Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST

Joe Riggs: 'Sarah Kaufman is lucky to be on TV, the men are what people are here to see'

Print  
  Page 4 of 4     1     2     3     4  
Posted By Message

TimW001

MMA Sensei

TimW001 Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,535
Career:724-436
Joined:Mar 2007
Chips:
206

Posted by machodog76


Posted by bjj1605


Some people enjoy Clay Guida fights. I can't stand Clay Guida fights. I think that he is lacking in technique and finishing power. Same reason I don't like women's MMA.

differences between the sexes.

John Fitch is much more technical than Guida and fights at a higher level, but I think Guida is 10 times more exciting to watch I'm surprised you hate watching his fights. To each his own. In his defense he did finish his last fight and broke the guys jaw in the first round.



I don't like watching Clay either.

Post #46   8/16/10 2:05:56PM   

Jackelope

Go ahead, MOD my day

Jackelope Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:7,224
Career:864-486
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
1,202
It may be late, but I just want to weigh in by saying that I don't particularly enjoy women's MMA, either. I can't ever see myself buying an all women's PPV. I support their right to fight for sure, and I have seen some entertaining women's MMA fights, but it's not something I am personally going to invest money in. Or time really.

I also want to add that If that makes me sexist then I'm OK with it I like to burp, fart, eat greasy food, shotgun beers with my friends, and occasionally stare at chick's boobs. (Occasionally = Any time there is a sweet pair in my line of sight) I'm enlightened in some areas of my life, but I don't resist the urges I get from mother nature!

Post #47   8/16/10 2:40:12PM   

machodog76

MMA Sensei

machodog76 Avatar
7
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,122
Career:2,843-1,756
Joined:Jun 2007
Camp: country KO
Chips:
232
No love for Clay on the playground. is it the hair?

Last edited 8/16/10 4:37PM server time by machodog76
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #48   8/16/10 4:16:50PM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,667
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
713

Posted by machodog76

No love for Clay on the playground. is it the hair?



I love me some Clay. Dunno why he's getting all this hate.

Post #49   8/16/10 5:00:46PM   

AchillesHeel

Heavyweight Champ

AchillesHeel Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,108
Career:845-448
Joined:Feb 2007
Chips:
603

Posted by Aether

[...]the vast majority of people want to see the best of the best. Only a very select group of people watch undercard fights, watch 145 pound male fights, or even watch any fight that doesn't involve two contenders.


Just wanted to focus in on this point, for a moment.

My question to anyone who's a fan of MMA is, "Should someone who enjoys MMA be dismissive of undercard fights, of Featherweight fights, or of non-title-contender fights?" I would expect the answer to be an emphatic "no."

Are Featherweights, by definition, inferior fighters? Clearly not, and I think that's true regardless of how you define "inferior." In terms of athleticism, excitement, depth of talent, and technical skill in standup and in grappling, Featherweights are the equal of any other weight class. And I think Jose Aldo has to be on any respectable Top-10 Pound-for-Pound list, replacing Urijah Faber.

I would also caution a new viewer of MMA against dismissing undercard fights and fights between non-contenders out of hand. Almost by definition (almost), those fights will have less-accomplished fighters, but it would be a mistake to confuse "less accomplished" with "less skilled" or "less exciting." In so young a sport, the cream hasn't yet risen to the top. If a longtime fan of MMA was dismissive of Featherweights, undercard fights or non-contenders, I would think that person is an idiot.

More to the point, that person has a prejudice against featherweights, undercards, and non-contenders, and could accurately be described as "featherweightist", "undercardist" and "non-contenderist."

However, there are two big reasons being featherweightist doesn't really compare to being sexist (or racist, or ageist, or homophobic): First, a fighter's weight-class, his spot on the card, and his place in the title contention picture are not immutable characteristics. Second, weight-classes and cards do not carry larger social implications and histories with them. There's never been, to my knowledge, commonplace and legal discrimination and violence against Featherweight MMA fighters. The above-mentioned idiot isn't a dangerous idiot invoking a much larger and damaging social problem.

By way of analogy, a person could say that they don't much care for watching Black fighters, and three things would immediately be true:

1 - They're entitled to their opinion, and no one could or should ever force them to watch Black fighters.

* It's important to note that opinions, by themselves, aren't nothing. An opinion is support for a position; if I say "Blade Runner is an awesome movie", I'm being an advocate for the movie, implicitly saying that everyone should watch it and like it.

2 - Most people will think they're a friggin' idiot.

3 - Black people - including those who aren't MMA fighters, who have nothing to do with MMA and know nothing of MMA - would be wary of them.

A fourth thing that often isn't immediately true, but should be, is that non-Black people would be a little embarrassed and question the person regarding their uninformed and potentially dangerous opinion. At the very least, they're denying themselves some great MMA fights for no good reason and implicitly suggesting that new viewers do the same.

Post #50   8/17/10 11:51:55AM   

AchillesHeel

Heavyweight Champ

AchillesHeel Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,108
Career:845-448
Joined:Feb 2007
Chips:
603
It occurred to me that in all of my talk about sexism, I didn't use the most apropos example: Joe Riggs' reaction to Sarah Kaufman's comments.


Joe Riggs

I don't know what that [Sarah Kaufman] is talking about. She's lucky to even be on TV. As long as [women fighters] don't say things like they don't want to be on the Challengers card and they want to be main events than they're good. We're the show. The men are what people are here to see.



First, I have to wonder about what "[Sarah Kaufman]" is editing out in this quote. Journalists and editors often use bracketed words to replace inspecific nouns or pronouns. For example, Riggs might have said "I don't know what she's talking about", and the writer needed to specify who Riggs was talking about for the reader. However, he didn't apparently say that. He apparently said "I don't know what that _____ is talking about." He might have said "that woman", "that girl", "that person" or something else equally innocuous. Then again, he might not have.

Second, the sentence "As long as [women fighters] don't say things like they don't want to be on the Challengers card and they want to be main events than they're good" smacks of old-fashioned "women should know their place" talk. It's not explicit, it's implicit, and it invokes a lot of... stuff. It's for a similar reason that you shouldn't call a Black male "boy", even if they are in fact a boy. I once had a colleague with a 7-year-old son, and if I'd called him "boy" instead of "kid", "dude" or "little man" I'm sure that he would have thought nothing of it. His mother, however, would have gone to DEFCON 4 - "increased awareness and heightened security measures."

Third, his assertion that "The men are what people are here to see" is partly right and partly wrong. As we can see from this thread, there are plenty of people who enjoy watching some women fighters specifically, and women fighters in general. As a generalization that the bulk of MMA fans prefer men's fights to women's, I think Riggs is probably correct.

Finally, Riggs is implicitly advocating the position that people should be dismissive of female fighters, and that women's MMA matches should be regarded with less respect and awarded less money. And it doesn't really matter if that's what he meant to do (although, frankly, I think he did), it's what he's doing.

Last edited 8/17/10 12:19PM server time by AchillesHeel
Edit note/reason: n/a
3 total post edits

Post #51   8/17/10 12:16:18PM   

DCRage

Representin' The MA's

DCRage Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,684
Career:978-738
Joined:Aug 2007
Chips:
576
The ratings just came out for SF Challengers 10...time for Joe to STFU. The top draw in terms of ratings was a women's fight. But this of note: It was the women's tourney reserve fight.

Post #52   8/17/10 1:03:35PM   

Aether

Heavyweight Champ

Aether Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,068
Career:946-505
Joined:Apr 2007
Chips:
1,039
well I should point out that I'm not saying that I dislike these fighters or these kinds of fights myself. I admit I don't really enjoy women's MMA on the same level that I enjoy men's MMA, but I have enjoyed plenty of good female fighters, watch pretty much every undercard fight I can get my hands on, etc.

I just think these are the reasons that the public in general haven't embraced women's MMA and probably won't ever embrace women's sports on the level that they do with mainstream athletes.

-edit-
I also am not trying to defend Riggs' comments specifically, but rather commenting on the discussion about women's MMA in general.

Last edited 8/17/10 3:32PM server time by Aether
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #53   8/17/10 3:30:14PM   

Rush

Laying down the beats

Rush Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,291
Career:759-539
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
835

Posted by crushedbacon

best women's player could maybe play Division 3 pro in Europe




See Hayley Wickenheiser.

Post #54   8/17/10 5:28:58PM   
 
  Page 4 of 4     1     2     3     4