News and Views » Commentary

Vasco Castela: Is MMA rewriting the unwritten rules of street fighting?

Carlos Condit pounds Rory MacDonald at UFC 115.

Stephen Hui
By Vasco Castela,

Vasco Castela.

When the B.C. Medical Association called for a ban on mixed martial arts on the grounds that the sport is too dangerous due to the risk of brain injury, critics were quick to point out that there is a higher risk of brain damage in other popular sports, such as boxing or hockey. Perhaps the risk argument is misguided. Why should it be anyone’s business what two adults consensually decide to do to each other, regardless of whether we think it is dangerous or weird or kinky? Maybe we should worry more about the people who watch MMA fights. They are being conditioned to feel that it is okay to hit a man when he is down, and keep hitting him until he is unconscious or taps out. And who respects a tap out in a street fight?

There used to be in Manchester, England, an unwritten rule for street fights, which stated that once your opponent is down, you are allowed to kick him in the head three times. It seems fair to suppose that a lot of the people who have been on the receiving end of these kicks were not aware of this rule, and even if they were, perhaps they did not subscribe to the practice and in no way expressed their consent to be kicked in the head should an appropriate situation arise. For rarely do people sit down to discuss the rules by which they will fight, and therein lies the problem.

The Manchester rule probably emerged in a similar way to “The Code” that unofficially regulates hockey fights, as experienced and influential fighters try to strike a balance between the value of gaining respect by intimidating opponents and the need to avoid the escalation of violence. These rules evolve to become codes of honour, and breaking them comes to have all the feel of breaking other moral rules of thumb, such as “Lying is wrong” or “You shall not kill”.

Within the cage, the MMA rules may be adequate. Perhaps an MMA fight often is, as some fans argue, a duel of gentlemen, who are often good friends outside of the cage, and remain good friends after the fight. Unfortunately, MMA rules do not seem to stay in the cage. According to Dr. Louis Francescutti, president-elect of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and emergency medicine physician at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton, trauma victims who have gotten involved in bar brawls and needed medical attention frequently report that they faced ultra-violent aggression and a fighting style similar to that of MMA tournaments, involving a mix of punches and kicks. He has been getting these reports for the last five years, and more frequently in the last two years. Edmonton has been called the MMA “mecca” of Canada.

Strictly speaking, MMA is illegal in Canada, according to Section 83 of the Criminal Code, which describes prize fighting as a punishable offence. Interestingly, boxing is mentioned as an exception. Perhaps this is a mistake, but adding another is not going to help. It is hard to get rid of boxing now, like it is hard to get rid of bullfighting in Spain and Portugal, as they have become a part of people’s lives and culture, and forbidding these activities has a more severe perceived impact on their freedom. The legality of boxing is no justification for making MMA legal.

Boxing is at least more conservative in drawing the line of restraint. In a bar brawl, the boxing fan may still back off when his opponent is off his feet, out of sportsmanship. The MMA fighter or fan will—if we assume that his level of self-control is identical to that of the boxer—stop later in the fight, by virtue of his “code” conditioning, continuing to hit his opponent when he is down. When things go a bit too far, as it often happens in a bar brawl, he is more likely to cause the opponent severe damage. Hockey, which is an important part of Canadian culture, is violent too, of course, but I have never heard of anyone being forced to play hockey in a street fight. There is a context to hockey fights that helps to keep the violence in the rink.

I sympathize, to a degree, with the plight of the fans. The visceral appeal of MMA is understandable, and the vast majority of the fans are law-abiding, responsible citizens, who never get involved in bar brawls or any kind of street fighting. Unfortunately, a few do. And they will break bones, cause brain damage, and kill people who never agreed to a duel by the rules of MMA. This is more important than the fans’ alleged right to watch a good fight. MMA fights should be banned in Canada.

Vasco Castela is an ethicist who lives in Vancouver. He holds a PhD in ethics from the University of Manchester.

Comments

J
I have many friends who play hockey and have seen numerous occasions where the on ice confrontations turn into off ice street fights
 
Morty
Surely there are enough facts (as in, assault rates; hospital admissions; etc.) to make arguments from anecdote unnecessary. I find it hard to believe that victims of bar brawls have ever reported anything other than violent aggression, so without numbers to back them up any claims that "things are worse today" sound like little more than nostalgia.
 
Richard Saint
I agree with MMA, or "Vale Tudo" in Brasil, or K-1, or anything like it, if good rules are followed. And in most combats I've seen they are (I didn't like one with bare hands, that's maybe too dangerous). It's not street fighting. The referee interrupts the game when a KO happens, or when a fighter is badly injured. Of course sometimes a knee in the nose can be devastating, but that's the game.

I think the argument that MMA is a bad influence is more dangerous than any sport. It can be used to ban not only MMA and other violent sports, but also computer games, movies, books... Along the ages many violent acts were based on sacred texts, so why they keep being published? Because most of the people that reads them do not have a violent behaviour, and because freedom of choice is a higher value for modern societies.

Besides that, nowadays the humans of the free world have internet access. Can a country ban a sport, or something else, so the citizens are not exposed to a "bad influence", without creating another "big firewall of China"?
 
LisaD
If a person's interior is of violence, then it doesn't matter what type of fight is watched.
 
DtM
Right. MMA will make street brawls worse, and should therefore be banned.

The data used to support this claim is flawed, and the argument is dangerous. The instances of increased "mma like attacks" are due to an increased level of knowledge of strikes by combatants. Banning MMA will do nothing, you'll have to ban all martial arts centers where these strikes are taught.

Furthermore, banning it in Canada will simply drive it underground. Combat is a primal force that, while certainly diminished in many, remains strong in those with a body and mind that are attracted to it. I wonder how the reports of injuries from underground "fight clubs" will be accounted for in the future.

Mr. Castela, you've missed the boat and are merely capitalizing on a hot topic for press time. This argument is only valid if you decide to ban professional wrestling spectales as well. They promote the use of weapons, of abusing unconcious opponents, and mob attacks where individuals are swarmed. Better ban martial arts tournaments too, they certainly feature a mix of kicks and punches.

And how about the movies and television shows too? Who shall be responsible for the violence that we are subjected to daily there? Ban it all, lest we find that anvils are being used in bar brawls soon! (thats looney toons reference folks...)

MMA provides an outlet for an outmatched individual to "give up" (the tap), does not allow kicks to the head to downed opponents (an improvement on your manchester thugs), and is actually returning a sense of honour to combat that has been eroded by years of the WWF and their ilk. NOT that i'm suggesting there is much honour to a bar brawl, but young men still meet at the smoking pits after school to settle differences, (and will do so until the end of our species) and anything that brings some sense of "rules" or more appropraitely "etiquette" is a positive influence.
 
V Castela
Morty:

That is an interesting point. Unfortunately, existing statistics tell us little. Assault rates do not tell us about the motivations of the people involved, or how they were influenced to think or feel like they do. A mere increase in assault rates would not show that MMA is to blame, and a reduction in assault rates could be linked to a number of factors and would not show that MMA is harmless. Reports from victims, you may argue, can be biased, but does it follow that we should just dismiss them entirely? It is a fact that there have been more of these reports, according to Dr. Louis Francescutti. Consider reports of rape, for instance, which also involve interpretation by the victim of a sequence of events. Since it is hard to use physical evidence alone to prove that someone was raped, should we also dismiss these reports, or a doctor's warning that there is an increase in the number of such reports, as nostalgia? I think not, and I assume you agree with me. I understand your worry, Morty, but I do not think that we should go as far as completely ignoring the victims’ reports.

That said, I am definitely in favor of doing more to confirm and quantify the problem. More reliable data could be obtained by studying the criminal records of MMA fighters and fans.
 
V Castela
DtM:

It is not because humans have a natural tendency for violence that being violent is OK and healthy. Without proper education, humans also have a tendency to steal, corrupt and abuse the weak. Yes, I am prepared to accept the risks of driving these things underground. The same goes for racially motivated aggression, or child abuse. I do not think they should be legalized and regulated.

I understand your disappointment with WWF fights.
 
V Castela
Lisa D:

Are you claiming that education and culture have no effect whatsoever on human behaviour?

Richard Saint:

I did not say that octagon MMA fights, with referees, are the same as street fighting, only that MMA will make, and may be already making, street fights worse and more common. But let me reply to your argument about the dangers of banning things.

I hope we can safely ban some things without the need to cry "censorship!" or "mind control!". It is difficult to know where to draw the line, but that is no reason to give up making important distinctions. Publicly inciting others to perform acts of terrorism or assault individuals from racial minorities, for instance, is going too far in exercising the right to free speech. Lines must be drawn.

Whether the influence of a particular novel, movie or game will prove to be good or bad for the public in the long run is hard to determine. I doubt that any strong correlation can be established between reading a violent novel and committing acts of violence. I do not think that many of the readers of Cormac McCarthy’s "Blood Meridian" put down the book and went out to scalp their neighbours. Watching an MMA fight, especially live, is a very different experience. There is real blood, and I believe it would be a good thing if most people were to continue to be shocked, rather than pleased or excited, by the sight of human blood.
 
Boon
"Unfortunately, MMA rules do not seem to stay in the cage."

I dont know about the writer but I would much fight under rules that state no groin strikes, no biting, no eye gouging, no weapons, 1 on 1 only and being able to tap out or submit as opposed to street fight rules which would means..........there are none.

All of the would-be intellectual and historical references mean little. Street fighting is street fighting. Its absolutely laughable to think that hitting someone when they are down started or becoming more popular with MMA. That has ALWAYS been a cornerstone of street fights.

 
Boon
the rest of my message was cut off due to length but in general, i just want to express my terrible disappointment and frustration with the lack of knowledge and perspective about MMA criticism.

Do some research about the sport and less research about what they used to have for street fightng rules in Machester so many years ago and just leave the hypothesizing about what a hockery player or boxer would do in a real fight because of how they they are dictated to play or fight in their sport.

Have you ever been in a street fight? Have you watched any before? I only aspect because it seems that your opinion seems much more versed in irrelevant books than the practise of what you are aiming to discuss.

" trauma victims who have gotten involved in bar brawls and needed medical attention frequently report that they faced ultra-violent aggression and a fighting style similar to that of MMA tournaments, involving a mix of punches and kicks."

In what time or land are a mix of punching and kicking not used in street fights?

"The legality of boxing is no justification for making MMA legal."

Then make boxing illegal. I thought the point of laws are to try and be consistent. This kind of fightin is ok but not that type....because of tradition or better yet, because people are already sensitized to it?

"And they will break bones, cause brain damage, and kill people who never agreed to a duel by the rules of MMA."

- Seriously, what is this? When do victims of an assualt every agree to any rules of the assault or fight? What, in god's name, are you talking about?


 
Boon
As far as "ethics" and street fighting, i think the number of assailants against one or the use of weapons is a far bigger concern than the MMA skill of one.

Of even bigger concern is how the media in Vancouver (including the Straight) tried to link the attacks on the 2 gay men on the night of the UFC to the UFC before it was confirmed that the 2 assailants attended the UFC.

It was later confirmed they were not.

The Straight tried to link guilt to something that was proved false.

Then the Province tried to make it an issue of Indo-Canadian values and violence.

Can we have the media focus on the so-called problem of violenbt culture of White Canadiana breeds next time some white guys get into a fight after a hockey game or leave a bar or we read some stuff about the Hells Angels in the news? Or better yet how hockey breeds violence?

 
Boon
"It is not because humans have a natural tendency for violence that being violent is OK and healthy. Without proper education, humans also have a tendency to steal, corrupt and abuse the weak."

Would it then be unfair to ask that you gain some more proper education about MMA before continuing to speak out about it?


 
Boon
"critics were quick to point out that there is a higher risk of brain damage in other popular sports, such as boxing or hockey. Perhaps the risk argument is misguided.......Maybe we should worry more about the people who watch MMA fights. They are being conditioned to feel that it is okay to hit a man when he is down, and keep hitting him until he is unconscious or taps out."

You do realize that it is the aim of boxing to keep hitting your opponent until he is unconscious too, right?

And what is the difference in hitting a man while he is down or upright?

Shouldnt your efforts be more concerned with people not being hit at all or avoiding altercations altogether?
 
V Castela
Boon:

Thank you for your constructive remarks. Unfortunately, I have witnessed many bar brawls and street fights, in several cities and in different countries. You are right, however, in saying that I have not been involved in fights. I have also never been tortured. Why would it be necessary to have experienced these things to be able to discuss the ethics of senseless violence? Psychologists write about suicide, and yet not many of them are proficient in suicide, or suicidal. If you were going blind, would you insist that the doctor operating on your eyes must be going blind too? Who do you think truly understands MMA? A professional fighter, perhaps? I must confess that I do not know any pro fighters who think MMA must be banned.
 
Matty K.
Boon,

Regarding the whole "hate crime" assault, I think it was botched from the start. They were drinking, taking a leak against the side of a building, and got into an altercation. They more than likely said the word "fa.g" and that was understood as a direct attack at the two men. They would not have had a knowledge beforehand that the two men were in fact homosexuals. When really, that word doesn't carry as much negativity to the current generations as the past.

How many people play video games? If you don't comment then you don't know, people who see their score go south end up calling everyone the f word, doesn't mean they are trying to discriminate, it is just a carpet bombing insult.
 
Martin de Pateshull
"The visceral appeal of MMA is understandable"

Maybe if you're a retarded primate. What, exactly, is fun about watching people have their nervous systems damaged?
 
Boon
Vasco, thanks for your feedback as well. I gotta say if i had more time and was less irritated by MMA criticism in general, I should have written a more concise response but a response came to me from nearly every line in your article (as you can see. ;p). My general complaint with the criticism towards MMA is that it does seem to be very well researched or very knowing of the sport. I think commenting on violence on the street is one thing and something none of us want to see however I really fail to see how MMA will make street fights any worse than they are esp from the reasonings you put forth. I am not however disputing that MMA may lead to more altercations on the street. As a hardcore fan of the sport from day 1, many of us detest the majority of "fans" of the sport today since they view it more as entertainment than a sport.

And though it is def a violent sport, it should acknowledged that the sport is very bit as technical, strategic, etc as any other. The sport has many world class competitors from wrestling, judo, Brazilian jujitsu, kickboxing, etc. One of the most tiring things that critics have put forth from day 1 is the whole "human cockfighting" angle (as one comment here would agree).

Anyhow, it would seem that the premise of your article is that if fans of MMA were to get into altercations with the rules of MMA in mind, they would make street fights more dangerous. The notion of a boxing fan who gets into a street fight wouldnt punch or kick someone on the ground because its not done in the boxing ring is ludricrous. As is the remark of no one "being forced to play hockey in a street fight." What does that have to do with what a hockey fan will or wont do if he gets in a scrap?
 
Boon
Continued

In both boxing and MMA (and kickboxing), a fight is finished when the opponent is KOed or TKOed (when the ref stops the fight because the opponent is "unable to intelligently defend himself). So I fail to see how a fan of boxing or MMA would do more or less damage if they abide by the rules of their sport and in truth, we both know that, again, there are no rules in a street fight and anything can happen in one. You claim that boxing fan may take more mercy on his opponent in a street fight out of "sportsmanship." Where is the evidence of that? Or where, in general, is that notion coming from?

You also claim that boxing is more "conservative in drawing the line in restraint." I only asked your familiarity with street fights, boxing and MMA because it would appear you view striking someone on the ground as more violent than striking someone in an upright position. That is not necessarily true and really depends on the situation. By the way, in the unified rules of MMA (that which is the standard of sanctioning MMA events in North America), there is no kicking or kneeing an "downed opponent"). So, by your theory, an MMA fan will not do this in a street fight because MMA rules do not allow this. We both know this will not really prevent an MMA fan, boxing, Nascar, NHL fan from doing this in a real street fight. This is what I mean by wanting MMA critics to be more informed about the subject. I am guessing you did not know that but you are implying otherwise when you say "they are being conditioned to feel it is okay to hit a man when he is down" and not cite the rule.

So by not being allowed to knee or kick a "downed opponent," an MMA fighter may punch or elbow his downed opponent. Or he may let his opponent stand back up to further his attack from an upright position as would happen in a boxing contest. Now, let me preface the next statement (and all for that matter) that anything I am typing here is theory and in practise, anything literally can happen. But punching a downed opponent is not necessarily more damaging than letting the down and dazed opponent stand back up and face the potential of another knockdown from an upright punch. There are many reasons for this but if you are not aware of the differences, for a more informed critique of MMA, I think you should look into this.
 
boon
You cite the examples of speaking out or looking at torture, suicide or blindness and not having to have experienced it to have an opinion about it and who really understands MMA? Well, i think that is the point.

But your entire reasoning of being against MMA and not so much against boxing and hockey (you after all, let boxing off the hook for being outlawed simply because of tradition and social acceptance when legal matters usual follow precedence of similar matters, no?) is citing the differences between them and how MMA will lead followers of it to be more violent in street altercations than vice versa. So then I would ask if you state that being blind is worse than being deaf, though you would not need to have experienced either to have an opinion on it, it would probably be best to do some research into both to make the comparison.

I do not think its necessary for to have been in many street fights (neither have I) or to have competed in MMA but much of your reasoning for being against MMA is the rules of MMA and the subsequent physical impacts that come out of it from watching it as opposed to stuff like boxing, hockey, football and I do not get the sense you have done your due diligence in investigating that.

You do state in the beginning that perhaps its not so much the higher likelihood of brain damage from competing in MMA as opposed to hockey or boxing but more so what a person is more likely to do in a street altercation from watching MMA as opposed to the others. In summary though, I do not see that you have made any strong arguements of why that might be so.

You said you have seen many street fights so I would be surprised if you thought hitting someone on the ground was never prevalent prior to the popularization of MMA. And by your assertions however, we should see less kicking and kneeing a downed opponent on the ground since that is illegal in MMA, correct?
 
Boon
"What, exactly, is fun about watching people have their nervous systems damaged?"

Typical.

Your comment would have more weight if the above actually happens or has happened at all.
 
Boon
Btw, Vasco,

Let me reiterate that I cannot stand the majority of MMA "fans." I full heartedly acknowledge that MMA probably has the highest douchebag ratio of any sport and probably the least knowledgable of any other sporting fans with the most unrealistic expectations of it (entertainment over sport). A large chunk of UFC fans have come over from WWE. But I am also quite sure that many UFC fans are also NFL fans or NHL fans in Canada.

However, there has been a tradition from its inception in 1993 that most attacks/criticisms against MMA have been quite uninformed or not informed enough in my opinion.
 
Martin de Pateshull
"Your comment would have more weight if the above actually happens or has happened at all."

Uh...blows to the head damage the nervous system. The issue is not "if" but "how much." Are you really trying to suggest to me that it's an "open question" whether or not blows to the head cause nervous system (brain) damage? Seriously, I think MMA may reflect a much larger problem than the brain damage to the players...
 
V Castela
Boon:

No, of course there are no explicit rules in street fights. The whole point of the piece was to discuss the unwritten implicit rules. There is clearly a degree of restraint that can be observed in every fight. You spoke of eye gouging, but do you see this in most fights? You would, if there was no “code”. If there was no restraint, someone would get killed in almost every street fight.

Human behaviour is influenced by one’s culture, by what one experiences. This is not a wild theory. Why would fighting be an exception?

Regarding your claim that if MMA has any effect on how street fights are conducted, it is a positive one, I have serious doubts that this is the case. If two people are boxing and one of them ends up on the ground, he may choose not to stand up to continue the fight, so there is a chance that it ends there. It is harder for the person who continues to hit his opponent on the ground to perceive, in the heat of the battle, when his opponent is clearly defeated or even knocked out. You see UFC fights going too far, before the referee has time to intervene, and too far is really far, here. MMA may be a real sport, but it may also be contributing to making street fighting, where there is no guarantee of mutual consent, be perceived as something that is perfectly acceptable.
 
Boon
Guess biology isnt my specialty, my bad.

Ok then, so why dont we compare concussions and other head damage related stuff between boxing, football, maybe skiing and, of course, our national sport with MMA to see "how much" and not "if" fans of those sports can be called "retarded primates"......
 
Boon
Vasco, i think we can both agree that one's "code" in a street fight really depends who the one (or 2, or 3 or 15) is.

"Human behaviour is influenced by one’s culture, by what one experiences. This is not a wild theory. Why would fighting be an exception?"

- No disgreement there.

"Regarding your claim that if MMA has any effect on how street fights are conducted, it is a positive one, I have serious doubts that this is the case."

- But I dont really. I just made the point that if those who get into fights follow the so-called rules of the sport they watch, MMA fans who stop when an opponent has had enough or is unconscious just as a boxing fan would. And maybe hockey fans would run and find the nearest sticks and start wacking people with them, get a running start at an opponent's back who had no idea they are coming for them and cross check them from behind, etc.

"If two people are boxing and one of them ends up on the ground, he may choose not to stand up to continue the fight, so there is a chance that it ends there."

"May." Any research or evidence to back this up? You think some of the roughest and toughest kids from the ghettos in the States and the barrios who box will take it easier on their opponents after they dropped them because they are not allowed to hit their opponents on the ground in boxing?

Maybe. Maybe not. I dont see much strong evidence for your arguement though. Just your opinion.

"You see UFC fights going too far, before the referee has time to intervene, and too far is really far, here."

See, this is my problem with critics like yourself in regards to MMA. I believe what you see in MMA is "too far" because you are not used to seeing what you see on TV in MMA as opposed to being used to seeing guys KOed, put on stretchers in hockey and football and seeing guys getting wacked over and over and over in the head in boxing.

What, specifially, do you mean by "too far" as opposed to boxing? Can you give some examples?

In both MMA and boxing, again, the ref stops the fight when an opponent "cannot intelligently defend himself." Just because an opponent is deemed that in an MMA contest where they are on their backs or stomachs does not necessarily mean the punishement they are taking is worse than that of a stoppage in boxing.

Many TKOs in MMA are actually called by refs because of these positions which look so bad to you but in actuality, the punches they are receiving are less punishing than a boxing TKO. This is an issue in MMA, controversial stoppages where as stoppages in boxing are much more definitive.





 
Boon
..continued:

Now, I wouldnt expect you to be an expert in MMA however, for not considering differences like that, not looking into them, not being aware of them....thats what bugs a lot of us when it comes to MMA critics.

But I believe the bigger point of your article is the potential larger restraint a boxer will show a street fight opponent because of the rules in boxing as opposed to MMA.

Well, that is possible. But if we can take this whole possibility game on further, perhaps its possible that an opponent that gets dropped by a boxer gets back up because he is hurt but still conscious and still wanting to fight back because of anger and instinct. Its possible that he get hit with a more severe punch (because you can throw a harder punch from an upright position, using more weight and velocity) and take a worse dropping the next time.

Maybe the MMA guy drops his opponent but goes for a submission instead to let his opponent know that he has him subdued and drives the point home that the fight is over without snapping the arm or choking him unconscious (since in MMA and the submission grappling sports, you know when the submission is "on"...and since fighters and fans will supposedly follow the "code" of their sports).

Or may be the arm does get snapped by the MMA guy. And maybe the boxing guy does punch his opponent on the ground. Who really knows? Do you really know? The idea of "curbing" someone's arm (as seen in American History X) to break it came about before MMA. Kicking an downed opponent in a street fight is common place and has been forever (though that is illegal in the unified MMA rules).

So I really dont see much strong evidence or weight to your bottom line. Your entire assertion that MMA will lead to more violence in street fights (where I think weapons and outnumbering an opponent is bigger issue) I think is based mostly on your subjective view of MMA as a whole. But I think ive presented some facts and scenarios that you were not aware of or did not look into and I believe if you are going to write an article and make that assertion, some more research into MMA (in comparison to boxing for example) should have been done.
 
Boon
"MMA may be a real sport, but it may also be contributing to making street fighting, where there is no guarantee of mutual consent, be perceived as something that is perfectly acceptable."

MMA may be making fans of it think street fighting is perfect acceptable? So, i guess that's your bottom line, right?

But how so? What evidence or arguement have your really made to support that? Other than your opinion that you think MMA is more violent than boxing, football or hockey, which again is a debatable notion itself.
 
glen p robbins
Lordy people - grow up -- MMA fights are sterile in their safety- are they brutal - yes --

balance this out -- what kind of 'violence' has someone like Campbell inflicted on the people - poor stay poor - kids in poverty -- minister says sure were last but were close --

Police, lawyers, teachers, real estate agents - even doctors - do as they please -- arrogant sob's with no accountability to anyone --- this issue is just dogshit.

Fight for something that matters.

 
 
[Comments Disclaimer]
Post a comment
· Use your real name to have your comment considered for publication in print.
· URLs and email addresses will be automatically turned into links.