British Medical Association and MMA

The New York Times just cited the British Medical Association (BMA) and their call to ban MMA as evidence of the brutality of the sport. What they didn't tell you is that the BMA has a more prominent goal that they have been trying to fulfill for over 25 years, the banishment of boxing. 

On the BMA's official website, when one searches 'mixed martial arts' only a single hit appears.

This is a position summary of why the BMA supports a ban on boxing. The paper is over 1300 words dealing with boxing and at the very end there is 100 word addendum dealing with mixed martial arts. Here is the direct quote from the BMA's position paper 

Mixed martial arts
As with boxing the BMA opposes mixed martial arts (MMA) fighting and calls for a complete ban on this type of contact sport. Ultimate fighting can be extremely brutal and has been described as 'human cockfighting'. It can cause traumatic brain injury, joint injuries and fractures.

The BMA believes that doctors cannot stand by while violent fighting tournaments are allowed to take place. Large amounts of money can be earned by participants, promoters and others linked to ultimate fighting but no amount of money can compensate for permanent brain damage and premature death.

Now there are several features here that are important. First is the appearance of the old adage 'human cockfighting' which comes from a period when the sport was unregulated by government bodies, which is no longer the case. The phrase 'human cockfighting' can be described as an rhetorical farce. It is only there to elicit an emotional response from the reader and no longer has any meaningful bearing to the current state of the sport. 

The second part deals with injuries. However there is no statistical data provided (or linked) to back up their claims about 'traumatic brain injury, joint injuries and fractures. Then the report cites an ethical issues, that doctors cannot stand by while money is exchanged and people are at risk of permanent brain damage and premature death. Once again no statistical evidence is provided for this claim. 

WKR did some quick research on several scientific studies for mixed martial arts. Let's compare an American study  and one study done by the BMA. The American study deals with the examination of injuries over a period of time with data collected from the Nevada State Athletic Commission. The BMA study deals with force similarities between,

"Four commonly performed manoeuvres with possible risks to the cervical spine were analysed with respect to their kinematics, and biomechanical models were constructed" 

The BMA's study does not deal with any data gathered from actual fighters or fights, only force models that are intended to mimic events that occur in a fight. Now in the interest of full disclosure I did not have full access to the study, due to the requirement of being a member of the BMA online journal, which costs money. But there is a summary of the paper including summaries of the objective, method, results and conclusion, all of which are available online. 

Now I had access to the entire published American study and they made some interesting conclusions. 

The overall injury rate in MMA competitions is now similar to other combat sports, including boxing. Knockout rates are lower in MMA competitions than in boxing. This suggests a reduced risk of TBI (traumatic brain injuries) in MMA competitions when compared to other events involving striking.   

Now let's examine some of their statistical data. 

A total of 171 MMA matches involving 220 different fighters occurred during the study period. There were a total of 96 injuries to 78 fighters. Of the 171 matches fought, 69 (40.3%) ended with at least one injured fighter. The overall injury rate was 28.6 injuries per 100 fight participations or 12.5 injuries per 100 competitor rounds. Facial laceration was the most common injury accounting for 47.9% of all injuries, followed by hand injury (13.5%), nose injury (10.4%), and eye injury (8.3%).

Facial lacerations is a rather ambiguous term, since it doesn't describe the severity of the laceration. Still fully half of the 'injuries' sustained are cuts. If a distinction is made based upon the severity of cuts, then the injury rate drops even further.

Of the 171 fights observed over a three year period only 11 ended via knock out, or 6.4%. Approximately 40% ended due to technical knock out, and 30% ended due to tapout. According to these number the knockout rate is lower in MMA than boxing. 

Let's recap quickly. The BMA study uses physics, in force studies, comparing 'probable' movements in MMA and found that only two of the four held 'serious risk', and were 'comprable to motor accidents'. Their study was not based on actual fight data, but rather biomechanical models. 

The U.S. study looked at available data from an Athletic Commission over a three year period and found that the risk of knock out was lower than boxing. Also the injury data does not indicate permanent damage, or traumatic brain injury that the BMA cites in their position paper. 

Now which study appears to be better science? The BMA study, dealing with force models based upon 'commonly performed manuvers' (which were not described in the overview), or the U.S. study which analyzes over 170 fights over a three yaer period? The answer is clearly the U.S. study.

Not to claim that I am smarter than the BMA (I am not), but their study is a essentially a first step that doesn't give what I would call 'rock solid conclusions'. The BMA study needs to be followed with a longterm medical study of real fighters as well as the examination of real fight data before more definitive conclusions may be drawn.