NY State Assemblyman Bob Reilly says UFC promotes violence on Inside MMA..and I agree?

I love Mixed Martial Arts. I love the idea of seeing who the best fighter on the planet is. It should be available in all 50 states and around the world. However, the biggest market in the country still has a ban on MMA and I'm talking about New York City. For years, people have been trying to get MMA regulated there and to no avail. The governor of the state as well as several mayors has all given their seal of approval and yet it still goes unregulated.  One of the biggest reasons, if not the only reason, is NY State Assemblyman Bob Reilly, the Phil Mushnick of MMA.

Mr. Reilly has long championed the ban on MMA in New York and has gone to great measures to keep it from being legalized. His opinions are well-known, but he recently appeared on HDNet's "Inside MMA" show to further explain himself. Mr. Reilly believes that "MMA is violent" and that "violence begets violence". As the NY legislature is taking strides to rid to state of violence, it should not be in the business of regulating a violence sport like MMA. He states that the original Martial Arts were based on building the mind and body as a defense mechanism which is in contrast to MMA where it is offensively used. He also believes that MMA, particularly the UFC, markets itself on violence and that he would accept MMA if it took steps to curb the violence, but fans wouldn't be as interested in a less violent product.

Let's address the obvious point first. MMA is just as "safe" as, if not safer than, boxing or other combat sports. The measures taken in the last decade or so (gloves, no kicks to a downed opponent, etc) have made MMA much safer than it has ever been before. The number of life-altering injuries in MMA Is negligible compared to boxing (which is regulated by NY State). His comments about the safety of MMA are misinformed and, while Bas and the rest commented correctly on that, I was disheartened at the lack of questioning of Mr. Reilly's viewpoints directed at Reilly himself. He was basically allowed a free forum to spout him rhetoric without opposition. This would've been better done inside of the studio (I doubt he would consent to that) or have someone hit him with some non-softball questions.

On the other issue and one that I believe Mr. Reilly is correct about; violence. Reilly suggests that MMA markets itself on violence. It does. Despite what many of you that are reading are thinking MMA primarily markets itself on violence. Violence is the lifeblood of the UFC, look at any of its advertising. The UFC intro video to each pay per view begins with talking heads of fighters talking about knocking out or beating up their opponents overlain with a gladiatorial theme. Then it segues into screaming rock music over images of people being knocked unconscious or choked out. Step away from this for a second. Take yourself out of the mold of MMA fan. As an outsider looking in, in the first 4 minutes of a UFC show, you're immersed into a world of hard rock and ultra-violence. There's no mistake, there is an atmosphere of violence.

This is what Reilly is talking about. Fans come to the arena to see someone get knocked out. Maybe you the individual reader does not, but the majority does. The most cheered and loved fights are the ones where the two fighters "stand and bang" with their opponent, flailing arms with blood and sweat flying everywhere. Dana White himself admits that if there was no Stephan Bonnar vs. Forrest Griffin, the UFC wouldn't be where they are now. Fans called others telling them to turn their TV on to watch this violent and bloody confrontation. Do you think that happens if the fight went more like Ed Herman vs. Kendall Grove from Season 3 that was an exciting ground battle? The answer is No. The popularity of the UFC is predicated in violence.

You can say you are a fan of the "sport" of MMA and yet you cry about the influx of "wrestlers" and their domination. We all know why wrestlers are disliked so much; their typical fight is to takedown their opponent, control them and ride out a victory, possibly finishing the opponent if the chance comes up. If you were a fan of the sport, you would appreciate that sound winning strategy. Instead, people petition for rule changes to stop these wrestlers. Instead "fans" of the "sport" go on websites and trash these fighters for doing what it takes to win. Fans don't really do anything that others above them don't do. You have MMA officials on the radio calling fights "boring" because one fighter chose to use his strengths to win a Number one Contender's match. You have the head of an organization chastising his champion for being a boring fighter saying the fans don't want to see boring fights. So you can't get upset at Reilly for saying that MMA uses violence as a selling point because it does. And if, like Reilly says, MMA were to somehow implement more safety rules, fans wouldn't be as interested as they are now and the sport wouldn't be as big as it is.

I think MMA should be legalized and regulated in New York. Personally, I see Mr. Reilly's points on safety to be misinformed and ignorant. That is the result of two things:  1) a lack of research and investigation on his part and 2) a lack of promotion of the safety of MMA to the greater public by the largest organization (the UFC). If you know your business has the label of unsafe, why wouldn't you take measures to promote the actual safety of the sport? Use the actual studies that have been done. Finance a think tank to pull stats, something. Mr. Reilly's points on the violence of MMA and the glorification of that violence are a valid one coming from someone not desensitized to MMA. The UFC, and other MMA orgs, will always have the appearance of ultra-violent and unsafe as long at the promoters chose to market that aspect of the sport, so you can't blame people for having that viewpoint. Then again, I believe the UFC, and other orgs, want that perception of the sport as it attracts more that it turns away (in their opinion). Just that in this case, it's turned away some people who are keeping them from being a part of the biggest market in the country.