Women should be able to compete against men in MMA

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » Women should be able to compete against men in MMA
« Previous Page | Next Page »
Rush
11/21/08 7:50:21AM
Hayley Wickenheiser was the MVP (both olympics) from our olympic hockey team that won gold in both 2002 and 2006. So basically we're talking about the best of the best in Canadian women's hockey.

She went and played for a men's team in Europe. Now, keep in mind the European leagues are much less physical than the North American leagues.

This is a woman who went from scoring up to 7 goals in 5 olympic games, to 1 or no goals in 10-12 games. She left the league because the team she played for got promoted to division I status. She now plays for a division III team. I'm not sure how she is doing now.

So there you have an example of the best Canadian woman's hockey player is playing for a division III European league.
EvenFlow
11/21/08 8:53:31AM
Women's MMA has to be massively popular before that idea would even be slightly considered (if at all). I realize that talented women want to test themselves and suppose they did well, it would kill the sport if unisex fights aired tonight or anytime in the near future Tonight to 30 years from now. Most people wouldnt know how to handle this and the sport would be tarnished as barbaric.

However with all these equal rights and the tomboy thing, the future will probably have unisex sports. I doubt comtact sports will but you never know and I'm talking distant future 40-50+ years.

To me I dont like seeing Men fight Women regardless if the woman can or would beat that particular man.

Girl on Girl now that I can get into.
AchillesHeel
11/21/08 9:28:30AM

Posted by Rush


Women should be able to compete against men in MMA


No, for many reasons including social and physical factors.


I agree about the social factors - this very thread is part of my reason for thinking that women shouldn't compete against men - but the physical part is a red herring. Simply put, we don't demand that men have equal physical attributes to get in the cage, so it's a double-standard.


Posted by Rush

Men are physically stronger, faster and more explosive. If you take any elite level of sport that requires these attributes, the men always have more impressive records than the women. Just watch a woman's sport then watch the men's equivalent (hockey, baseball, football, MMA) in every case the men are more intense (speed, strength, etc)


And the men in the NHL are stronger, faster and more explosive than I am. No one says I can't play in the NHL because people with blue eyes aren't allowed to play in the NHL; they say I can't play in the NHL because I'm not good enough, as an individual.


Posted by Rush

Do not misunderstand, this does not mean that if you stuck Kris cyborg in with another man, the man would always win. But that is not the point.


Actually, I think that's precisely the point. If Cris Cyborg beats a man then, well, she won the fight. The rest is rubbish.


Posted by Rush

Also, the point that the thread starter tried to make about women being tough is moot because it lacks a point of reference. What I mean by a point of reference is this: There are tons of women out there that can run a marathon faster than I can. However, you have to compare people on the same competitive level.


...which you are specifically not doing by preventing women from competing against men.


Posted by Rush

If you look at the top 10 marathon runners for almost any given race (run), most if not all of them will be men.


Fair enough. Let's say 1 of them is a woman. The common argument around here is that she should be barred from future races because she's a woman.


Posted by Rush

What should be compared is the top 10 men vs. the top 10 women.


Why?


Posted by Rush

Just for fun I will use the Scotiabank marathon in Toronto about two months ago.

The top 20 times are all men. The top ten females are ranked in the 21-40th place section.


Okay, so let's say for the next race we seed the runners by their times in this race, in groups of 20 (because ideally, we try to have MMA fighters compete against guys who are "ranked" near them, so matches are as competitive as possible). The Top 20 runners will all compete against one another; runners 21-40 will all compete against one another, and runners 41-60 will all compete against one another. As it happens, that first race will be 20 guys; the second race is 10 guys and 10 women. Where's the problem?


Posted by Rush

The concept of technique over strength. This thing always comes up in these types of debates. The truth is, technique will work over muscle, to a certain degree. Likewise, muscle will be able to power through technique to a certain degree. Then there is a grey area in the middle. Technique vs. muscle is not black and white folks. If you look at most if not all MMA champions, they possess both strength and technique. If you take a man and woman with equal technique, the advantage will be given to the man.


Right, if one aspect of the match is equal, the fighter with an advantage in some other aspect will probably win. That's got nothing to do with gender, that's MMA.


Posted by Rush

The other aspect is the social one. I don't agree with it, but it is the case in society that it is more acceptable for a woman to hit another woman (or man), but it is unacceptable for a man to hit a woman. Because of this, the mass (men and women) would never condone an MMA fight between a man and woman. The last thing that MMA needs is another stigma.


This part I agree with. Like I said above, this thread demonstrates to me why women shouldn't compete against men.


Posted by Rush

Hayley Wickenheiser was the MVP (both olympics) from our olympic hockey team that won gold in both 2002 and 2006. So basically we're talking about the best of the best in Canadian women's hockey.

She went and played for a men's team in Europe. Now, keep in mind the European leagues are much less physical than the North American leagues.

This is a woman who went from scoring up to 7 goals in 5 olympic games, to 1 or no goals in 10-12 games. She left the league because the team she played for got promoted to division I status. She now plays for a division III team. I'm not sure how she is doing now.

So there you have an example of the best Canadian woman's hockey player is playing for a division III European league.


Okay.

Where's the part about her not being allowed to play for a division III European hockey team because she's a woman?

Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you, you just happen to be articulating your points, rather than just belaboring them. I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to an intelligent post, even though I disagree with much of it.


EDIT: ...except it says I can't give you any props right now. Oh well. You've got plenty anyway.
AchillesHeel
11/21/08 9:55:36AM

Posted by roadking95th

I think AchillesHeel is slyly onto something here. If others are correct in saying that a women would never beat a top man then she shouldn't compete then like wise we would have to kick a lot of men out too.


Exactly.


Posted by roadking95th

I had a girl who wrestled for my school, who I helped coach a little. She was excellent technique wise, but she would just get smoked by the stronger boys once she got to HS. Now mind you, these weren't even men yet. Their strength would only increase for another 10-15 years.


Something worth thinking about: Strength is required and rewarded in wrestling. It's a sport designed to favor and develop the stronger athlete, and therefore is inherently tilted against girls. At adolescence, boys develop strength while girls develop flexibility. How might your girl do against boys in a BJJ match, assuming she had the same excellent technique? I think back to Demian Maia-vs-Nate Quarry, just a few days ago.

There's also a more complex sociological issue at work, because girls are systematically weeded out of competitive sports from before adolescence. The fact that the girl you knew had excellent technique was probably a result of her being encouraged (or simply allowed) to practice the sport. Malcolm Gladwell is publishing a book, which I haven't read yet, about human excellence, and one of his observations is that elite athletes trend toward having been born in the first three months of the year. It's because, he says, when you're ten years old, being six months older than your classmates means that you're an inch taller and 5 lbs heavier and a little stronger. So you excel in sports, and so you're encouraged to play sports, and you're given better coaching and, after a few years, you really are just better at sports than the kids in your class who were born six months after you were. It isn't hard to imagine the "self-fulfilling prophecy" that occurs when we decide that one baby is less capable at sports than another one, the moment they're born.
MMA_Alex
11/21/08 10:44:59AM

Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by Rush


Women should be able to compete against men in MMA


No, for many reasons including social and physical factors.


I agree about the social factors - this very thread is part of my reason for thinking that women shouldn't compete against men - but the physical part is a red herring. Simply put, we don't demand that men have equal physical attributes to get in the cage, so it's a double-standard.




Posted by AchillesHeel

The point being made is not the fact that we demand people have equal physical attributes to get in the cage. The point is that, when compared to one another, women will almost always have a disadvantage to men of the same skill level. Much more so than two men with the same skill level would have against one another.


Posted by Rush

Men are physically stronger, faster and more explosive. If you take any elite level of sport that requires these attributes, the men always have more impressive records than the women. Just watch a woman's sport then watch the men's equivalent (hockey, baseball, football, MMA) in every case the men are more intense (speed, strength, etc)


And the men in the NHL are stronger, faster and more explosive than I am. No one says I can't play in the NHL because people with blue eyes aren't allowed to play in the NHL; they say I can't play in the NHL because I'm not good enough, as an individual.



You're not seeing the argument here. Your not an elite level player. A male at an elite level would certainly be able to participate at an elite level in male sports and would have the same stength, speed and explosive advantage as other men. A woman at an elite level would not have those advantages, just because of the way a woman's body is built.


Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by Rush

Do not misunderstand, this does not mean that if you stuck Kris cyborg in with another man, the man would always win. But that is not the point.


Actually, I think that's precisely the point. If Cris Cyborg beats a man then, well, she won the fight. The rest is rubbish.



That's actually prescisely NOT the point. If an elite level female MMA fighter (aka Cris Cyborg) beats some mid-level or low-level male MMA fighter, that means nothing. When she goes up against a fellow elite level MMA fighter that is male, she will lose most or all of the time. The point being made here is not that female MMA fighter's can be great; it's that the great male MMA fighters will always be greater and, therefore, a female MMA fighter will never be able to compete on their own level against males.


Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by Rush

Also, the point that the thread starter tried to make about women being tough is moot because it lacks a point of reference. What I mean by a point of reference is this: There are tons of women out there that can run a marathon faster than I can. However, you have to compare people on the same competitive level.


...which you are specifically not doing by preventing women from competing against men.



No. Countless amounts of research has backed up all these facts. Woman are just not built for the same level of physical attributes that men can achieve. There's no sexism; it's just a fact.


Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by Rush

If you look at the top 10 marathon runners for almost any given race (run), most if not all of them will be men.


Fair enough. Let's say 1 of them is a woman. The common argument around here is that she should be barred from future races because she's a woman.



How is that the common argument? That's a marathon. Women shouldn't be barred from competing with men in marathons because marathons are an invidual sport as well, in that you can compete against yourself and your own times. MMA, on the other hand, is literally a fight between two people. If you lose, you lose and you may very well end up being injured for it. I'm not saying men don't have the same reality facing them when they lose, but, once again, a female fighter with the same skill level as a male fighter will lose much more often than the male fighter would to a male on the same skill level as both of them.


Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by Rush

What should be compared is the top 10 men vs. the top 10 women.


Why?



Because, in MMA, you are supposed to fight people of the same skill level. If women can't beat people of the same skill level, than their potential is for ever capped. Women simply wouldn't be able to compete with men at the same skill level, which is exactly why there should never be unisex MMA.


Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by Rush

Just for fun I will use the Scotiabank marathon in Toronto about two months ago.

The top 20 times are all men. The top ten females are ranked in the 21-40th place section.


Okay, so let's say for the next race we seed the runners by their times in this race, in groups of 20 (because ideally, we try to have MMA fighters compete against guys who are "ranked" near them, so matches are as competitive as possible). The Top 20 runners will all compete against one another; runners 21-40 will all compete against one another, and runners 41-60 will all compete against one another. As it happens, that first race will be 20 guys; the second race is 10 guys and 10 women. Where's the problem?



The problem is that the best women are at a completely seperate level than the best men. They just can't compete. Same points as the last argument I made.


Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by Rush

The concept of technique over strength. This thing always comes up in these types of debates. The truth is, technique will work over muscle, to a certain degree. Likewise, muscle will be able to power through technique to a certain degree. Then there is a grey area in the middle. Technique vs. muscle is not black and white folks. If you look at most if not all MMA champions, they possess both strength and technique. If you take a man and woman with equal technique, the advantage will be given to the man.


Right, if one aspect of the match is equal, the fighter with an advantage in some other aspect will probably win. That's got nothing to do with gender, that's MMA.



That's EXACTLY the point we're making though! This is MMA and, all things equal, a man will almost ALWAYS beat a female. That puts women at a huge disadvantage in EVERY fight they have against a male who is of equal skill and they will never be able to be at the top of the sport against males.


Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by Rush

The other aspect is the social one. I don't agree with it, but it is the case in society that it is more acceptable for a woman to hit another woman (or man), but it is unacceptable for a man to hit a woman. Because of this, the mass (men and women) would never condone an MMA fight between a man and woman. The last thing that MMA needs is another stigma.


This part I agree with. Like I said above, this thread demonstrates to me why women shouldn't compete against men.



No problem here.


Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by Rush

Hayley Wickenheiser was the MVP (both olympics) from our olympic hockey team that won gold in both 2002 and 2006. So basically we're talking about the best of the best in Canadian women's hockey.

She went and played for a men's team in Europe. Now, keep in mind the European leagues are much less physical than the North American leagues.

This is a woman who went from scoring up to 7 goals in 5 olympic games, to 1 or no goals in 10-12 games. She left the league because the team she played for got promoted to division I status. She now plays for a division III team. I'm not sure how she is doing now.

So there you have an example of the best Canadian woman's hockey player is playing for a division III European league.


Okay.

Where's the part about her not being allowed to play for a division III European hockey team because she's a woman?



That part is not needed. The part Rush pointed out was that one of the most elite female hockey players in the world CAN'T COMPETE with even non-elite male hockey players.


Posted by AchillesHeel

Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you, you just happen to be articulating your points, rather than just belaboring them. I should thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to an intelligent post, even though I disagree with much of it.


EDIT: ...except it says I can't give you any props right now. Oh well. You've got plenty anyway.



From all your arguments, you must be suggesting we put elite female fighters against men of lesser skill in every single fight they have, because that's the only way you can justify them having a chance. And, in that case, what's the point? Why put females at an eternal handicap and take away any chance of them ever becoming the best in their division?
Rush
11/21/08 10:53:02AM

Posted by AchillesHeel

And the men in the NHL are stronger, faster and more explosive than I am. No one says I can't play in the NHL because people with blue eyes aren't allowed to play in the NHL; they say I can't play in the NHL because I'm not good enough, as an individual.



Yes, but what I am saying is that any given man has the physical potential to be competitive on the level with other elite me. Being good enough has a lot to do with physical ability. Physical ability is linked to physical potential.

Not letting women fight against men in MMA is analogous to not letting boys fight against men in MMA.



Posted by AchillesHeel

...which you are specifically not doing by preventing women from competing against men.



It doesn't need to be done (let women fight men) because of the obvious precedent in other sports suggests that they will not be able to compete on the same level.



Posted by AchillesHeel



If you look at the top 10 marathon runners for almost any given race (run), most if not all of them will be men.



Fair enough. Let's say 1 of them is a woman. The common argument around here is that she should be barred from future races because she's a woman.




No because despite the fact that men and women run in the same actual race as each other, they are not technically running against each other. That is a woman can come in 50th overall, but as long as she is the first woman to cross the finish line she is first. You can't do that in MMA, well, I guess you could but it wouldn't make sense to do so.




Posted by AchillesHeel

Posted by Rush

What should be compared is the top 10 men vs. the top 10 women.



Why?




Why? because the thread starter insisted women could be competitive with me in anything. If you are going to legitimately compare the abilities of athletes, you really need to compare them on the same level of competition.



Posted by AchillesHeel

Posted by Rush

Just for fun I will use the Scotiabank marathon in Toronto about two months ago. The top 20 times are all men. The top ten females are ranked in the 21-40th place section.



Okay, so let's say for the next race we seed the runners by their times in this race, in groups of 20 (because ideally, we try to have MMA fighters compete against guys who are "ranked" near them, so matches are as competitive as possible). The Top 20 runners will all compete against one another; runners 21-40 will all compete against one another, and runners 41-60 will all compete against one another. As it happens, that first race will be 20 guys; the second race is 10 guys and 10 women. Where's the problem?



I don't have a problem, I just think that by the a female fighter finds her male match (so to speak) you have dropped so far down the competitive ladder that you would mostly likely have "elite" women fighters, fighting novice men fighters. I don't see any motivation for the woman because they are fighting "nobodies". I don't see any motivation for the men and I don't see any motivation for the organizations. Why should elite women fighters be wasted fighting men with little or no fighting experience in some rinky dink venue when they elite women can be fighting elite women in a bigger and better organization.

In a sport like MMA where safety is of paramount importance it is counterproductive to put a woman vs. a man at the same competitive level.



Posted by AchillesHeel

Okay.

Where's the part about her not being allowed to play for a division III European hockey team because she's a woman?



The point I tried to make with this example is that for her to even be on a semi-level playing field Hayley

1) had to be the best of the best in her sport
2) had to drop down several levels (Olympic to division III). I don't play hockey anymore, but I think I could do division III.
3) See had to join a league with less physical contact.


So I guess the analogous situation for MMA would be to take Cyborg, put a whole bunch of pads on her and throw her in the ring with a some newbie male can. That situation doesn't make a lot of sense to me.






I wish I had the ability to prove it. I think the best test case would be to have open gender ADCC competition. If the women could not compete with the men, I think that would be a pretty good indication that they would get slaughtered in MMA.
artofdefense
11/21/08 10:59:37AM
The marathon analogy is of due to the lack of the threat of serious injury.

I'm an egalitarian, so my opinion here is not based on sexism. Women are equal in all intellectual pursuits as men, women are equal legally, women are equal socially, and this is for the best. But you can't legislate biology.

Women are naturally more sly about manipulating society to their benefeit, cunning is their biological gift. Men are biologically defenders, hunters. Our biological gift is physical strength and endurance.

Women shouldn't fight with men because only the few elite fighters will have any sort of chance against a mid-level male fighter.

Achilles, you seem to have been taken in by this PC, N.O.W. crap we are contstantly forced to listen to.
AchillesHeel
11/21/08 11:48:01AM

Posted by MMA_Alex

The point being made is not the fact that we demand people have equal physical attributes to get in the cage. The point is that, when compared to one another, women will almost always have a disadvantage to men of the same skill level. Much more so than two men with the same skill level would have against one another.


And so you are saying a woman needs to have equal physical attributes to a man to compete against him. Which is a standard you don't apply to men fighting other men (or women fighting other women). MMA matches between men aren't resolved "on paper", we let them get in the cage and give it a whirl. Why should a match between a man and a woman be any different? If it turns out that the winners are mostly men, so be it. As we continually match fighters with competition they're equal to, it'll even out, just like it already does.


Posted by MMA_Alex

You're not seeing the argument here. Your not an elite level player. A male at an elite level would certainly be able to participate at an elite level in male sports and would have the same stength, speed and explosive advantage as other men. A woman at an elite level would not have those advantages, just because of the way a woman's body is built.


So you're lowering the standard for what "elite" is, for a woman. Anyway, I don't get the obsession with applying an elite standard to theoretical matches between women and men, when we don't do it to competitions between men. What you're suggesting (and what others have said outright) is that Gina Carano should not be allowed to compete with Joe Smith because she wouldn't do well against Sean Sherk. The problem is that we don't apply that standard to men. Bo Coleman wouldn't stand a chance against Sherk either, but we have no problem with him competing against other fighters at his level.


Posted by MMA_Alex

That's actually prescisely NOT the point. If an elite level female MMA fighter (aka Cris Cyborg) beats some mid-level or low-level male MMA fighter, that means nothing.


No, it means she's better than he is, or at least, she was on that day. It's not any more complex than it would be if both fighters were men, it's just more controversial.


Posted by MMA_Alex

When she goes up against a fellow elite level MMA fighter that is male, she will lose most or all of the time. The point being made here is not that female MMA fighter's can be great; it's that the great male MMA fighters will always be greater and, therefore, a female MMA fighter will never be able to compete on their own level against males.


Well if they lose consistently, it's clearly not "their" level is it? We don't make fighters show that they can compete in the UFC before letting them compete in King of the Cage.


Posted by MMA_Alex

No. Countless amounts of research has backed up all these facts. Woman are just not built for the same level of physical attributes that men can achieve. There's no sexism; it's just a fact.


No, the sexism happens when you conclude that the research shows that women shouldn't be allowed to try.


Posted by MMA_Alex

How is that the common argument?


Because people are saying that, since a woman wouldn't be able to defeat Sean Sherk, Anderson Silva, or Fedor Emelianenko, she shouldn't be allowed to compete with any man. Well, there are lots of men who can't defeat those guys either. It's either faulty logic or a double-standard (or both, I suppose).


Posted by MMA_Alex

MMA, on the other hand, is literally a fight between two people. If you lose, you lose and you may very well end up being injured for it.


Another red herring. Women get injured in sports all the time.


Posted by MMA_Alex

Because, in MMA, you are supposed to fight people of the same skill level.


Right. If Fighter A is competitive with Fighter B, they should be able to compete. Where does gender come into it?


Posted by MMA_Alex


Posted by AchillesHeel

Okay, so let's say for the next race we seed the runners by their times in this race, in groups of 20 (because ideally, we try to have MMA fighters compete against guys who are "ranked" near them, so matches are as competitive as possible). The Top 20 runners will all compete against one another; runners 21-40 will all compete against one another, and runners 41-60 will all compete against one another. As it happens, that first race will be 20 guys; the second race is 10 guys and 10 women. Where's the problem?


The problem is that the best women are at a completely seperate level than the best men. They just can't compete.


Wrong. In the example provided by Rush, which I elaborated on, the 10 best women are competitive with the men ranked #21-30. Our separating them by gender is completely arbitrary.


Posted by MMA_Alex


Posted by AchillesHeel

Right, if one aspect of the match is equal, the fighter with an advantage in some other aspect will probably win. That's got nothing to do with gender, that's MMA.



That's EXACTLY the point we're making though! This is MMA and, all things equal, a man will almost ALWAYS beat a female. That puts women at a huge disadvantage in EVERY fight they have against a male who is of equal skill and they will never be able to be at the top of the sport against males.


But MMA doesn't require that fighters be equal in every way. In fact, the sport was founded on the ideas that they aren't. If one guy is a great wrestler with crappy standup, we don't hesitate to put him in a match with a good kickboxer whose submissions are terrible. Matt Hughes made a Hall of Fame career out of being stronger and more durable than his opponents. Fighters who fought Hughes needed to be sublimely skilled to make up the difference, and few were up to the job (alternately, they needed to be just as physically gifted as he was, but since he was unusual in that respect, opponents who could match him physically were... well... unusual).


Posted by MMA_Alex

That part is not needed. The part Rush pointed out was that one of the most elite female hockey players in the world CAN'T COMPETE with even non-elite male hockey players.


So allow all athletes to compete with whoever they can compete against. Gender isn't a relevant variable.


Posted by MMA_Alex

From all your arguments, you must be suggesting we put elite female fighters against men of lesser skill in every single fight they have, because that's the only way you can justify them having a chance. And, in that case, what's the point? Why put females at an eternal handicap and take away any chance of them ever becoming the best in their division?


Actually, I'm not in favor of mixed-gender MMA, even though I'm arguing against many of the arguments being presented, and you've hit on what I think might be one good argument against it, right at the end here.

In my mind, it would be similar to why we have weight classes, which in a way is no less arbitrary a line to draw between Fighter A and Fighter B (and in fact, some people argue that "real" MMA should have no weight classes). If there were no weight classes, which fighters would hold the championship belts? Probably the heavyweights and light-heavyweights and maybe one or two Middleweights. Does that mean BJ Penn and Urijah Faber aren't "good"? Of course not, but it's because we separate "good" from "successful" (mostly - some people credit the big fighters with being "better" precisely because they would defeat the smaller fighters in a one-on-one match). If MMA were all open-weight fights, we'd never even see Urijah Faber or Kid Yamamoto, to say nothing of Gray Maynard or Waggney Fabiano.
AchillesHeel
11/21/08 12:04:13PM

Posted by Rush

Yes, but what I am saying is that any given man has the physical potential to be competitive on the level with other elite men.


I don't agree. Most men have absolutely zero chance of being as good as the elite athletes in their sport. That's why they're elite in the first place. I could have continued playing competitive baseball, and there's no chance I would have made the majors. No chance.


Posted by Rush

Being good enough has a lot to do with physical ability. Physical ability is linked to physical potential.

Not letting women fight against men in MMA is analogous to not letting boys fight against men in MMA.


Are boys barred from competing against men? If so, it's probably because they could get hurt, and we evaluate injuries to children differently than injuries to adults. Children can suffer injuries that impact their growth, for example. When I was in Little League, coaches were barred from teaching kids to throw a curveball, because of the stress it puts on your arm. It wasn't because kids couldn't throw them well enough. We also don't allow the kids to decide whether or not to throw a curveball because we accept the premise that kids can't make decisions like that. If women face some unique risk that men don't face in MMA, and if women aren't capable of making reasonable choices for themselves regarding those risks, then we should prevent women from fighting at all.


Posted by Rush

It doesn't need to be done (let women fight men) because of the obvious precedent in other sports suggests that they will not be able to compete on the same level.


That's a logical fallacy, although I forget what it's called, the argument that something should be thus because it has always been thus.


Posted by Rush

No because despite the fact that men and women run in the same actual race as each other, they are not technically running against each other. That is a woman can come in 50th overall, but as long as she is the first woman to cross the finish line she is first.


Right, but that's an arbitrary delineation. You aren't explaining why it should be so, you're only showing that it is so.


Posted by Rush

You can't do that in MMA, well, I guess you could but it wouldn't make sense to do so.


Right, running and MMA aren't a perfect analogy, but I went with what you gave me.


Posted by Rush

If you are going to legitimately compare the abilities of athletes, you really need to compare them on the same level of competition.


...which you're avoiding doing when you separate the athletes by gender.


Posted by Rush

I don't have a problem, I just think that by the a female fighter finds her male match (so to speak) you have dropped so far down the competitive ladder that you would mostly likely have "elite" women fighters, fighting novice men fighters. I don't see any motivation for the woman because they are fighting "nobodies". I don't see any motivation for the men and I don't see any motivation for the organizations. Why should elite women fighters be wasted fighting men with little or no fighting experience in some rinky dink venue when they elite women can be fighting elite women in a bigger and better organization.


Right. I agree, and I think this is a valid argument. As I said above, it's similar to one of the reasons we don't have open-weight fights anymore. In a way, people who are against women fighting in MMA generally should support women fighting men. That way, they'd see many, many fewer women in MMA. For those of us who want to see Gina Carano and Cris Cyborg, having them fight men would be counter-productive.


Posted by Rush

So I guess the analogous situation for MMA would be to take Cyborg, put a whole bunch of pads on her and throw her in the ring with a some newbie male can. That situation doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Argh. There you go torpedoing the argument again. A whole bunch of pads? You want to give one fighter an artificial advantage, just because she's a woman? That's like the Army allowing women to use step-ladders to get over the wall in the obstacle course, but not shorter, weaker men (or is that the Marines? I forget).
AchillesHeel
11/21/08 12:11:56PM

Posted by artofdefense

The marathon analogy is of due to the lack of the threat of serious injury.


As I say, if women face some threat of injury that men do not, and if women can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves about said injury, then their playing sports more generally should be re-evaluated. In soccer, women experience a very high occurrence of ACL injuries. They're something like four or five times more prevalent among adolescent girls and women than among teenaged boys and men. To my knowledge, no one has suggested that women stop playing soccer. And that analogy is only applicable if indeed women face a greater risk of injury than men in MMA.


Posted by artofdefense

Women shouldn't fight with men because only the few elite fighters will have any sort of chance against a mid-level male fighter.


This doesn't make any sense, without further explanation. If the few, elite women fighters have a chance mid-level make fighters, then let them fight mid-level male fighters.


Posted by artofdefense

Achilles, you seem to have been taken in by this PC, N.O.W. crap we are contstantly forced to listen to.


Boy, that's a great argument. You've got me by the balls with that one.
Rush
11/21/08 1:31:33PM
I don't have the time right now to continue this in detail, but I want to throw a few things out there until I get more time.



Posted by AchillesHeel



Posted by Rush

So I guess the analogous situation for MMA would be to take Cyborg, put a whole bunch of pads on her and throw her in the ring with a some newbie male can. That situation doesn't make a lot of sense to me.



Argh. There you go torpedoing the argument again. A whole bunch of pads? You want to give one fighter an artificial advantage, just because she's a woman?




I don't think I am torpedoing the the argument (again?). You inquired about the hockey example.

The reason I responded the way I did was because there is a fundamental difference between hockey and MMA. The actual fundamental goal in hockey does not necessarily require a situation where the players are intending to seriously harm each other. That is, you can separate the skill aspect and the physical aspects to a reasonable extent. Obviously you need physical ability to keep up, but that is not my point. I am referring to physical aspects as hitting, fighting, etc.

However, the sole purpose of MMA is synonymous with trying to hurt your opponent. The only way I could think of making an MMA version of non-contact hockey is to provide pads for the (in my example) woman fighter. You can't take away their abilities to strike or wrestle because then it wouldn't be MMA. This is why I suggested ADCC because let's face it, the real danger in MMA is due to strikes and slams, which ADCC does not have.

Do I think women should be allowed to compete against men in ADCC? Sure why not. The difference is that the consequences of physical parity between men and women are much lower in ADCC than MMA.

Of course you can argue that a woman can choose to accept those (physical) consequences, but I think that is a "out" for any argument that is not' t really productive to the debate. It's like saying "I can, and should be allowed to kill people as long as I accept the consequences".




Posted by AchillesHeel

Posted by Rush

Being good enough has a lot to do with physical ability. Physical ability is linked to physical potential.

Not letting women fight against men in MMA is analogous to not letting boys fight against men in MMA.


Are boys barred from competing against men? If so, it's probably because they could get hurt, and we evaluate injuries to children differently than injuries to adults. Children can suffer injuries that impact their growth, for example. When I was in Little League, coaches were barred from teaching kids to throw a curveball, because of the stress it puts on your arm. It wasn't because kids couldn't throw them well enough. We also don't allow the kids to decide whether or not to throw a curveball because we accept the premise that kids can't make decisions like that. If women face some unique risk that men don't face in MMA, and if women aren't capable of making reasonable choices for themselves regarding those risks, then we should prevent women from fighting at all.



As far as I know, yes, you have to be a certain age to compete against men. Men I am defining as 18 yrs old and boys are younger. I used the example because the fundamental reasons for this not being allowed are the same as why men and women are not allowed to fight, but takes away the gender issue.

Whether younger fighters or women, the legal, social and physical consequences of such situations are too high to risk a test case.



Also, I think there is a certain semantic twist to this argument.

You seem to be sided with the concept of allowance. i.e. Women should be allowed to compete against men in MMA. Women should be able to compete against men in MMA.

Given a situation where a woman has to fight with men (from the get go) for her whole career, I do not think a woman would be able to compete against a man of equal weight. By compete I mean be competitive enough that it is worth doing in light of all the potential legal, social and physical consequences.

I guess it boils down to your point of view. The argument appears cyclical to me.
dannyfrank
11/21/08 4:49:49PM
achilles, yes, the best female fighter would be able to compete against mid-ranged male fighters. however, like rush said before, women would have ABSOLUTELY no motivation to fight men, when they know that they have no way of beating top level guys. i know that you are probably thinking "well, the mid-level males couldn't beat them either, so whats their motivation?"

the men, for the most part, are physically equal and they are hampered only by their work ethic in the gym. if a mid-level man decides that he wants to be a great fighter, then he can train harder and he can get better. however, you could be the hardest working woman fighter alive, but you cannot physically beat top-level men. its just the way it is.

fin
Rush
11/21/08 6:35:16PM

Posted by dannyfrank

the men, for the most part, are physically equal
fin



I think the bigger limitation is their skill, not their work ethic.

It's ok what Achilles is doing. He has some points and I think he is playing a little devil's advocate.
dannyfrank
11/21/08 8:16:49PM

Posted by Rush


Posted by dannyfrank

the men, for the most part, are physically equal
fin



I think the bigger limitation is their skill, not their work ethic.

It's ok what Achilles is doing. He has some points and I think he is playing a little devil's advocate.



i know, i just thought the work ethic thing sounded better with my argument
Pookie
11/21/08 8:22:22PM
I wonder what the odds would be for Kid Yamamoto vs. Gina Carano... even though she has the natural weight advantage.
jiujitsufreak74
11/21/08 8:27:03PM

Posted by Pookie

I wonder what the odds would be for Kid Yamamoto vs. Gina Carano... even though she has the natural weight advantage.



whats greater than infinity to 1?
Pookie
11/21/08 8:29:05PM

Posted by jiujitsufreak74


Posted by Pookie

I wonder what the odds would be for Kid Yamamoto vs. Gina Carano... even though she has the natural weight advantage.



whats greater than infinity to 1?



Doesnt matter, I still wouldnt take those odds.
MMA_Alex
11/21/08 10:10:55PM
Look, AchillesHeel, you're clearly missing the whole point we have (or don't see the problem it raises).

When a female goes up against a male in the same weight class with the same amount of "skill" they are ALWAYS at a physical disadvantage, which ALWAYS puts them at a handicap in an MMA fight. You can't say the same argument applies to males, because it doesn't. If two males are in the same weight class and have the same amount of "skill," the match will be highly competitive.

What everyone here is trying to say by these "elite" comparisons is that, should a woman go up against men in her weight division, she would NEVER be able to get to the top, no matter how hard she worked. You can't say that about men, because men ARE at the top of their own divisions.

So, if a woman, who is considered elite in her division amongst other women, goes into a male division of the same weight class, she will, at best, toil around in the mid-card for ever.

Tell me how that makes sense? Why would women do that? There's no sexism there. It's just cold, hard facts. In a sport like MMA, where it is entirely based on physically hurting your opponent, women can never get close to the top in a field that includes men. Bottom line. Just because they are ABLE to fight men and except the risks, doesn't mean they should.

Rush put it in best: What you are saying is exactly the same logic as saying "I'm ABLE to kill someone, so I should be allowed to do so because I accept the risks in doing so." You keep calling us out for "red herrings" and fallacies, but you're whole argument is based on the horrible fallacy of "I can, so I should be able to."
bls1919
11/22/08 9:13:19PM
Wow this thread really took on a life of it's own. Ok just about every point physicaly/PC was covered. Regardless of all the BULLSHT. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!! There is no market for it. No money to be made from it. No one wants to see it. It really isn't even worth the time of arguing. Sorry for the rant, but i read all the post and had to add my 2 cents.
Aaronno9
11/23/08 2:47:45AM

Posted by AchillesHeel



Posted by artofdefense

But I could be wrong.... let's take a survey: Who thinks Carano or Cyborg vs. Tapia or Torres would go well for either female?


Let's take another survey, while we're at it: Who thinks Gerald Harris vs. Anderson Silva or Assuerio Silva vs. Fedor Emelianenko would go well for either challenger?



No offense to the OP, but this can only go downhill. The reason women can't fight men is because people would lose their minds over it, and insist that sexism is perfectly natural and reasonable.



Um, i could be wrong, but i think most people have Gina and Cyborg/ Tapia Torres around the top in the rankings of their weight divisions. So really the anderson vs harris comparison is silly, considering one is ranked 1st and the other not even top 20.
SeanSalmonisGod
11/26/08 11:07:15AM

Posted by tdietel01


Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by tdietel01

ok let her fight faber. same ending to that fight. find a 280 lbs woman to fight lesnar while we are at it. same weight. same results all across the board in any weight class.


So let's see if I have this right: Because Faber would probably defeat Carano, no woman should ever be allowed to compete against any man. Is that your "argument"?



YES!! basically that is what i am saying. In a contact or combat sport they should play with the same sex. I am not saying golf or bowling. but football hockey boxing wrestling and mma are no go's for women. I do not see a woman taking a hit from a 250 lb linebacker and playing for very long.

as for mma NO woman will ever beat a man that is equally trained!



Not taking anyone's side here but...

Link
RNC
11/27/08 9:21:31AM
I'd fight Gina
kris_ericson
11/27/08 4:10:51PM

Posted by RNC

I'd fight Gina


me too and dont forget Kyra
kris_ericson
11/27/08 4:14:52PM
imagine any heavyweight girl fighter
think about it
Rush
11/27/08 7:38:23PM

Posted by SeanSalmonisGod

Not taking anyone's side here but...

Link




Hence why I suggested letting women roll with men in ADCC, but this is not the same as MMA.




Posted by kris_ericson

imagine any heavyweight girl fighter
think about it




I take it you don't watch judo.
bls1919
11/27/08 9:59:30PM

Posted by kris_ericson

imagine any heavyweight girl fighter
think about it



i am and it aint that bad. think about it Gina 6 inches taller or more.30 lbs of tit!?!?!?!? more A55 than u can smack. Maybe not a hw fighter build but ......
haggiswashere
11/28/08 12:37:23AM

Posted by RNC

I'd fight Gina



you'd spend the whole time in her mount
voodoo-jitsu
11/28/08 11:46:59PM

Posted by haggiswashere


Posted by RNC

I'd fight Gina



you'd spend the whole time in her mount

in that case i'll fight her after RNC
SeanSalmonisGod
11/29/08 11:28:08AM

Posted by Rush


Posted by SeanSalmonisGod

Not taking anyone's side here but...

Link




Hence why I suggested letting women roll with men in ADCC, but this is not the same as MMA.



Granted, but if you read the original post that I was quoting, he stated women should not be able to wrestle with men.
gsquat
11/29/08 1:43:08PM
This will never happen nor should it. Achilles, strength does matter. It's retarded to think that it doesn't. Women always have a higher body fat % than men. So a man and woman of similar weight will not have the same muscle mass or strength. And to prove that strength does matter... Suppose Brock gave Miguel Torres a kimura. He just lets him have it. Miguel wouldn't be able to finish. Brock coud easily straighten his arm out. The point is, in every matchup of man vs woman in the same weight class, the woman is guaranteed to be disavantaged in one CRUCIAL area. The same cannot be said for two men of the same weight. That is why women should not compete with men in MMA.
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Related Topics