Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Study: Brain trauma in 30% of MMA fights

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Inside Your Mind
    Posts
    841

    Default

    I guess we'll have to wait and see how guys like Wandy turn out in 15-20 years before brain injury research in MMA gets some actual headway

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY--->MIA
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    This study pretty much says better refs would make the sport much safer.
    "DO YOU THINK I'M JUST GOING TO SIT THERE AND LET YOU KILL ME JON???"

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SickNasty View Post
    I'd love to see some information that doesn't have the words "likely, probable, probably, not definitive, may etc, etc" when also talking about any type of banning.

    I understand the need to promote your fieldwork for some funds, and the gravity of TBI's, but I hate when unsubstantiated articles shed a negative light on things.
    It's not just the need to promote fieldwork, it's how science generally works. One study, whether it was done long-term or not, still cannot make definitive claims. It takes a body of evidence (i.e., many research studies) to make definitive claims. It's a building process. However, sometimes to make policy changes or changes with an industry, stakeholders have to make decisions based on the best available evidence. In this case, this study is unlikely to make any changes but can generate movements to help build better evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by IceCold48 View Post
    This study pretty much says better refs would make the sport much safer.
    Not really. One of the things the article mentions is the problem with a fighter getting knocked down and then taking repetitive blows when s/he is vulnerable. Even when a fighter is "intelligently" defending themselves, they are taking repeated shots to the head that can result in TBI. However, under the current regulations, referees see it as a fighter trying to get into a better position. It's not the referee's fault (well few times it is).

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY--->MIA
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. MMA View Post
    It's not just the need to promote fieldwork, it's how science generally works. One study, whether it was done long-term or not, still cannot make definitive claims. It takes a body of evidence (i.e., many research studies) to make definitive claims. It's a building process. However, sometimes to make policy changes or changes with an industry, stakeholders have to make decisions based on the best available evidence. In this case, this study is unlikely to make any changes but can generate movements to help build better evidence.



    Not really. One of the things the article mentions is the problem with a fighter getting knocked down and then taking repetitive blows when s/he is vulnerable. Even when a fighter is "intelligently" defending themselves, they are taking repeated shots to the head that can result in TBI. However, under the current regulations, referees see it as a fighter trying to get into a better position. It's not the referee's fault (well few times it is).
    True, I don't know I think this is a tad misleading. I am not doubting the trauma but I think the comparison to other sports is not a proper assesment. Other sports have much more games and what not to accumulate more injuries. I did a term paper on this exact subject and my findings pretty much concluded that MMA has significantly less injuries than football and boxing because of how seldom they compete and how quickly the fight can end compared to boxing.
    "DO YOU THINK I'M JUST GOING TO SIT THERE AND LET YOU KILL ME JON???"

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,664

    Default

    I'm no doctor, and probably not even particularly smart, but I didn't need a study to show me that a sport in which post knockdown strikes happen, has a high trauma rate. That's the thing though, it is what it is, it's violent by its very nature. If you change it's basic construct, then it isn't what it used to be, it isn't MMA. Do studies, get people informed, protect yourself as a company, but remain true to what you are. People choose to fight. People choose to play football. People choose to play all of these sports. Knowing the dangers would make some avoid entering the sport, but the reality is that most would take the risk for the money, fame, love of the sport, ect.. Let's not kid anyone, when business starts to suffer due to changing things, things will stop changing real fast. I love MMA. I don't want to see anyone get seriously hurt, but that is the risk involved. It is inherently part of what MMA is. I wouldn't want anyone to be forced to do it, but I'll watch 2 people fight under their own free will, every time.

    I wanna go on a big rant about how people are free to drive fast cars, and eat shitty food, because people have the freedom to do what they want, but I'm barely functional from being smack dab in the middle of working 28 hours in a 36 hour period, and I feel like my rant makes little sense as it is.

    I would very much so like to see Bisping take another 1.6 shots.
    Last edited by The Donosaur; 03-27-2014 at 04:58 PM. Reason: Jdjsowosjs
    USA! USA! USA!


  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IceCold48 View Post
    True, I don't know I think this is a tad misleading. I am not doubting the trauma but I think the comparison to other sports is not a proper assesment. Other sports have much more games and what not to accumulate more injuries. I did a term paper on this exact subject and my findings pretty much concluded that MMA has significantly less injuries than football and boxing because of how seldom they compete and how quickly the fight can end compared to boxing.
    What were your findings based on though?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Donosaur View Post
    I'm no doctor, and probably not even particularly smart, but I didn't need a study to show me that a sport in which post knockdown strikes happen, has a high trauma rate. That's the thing though, it is what it is, it's violent by its very nature. If you change it's basic construct, then it isn't what it used to be, it isn't MMA. Do studies, get people informed, protect yourself as a company, but remain true to what you are. People choose to fight. People choose to play football. People choose to play all of these sports. Knowing the dangers would make some avoid entering the sport, but the reality is that most would take the risk for the money, fame, love of the sport, ect.. Let's not kid anyone, when business starts to suffer due to changing things, things will stop changing real fast. I love MMA. I don't want to see anyone get seriously hurt, but that is the risk involved. It is inherently part of what MMA is. I wouldn't want anyone to be forced to do it, but I'll watch 2 people fight under their own free will, every time.

    I wanna go on a big rant about how people are free to drive fast cars, and eat shitty food, because people have the freedom to do what they want, but I'm barely functional from being smack dab in the middle of working 28 hours in a 36 hour period, and I feel like my rant makes little sense as it is.

    I would very much so like to see Bisping take another 1.6 shots.
    I see what you mean but I disagree with the statement that people know it has a high trauma rate. It seems intuitive but when you have Dana constantly bullshitting the public that it is the safest sport in the world based on acute injuries instead of long-term chronic issues, it presents a false message. Also, I think that bringing issues of injuries/safety/trauma/etc can help create regulations or rules to make the sport safer without necessarily taking anything significant from MMA.

    We have seen this in the MMA itself in its short history with rules being implemented such as referees being able to stop the fight, certain strikes being considered as fouls (back of the head, groin, eye gouges), etc. These all took place to increase the safety and it did not jeopardize what we enjoy about MMA. In hockey, mandatory helmets caused a public outcry a few decades ago and right now, it's the norm. It didn't take away from the action. In MMA, in my opinion, weight cutting regulations will surely be implemented in years to come. Perhaps, moving to 6oz gloves instead of 4oz is another step. Pride used 6oz gloves and that didn't affect the action at all. There is still room in MMA to increase its safety.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Donosaur View Post
    I'm no doctor, and probably not even particularly smart, but I didn't need a study to show me that a sport in which post knockdown strikes happen, has a high trauma rate. That's the thing though, it is what it is, it's violent by its very nature. If you change it's basic construct, then it isn't what it used to be, it isn't MMA. Do studies, get people informed, protect yourself as a company, but remain true to what you are. People choose to fight. People choose to play football. People choose to play all of these sports. Knowing the dangers would make some avoid entering the sport, but the reality is that most would take the risk for the money, fame, love of the sport, ect.. Let's not kid anyone, when business starts to suffer due to changing things, things will stop changing real fast. I love MMA. I don't want to see anyone get seriously hurt, but that is the risk involved. It is inherently part of what MMA is. I wouldn't want anyone to be forced to do it, but I'll watch 2 people fight under their own free will, every time.

    I wanna go on a big rant about how people are free to drive fast cars, and eat shitty food, because people have the freedom to do what they want, but I'm barely functional from being smack dab in the middle of working 28 hours in a 36 hour period, and I feel like my rant makes little sense as it is.

    I would very much so like to see Bisping take another 1.6 shots.
    You pretty much read my mind. It is the nature of the beast. These are grown ass men who know what they're signing up for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. MMA View Post
    I see what you mean but I disagree with the statement that people know it has a high trauma rate. It seems intuitive but when you have Dana constantly bullshitting the public that it is the safest sport in the world based on acute injuries instead of long-term chronic issues, it presents a false message. Also, I think that bringing issues of injuries/safety/trauma/etc can help create regulations or rules to make the sport safer without necessarily taking anything significant from MMA.

    We have seen this in the MMA itself in its short history with rules being implemented such as referees being able to stop the fight, certain strikes being considered as fouls (back of the head, groin, eye gouges), etc. These all took place to increase the safety and it did not jeopardize what we enjoy about MMA. In hockey, mandatory helmets caused a public outcry a few decades ago and right now, it's the norm. It didn't take away from the action. In MMA, in my opinion, weight cutting regulations will surely be implemented in years to come. Perhaps, moving to 6oz gloves instead of 4oz is another step. Pride used 6oz gloves and that didn't affect the action at all. There is still room in MMA to increase its safety.
    I'm sure there is some type of awareness regarding the trauma rate when someone agrees to engage in hand to hand combat for a company that has the name "ultimate fighting".

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    with my parents of course
    Posts
    2,635

    Default

    I've been saying this for years. Those extra shots fighters deliver to knocked out opponents hurts the sport and the fighters. I get that they are told to keep fighting until the Ref says stop, but I applaud those like Mark Hunt who have the decipline not to try to beat a knocked out opponent's brains in just because he can. It turns my stomach to see guys do that, The first Silva/Wiedman fight was a perfect example, you can't tell me Wiedman thought Anderson wasn't out, he punched him because he could. Hendo vs Bisping was another, although I will admit I did derive some savage joy from that, what Hendo did hurt the sport more than it hurt Bisping that night. I hear the argument, well you can't take the chance that they are not out....that's just a weak excuse. If they are not out, so be it.

    Honor should be more important than winning a fight. There is no honor in beating a limp defenseless man's brains in just because the Ref is 2 or 3 seconds late stopping you from doing so...But we don't award Honor do we? Maybe that's a huge part of the problem. I'd like to see more martial artist show what it means to be TRUE martial artists and not just "fighters". That's when we will see this sport get to the next level. It's just a matter of time before someone dies from those extra shots inside a UFC cage. Then what?
    Scarface: Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you're cool, and fuck you, I'm out!

    "I don't call the fighting in my films 'violent', I call it 'action'. An action film borders between fantasy and reality. If I were to be completely realistic in my films, you would call me a violent, bloody man. I would simply destroy my opponent by tearing his guts out. I wouldn't do it so artistically." ~Bruce Lee


  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY--->MIA
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. MMA View Post
    What were your findings based on though?



    I see what you mean but I disagree with the statement that people know it has a high trauma rate. It seems intuitive but when you have Dana constantly bullshitting the public that it is the safest sport in the world based on acute injuries instead of long-term chronic issues, it presents a false message. Also, I think that bringing issues of injuries/safety/trauma/etc can help create regulations or rules to make the sport safer without necessarily taking anything significant from MMA.

    We have seen this in the MMA itself in its short history with rules being implemented such as referees being able to stop the fight, certain strikes being considered as fouls (back of the head, groin, eye gouges), etc. These all took place to increase the safety and it did not jeopardize what we enjoy about MMA. In hockey, mandatory helmets caused a public outcry a few decades ago and right now, it's the norm. It didn't take away from the action. In MMA, in my opinion, weight cutting regulations will surely be implemented in years to come. Perhaps, moving to 6oz gloves instead of 4oz is another step. Pride used 6oz gloves and that didn't affect the action at all. There is still room in MMA to increase its safety.
    I'll try to find it and send you the sources as a PM, not sure if I'll find it because it was like four or five eyars ago but I might
    "DO YOU THINK I'M JUST GOING TO SIT THERE AND LET YOU KILL ME JON???"

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    18,933

    Default

    EFC Africa earlier today:

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •