to complicate that stance, forcing one to ask: Does marijuana enhances one’s ability to inflict physical harm inside the cage? The answer to that question really depends on whom you ask.

Keith Kizer, the NSAC executive director, has argued in the past that marijuana is likely more harmful to the person taking the drug than it is to an opponent:

“[Marijuana] is banned because of the damage it does to the person taking it. It could make you lethargic, slow your reflexes, and those are dangerous things in a combat sport.”

But, as Joe Rogan pointed out on a recent episode of the JRE, there is a distinction to be made between two separate species of Cannabis plant: Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa.

The former is associated with the popular image we have in our heads of slackers slumped on the couch, spliff-in-hand, gigglingly watching Ren & Stimpy. In other words, it’s as likely to enhance your in-cage performance as downing a bottle of Ambien.

Sativa, on the other hand, offers a very different kind of high. It makes the consumer more energetic, enhances audio and visual senses and may provide pain relief—indica also has analgesic properties, it should be noted.

It’s easy to see why this might be considered performance-enhancing, even if the line between legal and illegal performance enhancement has become increasingly blurred in recent times. Still, it’s an issue very much open to debate.

However, perhaps the bigger issue is not whether marijuana is a PED, but outdated drug testing policy.

State athletic commissions generally rely on urinalysis for drug testing, which can only detect the presence of non-active marijuana metabolites. In order to properly identify the active compound (Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC), a blood test is required—and only for a few hours after consumption.

What this essentially means is that athletic commissions have the capacity to determine whether an individual has taken marijuana, but not when it was actually taken.

This would not be an issue but for the fact that marijuana, unlike most banned substances, is not prohibited out-of-competition.

Therefore, if Nick Diaz, Matthew Riddle and Alex Caceres want to light up a joint a few weeks prior to a fight, common sense would suggest that they are well within their rights to do so—assuming it is otherwise legal.

But, as has become apparent, state athletic commissions frequently abandon common sense when enforcing their drug policy.

Fortunately, there is some cause for optimism.

As reported by B/R’s own Damon Martin, the UFC’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Marc Ratner, met with the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) on Thursday to request that the commission re-evaluate their handling of fighters who test positive for marijuana, arguing that their current policy is outdated:

“Society is changing, it’s a different world now than when I was on the commission.  States are legalizing marijuana and it’s becoming more and more of a problem with fighters testing positive and the metabolites…Right now I just cannot believe that a performance enhancing drug and marijuana can be treated the same. It just doesn’t make sense to the world anymore and it’s something that has to be brought up.”

While more lenient sentences for individuals who get popped for marijuana use is not the ultimate goal, it’s a solid first step on the road to improved testing, therapeutic exemptions and, perhaps, eventual legalisation.

Marc Ratner is right when he says that society is changing, but it would be equally correct to say that society has already changed significantly in recent years.

With athletes routinely being suspended for imaginary infractions, archaic drug testing policies are no longer a mere inconvenience. It’s time for state athletic commissions to evolve and adapt to the current social and moral zeitgeist.

Read more MMA news on BleacherReport.com