Combat Sports

Jitinad Asdamongkol

Introduction

      Throughout our history, we human have always indulged in violence of some form as a mean of entertainment in our society. In the ancient worlds, we have been participating and spectating acts of entertainment violence from friendly fight circuit in small tribal society, to massive coliseum battles of Rome in which contestants often duel to the death. The crowds always cheered and seemed to enjoy themselves in both cases, despite the outcome and nature of the events. Such is the reality of combat sports.
Human are territorial creatures by nature, and therefore we tend to resort to violence and conflict as a mean of attaining and protecting our resources. This very need is why society encourages the practice of warfare so that it can be unleashed against those deemed as enemies. However, in order to maintain peace and order at times when there is no need to unleash such aggression, violent acts as practiced by the military are often discouraged by those who rule such society. It would be an anarchic society indeed if people are freely able and encouraged to lash on one another. Due the need to maintain an ordered society, violence is deemed as socially unacceptable, therefore civilizations such as ancient Rome has created sports, which allow people the freedom to release or observe violent acts in a controlled environment as a mean of entertainment. The excellence of a government is shown no less in care for the amusements of the people than in serious matters, and that although the distribution of corn and money may satisfy the individual, spectacles are necessary for the contentment of the masses. The United States is today's greatest empire, and it is faced with problems of welfare and unemployment. For the most part, professional sports are being used to keep its society entertained -- much as it was in ancient Rome.
Somehow we have transformed that combative reality into an entertaining fantasy. This trend still holds true in modern day, just as the Romans created the Coliseum and Circus Maximus to display their sports; America has built the Madison Square Garden or Daytona Speedway to display theirs. Many wonder whether if today's modern civilization really is progressing to new heights in humane behavior or is it regressing back to more violence in sports.

Theoretical Explanations of Sports Violence

      The biological theory, proposed most notably by Nobel prize winner Konrad Lorenz, sees aggression as a basic, inherent human characteristic. Within this context, sports is seen as a socially acceptable way to discharge built-up aggression, a safety valve.
      The psychological theory states that aggression is caused by frustration; it is situational. Frustration results when one's efforts to reach a particular goal are blocked. In sports, frustration can be caused by questionable calls by officials, failure to make a particular play, injuries that interfere with optimum performance, heckling from spectators, or taunts by coaches or players.
      The social learning theory has received the most empirical verification and maintains that aggressive behavior is learned through modeling and reinforced by rewards and punishments. Young athletes take sports heroes as role models and imitate their behavior. Parents, coaches and teammates are also models who may demonstrate support for an aggressive style of play.
      According to Terry and Jackson, reinforcement for acts of violence may come from three sources:
     1.      The athlete's immediate reference group-coaches, teammates, family, friends;
     2.      Structure of the game and implementation of rules by officials and governing bodies;
     3.      Attitudes of fans, media, courts, and society.
      Vicarious reinforcement may be derived from seeing professional players lionized and paid huge salaries, in spite of, or because of, their aggressive style of play. On the other hand, players who don't display the desired degree of aggressiveness may receive negative reinforcement through criticism from parents and coaches, lack of playing time, harassment by teammates, opponents, or spectators.

The Nature of Combat Sport

      Just as Rome had the combat sport of chariot racing and gladiatorial combat, we nowadays have Destruction Derby and boxing, both has violence as the mechanics of the sports. Over the past few centuries, we like to view ourselves as having ascended from the barbarity of the ancient Rome in which slaves or prisoners were hauled into combat-to-the-death with legionnaires or throwing Christians and let their fates be decided by the hunger of the lions. Therefore, we have undergone a process in which combat sports are being toned down and fatal combat results are no longer encouraged or acceptable. But if there's a sport that people would say its athletes are "modern day gladiators", comparable to those of ancient Rome's, such sport would the growing phenomenon of No-Holds-Barred fighting.
      In ancient Rome, there was a sport of Pankration which while not as cruel as gladiatorial combat, it was nonetheless, very cruel by today's standard. It was an unarmed combat sport in which contestants wore no protection and practically anything can be done, from eye gouging, groin striking to breaking the neck of the opponent. Again, death often occurred, though not necessarily encouraged due to the fact that many athletes were trained and considered celebrities who get paid like today's professional athletes. The death of the people's heroes would surely mean a big blow to the business of "real" sport entertainment. Pankration athletes weren't as expendable as many gladiators were. Nowadays, the sport of NHB (No-Holds-Barred) fighting is still alive and well, but due to the brutal nature of the sport, the US government has banned its reincarnation in the US in the form of Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) half a decade ago. The UFC However, in countries such as Brazil and Japan, the sport is rapidly growing and gaining wide public recognition, but due to the negative impact of the word: "No-Holds-Barred" may have on the public audience, the industry tend to call it "Mixed-Martial Arts", "Vale Tudo" or "Pancrase". Whereas Japanese NHB fights tend to happen only in big arenas full of sport-educated fans, the Brazilian version can take place anywhere from a similar arena to the back of a garage.

The Controversy of Modern Day Combat Sports

      When SEG Sports created the UFC in 1993, the organizers did not follow a general principle of all sport: developing a framework of rules to establish a balance between the possibility of attaining a high level of combat-tension on the one hand and a reasonable protection against injury on the other. Rules were hardly present, in its first few competitions, only eye gouging, biting and fish-hooking were considered illegal and fights were fought bare-fisted in a cage with no referee intervention during the fight unless one contestant has totally neutralized the opponent and with no time limit. The Japanese counterpart of the sports however, was considered more humane that the use of gloves is required, fights take place in a proper ring, only certain legitimate martial art techniques were allowed and referees can intervene when there's danger to any of the contestant; rounds are separated much like the way boxing is.
      American ultimate fighting was organized for commercial interests. Media-entertainment companies make huge profits by organizing these fighting contests and by selling them at the `pay per view'-market. For the spectators, ultimate fighting provides a new type of excitement which does not have socially and personally dangerous implications. Many Americans don't subscribe to violence as an answer to life's problems, which makes staged combat all the more appealing. Such demand for violence by the public led organizers of such event to exploit it and give the market exactly what they wanted - blood.
      When a Russian mixed martial art athlete died in a caged combat due to a violent concussion to the head, the Russian government immediately put a ban on the sport nation-wide and called the sport "blood-thirsty and barbaric". Such a ban in Russia sparked some concern to some of the US senators during the time UFC was at its greatest hype. Finally senator John McCain finally outlawed the sport altogether and with its main source of income from pay-per-view already diminished due to an earlier ban - the final nail on the coffin was hammered and the sport disappeared or moved to other countries.

What the public wants is what the public gets

      There's a changing balance of power between media-entertainment companies and traditional sports organizations as rule-making and rule-enforcing bodies, and their orientation towards the interests of participants and spectators.
      While many proponents of combat sports constantly attack the organizations that run such events for promoting violence, they often ignore another important mechanics of the industry - the audiences themselves. It's hard to imagine sport such as football, hockey or even basketball to be free of "any" form of violence. It's appeal to a group of audience would greatly decline since the attraction of the sports has a lot to do with the degree of violence the sport generates; today America has the XFL, touted as the "No Wimps Allowed" football league - surely more violence = more excitement = more money to the organizers. Some of highest paid and gained the most public recognition athletes in contact sports such as American Football tend to be one who are the most aggressive - those who stand out from the crowd. The public themselves choose who should be their heroes, and to qualify for such recognition often means you have to be aggressive. In an essence the public's demand help setting the standard in which athletes who seek fame tend to follow - the crowd pleaser factor. Once there's money interest in the sport, it's unlikely the organizers will tone it down, often times however, there's an even higher incentive to become more "extreme". It's a way of differentiating their sports from the mainstream - to show superiority to attract more audiences. The ultimate fighting is no different, the public found other martial arts competitions such as kick boxing, wrestling or judo looked pale in comparison when compared to the extremism of the ultimate fighting. The audience somehow seem to develop passion for that "realism" - the more real it gets, the more enjoyable it is". In this case, it's clear that what the public wants is what the public will get - economics 101: supply & demand mechanics. To blame solely on the providers of such sports would be naïve while in reality, if the public doesn't watch violence, then brutal combat sports wouldn't have found a market to tap into in the first place.

Misconception about Combat Sports

      The UFC in the early 90s suffered from bad public reputation by the way in which the organizers tried to "fired up" the sport by the elimination of rules or the recruitment of violent brawlers into the fighting arena. In the way, what the organizer did was shooting themselves in the feet and at the same time damaging the old image of the sport, all for the sake of money. Its negligence to the sports code of ethic and concern for the safety of the athletes were probably what destroyed them.
      SEG Sports (former owner of the UFC) however were partly guilty of painting such image due to their lack of real skilled competitors and martial artists, instead their standard was rather low that many brawlers could have easily entered the competition providing they could "kick some butts". The "Tough Man Competition" is a much more suitable event for a league of "brawlers" to fight one another, unfortunately what SEG Sports did degenerated the image of the sport like that of the "Tough Man Competition".
      Having seen true violence, and true bodily harm inflicted in the worst possible way, what sort of person sits down and is able to enjoy the sight and sound of a beaten athlete's back hitting the canvas? - The answer lies in the respect given to the non-lethal combat arts, and to the athletes who participate in controlled contests. When the sport is portrayed as "ultimate fighting" or "cage combat", it greatly damages the image in which the sport is supposed to stand for. The ultimate fighting sport or "mixed martial arts" as it's nowadays being called, was intended to be a sport which display the beauty of the human body not the destruction of it. The beauty of athletics can be found in many forms, such as a gymnast performing a vault or a wide receiver making a diving, one-handed catch. In the same respect, there is beauty that can be admired from a perfect execution of fighting technique, Skill is skill; some of it learned in rougher trades, but skill all the same, violence happens to be the mechanics of it. Condemning such skill based on the fact that it's violent in nature seems hypocritical since skills in say, rugby tackle which is also execute with violent intent, yet receives no ridicules in the way in which mixed martial arts has.
      As proponents of Mixed Martial Arts have long known, the sport is not interested in throwing two greenhorns into the ring to see which one ate their Wheaties that morning. Participants often are trained athletes who exemplify the best in their chosen art, and their preparation rivals or surpasses that of any other professional athletes in other sports. Athletes possessed of the proper skills should be admired. Their hard work amounts to weeks and months and years of training and dedication. Sports organizations or sanctioning bodies should promote such athletes and the audience should cheer at those who are skillful fighter, not brutal ones. Appreciation of the combat art is what the sport comes down to.

The Flaw of some Combat Sports Criticism

      Proponents of extreme combat sports assert that human are violent creatures by nature and therefore what the organizers of such events do is simply to allow for an opportunity in which people can "release the valves" in the ever stressful society. Though it's just an excuse for the " more violence = more ratings" argument which doesn't wash. Expressing anger breeds more anger, and practicing violence breeds more violence.
      This argument certainly holds true about the nature of some combat sports promoters and organizers, but to assert that human are not violent is rather ignorant also. According to psychologists the American public enjoys witnessing violence; furthermore, perhaps man has a hidden psychological need for vicarious violent behavior that becomes more evident as we grow into adulthood. Violence has always been part of our nature, only that we must not embrace it freely and irresponsibly, but rather to control such violence or channel it into a more appropriate context. That is why combat sports re-direct that aggression toward the sports arena in which competitors abide by certain rules and regulations, and sportsmanship honored. When a fight has been contested, and the two combatants often embrace in the middle of the ring, it's our respect and humanity that's on display - on the other hand, sports entertainment such as wrestling often portray their athletes hitting one another with blunt objects, swearing, disrespecting, ganging up, and even women bashing and yet still get legitimized by the media through the primetimes and exposed to children nationwide. Some critics or proponents of sport entertainment contends that their sport is choreographed and scripted entertainment, much like movies and soap operas, while ultimate fighting is reality combat. This is a flawed argument, because as soon as athletes get paid they also become entertainers to an extent, WWF wrestlers or mixed martial arts fighters are no different in this respect. Both give the crowds what they want to see and are approved by them. Whereas mixed martial arts competition often involve a form of combat rules that are no different than the WWF, in fact in competition such as "Pride Fighting Championship" in Japan, elbow and head-butting aren't even allowed while on the other hand, the WWF have their wrestlers doing scripted moves from things like dropping elbow on the back of the neck of an opponent (which can be lethal in reality), biting and other "cheap-shots" are often seen, the use of weapons such as chairs & tables, to acts such as ganging up on a defenseless wrestler or women-bashing. Yet these wrestling shows are aired on primetime with all the children watching and in an essence, approving their wrestler heroes act of aggression in those forms. Whether it's acting or not, doesn't matter, the content does.
      Another good example in which this "Selective Hypocrisy" can clearly be seen is the case of the effort of the anti-boxing lobby. Critics claim that: "In boxing, victory is obtained by inflicting on the opponent such a measure of physical injury that the opponent is unable to continue..." - the traditional fall-back argument that the sport intentionally aims to cause concussion and brain injury by blows to the head, and therefore is barbaric and brutal which should be shunned. However, the aim of amateur boxing is to win points by more skillful punches; concussing your opponent is not the aim. Again it comes down to the display of skill, beauty and athleticism one can do using the body. You don't need to injure your opponent to win an amateur boxing match, and you don't get extra points for a knockout. In reality, amateur boxing is less dangerous than many other amateur sports. Whilst amateur boxing certainly entails risks, definitive research (and common sense) shows that amateur boxing is no riskier than many other popular sports including football, horse racing and skydiving.
      To put the risks in perspective, here are some pertinent US figures on sports fatalities:

      The corollary claim is that most injuries in other sports (especially football) are accidental. Consider rugby; some rugby injuries are truly accidental (such as inadvertent collisions), but many of the more serious injuries are a direct outcome of the way the game is played. Tackles are deliberate and injuries (including concussions) are an inevitable consequence. To call the resulting injuries "accidental" whilst calling a boxing injury "deliberate" is irrational and dishonest. There are other sports that are far more dangerous than boxing, yet attract no hostile criticism like some combat sports do.
      Further more, television networks use sports tragedies such as ski accidents and automobile racing crashes (for instance the Dale Earnhardt accident that took his life) for self-promotions, showing the replay over and over again. In addition, the reaction to sports deaths is extremely selective and loaded; dead motor racing drivers are praised as fallen heroes, but dead boxers are called victims of a violent, unsafe and barbaric practice, again another display of selective hypocrisy.
      It seems combat sports, not just boxing are considered "soft target" because it's a minority sport, without funding or significant sponsorship like majority sports such as American football or Rugby, and therefore are easy to beat up. Further more, combat athletes suffer from ugly stereotype of being "barbaric". Terms such as barbaric" and "violent" tend to stir a lot of attention and emotion in the media. Opposition of such sports play on this public emotion, and their attempts to dress up these emotional responses in pseudo-medical terminology are often dishonest and unethical. Politics and interests play a big part in sports industry of all types. Often the critics real objection to the sports are often ideological or political in nature.

Spectators Violence

      It's evident that there have been cases of sports hooliganism especially in sports which contain a strong aggressive element like Rugby. It's not surprising that, tempers are more likely to fray in a fierce body contact sport, and this can affect spectators as well as the participants. Therefore, is it reasonable to assume that violent sports contribute to inciting the public to act out more aggressively? A central issue is whether fans incite player violence or reflect it.      
There is a range of societal, economic, and cultural factors which come into play, particularly with regard to spectator violence. It has been noted that problems in English soccer are often associated with poor living conditions. The problem clubs appear to come from the worst areas in England, for example, Millwall is a docks area with extremely high unemployment, and Millwall fans are probably rated as the worst in England. Spectators often derive a sense of social identity and self-esteem from a team. Emulation of favorite players is an element of this identification. Group solidarity with players and coaches leads to a view of opposing teams as enemies and fosters hostility towards the "outgroup" and, by extension, its supporters, geographical locale, ethnic group, and perceived social class. One factor is that, young people with no sense of identity or purpose and no realistic hope of worthwhile employment turn to violence as an outlet for their frustrations.
      Interestingly enough, in combat sports such spectators violence are rarely seen. The group-association theory does seem to suggest that when a fan associates oneself to a group of athletes (team) the stake becomes higher when comparing to fans who associate oneself to a single athlete. Therefore, the tendency to resort to aggression when frustrated tends to be higher in team sports.
      The scoring level of games can also affect the level of violence displayed on and off the field. In high-scoring sports such as basketball and Australian Football, an individual referee's decision to award or disallow a score is not seen to be as crucial as in a low-scoring game like soccer. Such a decision is therefore more likely to provoke an outburst from players and the crowd. Moreover, the likelihood of violence is exacerbated when officials are perceived to be incompetent or biased. A further major factor to consider is the design of facilities and the dearth of reasonable amenities within them. Poorly designed facilities with inadequate seating capacity lead to crowding, frustrations and violence. The excessive consumption of alcohol, particularly by young male spectators, greatly amplifies the problems outlined above. Alcohol consumption is widely recognized as one, if not the major cause of spectator misbehavior.
      Studies of English soccer violence have also identified a hard core of people who see fighting as an integral part of going to a match, who are led by proven fighters, frequently with local gang connections and a record of violence outside the sporting context. In this case, it seems plausible that the reason spectators violence exists may not be because of the sport itself incites it, but rather people who are already prone to violence tend to be ones who enjoy going to sports that expresses such violence. Approval of violent sports only reflects violent trend in the demand of the audiences.
      The media also plays a role in this, such role can be looked at in both a negative and a positive light. Certainly there are many who believe that the media unnecessarily highlights violent incidents. Further more, commentators often play the part of arousing the audiences for the sake of excitement of game atmosphere. For example, one particularly well known rugby league commentator has often made statements such as "there is nothing wrong with two prop forwards standing toe to toe and throwing a few - it's a man's game". Such attempts to legitimize this thug-like tactic (which is completely outside the rules of the game) provide a disgraceful example for young players, and also harm the code. Therefore it seems that: more violence coverage = more motivation and incentives for audiences to act out violently.
      Though an argument can also be said that: it must be acknowledged that media coverage greatly enhances the chances of violent offenders being caught - may therefore be dissuaded from acting out in an unsportsman-like manner, by the presence of television cameras. Such acts often are deemed anti-social and work against the progress of the team and thus are likely to be shunned by the coaches and team-mates should they are caught and punished. Because of this, he public's perspective has changed over past years: the "tough men" of yesteryear are now seen as undisciplined handicaps to their team. This is at a time when sport is seen to be faster, more skilled and generally of a much higher standard, thereby leaving little room for the thug to operate.
      The media occupies a paradoxical position. On the one hand it affords ample exposure to sports-related violence via television, magazines, newspapers, and radio, thus providing numerous examples to children who may imitate such behavior. It glamorizes players, often the most controversial and aggressive ones. On the other hand, the exposure given to sports violence by the media has stimulated increased efforts to control and prevent such behavior.
      In the end, the evidence is rather inconclusive since there is no single trigger, that causes sports violence and therefore no simple solution because the causes are complex: this applies to both on-field and off-field violence. It is generally accepted however, that one of the major ways of reducing violence in sport is through an education process, thereby changing community attitudes so that violent behavior is perceived as being unacceptable. This involves promoting the view that sport is for participation, fun and enjoyment and that winning at all costs is not everything, particularly at the junior level.
      It is now generally accepted that violent acts on the sporting field, rather than providing a catharsis for spectators, often work as a catalyst for violent behavior. Considering that violence is a current social phenomenon with wide repercussions, whose origins lie mainly outside sport, and that sport is often the scene for outbreaks of violence.

 

Back to Main Page

This page was last updated on:   December 4, 2001