Question About Ufc/mma That Isn't Really About Ufc/mma

[cooterhein]

UFC, or Ultimate Fighting Championship, is the largest mixed martial arts (MMA) promotion in the world and has recently become the most valuable single sports entity in the world. It was founded in 1993, the president is Dana White, and every fighter is a little different- although many of them come from a certain type of fighting background and then adapt it a bit in order to be competitive with the top fighters in the sport.

 

Just about any fighting discipline can be used in UFC- or, if you prefer a tournament style of MMA, perhaps Bellator. At any rate, just about anything goes- although fishhooking, nutshots, hair pulling, and downward elbow shots to the head are on a fairly short list of things you can't do. Anything that has to do with a fighting discipline, though- these are all a part of MMA. It's allowed UFC to become very popular all over the world, because there is massive appeal to the idea of any given people-group's fighting style measuring itself against every other fighting style in order to show how good it really is. Because of the variety of fighting styles and the flexibility with which they all come together, it can and has been argued that UFC might as well stand for Universal Fighting Championship, equating the wide inclusiveness of fighting styles with universality where fighting is concerned.

 

Now, you could also argue that UFC is fairly young- it's just now turning 20 years old as a company, and you can't make a very convincing argument for much in the way of historical continuity throughout all of time. So perhaps we could take a look at something like Greco-Roman wrestling and see if that can make a better claim to universality. Greco-Roman wrestling is very old. It is one of the original Olympic sports, and it certainly pre-dates the Olympics by quite a bit. It is a particular discipline, but look at these UFC fighters- you might very well criticize them for having nothing in common. One guy is pretty much a boxer, one guy basically does Brazilian jui-jitsu, another guy will just try to choke you out. It seems like no one fighter is exactly the same. You ask ten fighters how they're going to try and win a fight, and you're likely to get ten different answers. So Greco-Roman wrestlers are all basically trying to do the same thing, and there's a smaller number of ways for them to earn a win....and somehow....I'm not sure how this works exactly, but somehow we treat that characteristic with great reverence while criticizing MMA fighters every time any one of them proves to be a different type of fighter from someone else. As far as the issue of universality- what were we saying about that? I forgot.

 

So to summarize, Greco-Roman wrestling is a very old discipline. It's also a particular discipline, and of course we must acknowledge that there are many disciplines of fighting besides that one- outside of Greco-Roman wrestling, there are a whole lot of fighters who fight in very different ways and with very different styles. But perhaps we should go ahead and refer to Greco-Roman wrestling as universal- after all, it is very old, and if St. Peter or St. Paul had been inclined to view or participate in any kind of fighting sport, they probably would have had little choice other than Greco-Roman wrestling. Additionally, it is one of the original Olympic sports.

 

UFC and Bellator are each in their infancy by comparison. MMA has nothing to do with the Olympics and maybe never will. And perhaps most importantly, it would be ridiculous to imagine that anyone from the Apostolic age would have been bopping about wearing Tapout gear and coming up with two dozen completely unique ways to win a fight. And again, how stupid is it that no two MMA fighters are completely the same? Seriously, let's dwell on that for a few more minutes and just wait for everyone to acknowledge that these people are different from each other.

 

Of course, the main reason people say UFC might as well stand for Universal Fighting Championship is specifically because it is accessible to all types of Christians- I mean, fighters. If we were talking about Christianity, we might call it Big Tent Christianity, a discipline and a community in which all Christians can come together, and the variety of Christians (or fighters) that come together is actually the thing that makes it truly universal vis a vis Christianity (or fighting). Relative age is irrelevant to universality, Olympic status is also fairly irrelevant, questioning whether or not the Apostles would recognize or participate in some semblance of it is also fairly meaningless. If you want to be universal vis a vis fighters, you need to be able to include any type of fighter and every single discipline of fighting. And if you want to be considered truly universal vis a vis Christianity- wait for it- you need to be able to include any type of Christian, if you can figure out how to properly define that word, and you need to be able to include every discipline of Christianity, so properly defined.

 

So this thread is about UFC/MMA, but it's not really about UFC/MMA. It eventually comes around to a point- if you want to claim that the Catholic Church lives up to its Universal name, but you also admit that there are Christians in schism with you or separated from you, that's what you call a contradiction of terms. Again, the contradiction is this- to be universal vis a vis Christianity means you are accessible to All Christians and to All Christian traditions. The way UFC/MMA is accessible to all fighters and to all fighting styles- and yes, I'm aware that there is a huge variety in the types and styles of fighters, that's actually a mark in favor of universality rather that a mark against.

 

Thoughts and reactions, please. Also, do you think Greco-Roman wrestling can make a stronger claim to universality than MMA fighting?

[Norseman82]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0JDfaT4_w[/media]

[PhuturePriest]

"Universal" does not mean what you think it means. It means we're everywhere. It doesn't mean we have to include everyone. Everyone is welcome, but they must still join the Church and adhere to its teachings. People say "Well, then it's not really welcome to everyone!" Being welcome to everyone does not mean total disorganization and welcoming in every belief that comes our way.

[Winchester]

tl;dr

[cooterhein]

"Universal" does not mean what you think it means. It means we're everywhere. It doesn't mean we have to include everyone. Everyone is welcome, but they must still join the Church and adhere to its teachings. People say "Well, then it's not really welcome to everyone!" Being welcome to everyone does not mean total disorganization and welcoming in every belief that comes our way.

Let's get back to the fighting motif for a moment. What would be an example of a universal fighting style, or if you like, a universal fighting promotion? Would it be a particular style of fighting that is old, fairly ubiquitous, and open to everyone- which you say as if that's special, really now, any style of fighting along with any religious group is open to everyone if they do thus and such in order to belong to it. Or- second option- would it be a more truly universal fighting style/promotion if it represented every fighting style in some way? You might want to attach a description like "total disorganization," but that's more emotive than descriptive and irrelevant to the point anyway. The point is this, really- UFC is open to everyone, just like Greco-Roman wrestling is open to everyone who would like to join. The difference is- a UFC fighter fights all kinds of fighters, whereas a Greco-Roman wrestler only fights other Greco-Roman wrestlers. That, in a nutshell, is the mark of universal fighting vis a vis a more particular kind of fighting. Do you have reasons for disagreeing with this assessment? And this is not a rhetorical question, I would like an answer please.

 

One more question- if something is universal and it also happens to be a bit more disorganized than you would like it to be, what possible concern is that of yours?

[PhuturePriest]

Let's get back to the fighting motif for a moment. What would be an example of a universal fighting style, or if you like, a universal fighting promotion? Would it be a particular style of fighting that is old, fairly ubiquitous, and open to everyone- which you say as if that's special, really now, any style of fighting along with any religious group is open to everyone if they do thus and such in order to belong to it. Or- second option- would it be a more truly universal fighting style/promotion if it represented every fighting style in some way? You might want to attach a description like "total disorganization," but that's more emotive than descriptive and irrelevant to the point anyway. The point is this, really- UFC is open to everyone, just like Greco-Roman wrestling is open to everyone who would like to join. The difference is- a UFC fighter fights all kinds of fighters, whereas a Greco-Roman wrestler only fights other Greco-Roman wrestlers. That, in a nutshell, is the mark of universal fighting vis a vis a more particular kind of fighting. Do you have reasons for disagreeing with this assessment? And this is not a rhetorical question, I would like an answer please.

 

One more question- if something is universal and it also happens to be a bit more disorganized than you would like it to be, what possible concern is that of yours?

 

I have done martial arts since I was four. I have a black belt in American Goju, and I'm about to have a black belt in Okinawan Kenpo. I have done karate for almost thirteen years now, so you could call me somewhat experienced at it. In my expert opinion, comparing martial arts and religion is like comparing cake with jello. They're two completely different things. There is no such thing as a "universal" martial art. Even with "Mixed Martial Arts" (I'm not what you might call a fan of it), it's not universal in any sense. Being universal would mean it's easily adaptable for every culture in the world, and it's not. Every culture fights a different way. Whether we like it or not, we are accustomed to fighting a particular way, and unless we train for an incredible amount of hours, you will not be able to train your culture's fighting style out of your system.

 

As I said previously, my specialty is Okinawan, Japanese, and Chinese martial arts (Goju is Japanese, and Okinawan Kenpo (Like all Karate) comes from Shaolin Kung Fu), so I have no idea what Greco-Roman wrestling is like. I'm taught that the way to get out of a dude hugging you on the ground is kicking arse and breaking bones -- we aren't taught to cuddle in my styles, because they were made to be used by soldiers in battle, so I don't know what Roman wrestling is like. I can assume that since it is wrestling, it would not be good to be a Roman wrestler and go against a man who practices Kung Fu or Karate, as they are taught to fight in different ways.

 

It would concern me if the Church founded by Christ was overrun with heresies, as this would mean it is not Christ's Church. It would be Man's Church.

Edited December 11, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I was led to believe you have to be apt in the minimum of two disciplines. So there is another rule you forgot to mention if indeed it is a rule. And also just another thing i was told is that bruce lee is kind of the mma originator, he learnt many styles of martial arts when everyone else or most everyone else was just mastering one, he perhaps made it popular anyway. And the asians always used to have a kind of UFC where different arts would battle different arts, but each fighter was of one discipline not mixed. I would like to see UFC branch out into one discipline fighting also, opposing disciplines but not each person having multiple disciplines.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Also firstly christianity is not a fighting style, and secondly you can't play ice hockey and n.f.l at the same time if you wan't a sports analogy, but yes they are both sports. And also as far as i'm aware the holy roman catholic church has an ecumenical council which includes all leaders of christian denominations and perhaps in the future non denomination if that is not already allowed, whom wan't to be a a part of it. And thirdly no not anyone can partake of the holy eucharist and never will be able too, but you can attend holy mass, and no the church isn't going to marry Homosexual couples, it is contrary to the doctrine as to what marriage is to the holy roman catholic church, and i'm not saying the definition of marriage to an athiest or buddhist, it is the catholic christian defenition which we have the right to define as catholic christians for catholic christians. If this was the motivation for your post perhaps? And the christian meaning of the word universal word doesn't mean anything goes. If it was anything goes i could pop you one in the face anytime i wanted too. Is that universal bruz, cuz, sis, sorry i haven't peeped your profile yet to see if what your gender iz, i will do so now ?

 

P.s. Checked your profile, Bruz. :)

Edited December 11, 2013 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Semper Catholic]

F minus minus minus

[Ed Normile]

A universal fighting style ? Two kids squaring off over a disagreement as has happened since the dawn of time.

 

ed

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

F minus minus minus

 

Who got the F - - -. Triple fail is a cold reception. I give this thread a 2 out of 5, A B C D F, so it is only thereabouts though, so i rate this thread no less than a D and perhaps it is actually a C- due to the fact that i don't know the absolute intention of the administrator of the original post, i am safe to assume with hope that the intentions are for dialogue and nothing more or less until i am proven otherwise. :) And if i am proven otherwise i will react appropriately, i hope. :)

 

Or was the F minus minus minus for me. :)

 

Onward christian souls.

 

Jesus iz LORD.

 

P.s. and with everyone helping this thread could turn into a C,B or even an A chat. :)

Edited December 13, 2013 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[cooterhein]

In my expert opinion, comparing martial arts and religion is like comparing cake with jello. They're two completely different things. There is no such thing as a "universal" martial art. Even with "Mixed Martial Arts" (I'm not what you might call a fan of it), it's not universal in any sense. Being universal would mean it's easily adaptable for every culture in the world, and it's not. Every culture fights a different way. Whether we like it or not, we are accustomed to fighting a particular way, and unless we train for an incredible amount of hours, you will not be able to train your culture's fighting style out of your system.

UFC is accessible to all fighting styles- not to all sports, mind you, as it is not a universal sport just as no major group of Christians purports to be a universal religion. But it is universal to unarmed combat- not to all sports, but to all of fighting. In any event, that is one of the main reasons why UFC has become the most valuable sports entity on the planet- MMA has become the first or second most popular spectator sport in a variety of different countries, kickboxers fight grapplers and Brazilian jui jitsu squares off with boxers. Fighting styles are not abandoned, they are adapted in order to defend against the variety of other fighting styles you're going against. And yes, in order to be any good and not get killed you generally have to learn two styles- something for standup and something for grappling and submissions. You can participate without being that diverse, but you won't get too far. There's too many ways to lose, which is one reason why it's so exciting and unpredictable.

Also- I wouldn't want to compare cake to cake, that would be boring and pointless. No one is saying that religions are fighting styles or that fighters are religious gurus, what I am saying is that the basic principles of universality are pretty readily transferable. The things that are universal are different, but the basic principles concerning the sine qua non of universality are basically the same.

As I said previously, my specialty is Okinawan, Japanese, and Chinese martial arts (Goju is Japanese, and Okinawan Kenpo (Like all Karate) comes from Shaolin Kung Fu), so I have no idea what Greco-Roman wrestling is like. I'm taught that the way to get out of a dude hugging you on the ground is kicking arse and breaking bones -- we aren't taught to cuddle in my styles, because they were made to be used by soldiers in battle, so I don't know what Roman wrestling is like. I can assume that since it is wrestling, it would not be good to be a Roman wrestler and go against a man who practices Kung Fu or Karate, as they are taught to fight in different ways.

I do have a lot of respect for those fighting styles, and the following statement may have something to do with a comparatively low level of MMA engagement in Asian countries. However, over the course of UFC's history, the collective contribution of Asian fighters to the sport has mostly been to lose to Americans and Brazilians and Canadians and English guys in big fights.

It would concern me if the Church founded by Christ was overrun with heresies, as this would mean it is not Christ's Church. It would be Man's Church.

Has it occurred to you that more complete unity among all Christians would, in fact, place people like me in some sort of fellowship/brotherhood with people like you? I understand that you want no part of me, you're making that quite clear. But that sort of attitude and practice is the opposite of universal vis a vis the entirety of Christianity. You don't get to skate by that just because you fancy yourself a good guy and me a bad guy. And really, what else would I expect you to think of yourself....the point is, if you're trying to be universal with respect to the whole of Christianity, that means you're trying to think of all Christians as "us" whereas the enemies of Christ are "them." I don't see you doing that. You are of course totally free to call yourself the perfection of Christianity while criticizing other Christians for their flaws and considering them a danger to your purity and flawlessness- but doing so does in fact make you less universal in your outlook. If you considered them non-Christians on account of their lack of Catholicity, you would actually be more internally consistent, at least as far as universality goes. That would effectively limit your definition of Christian to the people that you want to be in fellowship with. I'd prefer to see you expand your desire for fellowship so that it extends beyond the particular church that you belong to- but I don't think that's going to happen. So I guess we're left with your desire for fellowship going this far and your acknowledgment of shared Christian identity going that much further- and the gap in between the two is where you fall short of universaality.

Back to the question, though- I'll ask a different way. If a fighting promotion is very much universal to all fighting styles and it also happens to be more disorganized than you would like it to be, what possible concern is that of yours? Especially when I am clearly trying to focus on the topic of universality.

[PhuturePriest]

UFC is accessible to all fighting styles- not to all sports, mind you, as it is not a universal sport just as no major group of Christians purports to be a universal religion. But it is universal to unarmed combat- not to all sports, but to all of fighting. In any event, that is one of the main reasons why UFC has become the most valuable sports entity on the planet- MMA has become the first or second most popular spectator sport in a variety of different countries, kickboxers fight grapplers and Brazilian jui jitsu squares off with boxers. Fighting styles are not abandoned, they are adapted in order to defend against the variety of other fighting styles you're going against. And yes, in order to be any good and not get killed you generally have to learn two styles- something for standup and something for grappling and submissions. You can participate without being that diverse, but you won't get too far. There's too many ways to lose, which is one reason why it's so exciting and unpredictable.

Also- I wouldn't want to compare cake to cake, that would be boring and pointless. No one is saying that religions are fighting styles or that fighters are religious gurus, what I am saying is that the basic principles of universality are pretty readily transferable. The things that are universal are different, but the basic principles concerning the sine qua non of universality are basically the same.

I do have a lot of respect for those fighting styles, and the following statement may have something to do with a comparatively low level of MMA engagement in Asian countries. However, over the course of UFC's history, the collective contribution of Asian fighters to the sport has mostly been to lose to Americans and Brazilians and Canadians and English guys in big fights.

Has it occurred to you that more complete unity among all Christians would, in fact, place people like me in some sort of fellowship/brotherhood with people like you? I understand that you want no part of me, you're making that quite clear. But that sort of attitude and practice is the opposite of universal vis a vis the entirety of Christianity. You don't get to skate by that just because you fancy yourself a good guy and me a bad guy. And really, what else would I expect you to think of yourself....the point is, if you're trying to be universal with respect to the whole of Christianity, that means you're trying to think of all Christians as "us" whereas the enemies of Christ are "them." I don't see you doing that. You are of course totally free to call yourself the perfection of Christianity while criticizing other Christians for their flaws and considering them a danger to your purity and flawlessness- but doing so does in fact make you less universal in your outlook. If you considered them non-Christians on account of their lack of Catholicity, you would actually be more internally consistent, at least as far as universality goes. That would effectively limit your definition of Christian to the people that you want to be in fellowship with. I'd prefer to see you expand your desire for fellowship so that it extends beyond the particular church that you belong to- but I don't think that's going to happen. So I guess we're left with your desire for fellowship going this far and your acknowledgment of shared Christian identity going that much further- and the gap in between the two is where you fall short of universaality.

Back to the question, though- I'll ask a different way. If a fighting promotion is very much universal to all fighting styles and it also happens to be more disorganized than you would like it to be, what possible concern is that of yours? Especially when I am clearly trying to focus on the topic of universality.

 

Your second last paragraph shows a lot of anger and resentment towards Catholics in general. I'm afraid you either have a skewed version of Catholics by upbringing or by experiencing a few bad ones. I am sorry for this. I hope you can have an open mind and see that Catholics aren't such bad people as you are making them out to be.

[cooterhein]

Your second last paragraph shows a lot of anger and resentment towards Catholics in general. I'm afraid you either have a skewed version of Catholics by upbringing or by experiencing a few bad ones. I am sorry for this. I hope you can have an open mind and see that Catholics aren't such bad people as you are making them out to be.

What is it that you would like to say about yourself? Are you suggesting that you are equal parts universal and misunderstood?

[cooterhein]

And the christian meaning of the word universal word doesn't mean anything goes. If it was anything goes i could pop you one in the face anytime i wanted too. Is that universal bruz, cuz, sis, sorry i haven't peeped your profile yet to see if what your gender iz, i will do so now ?

P.s. Checked your profile, Bruz. :)

The Christian meaning of the word Universal iz that it pertains to all Christians, and fortunately, we are of one accord as far as who is a Christian. Same way universal fighting pertains to all styles of fighting- not just to a particular type of fighting, and not just to a particular type of Christian. As to whether or not you can sucker punch me for religious reasons- I'd say that's roughly analogous to fishhooking, nutshots, or hair pulling in MMA. That stuff is banned in all forms of organized fighting done for sport, and as far as I know, suckerpunching your brother in Christ is frowned upon in all forms of organized Christianity. But you can ask your priest, there may be things about Catholicism I don't know. For example, I did not know that I would ever get a message from a Catholic asking for permission to hit me in the face on account of an "anything goes" statement that I never made but you nevertheless felt was implied. Whether or not you've ever heard those actual words from any Protestant is something I'm genuinely curious about- maybe you just tune us out and start dubbing creatively when you see our mouths moving? (Figuritively speaking). Anywho, ask your priest about the thing where you pop me in the face any time you want- and if I may ask, what sort of time would it be that you want to do that? You know, just in case we somehow meet one day.

Oh when we aaaallllll, get to heeeeaaaa-veeen. What a day of, wondering if you still want to pop me in the faaaaaccceee.

Good times.