One Woman's View of Women's MMA
Beth of Gal's Guide to MMA watched Kaufman vs Hashi Strikeforce Challengers card:
I want to share my thoughts about women's MMA after watching Friday's fight between Kaufman and Hashi. Admittedly, I'm getting into the game late. I've never showed an interest in watching women fight and Friday is the first night that I've watched women fight live. That being said, I made a conscious decision before the fight started to watch it with an open mind in the hope that I could become a fan of women's MMA. This did not happen.
My initial thought on women's MMA was that I did not want to watch women get punched in the face. I had formed that opinion after watching the Carano/Santos fight and the Kim Couture/Kerry Vera fight. Both were particularly brutal due to what I thought was uneven matchups. Santos dominated Carano during their fight, but at least Carano had some fight in her. Plus, she was marketable with her ridiculous gorgeousness (is it jealousy if I admit it?) and previous work as an American Gladiator. It was the Couture/Vera fight that really turned me off. Couture was so obviously outmatched by Vera that I couldn't help but think that the only criteria necessary to give her the fight was the power of her ex-husband's name and a vagina.
Friday night's fight added a new dimension to my dislike of women's MMA. I thought that this fight was ridiculously boring. I was really blown away that these women were considered the best and fighting for a title shot! I think that Sarah Kaufman is a good fighter. But Hashi was so obviously outclassed by her that it was embarrassing to watch. I can't help but feel that there had to be someone better suited to fight Kaufman. And if there isn't? Then women's MMA is in a sad state of affairs.
It's hard for me to argue with Beth here. I only barely enjoyed Carano vs Cyborg and that is the most competitive women's MMA fight I've really seen. And the only reason I could really stand seeing Gina getting hit in the face is because I'd seen Gina pummel and batter so many undersized and over-matched opponents on her way to facing Cyborg.
I love women's MMA as an ideal and really admire the athletes involved, but as a sporting proposition I have yet to be sold.
156 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
nice!
couture was so obviously outmatched by Vera that I couldn’t help but think that the only criteria necessary to give her the fight was the power of her ex-husband’s name and a vagina. that the only criteria necessary to give her the fight was the power of her ex- husband’s name and a vagina.
i love this chic lmao. Nate great find!
by Rayce. on Mar 2, 2010 11:09 AM EST via mobile reply actions
The Kerry Vera vs. Kim Couture fight still sits on my DVR as the most comical beatdown I’ve seen in a long time. It’s so obviously a blowout fight that I can’t help but laugh histerically at Kim’s face bouncing off Vera’s fists.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Mar 2, 2010 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
apparently vera hits harder then the ax murder
Cause Kim said he had to really turn it up on her in training. Lol
Vera put on a clinic on her it was funny!
by Rayce. on Mar 2, 2010 3:47 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Event recapped by Dave Meltzer:
Welcome to our live coverage of the Strikeforce Challengers Series event at the San Jose Civic Auditorium.
The event is sold out, the people standing everywhere in a 2,500 seat arena.
….
Underwhelming night to be sure.
Scores were all 50-45 for Kaufman.
Maybe 300 people were left for the announcement of the winner.
My view of women's MMA is like women's international hockey.
There’s a few at the top who will pretty much squash anyone that gets put in front of them. The rest of the women are really just competing at the bottom of the heap. It’s not competitive. That’s not to say there are some compelling match-ups. It’s just that beyond the handful, who cares?
You have to be the man... you have to be very, like, alpha male with her. You know? Decide what you do and everything. So, show her who's the boss, you know? - GSP
Well put. Maybe given time some decent competitors will start to come up. But right now it’s exactly how you said it is…the majority are competing at the bottom of the heap.
by HappyLittleTreez on Mar 2, 2010 11:16 AM EST up reply actions
Women’s MMA in terms of a technical sport is where men’s MMA was about a decade ago: there aren’t enough fighters to consistently make compelling match-ups; records don’t tell you a thing about skills; and fighters are constantly being jerked around and bouncing from promotion to promotion. The only problem is that they’re doing it at a time when so much more is expected from the sport, by both the fans and by the promoters looking to make money off of their fights.
Women’s MMA in terms of a cultural, social phenomenon is always going to be much more stigmatized than men’s MMA; I absolutely understand how people can be bothered by seeing two women hit each other, but I also think it’s kind of a cop-out. Once two people are in the ring/cage together, fighting, I couldn’t care less what their gender or sex is; all I care about is a compelling, competitive match-up.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
by AJB on Mar 2, 2010 11:13 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I agree completely with this. Just like with MMA in the early UFC years, it’s going to take a little while for women’s MMA to sort itself out in terms of competitiveness and in terms of determining the most effective skills and styles. One of the most interesting things to me about women’s MMA is that you never see knockouts, instead you see a lot of fights where one fighter just pummels and overwhelms the other until the fight is stopped or that fighter gives up. But for whatever reason, you just don’t see the one-punch knockouts that are ubiquitous with the men. Cyborg is probably the best example of this, as she just overwhelms her opponents with her intensity and strength, but I’ve yet to see her actually knock an opponent out. At some point, as the sport continues to organize and as a universal hierarchy is established, the Cyborg style will cement itself as the style to beat (the gracie jiu-jitsu or coleman wrestling, as it were), and someone will figure out how to counter it.
by Trust Doesn't Rust on Mar 2, 2010 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
devil's advocate
isn’t that painting women’s MMA with a pretty broad brush??
The equivalent of a non-MMA fan judging MMA by oh lets say Severn vs. Shamrock II or Shields vs. Miller
&
Pick another one sided beating we recently saw … lol cant think of any off the top of my head….
Follow me on Twitter http://twitter.com/ultmma
http://www.ULTMMA.com
by ultmma on Mar 2, 2010 11:14 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
This was my thought exactly.
It would be pretty easy to cherry-pick a boring, but major, men’s MMA title match, particularly from a time period analogous to where women’s MMA currently is in its evolution.
by JRN on Mar 2, 2010 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
This is why NO ONE watches the WNBA
I get that the ideal of womens MMA is great, but at some point people need to stop being so PC and acknowledge that it’s an inferior product. Ignore even the inherent brutality and the double standard that people don’t want to watch women get punched in the face…. Why does WNBA have pathetic viewership and lose tons of money every year? Why is there no WNFL? Bottom line – there is a much smaller pool of women interested in competing, so you’re trying to populate the sport from about 1% as many candidates as men’s.. Additionally women don’t have the same athletic ability – the strength, explosiveness and power is not there. Watch men get lifted up and tossed in the WEC featherweight division, and compare that to womens MMA. Women also don’t have the same endurance, so 145 pounders end up looking like men’s heavyweights in terms of pace and action… Can someone please tell me the appeal here????
by flingom on Mar 2, 2010 11:15 AM EST via mobile reply actions
It’s “to each their own,” really. I can’t really explain the appeal to you especially since you’ve already formulated your opinion about Women’s MMA. It is an inferior product, and I would be surprised if MMA fans were that ignorant and didn’t know that, but it is still entertaining to some in that novelty sort of way. However, I don’t think that it will ever work as a stand-alone product.
simple!!
I totally wanna see Gina’s, erin toughills,Kerry verra’s, and michelle waterson’s boobies. My best shot at that is if they have a grappling match in sports bras. I forgot kira gracie but you guys get the point. Its boobies mostly lol
by Rayce. on Mar 2, 2010 11:31 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
right on...
none of these women fighters are qualified, because, well, they’re women and we all know women have no athletic ability – no strength, explosiveness or power. And their endurance sucks, ‘cause they’re women. Of COURSE men have better endurance, because they’re men. Wait…did you really just say that? Are you kidding me? Why don’t you go wash some dishes and help your wife out.
by orlis on Mar 2, 2010 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
dont act like you're better then me! lol
Yea I am totally the asshole. I didn’t say they weren’t skilled. Almost all the women I mentioned are very skilled. That’s a lot of the draw. Oh forgot miesha tate, in my last list and gazzy. Goood lookin and can THROW DOWN! Sounds like a winner to me. What the hell do I wanna watch chicks that look like dudes fight to a boring ass decision for? I wouldn’t even watch the hot ones fight a boring fight. Am I being sexist? Maybe? But I am for sure not alone. Most guys like the women fighters because of sex appeal.
by Rayce. on Mar 2, 2010 2:13 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
While true
Most guys like the women fighters because of sex appeal.
is a sexist sentiment. Not you saying it, but that it’s true.
The interesting flip side is that men often don’t like unattractive male fighters either. Tim Sylvia, Roy Nelson, CB Dolloway… yet Akiyama and Roger Huerta still have massive appeal. Curious.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
agreed
Before I watched Roy fight I automatically didn’t like him. He won me over with the arlovski fight.
Its true, not only do good looks make the opposite sex want you. They make the same sex wanna be you/envy you. This is a cross I have had to bare my whole life. LOL j/k
by Rayce. on Mar 2, 2010 2:52 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
To quote:
Bottom line – there is a much smaller pool of women interested in competing, so you’re trying to populate the sport from about 1% as many candidates as men’s.
That really is the fundamental issue with many woman’s sports, though not all. Tennis is a sport where woman have as many numbers as men both professionally and (especially) amateur, and as such, have just as much, if not more, national and global traction than men do. Volleyball is the same, but its also much more indicative of another fundamental aspect of woman’s sports, both men and woman watching want the players to be attractive.
Woman’s MMA will have a very hard time because of its very small talent pool and it runs against some very deeply ingrained cultural expectations.
I didn’t watch this fight and am not sure if it was boring by my standards, but there are quite a few men fights I’ve seen that were boring (title shots included). Needless to say, women’s MMA is not as evolved as men’s, but the ones I’ve watched (I think the total count is three at the moment) were very exciting and technical. They definitely have a long road ahead, they don’t have as many top athletes as the men, but if they are not showcased they will never have a big talent pool. I thank SF for giving them a venue and perhaps in the future their talent pool will grow as a result of SF. Everything starts slow and then grows, the same happened with men’s MMA and will happen with women’s. I don’t think it will ever be big as men’s for the simple fact that we still do have sexism in our society whether we acknowledge it or not, but there will be a following, smaller in comparison to the men’s but still a following nonetheless.
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
by Orcus on Mar 2, 2010 11:19 AM EST reply actions 4 recs
Wrong.
I disagree, not “well said” AT ALL. You suggest that it won’t be as big as men’s MMA due to “sexism”. That’s a cowards way out, to try and brand anyone who disagrees with you as sexist.
See m post above. People watching sports want to be impressed by the athleticism they’re seeing. The crowd buzzes when someone gets an explosive takedown or when someone shows incredible speed or agility. The average undercard UFC lightweight fight shows much more of this then even the best women in the world fighting…. It’s not sexism it’s reality.
by flingom on Mar 2, 2010 11:28 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
the undercard of a UFC event is also way better than most UFC events in the 90’s. by the way, I didn’t say anyone who disagrees are sexist, but that sexism still is a part of our societies whether you acknowledge that or not, it’s a fact. How many “I just can’t watch women fighting” post have you read? I have seem quite a few.
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
You said that womens mma will never be as big as men’s for “the simple fact” that there is sexism. I disagree, I think it’s an infrerior product.
Seriously look at the WNBA, no one watches it. Why do you think that is? Are all NBA fans sexist??
by flingom on Mar 2, 2010 11:42 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I personally just want to see tattoos and dunks. If they had those in the WNBA i’d watch it.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Mar 2, 2010 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
if you say it’s an inferior product, than I’d definitely say you are in fact being sexist in this regard, no way around it. if you don’t want to be called a sexist than I’d suggest you change your tone :p
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
All women’s sports are inferior because the athletes are physically inferior to their male counterparts.
That’s not sexism … it is realism.
If female athletes were able to compete with the men, there would be no need for separate female leagues. But they can’t.
by Steve4192 on Mar 2, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The US Women’s soccer team is way better than the men’s. And women’s gymnastics is superior to the men’s.
"I love it when a guy is bleeding on top of me." -- Diego Sanchez, post fight interview about his fight with Clay Guida
yeah but who watches gymnastics?
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Mar 2, 2010 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
the olympics is a huge event, gymnastics is one of the most watched sports in the olympics.
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
curling is a huge event
doesn’t mean that it’s anything other than shuffleboard on ice.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Mar 2, 2010 12:02 PM EST up reply actions
you asked “who watches”, and there is a lot of people who watches it. gymnastic takes a lot of skills btw.
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
I'm just messing with you.
I know…my sister was a gymnast.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Mar 2, 2010 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
sorry bambi
i don’t know what that means but you said it once. I’m running with it.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Mar 2, 2010 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
That’s not a fair assessment. The girls team are only going against other girls. His point still stands. Guys are generally bigger ,stronger and faster. There are exceptions but it is not the normal case.
by Rayce. on Mar 2, 2010 12:03 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
The women’s team is better how? Because the women’s team is higher ranked versus other women only teams? Put the men on the same pitch as the girls and watch what happens. What a totally lame and baseless argument.
by sadface on Mar 2, 2010 12:14 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Not really
Your taking one small(in the scheme of things) example in terms of soccer and if you looked at it as a whole you’d see mens soccer is far superior.
In relation to gymnastics mens and womens are as different and really to call one superior and the other inferior depends on opinion.
Google Ron Paul!
Bantamweights are physically inferior to heavyweights, that doesn’t mean they ain’t got no skills brother. and in fact, less people watches bantamweights than LWs, MWs, LHWs, HWs. The women are not going to be physically as strong as their male counterparts, but they’ll have the skills (with time, this is not true today). All I’ve said is that they have a venue where they can in fact grow their side of the sport, that doesn’t mean that today most of their fighters are top talent. They’ll have to evolve that with time.
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
Thanks Steve
Please stop calling me sexist. I don’t dislike womens MMa because I don’t like women. I dislike it because it’s not nearly the athletic level that men’s MMa is. If you asked me to compare the WFC (local northeast MMa company) with strikeforce/UFC, I’d have the same critique. I want to watch the best. Women are not nearly as good as men at MMa because it is driven so much by athleticism. To quote Steve- it’s not sexism it’s realism.
by flingom on Mar 2, 2010 11:58 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I don’t think you understood what I wrote at all. you should read through it again. I said they are not evolved as their male counterparts today, but they need to have a venue to grow and become as skilled as the men. no, it doesn’t mean they’ll be physically superior to the men, it means they will have just as good skills as the men. overall, they are not skilled as the men today, but they could be tomorrow because they have a place to showcase and grow their sport. I don’t think they will have a big following as the men because of sexism, that does not mean if you don’t watch that you are sexist , but you can’t look past people who are in fact sexist that will not watch. don’t read one sentence. lastly, when you use words such as inferior, that sounds ignorant, and that’s why I called you what I called you, change your tone and you won’t get called out.
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
To build on this
Women’s MMA is growing similarly to how mens MMA did, but skipping the Dark Ages. Right now we are at the point where an ugly Brazilian throws looping power punches and smashes smaller grapplers. Sound familiar to anyone? Anyone? Come on!
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
Very similar, yeah
but I’d say 6 years behind, not a decade. I missed your comment initially and went to posting my go-to response about women’s MMA, although you do raise a point I missed. It’s like 2000-2005 PRIDE, depending on the weight class. Megumi Fuji being 2000 Sakuraba, Cyborg being 2004 Wanderlei, Kaufman being a less interesting Rich Franklin (this last fight at least)?
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
You may be right; things may be quicker to catching up if for no other reason than that there’s a charted trajectory.
That last fight was a total anomoly for Kaufman.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
Close, but I take a minor issue with a direct comparison.
Women’s kickboxing and muay thai is wonderful, and the lack of grade school, high school, and college wrestling programs for girls makes it much more common for there to be technical stand up wars in WMMA. I don’t expect a Mark Coleman figure to show up, there won’t be many wrestle-boxers, and the grinders won’t have as good of takedowns or control as the men simply because there isn’t an institutionalized way to start early. Sprawl and brawl should logically be the dominant style, and a Cro-Cop figure will end up being a champ for a long time.
I hate “what have you done for me lately?!” fandom. Kaufman may have been a bit overwhelmed by the stage and pressure of being a headliner, and I’m not ready to sell her out for that. I think that her vs. Kerry Vera (after she clears the 135 tourney) will be fireworks. And yeah, I’m an unapologetic Vera fan.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
your first paragraph is spot on. when i first watched meisha tate fight i was so sure her wrestling would win her tons of fights. as i continued to watch i realized that although her wrestling was better, she wouldnt fair too well against more top flight competition. the striking in wmma is so far ahead of the ground game, kind of the opposite of early mens mma.
by sadface on Mar 2, 2010 1:38 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It IS an inferior product. And it doesn’t matter if they were women, or moon men, calling something inferior doesn’t mean you are doing so based on prejudice, rather personal preference based on observation.
things based on personal observation and applied to generalize things are considered ignorant.
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
In fairness, you are the one making generalizations about sexism and it’s impact on female MMA.
I tend to be of the school of though that WMMA suffers right now because as acknowledged by most everyone, it’s an inferior product. Unfortunately, the long term problem will probably that the sport doesn’t grow in the way mens MMA has due to a lack of interest by women’s athletes in regards to MMA.
It’s not sexism, but rather cold hard reality that combat sports aren’t all that big in female athletics. Womens boxing has never grown into the great exciting, competitive high level sport it could have over time and there’s no reason to believe that female MMA will be any different. And it has little to do with sexism far more to do with the fact that there just aren’t all that many women interested in participating.
I’m not making a generalization, it’s a fact that our societies are still sexist to some extent, look at the pay rates and female rights (such as abortion and paid leave to give birth). that’s not a generalization, it’s a fact. It’s a fact that women do not get paid as high as men. Now, I am not saying anyone who doesn’t watch WMMA is sexist, that would be generalizing and most of you guys are reading past my words there, what I said is that because of sexism the audience will be lower than it would be without sexism. It’s a fact that many people wrote they would not watch WMMA for the sole reason that it’s just wrong for women to fight, that is sexism, I am not saying you are one of those, but those people are part of the sport and would not watch WMMA for that reason only, which is sexist.
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
I get what you’re saying orcus.
It’s not that everyone who dislikes women’s MMA does so out of sexism. There can be lots of reasons for this. Analogies have been made to men’s MMA 6-10 years ago—maybe some of the folks who don’t like women’s MMA wouldn’t like that stuff either. Maybe they only like MMA at a certain point of athletic and strategic evolution. That’s fine.
But there’s no denying that sexism exists and is deeply entrenched, and this alone is a sufficient condition for women’s MMA getting an unfairly bad rap.
So while not everyone who dislikes women’s MMA is a sexist, the preponderance of sexists in this world ensures that women’s MMA will have a harder time finding an audience.
by JRN on Mar 2, 2010 5:53 PM EST up reply actions
Exafuckingactly
thanks for putting in words what I was thinking, your statement is much more clearer than mine :p
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
I think what Orcus is trying to say about sexism initially is that it does exist and with MMA people automatically say, women are smaller and weaker, it won’t be near as good. Or the, women shouldn’t hit eachother, or I can’t bear to see women get hit in the face. I’ve heard this A LOT. My trainer doesn’t even want to prep me for an MMA fight because, he doesn’t want to see me get hit in the face.
I think women’s mma right now is suffering from some bad matchmaking, which is partially due to it being so new and the talent pool as deep as a slip-n-slide. So it is an inferior product now, and eventually it will develop into something hopefully awesome (by my standards). Don’t expect it to ever be as POPULAR as men’s MMA. I think some of the comments in here about women’s sports being inferior is confusing that with popularity.
Btw, I agree, the Kauffman-Hashi fight was boring, but so have been Anderson Silva’s last few fights.
The main deal is, Women’s MMA is new. You don’t expect a baby to come out of the shoot walking, give it some time and it’ll be a better product.
"I love it when a guy is bleeding on top of me." -- Diego Sanchez, post fight interview about his fight with Clay Guida
Women’s MMA is so young at this point that coming into any conclusions about it like “women’s MMA is in a sad state of affairs” is very short-sighted. At this point in the game, there will have one-dimensional fighters like Takayo Hashi out there. Sarah Kaufman is one of few female fighters who are not one-dimensional, so you are going to get one sided fights. However, the fight between them was boring for sure, that is undeniable, but that one fight is not representative of Women’s MMA in that not all female fights are boring. Beth acts as if one-sided fights and boring fights only exist in Women’s MMA when it is prevalent in Men’s MMA even at the highest level (Anderson Silva vs Cote/Leites is both one-sided and boring and higher level MMA to name one example). The way I see the future of Women’s MMA is that as women see that money can be made competing in Women’s MMA, more female athletes and just females in general will go towards it simply because the money is there. There are so few outlets for female athletes to make money and be competitive, and this is new and possibly exciting to some. It’s like getting this wave of high level wrestlers into MMA. The interest is there already with females just in the fact that if you go to any MMA gym/school/academy/camp, you will see females exercising and sometimes training there.
There's definitely a dual standard.
Realistically, there is only so many times you can watch the CDN or US women’s hockey team trounce their foes 18-1, you know what I mean? At this point, I don’t see women’s MMA breaking out into the mainstream for a long, long time. Gina was able to break through because, let’s face it, she’s hot. Cyborg, the superior fighter, won’t reach Gina’s status because, let’s face it, she’s not Gina. It’s not right, but it’s the way it is. There is lots of skill in Women’s MMA, but in comparison, it’s just not up to par with the men in general, nor should we expect it to be at this point, considering the very new nature of it. It’ll take time, but there’s also the stigma that women have in general with sports. Women’s basketball, baseball, hockey, etc (Name your sport) is nowhere near as big as their male counterparts. On top of that, they’re punching each other in the face. Not something most people want to see.
You have to be the man... you have to be very, like, alpha male with her. You know? Decide what you do and everything. So, show her who's the boss, you know? - GSP
Cyborg will have some success publicly
because she A) beat the hell Gina to steal some of her thunder and B) is a destroyer of worlds.
Roger Huerta may always be more popular in the mainstream than a pudgy Russian guy because of his good looks, charm, and the fact that he’s not a bad fighter on top of it. That doesn’t mean that Fedor won’t garner a lot of eyes for being the destroyer of worlds.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I have issues with
anything violent that involves females(mothers,sister,daughters). It just turns my stomach. I have zero issues watching an arm break, choke out, broken nose etc, as long as it is men.
Rather watch girls fight!
Just as Dana White says….people are always going to watch a fight over anything else…its a common language. However, if there was a group of guys watching two fights, one between two guys one between two girls….I imagine that most (not all) would rather watch girls fight. There is something about two girls fighting that is very interesting, bacause its almos taboo. I think that the woman fighting in MMA is a breath of fresh air and its good for the sport as a whole. It allows it to be accepted across the board, and thats exactly what MMA needs right now. Besides girls naturally have a higher pain tolerance than men, (child birth) its nice to see ladies bang it out!
Logic fail.
By your “what people watch on the playground” analogy, all you’re encouraging is the biggest possible freakshow. People would probably watch midgets fighting instead of men in the playground too. That doesn’t make it a more compelling sport.
And the pain tolerance is irrelevant here, at the pro MMa level, threshold of pain is not what wins fights… Diego sanchez had plenty of tolerance for pain… All the time male fighters suffer brutal injuries and fight through, so what’s your point??
by flingom on Mar 2, 2010 11:33 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Pain tolerance does make a huge difference.
See Patrick Cote vs. Anderson Silva compared to Rich Franklin vs. Anderson Silva II. Cote was clearly too drunk to feel the shots he was taking flush on the chin, and made it further than an otherwise superior talent like Rich Franklin could.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
Not ripe yet
I don’t see any reason why women’s MMA couldn’t eventually rise to the point of being a viable spectator sport, but it’s just not there yet. That problem is compounded by the lack of women involved in amateur boxing and wrestling — two major feeders for professional fighters. Until the amateur development catches up, the professional product will continue to be crappy. Right now there just aren’t enough viable female contenders — in any weight class — to make professional womens MMA interesting.
Tatum: I think he's a good man. I like him. I got nothing against him, but I'm definitely gonna make orphans of his children.
Kid Nate you dissappoint me
If you knew anything about WMMA, you would know that Gina fought plenty of girls her own size. Kobold, Maxwell, Pestova, etc…
Why don’t you create an article about how Cyborg beats up little Japanese girls? HMMMMM?
Yeah Nate
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!?
HUMMMMMMMM!!!
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Mar 2, 2010 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly
Kid Nate must explain his Gina hate. Gina has fought better competition than Cyborg leading up to their fight.
We're making fun of you.
Nate doesn’t have to do shit.
They both beat up on smaller fighters.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Mar 2, 2010 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
No kidding
Other girls don’t get any heat from this and yet Gina takes the heat for it. This is a regular occurrences in WMMA.
It’s a regular occurrence because the talent pool at 145 is a helluva lot smaller than that of 135/125/115. We all know that going in but since we want to see fights we ignore it. But again, Nate doesn’t have to do shit.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by Matthew Roth on Mar 2, 2010 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
I don't expect Nate to do anything
Just wanted my say in something that I consider to be BS and wanted him to recognize it because Gina does get a lot of heat for it but she has fought a lot of girls her own size and bigger than her. While other girls like Cyborg seem to get a free pass.
I only barely enjoyed Carano vs Cyborg and that is the most competitive women’s MMA fight I’ve really seen
Carano/Coenen?
Bob Arum thinks I'm a white Nazi skinhead even though I'm a brown grad student (with hair)
Here's what people need to understand when viewing or making judgements about women's MMA.
People should be looking at it more like a new weightclass (or in this case, weightclasses), than thinking of it like a separate league, or even sport.
Women’s MMA haven’t been around that long, so naturally, like the UFC’s 155lb division before, and the current 125lb division in MMA, there just isn’t as much top talent yet to fill out the entire division. They already have their Jens Pulver’s, but there arent much talent yet, because naturally, like the 155 and 125 lb division, it’s going to take some time before it develops fully.
So for me, comparing women’s mma to men’s mma as a whole is truly unfair, and that shouldn’t be made, when it is actually more comparable to a developing weightclass.
As I said earlier, they already have Gina, Cyborg, and even Megumi, as their pillars and their top stars. And much like what the first lightweight stars in the UFC had, the huge burden rests on their shoulders to further develop and inspire more people to compete, so that they’d have a deeper and more dynamic talent pool.
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 2, 2010 12:03 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I hate writing long comments via mobile phone
I dont get to read it again thoroughly and now my thoughts and points are all jumbled up.
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 2, 2010 12:05 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Women’s MMA haven’t been around that long…
Well the WNBA has and it’s still unwatchable.
From now on whatever event I am planning will be know as the ‘Bas Rutten Invitational ____’
different sport.
and that’s my point exactly, people shouldn’t look at it like a separate league, but more like a developing weightclass.
Like how people are saying that they don’t like watching the little guys fight MMA because they’re not really good, and there hardly are any fighters there…
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 2, 2010 12:12 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
That's because the little guys SUCK!
Klitchko bros both have a much sicker shoulder roll than Pretty Boy Floyd can ever dream of! And Semmy Schilt makes Giorgio Petrosyan look like a flailing tool! And Frank Mir’s jiujitsu is so many miles beyond BJ Pe- fuck it, I can’t even keep writing stuff this dumb even as sarcasm towards my least favorite kind of fans.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
One thing many fans don’t bring up is that combat sports are singular sports and not team sports, and also that MMA is part sport, and part sports entertainment. I find the comparison of MMA to a team sport to be vastly misused because of their differences. This is a sport where talking trash and having a personality or charisma is just as important to get fans as being able to throw a punch (not literally). Also, unlike other female team sports, Women’s MMA is regularly integrated into the main cards of MMA events. I just have to wonder if there is going to have some female out there who is well-rounded and at the top with the charisma of a Rampage, or Sonnen, or Mir, or Lesnar, or Varner or some fighter with a personality.
but can we not look at other sports that have women’s leagues and draw the same comparison to wmma? people watched the brandy chastain womens soccer match and gushed about how popular womens soccer was going to get how more girls will grow up wanting to play soccer and that the talent pool would expand. it never happened. or at least, it hasnt happened yet and shows no signs of doing so.
the issue isnt with the fighters, its with the sex of the competitors. look at candice parker. she was billed as a woman who could dunk, as someone who could change perception of the wnba. in the end, “nobody” really cares, the league is and has been a failure for sometime.
point is, you could give wmma ten years to “grow” and the sport will still be viewed as fringe at best and a sideshow/ratings grab in all likelyhood. i hope i am wrong, but there has been little proof otherwise to show that wmma will actually get a chance to properly grow and turn into a niche sport. because you can try to get around it by saying popularity doesnt matter and doesnt equal talent, but you damn well know that isnt true. the sport of wmma needs to be shown as popular, therefore profitable before it can be considered legitimate.
i think a fair example would be college wrestlers. up until the ufc and therefore mma was seen as profitable, a lot of college guys went into the wwe as a way of making money. now, we have josh koschecks, ryan baders and obviously lesner and lashley to show guys you can make money at mma.
maybe carano was on the path to show little girls that they can become rich and famous being an mma fighter, maybe she still is. i guess only time will tell.
by sadface on Mar 2, 2010 1:25 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
The WNBA doesn't make sense though, that's a team sport.
Think of Venus and Serena Williams or Anna Kournikova [sp?] today as they stand on the shoulders of Billie Jean King. Pretty different story.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
what does a team sport have to do with it?
by sadface on Mar 2, 2010 1:47 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
One athlete can't save a team sport on their own
barring the insane exceptions like Gretzy and Jordan, while becoming a strong figure in an individual sport is wildly different. Jeff Gordon and Danica Patrick have pretty similar name recognition, and Serena Williams is better known than Roger Federer. Individual sports are way different.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
parker, turasi, bird, jackson.. there are more than a handful of “star” wnba players. none of them can save that league. its not an issue of team versus individual sports. womens boxing isnt sucessful or popular. nobody watches womens figure skating until the olympics, same with womens hockey. millions of people watch the nfl preseason games, but some wnba playoff games dont sell out.
and speaking specifically of danica patrick, she became a non issue in the IRL after people realized she was an average driver. after that big burst of popularity, she didnt win races and people stopped caring. she didnt save the IRL and has since left to race in stock cars.
i guess we can agree to disagree. i dont see the relevence of team versus individual sport in this argument.
by sadface on Mar 2, 2010 3:08 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Dana nailed it again......
There just isn’t enough top quality female fighters. They should be building up on smaller shows, then bring some bigger fights to the big stage when it’s deserving.
by JimJoe on Mar 2, 2010 12:15 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Forgive myeif I take the opinion’s of two people who appear to have watched less than a dozen female MMA fights and sort of, you know, disregard them as worthless.
by An0nymous on Mar 2, 2010 12:28 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Agreed....
Did she not watch Cyborg/Coenen? That fight was much more competitive, and while Cyborg clearly beat her, it wasn’t a drubbing, and it was technically pretty good.
While this isn’t common in Women’s MMA, Coenen and Sarah Kaufman are actually better technical strikers than some fighers in the UFC (just watch the fighters in the UFC who can’t use a jab and just swing wildly). While men will always be bigger, faster, stronger than their female counterparts, that is not to say that female fighters are not capable of being technical or having a high level of skill. It wouldn’t surprise me to see more Kaufman’s and Coenen’s out there in the future.
Not that much more competitive
Coenen had zero chance from the start at beating Cyborg. Hell, at least Gina actually had chance to beat her when she was in mount. Coenen just got beat down for three rounds. Coenen is tough, but the same thing will happen if they fought again.
Treating people the same, in some technical sense, is not necessarily good.
For instance, we could, at great expense, make sure that all restrooms for women and men were equipped in exactly the same way. So, women’s restrooms would all have urinals, just like men’s do. This would not be expensive and stupid.
The best thing that people who enjoy women’s mma can do is try to push for the women’s fights to go back to three minute rounds, and not be longer than three rounds.
If the fights had been three rounds at three minutes each, what would peoples’ opinions be of Kaufman/Hayashi, Cyborg/Carano, and Cyborg/Coenan? In all three cases, the fights probably would have been more exciting, and the winner probably wouldn’t have changed. The first round of Kaufman/Hayashi was pretty good. The two Cyborg fights would probably have “almost gone the distance”, but with less time, both fights would have featured more aggression.
In order for women’s mma to be successful, the talent pool needs to deepen. If female fighters can’t make much money fighting, that’s going to be a tough road to travel. If female mma doesn’t have more fans, the fighters aren’t going to make more money. Shortening the fights is one way to make them more likely to be exciting, and may make them more competitive as well.
When women’s fights were shorter, it used to be common-place for people to say, “the women’s fight is often the most exciting fight of the night.” That almost never gets said now.
And why were the fights lengthened? After which women’s mma battle was there a big outcry because people were saying, “if only the fight had lasted longer, we would have really found out who the better fighter was?”
The shallow talent pool in women’s mma makes it almost impossible to make a competitive fight between two women who are genuinely in the same weight class. Pound for pound, I’m not convinced Cyborg is better than Coenan. But once the fight starts, that doesn’t matter. What matters is that, within three minutes, it was clear who the better fighter was.
As long as its possible to figure out within two or three minutes who the better fighter is, there is no reason for five minute rounds, or five round fights. Saying that female mixed martial artists “should” fight five minute rounds “just like the men” is as misguided an attempt at equality as saying than female public restrooms “should” be equipped with urinals “just like the mens”.
In order for female mma to become more popular, it must become more competitive. And in order for it to become more competitive, it needs to become more popular. Thus, at this stage, exciting fights should be the primary goal. That means, first of all, shorten the fights.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 1:32 PM EST reply actions
You may be on to something here.
As long as its possible to figure out within two or three minutes who the better fighter is, there is no reason for five minute rounds, or five round fights.
Under your philosophy, he really is the best eva:

And a top 5 LHW in the world:

"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
Those are perfect examples, actually
I can’t really figure out if you were trying to support my point, but you have done so brilliantly.
If all male fighters gassed as quickly as Soku and “The Best Eva”, there would be no point in five minute rounds. All male fighters don’t gas that quickly, so there is a point in five minute rounds.
With the women, it’s not so much that they all gas out too easily. The problem is that the fights are consistently not competitive enough in the first place. If Kaufman/Hayashi were three rounds of three minute action, it would have been a fun fight.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
I think I'm missing your connection...
Guys who start strong, gas, and then become non-competitive supports the idea of taking away time from women with good conditioning because it was arguably non-competitive from the start?
Quite frankly, I just like bringing up Phil Baroni whenever possible. He’s the man.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 2:09 PM EST up reply actions
Yes. You are completely missing the connection.
If you want to see the connection, try reading what I write instead of pretending I wrote something I didn’t write.
If it is possible to figure out within three minutes who the better fighter is, there is no point in having five minute rounds. If a fight is between one fighter who gasses after three minutes and another who does not, then obviously it is not possible to figure out within three minutes who the better fighter is.
Now, I’m just going to repeat what I said.
If all male fighters gassed as quickly as Soku and "The Best Eva", there would be no point in five minute rounds. All male fighters don’t gas that quickly, so there is a point in five minute rounds.
With the women, it’s not so much that they all gas out too easily. The problem is that the fights are consistently not competitive enough in the first place. If Kaufman/Hayashi were three rounds of three minute action, it would have been a fun fight.
The key thing you are missing is found in this quote from you:
“taking away time from women with good conditioning”
By shortening fights, you aren’t “taking away” anything from women fighters, just like you aren’t “taking away” anything from women by not putting urinals in female restrooms.
If a fight is not competitive, what are you “taking away” by shortening the fight?
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 2:25 PM EST up reply actions
But how do you know that a fight isn’t competitive until it actually starts? And does that mean that you then shorten the fight once it started? I don’t see the point you’re making. Kaufman/Hayashi was on paper more competitive than it was in reality and that’s partly due to the fact that Sarah didn’t make an effort to finish the fight. If there is any reason to find that fight boring, the blame is on Kaufman for not finishing a weak fighter and instead letting it play out for 25 minutes.
twitter.com/thisredengine
Exactly
You don’t know whether the fight is competitive until it starts.
Now.
That suggests that until female fighters showed, in actual fights, that they were competitive enough to need five round fights, there was no reason to think they needed five round fights!
And what have the fights since then showed?
The fights since then have showed that they don’t need five round fights!
This isn’t philosophy class. I’m talking about the real-world implications of making decisions. Of course I don’t suggest shortening a fight after it starts because someone views it as non-competitive. Although, refs do that under truly extreme circumstances.
If you don’t see the point I’m making, let me make it again. For about the fourth time.
Other than the obviously stupid argument that “men’s fights are five minute rounds”, why should women’s fights be five minute rounds? Why?
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
If you equipped all female restrooms with urinals, is that any more equal?
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
But that’s an anatomy issue. What you’re saying is that fights that aren’t competitive shouldn’t be longer than 3×3. Ref’s can’t shorten rounds they can stop fights. Kaufman decided to play around for 25 minutes like Tim Sylvia used to do. This isn’t a call for shorter rounds for females, it’s a call for better booking.
When a fight is booked correctly (Coenen/Cyborg) it is entertaining for the 5 minute rounds. There have been female fights that have literally stolen the show from the men.
twitter.com/thisredengine
I disagree.
I never said that fights that aren’t competitive shouldn’t be longer than 3×3. Never.
What I said, is that there is no reason for female fights to be five minute rounds. I claim that Coenen/Cyborg would have been a better fight if it had been three minute rounds. I stand by that claim.
I also claim that women’s mma, as a sport, has not developed to the point where five minute rounds are necessary. Until it has proven that five minute rounds are necessary, the fights should be shortened to three minute fights.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
that last word should be “rounds”, not fights.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
I claim
That having shortened rounds means that you now favor the striker over the grappler. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.
twitter.com/thisredengine
And in women's mma
Is that a problem?
If so, why is it a problem?
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
The majority of female fighters are great grapplers and have sloppy kickboxing. I’d rather see some really good ground fighting than shitty stand up.
twitter.com/thisredengine
I don't know if this is true
I’m also not sure that shortened rounds would make as much of a difference between two very good grapplers.
Again, I need to see actual fights, in the real world, where two women needed to go for five rounds due to grappling, before I would worry about it.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
It makes a difference in the Striker/Grappler fights. It’s why people loved that 10 minute round in Pride. It gave grapplers a chance to work their game.
Just so I understand your point and if you can confirm this so I can ignore it going forward, you are saying that until you see reason for 5 minute rounds for grapplers, fights should be 3×3? Then how do you figure out that you need 5 minutes? Again if you can confirm this is infact your theory, I will ignore your points going forward because of ignorance of the sport.
twitter.com/thisredengine
What I need to see
In women’s mixed martial arts, is a fight, any fight, which lasted three minute rounds, where everyone was saying, “It needed to be longer! That grappler needed more time to do her thing in each round!”
Until the demand is there, why try to supply?
You can do that, but it’s a good way to fail at business. And if the business of female mma fails, so fails the sport.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
No
but if deny women health insurance based on costs of pregnancy if a woman has had a prior c-section and is still able to bear children, making the procedure necessary should they become pregnant again, is that any less equal? It’s not philosophy or a hypothetical, it’s a real world issue that has actually happened.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure
I have no familiarity with the issue.
The only point my analogy proves is that treating people the same, in some limited technical sense, does not necessarily constitute equality.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
Obviously.
We can bring in the whole flat tax vs. fair tax, free trade vs. fair trade arguments here. Equal opportunity and equal outcome are rarely, if ever, congruous.
These distinctions are precisely why my question still has value to the discussion. If you believe women can be treated differently based on perceived realities, can that be axiomatically universalized?
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
Ah, but that is exactly the point
I am claiming that equality of outcome between men’s and women’s mma is more likely if you have three minute rounds now than it is if you try to force five minute rounds now.
If five minute rounds are necessary in the future, then have five minute rounds in the future.
(Or at least, more equality than we have presently.)
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 3:03 PM EST up reply actions
How about this?
We do 1×10 round and then 1×5 round afterwards? Hear me out.
Women’s MMA is between 6-10 years behind mens MMA right now. As I noted above, the top figure is an ugly Brazilian beating the living hell out of smaller grapplers. So why not give them the same rule set that worked at the same stage in the past? It’s less arbitrary than 3×3 and makes sense when compared to prior growth in the sport. Any particular issue with that?
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
Hmm...
I have to think about it. Maybe this is a good idea.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
I personally can't believe people are taking your argument serious
how does the fact that women sit down to pee and men stand up to pee have any sense of equality? the equality here is that they are both able to pee. To makes things equal we should sit down to pee or they should stand up? I can’t believe you are being serious with this, like thisregime said, it’s an anatomy issue. We also don’t bear children, should we make things equal with that too?
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
This is simple
If you treat people the same, in some limited sense, that is not necessarily equality.
What is so hard to understand about the argument? It is very simple, and quite straight-forward.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
you know
we are not all created equal (great philosophy, not reality). You are talking about rights as individuals, that’s where equality comes to play, not our anatomy, which has different needs for different people.
Don’t let anger get in the way of comprehension
Yes
And that is why I think it would be better for women’s fights to be three minute rounds instead of five minute rounds.
There is not, currently, an equal supply of good female mixed martial artists as male martial artists. Therefore, trying to apply the same rules to female mixed martial arts as to male mma is not necessarily equality.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
See my post right above this.
Equality, freedom, and fairness are vastly different terms, each of which being a contradictory dichotomy in and of themselves.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
And nothing I’ve posted would contradict this.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
...I was backing you up.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
Oh yeah
Since I did not do so earlier, I’m sorry for being, as you said, “snippy.”
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
No worries.
We all get defensive of our opinions.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
I was asking you a question to clarify, not pretending anything. No need to get snippy.
Now that you clarified and I understand your point, I can respond, I have a few more questions.
- Should we shorten a potential rematch between GSP and Fitch? What’s the difference between an AKA boy getting beaten for 3×3s instead of 5×5s? How about Dan Hardy, who has a great chin and not enough ground skill to compete with the champ? Should we shorten the round length again? Would that constitute taking anything away?
- Does Frankie Edgar only get 3 rounds to show that BJ Penn is gonna tool on him?
- When Big Nog was getting crushed by Sylvia for three and a half rounds, should they have ended the fight since it wasn’t competitive anymore?
Would all of the above scenarios be fair to you?
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
No they would not be fair.
Fairness has to do with applying the rules equally. When you set the rules, you have to abide by them. That’s a pretty big part of sports.
The men’s rules have been set, and they seem to fit the men’s sport pretty well. There might, hypothetically, be a vastly superior set of rules. However, the one that exists seems to work pretty well under most circumstances.
So, you cannot change the rules just because, in certain circumstances, someone might think there would be a better rules-set for some particular match. The rules have to be set for the average match, or the overwhelming majority of matches, or some other standard.
But there cannot be separate rules for each match.
Women’s mma has not proved that five minute rounds are necessary even on average, let alone in the overwhelming majority of cases. Therefore, if three-minute rounds would be better (in some sense), then it makes sense to push for three minute rounds.
My claim is that three minute rounds would be better because they would promote excitement, which could lead to a virtuous circle where women’s mma became more profitable, and thus more competitive.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
But the same goes for 5 round mens fights.
They statistically take longer to finish and are more drawn out. If title fights weren’t five rounds, then they would be more exciting and profitable, right? And they recently changed the rules in NV so randomly selected headliners can be 5 rounds too, but that’s the rule now. The overwhelming majority (90%ish) are not subject to this, but it could make fights more boring and less profitable.
Now, since titles are more often defended then they change hands, that leads one to believe they are not as competitive. Therefore, shorter rounds or fewer rounds would be acceptable. Right?
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
by pdl on Mar 2, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know
This is a good question.
I don’t know whether 5 round fights for titles are a good idea. Remember, I admitted that hypothetically there might be a vastly better rules-set.
Here is what I do know, though. Many people on these boards believe title fights should not always be five rounds. Their reasoning? Title fights in tiny little promotions aren’t always between very good fighters.
If that is true, I would be inclined to agree!
However, here is another issue. Many people on these boards believe that it should be negotiable for any fight to go five rounds. So, for instance, these people might say that they would have liked Nogueira/Couture to be a five-round fight.
I’m not sure what I think on this issue.
by Lauren J Darkbloom on Mar 2, 2010 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
The three minute rounds pressured the action so that the fighters would spend more time trying to finish each other off. Gina and Cyborg were trudging in unknown waters when they fought because they were so used to the fights being three minutes. It was obvious Gina didn’t handle those extra two minutes well. I wonder if the fights like Cyborg vs. Coenen or Cyborg vs. Carano would have ended differently if their fights were only three minutes.
If the fights had been three rounds at three minutes each, what would peoples’ opinions be of Kaufman/Hayashi, Cyborg/Carano, and Cyborg/Coenan? In all three cases, the fights probably would have been more exciting, and the winner probably wouldn’t have changed. The first round of Kaufman/Hayashi was pretty good. The two Cyborg fights would probably have "almost gone the distance", but with less time, both fights would have featured more aggression.
If the Kaufman/Hayashi fight was three minutes, three rounds, I’d still say the same thing. The fight was awful and lopsided. The Cyborg/Coenan fight would have benefited, Yes. But not Kaufman/Hayashi.
In order for women’s mma to be successful, the talent pool needs to deepen. If female fighters can’t make much money fighting, that’s going to be a tough road to travel. If female mma doesn’t have more fans, the fighters aren’t going to make more money. Shortening the fights is one way to make them more likely to be exciting, and may make them more competitive as well.
Agreed. The talent pool has to deepen considerably… and it will. Amateur women’s wrestling is now coming into play along with the exposure of women’s MMA to the masses. Hopefully, that’ll be enough for it to continue to grow. Unfortunately, the money sucks for women, and there still isn’t enough talent out there to get good experience. The Muay Thai circuit needs to infuse more women as well in my mind.
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
by Leland Roling on Mar 2, 2010 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
When women’s fights were shorter, it used to be common-place for people to say, "the women’s fight is often the most exciting fight of the night." That almost never gets said now.
How many 5×5 women’s MMA fights have there even been? Three? Four?
I think you’re jumping to conclusions.
by JRN on Mar 2, 2010 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
"I love women's MMA as an ideal and really admire the athletes involved, but as a sporting proposition I have yet to be sold."
i feel this way about the wnba too.
Let’s be honest. Strikeforce Challengers VI as a whole was awful. Absolutely awful. Aside from Luke Rockhold finishing off Bradley, I wasn’t impressed at all. Even Medeiros was somewhat underwhelming in my mind. Quick jab, but he seriously couldn’t finish Castillo?
Follow me on Twitter @lelandroling
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
I hope that people who watched womens mma for the first time in the kaufman hashi fight will give the sport another chance (or even chances!). As has been said several times here, the sport is in its infancy and the level of competition has a long way to go. I am a fan of the women fighters and even I about fell asleep sometime during the 4th round. Boring fights happen sometimes. Both are great competitors but you basically had two fighters fighting not to lose for the majority of the fight. First world title on the line I expected some of that. Kinda reminded me of silvia arlovski 3. If someone came on here after that fight and said the sport was boring and sucked and blah blah I would get defensive too. But yes I am disappointed the sport could have taken another step forward with an exciting fight but instead it took a step back.
Also I hate to say it but if cyborg looked and spoke like gina carano instead of wanderlei silva I think a lot of the “fans” would have a much more positive view of womens mma.
Damn, why didn't I see this earlier???
First of all I HATE it when people bring up the WNBA. It’s irrelevant! I think men’s golf is boring but it’s not going to make me stop watching football. Two different sports….
A lot of people are misinformed. There are tons of talented women in the 135lb division.
Strifeforce is doing a poor job of marketing them. Having said this, there’s a 135lb tourney which is being stretched out over the next few months but it’s been farmed out.
The winner of that tourney gets a shot at Sarah Kaufman.
I wouldn’t judge women’s mma based on two fights, it’s not fair. If you look at anything on the surface most likely you will miss a lot of gems…dig deeper!

by 




























