MMA fighters aren’t paragons of virtue that are above all forms of criticism simply because they beat up other people in a cage. But you wouldn’t know this if you’ve spent any time in the MMA bubble, where UFC heavyweight Pat Barry can call fans “…
MMA fighters aren’t paragons of virtue that are above all forms of criticism simply because they beat up other people in a cage.
But you wouldn’t know this if you’ve spent any time in the MMA bubble, where UFC heavyweight Pat Barry can call fans “roaches” on his YouTube channel and be praised by most commenters, and Muhammed “King Mo” Lawal can belittlethepeople who essentially bankroll the sport and not be met with any ill will.
Their position stems from the harsh jeers and insults regularly received by fighters from fans, whether at live events, or on Twitter and MMA message boards across the Internet. They are right to a degree, sometimes fans of the sport can be insensitive.
MMA is a sport where two men try to incapacitate one another. To some fans, the winner is a hero and the loser is naught but a tomato can, fit only to beat up bums behind a Waffle House somewhere.
Is it right that fans denigrate men who train hard, risk their health, and burn more calories in a week than they do in a lifetime?
Probably not, but that’s the way the sports world is—and as MMA grows, the criticism is only going to get worse, so fighters better get used to dealing with it.
Just look at the amount of criticism NFL players deal with. These athletes are under intense scrutiny from the fans and from mainstream media outlets each Sunday during the season and when they mess up, millions will be decrying them, often with colorful language. But they deal with this issue like professionals.
Did Mark Sanchez go on a tirade against fans at any point so far during his disastrous season that’s seen him mocked by the entire football-literate world?
Did Tim Tebow challenge pundits when they critiqued (or outright insulted) his throwing mechanics? Did he belittle them by saying that they know nothing because they never played a down in the NFL?
Did Cam Newton throw a temper tantrum and propose a boycott of the Charlotte Observer when it depicted him wearing a Hello Kitty shirt in a cartoon making light of his touchdown celebration?
If these athletes, who are being insulted by far more people, can handle the slings and arrows of being a professional athlete, fighters can too.
The belief that MMA fighters are somehow special and different (I like to call it “MMA Exceptionalism”) and don’t adhere to the same rules as other athletes is groundless and wrong.
Basketball players, football players, baseball players, tennis players, MMA fighters, etc. are all athletes and they’re all criticized at points in their careers—it’s just that some MMA fighters haven’t figured out how to deal with it gracefully yet.
Saying “Well I can beat you up” or “You don’t train so you can’t criticize me” doesn’t work outside of the MMA bubble, where fans who train and/or understand the difficulties of the sport are few and far between.
The FOX generation is appealing to the kind of fan that feels perfectly at home saying things like “125 lbs? I could throw that guy through the wall,” or “That dude sucks so bad even I could beat him up,” and fighters have to accept this.
They may go a little too far with trash talk sometimes, but dealing with legions of angry fans is part of a mainstream athlete’s job description; Employee of the month isn’t all ham and plaques.
Fighters (and angsty fans who long for the old days where fighters weren’t criticized as heavily) must learn to unencumber themselves of orotundity and ideological baggage. Fans make the sport popular, the paychecks bigger and commentary on the sport is their right, even if it’s entirely negative.
There is only one true welterweight champion and his name is Carlos Condit.Come UFC 154, he will take Georges St-Pierre’s UFC welterweight title and unify it with his own interim title, becoming the undisputed welterweight champ.Remember that image of …
There is only one true welterweight champion and his name is Carlos Condit.
Come UFC 154, he will take Georges St-Pierre’s UFC welterweight title and unify it with his own interim title, becoming the undisputed welterweight champ.
Remember that image of St-Pierre when he was being pummeled by Matt Serra at UFC 69?
The Canadian icon was curled up in a ball, tremulous and terrified. Get ready to see that exact same image Saturday night.
At the time of writing, 77.5 percent of the 3,000 plus Bleacher Report readers who took part in B/R MMA‘s front page poll inquiring whether GSP would beat Condit predicted a St-Pierre victory.
That’s more than one-third, and that’s laughable.
St-Pierre is coming off of major knee surgery and hasn’t been in the Octagon in over fifteen months (his last fight was in April 2011).
A fighter who is attempting to bounce back from such deleterious circumstances should never be favored that much, no matter who he is.
GSP‘s defenses will be dilatory, his punches and kicks slower, his agility faded and his legendary wrestling prowess weakened.
All of this due to a combination of not fighting top competition for a prolonged amount of time—we saw what that did to FedorEmelianenko—and, possibly, as a result of the surgery if his recovery wasn’t optimal (Bleacher Report’s own Dr. Jon Gelberanalyzed the intricacies of the surgery and recovery methods).
These are terrible problems for any fighter to have, but they’re even worse against a fighter like Condit.
Condit is arguably the most well-rounded opponent St-Pierre has ever faced.
The Interim champ has 28 wins in MMA, 26 of which are finishes. Of those 26 finishes, half are submissions and half are (T)KOs.
He’s a skilled, diverse striker (he out-struck Nick Diaz—who was/is considered one of the most technical boxers in MMA), as well as a competent submission fighter.
This blend of skills presents a nightmare for a weakened St-Pierre.
St-Pierre’s vaunted wrestling might not be up to snuff to take Condit down. St-Pierre cannot win a striking match with Condit. If the fight comes to that, St-Pierre’s face will end up being ground into the canvas by Condit‘s fists.
Thus, St-Pierre’s best chance for victory is to employ the strategy that he used against strikers like Dan Hardy and ThiagoAlves; take them down immediately and keep them there at all costs.
However, Condit has a better submission game than nearly everyone St-Pierre has fought.
What’s to say that St-Pierre won’t have a mental lapse due to his time away from the cage and get snared in a submission hold?
Even if St-Pierre manages to get Condit down, what if GSP‘s time away from the cage has somehow weakened his conditioning?
In this scenario, St-Pierre might win the first 2-3 rounds, but Condit would rally later in the fight and ultimately finish the depleted GSP.
Georges St-Pierre’s run is at an end.
The cards aren’t in his favor. He’s rusty, his knee ligaments are a question mark and he’s fighting the most complete fighter he’s ever faced in his life.
This fight has all the makings of a classic “upset,” although it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone.
Condit isn’t a fighter that GSP can just take down repeatedly or dominate on the ground. Condit isn’t a fighter that GSP can just jab for five rounds.
Condit is a different animal.
He’s not a one-dimensional wrestler/grappler like Koscheck, Fitch or Shields, nor is he a striker who’s hapless and helpless in the wrestling department like Alves or Hardy.
Condit represents a true mixed martial artist, one that St-Pierre, in his current incarnation, isn’t equipped to beat right now.
Georges St-Pierre and Brock Lesnar have more to do with one another than you think.Fans and pundits are heralding the return of one of the UFC’s biggest draws, welterweight champ and Canadian sports icon Georges St-Pierre, because his return to the for…
Georges St-Pierre and Brock Lesnar have more to do with one another than you think.
Fans and pundits are heralding the return of one of the UFC’s biggest draws, welterweight champ and Canadian sports icon Georges St-Pierre, because his return to the fore will boost the UFC’s numbers and bring them out of their current rut—but I’d rather have Brock Lesnar.
GSP‘s UFC 154 return is happening in the midst of MMA‘s largest wave of malaise since the infamous dark ages of the late 1990s. The incessant talk of decline has been triggered by declining numbers across the board and panic about how to rekindle the good ol‘ days of the “fastest growing sport in the world” of the mid to late 2000s during The Ultimate Fighter‘s boom.
St-Pierre’s absence for the past year is, without a doubt, a massive factor in the apparent lack of interest in UFC pay-per-views. However, so is the absence of Brock Lesnar, a man who regularly drew over 500,000 buys and managed to surpass the mystical one-million-buys mark on several occasions.
Many of the fans who are praising GSP‘s return for its financial benefits were, sadly, the same people who were perniciously bashing Lesnar at every turn, from comments on articles, to MMA message boards, to Twitter.
Why is it OK for GSP to be a champion that sells tickets and PPVs when Lesnar was regularly chided by fans for doing the same thing?
The answer lies in the fact that Lesnar‘s background was in the WWE and that Lesnar, because of his star power, was given a faster track to the title than most other fighters (he was only 2-1 when he got his title shot). Fans although thought he lacked talent; he was a brute with name value and a lame sword tattoo on his chest.
But was Lesnar‘s title shot really that bad? St-Pierre was only 7-0 when he was awarded a shot at the welterweight title, a difference of only four fights. And it’s not as if Lesnar‘s entry into the title scene wasn’t the first time such decisions were fueled by money.
Ken Shamrock was coming off a loss and was 1-2 in his last three before he fought Tito Ortiz for the UFC light heavyweight title at UFC 40, but it didn’t matter. The UFC knew it’d be bankable.
Just so, any card with Lesnar‘s name attached would do well. Thus, there was no reason not to give him a title shot, provided he could compete—and he did.
Lesnar was (and still is) not a well-liked man among “hardcore” fans, but his legacy should be equally prestigious to that of GSP‘s.
Like St-Pierre helped grow MMA’s casual fanbase in Canada, Lesnar likewise helped grow MMA’s casual fanbase in the United States, providing a much-needed lift to the sagging TUF boom.
Lesnar should not be demonized as a pro wrestler or as a talentless jerk who was pushed because he was famous. He was a crucial part of the UFC’s history and a boon to the national consciousness of the sport: When Lesnar was on a card, millions paid attention. How many other fighters can such a statement be true for?
So when you’re opining about how wonderful it is that GSP is back because he’ll save PPV sales and revitalize interest in the sport, think of Brock Lesnar, because that Lesnar‘s legacy. True, GSP will always be an amazing figure in the sport of MMA, but he’ll never be a Brock Lesnar.
The UFC’s first venture into China is in the history books. Cung Le scored an unbelievable knockout against former middleweight champ Rich Franklin and, in the co-main event, Thiago Silva choked out Bulgarian prospect Stanislav Nedkov.In terms of title…
The UFC’s first venture into China is in the history books. Cung Le scored an unbelievable knockout against former middleweight champ Rich Franklin and, in the co-main event, Thiago Silva choked out Bulgarian prospect StanislavNedkov.
In terms of title implications and entertainment value, this card was, in truth, a bit banal.
However, that doesn’t mean that lingering questions weren’t answers and lessons about certain fighters weren’t learned.
“I would beat the crap out of Kim Kardashian,” she said about the Hollywood starlet. “Get over yourself, all you do is swim,” she said concerning legendary Olympic athlete Michael Phelps. The woman who uttered those brazen senti…
“I would beat the crap out of Kim Kardashian,” she said about the Hollywood starlet. “Get over yourself, all you do is swim,” she said concerning legendary Olympic athlete Michael Phelps.
The woman who uttered those brazen sentiments would end up becoming the very first woman in the UFC—Ronda Rousey.
Rousey is an Olympic bronze medalist in judo as well as an undefeated mixed martial arts fighter and now a trailblazer for female fighters everywhere. If the glass ceiling is the barrier women in the office world face, then Rousey broke the caged ceiling—the barrier that had been keeping women out of the world’s foremost mixed martial arts promotion.
However, she is more than just a fighter and pioneer. She is the greatest female sports role model of the times.
How can she be that influential?
The answer can’t be summed up in a sentence or two.
You know what? I would beat the crap out of Kim Kardashian actually. Any girl who is famous and idolized because she made a sex video with some guy and that’s all you’re known for, ‘Oh, I got my fame for sucking [expletive],’ I think it’s pretty stupid, sorry, but it’s true.
Why is everyone slipping it under the carpet now? She’s selling Sketchers to 13-year-olds. I don’t want some girl—whose entire fame is based on a sex video—selling Sketchers to my little sister.
Girls like Kim Kardashian are being pushed in my little sister’s face, and it’s just not healthy. She shouldn’t need to have role models like this, and that’s why I’m doing stuff like ESPN Body because someone needs to do it.
A second tirade soon followed live on TMZ, “This girl should be selling lube or something like that instead. Why is she selling shoes?” Rousey said.
In an age where girls as young as six view themselves as sex objects, Rousey‘s stance as a foil to Kardashian is crucial. There are no other females in the sports world today taking such a vocal stance against such sordidness.
In fact, Rousey might be the only positive female role model in general.
When you turn on the television, do you see a Marie Curie inspiring women to unlock the secrets of chemistry and physics? Do you see another Billie Jean King convincing women they are athletically equal to males? Do you see the success story of Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer being shared with young women?
No. There are only the idiotic ravings of the Kardashian family and Snooki, the classless dregs of society displayed on 16 and Pregnant and the pathetic, selfish characters on Girls. Even in sports, what are the prominent female athletes known for?
The Williams sisters are talented but don’t seek to purge the culture of corrupt influences. Other female athletes reduce themselves to sex symbols. Lolo Jones might be considered a more positive figure to look up to, but that was simply because she claimed to be a virgin, a fact which captivated the media for some reason.
Rousey questioning a figure’s cultural worth is therefore a step in the right direction as far as female role models in sports are concerned.
Furthermore, Rouseydidn’t acquire fame through engaging in sexual activities with a C-list celebrity and/or having a droll “reality” show. Rousey worked tirelessly in judo (even dropping out of high school to attend the Olympic Games in 2004 at age 17) and earned a bronze medal in 2008 for her efforts.
Succeeding in one field wasn’t enough for Rousey, who set her sights on professional mixed martial arts in 2011. She captured the Strikeforce women’s bantamweight championship (arguably the most prestigious female title in the sport) a year after her pro debut as a fighter. Now she’s in the UFC.
How do her skills—throwing people around, torqueing limbs and beating people up—help young girls?
The answer doesn’t lie in her literal skills, but in her story in general.
Ronda Rousey achieved. She didn’t stumble upon, she didn’t coast, and she didn’t get lucky. She achieved greatness, and not through sordid means or decadence, but through mental and physical fortitude as well as unshakable determination. She’s a worker, not a lazy, complaint-prone (sub)urbanite.
Her presumptuous demeanor might raise the eyebrow of a skeptic since, after all, who in their right mind calls out the most successful Olympian in history, as Rousey did some time ago?
A clever woman, that’s who.
Rousey’s critique of Michael Phelps is based off her experiences in the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. It was here that Phelps acted like a bit of a diva, secluding himself from the other Olympians at a party. She said:
Yeah, Michael Phelps kind of annoyed me a little bit…Michael Phelps needed his own private section of the club to be private, for him. Even the NBA players—who are a bigger deal than this guy—they’re all hanging out with the rest of us. We’re your teammates! We’re not a bunch of groupies! Come hang out with us. Who the hell are you? Then we had the Oprah thing…they had all the medalists on there…Michael Phelps had to be kept separate in a different backstage area so he wouldn’t be harassed by all the other Olympians. I don’t like being somebody’s teammate and being treated like I’m a groupie…Get over yourself. All you do is swim. If someone slapped you every single time you jumped in the pool then I’d have a little more respect.
Despite sounding boorish, Rousey conveys a good message with her “rant” against Phelps. An accomplished woman—or any accomplished person for that matter—shouldn’t accept being deemed unworthy to grace a more “famous” person’s presence (or, as Rousey herself put it, being relegated to “groupie” status).
There is also intelligence behind the callous words. Rousey catapulted herself to stardom in the MMA world by saying outlandish, controversial things. She’s made herself into a character that people love or love to hate. This persona is the product of understanding how the world works.
Rousey knows that being nice and quiet doesn’t sell tickets or generate press, so she’s not “nice,” and she’s not quiet. Some would say that this “questionable” moral fiber makes her a poor role model, but those people aren’t seeing the big picture.
Rousey says these things because they’re good for her career. Chiding well-known figures like Kim Kardashian and Michael Phelps generates articles, which generate more knowledge about Ronda Rousey and her career in judo and MMA.
And what’s wrong with having an edge? It’s the sports world, after all. All athletes should have a bit of fire to them, and that fire should rub off on their fans.
An additional point to make about Rousey is that she has the perspicacity to understand how to promote herself, yet she never completed high school or went to college. Being “uneducated” doesn’t put her out of the role model category; saying otherwise is myopic.
The American education system is undergoing a paradigm shift. No longer is a college degree going to get you a good, or even decent, job. Degrees are swiftly becoming worth less than the paper they’re printed on, yet the prices of obtaining them are constantly skyrocketing.
Rousey is a sports role model that reflects this change in the world. Her success teaches children that they can find their own path outside of the declining education system. Blowing $40,000-plus on a degree only to be a lifer at Starbucks or some other equally miserable fate isn’t the only option anymore. Find another female sports star that demonstrates this message in such a way.
Ronda Rousey is the greatest female sports role model in sports today. There is no woman competing today who can convey as many positive lessons and dictums as Rousey can.
If her story spreads across the sports world, young girls will learn to emulate this successful, strong-willed athlete rather than the more questionable female characters out there, all thanks to a brash, fiery MMA fighter with steel in her heart and silver on her tongue.
Do ring card girls have a point?Is their purpose to infuse a little bit of estrogen into testosterone-laden venues to undermine MMA’s infamous and undeniable homoeroticism?Are their marches around the cage between each round a way to increase ticket sa…
Do ring card girls have a point?
Is their purpose to infuse a little bit of estrogen into testosterone-laden venues to undermine MMA‘s infamous and undeniable homoeroticism?
Are their marches around the cage between each round a way to increase ticket sales via the guarantee of seeing *gasp* a real-live attractive women in minimal clothing?
Or, is the whole process of ring card girls walking around with giant cards emblazoned with the round number a courtesy to fans who are so inebriated that they’ve lost the ability to count?
Really, there is no great purpose of having ring card girls (or Octagon Girls as they’re called in the UFC). As great of a job as Arianny Celeste and Brittney Palmer do at looking pretty (and they do look pretty), their work brings no large scale significance—the show could go on without them.
That’s not to be offensive, it’s just true.
Can you point out what would be different if the UFC (and MMA promotions across the world) just decided to stop the whole sordid, sexist tradition?
Nothing significant would change. People would complain for the first event or two, then they would just forget about it and move on.
Well, there would be one apparent difference: You wouldn’t hear any cat calls between rounds, that’s it—that’d be the only noticeable change. That and the cameras wouldn’t keep panning to the girls between the rounds or between fights.
This sudden stance against ring girls might seem out of the blue, but it’s not.
The sentiment was inspired by two events.
First, The UFC’s first venture into China is coming up this weekend. What did the UFC do to celebrate this? They hired a Korean TV star as a new Octagon Girl.
What does bringing in an Asian Octagon Girl really do? Chinese people can tell the difference between other Chinese people and Koreans, so bringing in a Korean and passing it off like it’s some great gesture to Chinese fans is more offensive than it is anything else.
Second, Ronda Rousey’s reported entrance into the UFC demonstrates a woman’s full potential: A dominant athlete, not a person who just gets ogled by lascivious men while wearing a bikini.
Like I said, the Octagon girl is a superfluous position. How many hungry, deserving female fighters—role models that would inspire women to be more than just cup size and looks—could be employed in their place?
At this point, keeping the Octagon Girls would be fine if they added Octagon Men for female fights for equality’s sake.
Internet white knights who will inevitably make a comparison to the NFL’s cheerleaders and use that as justification as to why ring card girls are ok are misguided. The UFC is a unique entity and, as a trailblazer in the field of MMA and in the general sports world, has the chance to change things for the better.
The UFC doesn’t have to go along with presenting women as pieces of flesh begging to be gawked at and drooled over.
The UFC and the MMA world can choose not to objectify women in such a way or, at the very least, choose to treat both sexes equally.
MMA fighters aren’t paragons of virtue that are above all forms of criticism simply because they beat up other people in a cage.