The following is a response to a random Facebook comment from someone I don't know, which I shall present to you anonymized.
STRANGER: "Boxing allows buff, light-on-their-feet/quick with their hands dudes who might be lacking a bit "upstairs" to make a decent living and have a reason for their lack of mental aptitude. Probably just offended a bunch of people just now lol"
lol indeed....
Section the first, entitled, ::AHEM::
As someone who enjoys fighting, whether it be boxing or mixed martial arts (MMA), but mostly MMA, I may not have enough going on upstairs to supply a fitting retort to your condemnation of the pugilistic sports, but just the same, I feel compelled to try.
Section the second, entitled, Analogy
I liken combat sports to debate. Let's look at what debate is. At its root, specific ideological considerations to the side, it engages our desire for competition. Is that good or bad? I'm not sure, but I'm confident people are competitive, and that debate is an outlet.
What does it take to be good at debate? A combination of skills is requisite. The sources of these skills, minimally, are two-fold. They are either innate, or they are developed. (Certainly a combination of those two exists.) So, debate provides an outlet for one's natural abilities, and (I'd say more importantly) an arena to develop those and other abilities.
Outside of the competitive arena, what do these skills provide? Well, they are probably useful in one's attempt to provide for their (and their family's) basic needs - at jobs and the like.
Now remove debate in the above 3 paragraphs, and replace it with fighting. Still works. So why do people stand with their noses in the air, under the brilliant lights of their intellectual abilities, while denigrating physical intelligence and the pursuit thereof? I don't know - it is, I claim, irrational.
In the specific case of combat sports, one could argue that the pursuit is by definition physically harmful, and that that is a reason to look down upon them. In the light of the above, I'd say, bullocks. Some people don't mind getting hit; some people like it. It may seem barbaric to someone whose opinion differs, but it's really just a question of personal preference. Why do you hate purple, and I like it? Why does critic A trash Inglorious Basterds, while critic B sings its praises? Why does grandma love Sudoku, but grandpa will only do crosswords? Who knows... who cares... these aren't reasons to judge someone - it's just what they like.
Section the third and final, entitled, :-P
It's easy to look down your nose at someone, and say they do what they do because they're not smart. But what merit is there in the claim? As far as mixed martial artists, which I know the most about, there are plenty of fighters with college degrees, and graduate degrees, and successful businesses, and who just aren't stupid, that argue against the claim.
As easy as the above-quoted person can dust of the comment he or she did, a fighter can say that people who don't like boxing are tubby slobs with two left feet and not an ounce of athleticism, who use their position in life, their money, and their intellectual achievements as a justification for their laziness and feelings of superiority.
But that claim has no merit either. Maybe fighters don't say these things because they have enough going on upstairs to realize it's elitist, absurd, and illogical.
2 comments:
Well played! I think more people need to speak out in defense of MMA as more than human cockfighting. There's an art to it, when you learn more about tactics and strategy, to see how quickly each fighter must think and react. It's also less brutal than boxing in many ways, and more of a disciplined skill.
Word. The recent Couture-Nogueira fight highlighted many dimensions of the tactical nature of the game.
If there are fight-of-the-year awards, that should be on the list.
Post a Comment
Be nice. Or not.