My Response to the New York Times

First off, the New York Times should do some fact checking. ‘Ultimate fighting’ has long been dead, the sport is accurately called mixed martial arts, in honor of the varying martial art disciplines that the sport integrates. Art forms including Jiu Jitsu, Judo, Muy Thai, Grecco Roman wrestling, karate and more. Are these so brutal that they must be purged from America?

Secondly, it is nice to see the writer quoting a medical body that wants to ban boxing as well, yet makes no claims against the brutality of that sport. Easy to soothe the hypocrisy with regards to the ’sweet science’. (More on this later)

Also the ‘eye gouging and groin’ attacks have been outlawed for over a decade. Decrying these actions would be on par to decrying the use of close line tackles in the NFL during the 50’s. I don't see anyone at the Times screaming over the brutality of former football rules.

Finally the sheer audacity to claim this sport is more violent then’ America’s game’, football, is ridiculous. Any fair minded or objective person will see the enormous amount of injury and damage football players endure in their relatively short careers. How many football players pass away in their 40’s and 50’s. How many are crippled with all their joints replaced by 45? How many die cold alone abandoned by everyone like Mike Webster? But we praise the brutality of the big hit (Ryan Clark on Willis McGahee), the hard sack, and just the constant thud of two grown men of 350lbs. colliding into each other with the force of small whales. This is sheer hypocrisy. For more examples go here. 

So when the New York Times comes out against the NFL then we can talk about MMA being too brutal.