This seems like an uncharitable reading. I don't think there was a comparison made.
Any justice system with a very high conviction rate is either unjust or extremely selective. The American federal government is also extremely selective in prosecution, and for the same reason. Losing makes the prosecutor look bad.
Sorry, you didn't say this: were they advertising openings the whole time you were there, but not interviewing?
It seems like the ruse would depend on there being interviews for the role, but interviews are so expensive and disruptive that I don't see someone scheduling them if they're not going to hire
Ronda Rousey won eight fights in a row with the same technique. In five of those, it took less than a minute.
Imagine a soccer player saying she was going to take the ball from midfield, go straight down the middle, and then drill it into the top left corner of the goal, and it working eight times in a row.
Then she won four more fights, all very quickly and with more diverse skill set. It was shocking.
Headgear is used in some combat sports, including Olympic boxing. It makes the head a bigger target, which means the head gets hit more. Those strikes may be less severe, since they're cushioned. But taking more hits is bad.
There certainly are sports that ban head strikes. Certain forms of karate, for instance. Fight fans _like_ seeing heads get punched, and they like seeing knock outs. There's not currently a very big market that wants to see fighting without head strikes.
> Fight fans _like_ seeing heads get punched, and they like seeing knock outs.
I think that's a huge symptom of my point. You can strip out tackles from football and make MMA way safer, but the large MMA competitions are popular because they're closer to two people doing whatever they can to win a fight than something more restrictive, like karate or wrestling. As you mention, the fans will be pissed at safening the sport, and I'd almost bet money that the vast majority of the fighters would be pissed as well -- just like I've seen plenty of coworkers and workers in other industries get angry at OSHA regulations, even the ones that are as ridiculously straightforward as labeling the bottle of formaldehyde so someone doesn't spritz it around a clinic.
I think people have different thresholds to watching violence, and there's a spectrum from cartoon violence to street fights to war footage. My mom doesn't like to see punching, even in cartoon form. I enjoy everything as long as it's consensual, fair, and well compensated (so not street fights).
The most common preference is somewhere between a Captain America movie and a John Wick movie, I think.
Folks who can't stand to see real violence wish it just didn't happen, the way I wish street fights didn't happen. But you're not gonna get anywhere offering what an MMA fan understand as an inferior product. And the MMA fans know there's karate and wrestling and BJJ to watch, they just aren't as interested in it.
I don't try to rationalize it much. I know most people, especially in the circles I'm in, can't stand to look at it. I don't mind that.
The idea that society has moved past the need for violent spectacle or something just doesn't work for me, because I enjoy the sport. And plenty of other people do, too
Fighters for the most part are going to do what will make them the most money. If the fans are there for knockouts, they're gonna go for knockouts. If BJJ tournaments offered the same money making opportunities that MMA does, a bunch of fighters would very happily switch
> The idea that society has moved past the need for violent spectacle or something just doesn't work for me, because I enjoy the sport. And plenty of other people do, too
Ironically the growth of UFC and Boxing tells me we're trending back to the Roman days. Sure we won't have full on gladiators but everything old is new again feels like...
The reality is combat sports have been popular for many 1000s of years. Before the romans and after. Certain forms of wresting were incredibly popular in the past. The amount of people that watched or listen to major historical boxing fights is crazy.
To hold up Roman as some sort of maxima doesnt really hold up. Its just that they were rich so they invested more in spectical, just as we do now.
The one change that has happened is that animal fighting and baiting has become unpopular and unacceptable over the course of the last ~200 or so years. It's not 0 but there's much less dogfighting, cockfighting, bear-baiting etc
The thing is, some people like full contact sports. And not just watching them but doing them. If you stripped tackles out of football or body checks out of ice hockey, that would make it a different sport, not just for the spectators but (much more importantly) for the athletes. Nobody makes it to a high level in a sport without actually wanting to do that particular one.
Full contact but restricted martial arts also exist and mitigate risks by limiting the range of allowed techniques. Some of them do it in different ways than others. Judo is full-contact but disallows strikes, which makes it massively different than something with strikes. Semi-contact karate avoids the full-contact part, which makes it different in a different way.
Full contact practically always comes with risks, and full contact with fewer restrictions comes at much greater ones. Spectator expectations or other parts of culture may encourage the athletes to take risks and go to greater lengths than they otherwise would. But it's difficult for me to agree that modern society should have no place for sports that mentally healthy people actually want to participate in just because it comes with a risk of physical injury or intentional roughness. If they wanted to participate in a different sport, they'd have options.
In the end it's of course a matter of where to draw the line. Rather few people would nowadays want to allow fights to the death even if the participants wanted that. (Although, in reality, I don't think such a sport would get that many willing and actually voluntary participants either.)
It's weird though - I love watching parkour which is the riskiest of risky sports in some ways but when it comes to stuff like NFL I think it needs more regulation around head trauma.
I think if someone seriously injured themself doing parkour or base jumping (or bare knuckle boxing) there's an implicit assumption that people partook in that activity knowing the risks whereas with a professionally recognised high stakes sport (where the athletes may also have contractual obligations to perform) then there need to be higher standards and awareness.
For instance why is head trauma more of a problem in NFL than rugby when rugby players don't even wear helmets
My opinion: it's the padding on the other parts of the body (particularly the shoulders) that makes NFL so dangerous. If you ran directly into someone at full speed without padding you'd injure yourself as much as you'd injure them, whereas the pads NFL players wear allow them to use their bodies as guided missiles. Rugby collisions (generally) happen at lower speeds, where the intention is to wrap up and grapple the opponent to the ground, not blast them off their feet. (There are also on-side rules in rugby, and no blocking away from the ball, so many, many fewer blind-side hits occur.)
I don't know much about rugby (of either or any kind) but I'm under the impression that it has some kind of a culture of mutual respect. That might mean the players tend to exercise greater and more conscious control in taking contact despite the sport being rough.
I'm also wondering if that's partially connected to exactly the fact that they don't wear protective equipment. In many cases it's of course definitely helpful to have protection, but since it can also make the risks less obvious, using heavy padding might also encourage heavier contact. If, on the other hand, none of the participants are under any illusion of safety, that could discourage recklessness and perhaps even encourage a sense of mutual respect.
Helmets generally don't offer that much protection from concussions. They do reduce the risks of other serious head injuries such as fractures, as well as more superficial injuries, but if helmets make people think they can take heavy contact with abandon, that might increase the number and severity of concussions.
It doesn't have to be this way though. Women's basketball doesn't have as much violent contact as the men's game but is a better spectator sport IMO. women's hockey is also great without the crushing blows and no fights. Flag football is fun to watch as it's all about the offense and big defensive plays, not the crippling Hits. Aussie rules football has hitting but nothing like rugby or American football and it's a superior experience for the fans. I like the NFL and UFC but there are options if you don't.
Bigger gloves are useful for defense. You can catch a lot with big gloves that you can't with little ones.
What's gonna matter most is how the athletes train, how hard they get hit in sparring. A very long professional career might be 30-50 fights, but that's thousands of hours of training. If you're spending much of that sparring hard, even if you don't get many concussions, the cte is going to build up
https://www.theonion.com/black-man-given-nations-worst-job-1...