Eh, at least he's not talking about MMA being unacceptably violent while defending boxing. That's the argument that always really gets on my nerves.

Logic doesn't work with these kind of people, because they let their personal experiences become the end all be all of their opinions.  Football is a rough sport, where many of the players from the last 20-30 years are injured, and receive no real retirement, or medical care, and are forced to deal with all the deterioration from years of physical punishment.  That, however seems to be acceptable...  Obviously the intentions of MMA versus FootBall are different, but facts are facts. MMA's are athletes, and as long as they are properly trained, abiding by the sanctioning rules, and Referees are properly trained then MMA is going to exist, and deserves to.

Wow, you guys try to justify everything.

I just think this dude is a lame ass and someone should car wash his face in a public toilet till he stops crying. :P

Get a life dude. :P Don't like it, don't watch it.

I realize that this is preaching to the choir.. but hear me out. i'm going to argue this paragraph by paragraph (and give what he said immediately before my responses -- regretfully i don't remember HTML coding so i don't have the pretty little boxes).

He said:
"The goal of UFC or 'Mixed Martial Arts' fighting and boxing is to strike and overpower another human being. Olympic wrestling does not harm the human body while one single punch to it causes immediate harm.

I say:
As stated by Brookhouse, wrestling does cause harm to the body. But furthermore, all contact sports
cause injury to the body. How can you make a value on one sport but not on the rest? Is soccer (which has one of the highest injury rates of any sports in the world) just as bad because it main objective is to score points by beating (in the figurative, not literal sense) your opponent. Granted, tactics in soccer are not as overt as in MMA by just punching your immediate opponent in the face, but the main object is still for one team to assert dominance over another by "overpowering" them.

He said:
The only logical explanation must be that the vast majority of fighters and organizers must have been mentally and/or physically abused growing up because the main way they express their self-worth is to hurt others so as to feel better about themselves.

I say:
I'm not a scholar on logic, but I don't see this as being the only possible logical explanation. Furthermore, had I been abused (we'll say physically specifically for arguments sake) as a child (or even now, for that matter) I sure as hell would want to be able to fight in order to defend myself. I believe that being punched and kicked is not the most enjoyable feeling in the world, and while I do not necessarily want to cause lots of physical damage to other people in general, I would much rather be able to incite more injury in them than in them to me simply for my own personal self-preservation.

I also disagree with the value statement that that is their only way to express their self-worth. Could he have not presented a stronger, factual argument here? Granted, if he does not like the sport of mixed martial arts, that is fine, don't watch it. But why take it away from those who do enjoy it?

He said:
Wrapping 'fighting and boxing' in themes of sportsmanlike honour and regulation is misleading. Fighting and bullying should be repulsive to any civilized person.

I say:
It takes a lot of honor to shake the hand of another human who just punched your lights out. Some fighters have more honor and respect for others, and some simply honor completely. But look at Randy Couture; he is an honorable human being as well as being a fighter. Furthermore, most Asian cultures have a great deal of honor in them and this also ties in deeply with martial arts training (thus why most classes and matches begin and end with bows to show respect - and furthermore why some bows are formalized with symbolism showing that the scholar should overpower the fighter).

How would he define `civilized'? Yes, bullying is not enjoyable because you are then using a person as a mean rather than an end. And I don't think that we should allow humanity to go to a Hobbesian state of nature. But I do not think of fighting as always being repulsive. There's always going to be some asshole out there wanting to start a fight or a fight is inevitably going to occur for one reason or another and thus it's beneficial to yourself to be able to fight back with skill and technique rather than just swinging aimlessly. By having knowledge on how to fight you are then more likely to force your opponent to cease the brawl with less damage (for instance being able to use a crash cover to get into clinch range and ideally being able to choke him and leaving his face pretty while you are then able to run away and enjoy a beer in the safety of your own home). This is also why submission style arts (like wrestling and Brazilian Jujitsu) are just as effective and beneficial as striking style arts (like boxing and Jeet Kune Do).

He said:
If society condones these activities, it directly leads young people accepting fighting and aggressiveness as OK and the 'cool, tough' way to deal with conflict. It takes a stronger man to control his violent urges than to give in to them. We should be raising boys and girls to be repulsed by violence. The only place for fighting is in personal and societal self-defense. We are reverting to ancient gladiatorial spectacles and martial values. I am saddened about this and will do everything in my power to stand up for non-violence and human civilization."

I say:
That is bunk. Just because society okays it does not mean that all youth accept it. Granted some censorship should occur (but that's an argument for another day). I think it would be better for youth to see fighting and see the damage that it can cause to another human being in order to understand the significance of it. Also, I think it would be better for youths to know how to fight well as opposed to poorly. I agree that it takes a great deal of control to not resort to violence, and I do not thinking that all arguments should result in physical attacks and fighting should be avoided if possible.

As far as the only place for fighting being in the realms of self-defense --- is he then saying that people can learn how to fight in the privacy of classes but that it should never be televised or shown in public places. So then all competitions are bad? If this is the case, then all competitions should cease existing on the amateur and professional levels? One of the best ways of evaluating what you have learned in a martial arts class is through competition or at least in sparring another individual (which can be seen as an individual competition).

His last two statements do not help but make me think as though he is trying to say that humans have changed a lot over the past 2500 years. In all honesty, when it comes down to ideals, we really have not change this much. I do not think that this "reversion" is a bad thing at all. Some of the greatest civilizations in history were that of ancient Rome and Greece --- both of which highly enjoyed gladiatorial games. The people of those times though were highly civilized and educated (which is why the philosophies and Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates among others still play such a central role in the studies of Ethics, Political Science, Philosophy, Epistemology, and Metaphysics to name a few). I do not see the causation that he is trying to make that the presence of violence automatically means the absence of human civilization.

"The only logical explanation must be that the vast majority of fighters and organizers must have been mentally and/or physically abused growing up because the main way they express their self-worth is to hurt others so as to feel better about themselves."

Oh, how nice to see someone being spot on with a generalization to cover everyone. I always wondered where I'd fit in, and why I like mma. I was abused! Why didn't I see that before?

I wrestled for years, and I like mma for the same reason, but I was never abused, and never bullied anyone. I'm not violent in any way, and in contradiction to this goof's claims, my years of martial arts and wrestling have further underlined the fact that, for conflict, fighting solves nothing. Me and a wrestling buddy'd get into an argument, it'd get heated, we'd take it to some grass, and beat each other up. Then, we'd stop, and pick up the damn argument exactly where we'd been.

It'd be real nice if everyone was kind and caring, and didn't like to make themselves feel better by maiking others feel worse. Idealists like this guy have just never been in touch with reality, instead just pulling away from it, and criticinzing how it should be.

Don't forget the whole duality of man thing here. It's all about balance. Hard and soft. Violent and peaceful. Light and dark. In the absence of one, the other loses definition. To ignore violence and action creates a vacuum, where those who understand them rule absolutely. My experience says that a fully realized personality accepts these different sides of the human psyche, and utilizes them in an intelligent way to develop themselves as a whole person.

In highschool, i was always a smaller guy, but my dedication to fitness, martial arts and wrestling gave me the tools I needed to level the playing field. Every guy who was bigger than I, and wanted to "express their self-worth (is) to hurt others so as to feel better about themselves." found themselves getting their ass handed to them by a guy 50 lbs lighter and six inces shorter. I was never in a real fight (punching people) because my knowledge of every facet of fighting allowed me to control situations, and win before the fight ever started, usually using wrestling and some submission holds. I was in this lame-ass' position, and used the basics of mma (I didn't really know what mma was back then to well) to improve my life. He seems to be bitter cause he didn't do such a thing. Too bad.

Here's the letter I sent to the Ottawa citizen. If anybody cares. It's a bit long, and many points were brought up by mma fan 618, but I'm curious if my ego's preventing me from seeing how rambling and incoherent it is. I completely understand if you skip it......i skipped mma fan 618's post until after I sent my email.

Dear Ottawa Citizen,

    My name is aej, and I am a lifelong martial artist, wrestler, and current MMA fan and practitioner. I recently read a letter you felt was of the caliber to be published in a national publication. It was by Mike Trepanier, entitled Ultimate Fighting is Barbaric. Despite how inflammatory these comments are, I feel they need to be addressed in a calm, logical manner, as anything else may be written off as ranting a raving from the MMA fanboy masses.
    I would first like to preface with an introduction of my background, as this will provide an insight to my point of view.  My parents met each other through karate, my father the instructor, my mother the student.  Both achieved black-belt status before my birth, and continued to train for several years after. I will tell you that being raised in such a supportive, comfortable, confidant setting is a great advantage in life, not just physical confrontations. I began training in karate at age 5, and moved over to another similar art, Sekeido, for ages 7 and 8. I competed in sparring tournaments, and reveled in competition. At age 10 I began Wu-shu, a form of Kung-Fu, around the same time I began playing Lacrosse. Despite my training in fighting, I was never involved in any fights in Lacrosse, receiving many most sportsmanlike awards. I would hazard to say that these awards were received because of my training in fighting, but that is speculation.  In high school, I focused on wrestling, rugby, football, and track and field, although martial arts was never far from my mind. I excelled in all sports, but none more than the ultra-violent rugby, where I could utilize my dynamic tackles and takedowns alongside my speed as a sprinter. Since graduation, my athletic endeavors have taken a back seat to earning a living, but in recent years, my love of competition has been reignited by MMA, in large part the UFC.
    First off, for this individual to question MMA's standing as a sport reveals a deep-seated ignorance of MMA.  To use Canadian "civilization" as a reason to stand strong against MMA further portrays his own ignorance of Canadian history and our culture. Canadians were the only successful breach of the defenses at Normandy, and Lacrosse and Hockey are both known as Canadian, Violent, and full of fights (bare knuckle, no rules!). Staying strong in the face of conflict, and overcoming long odds are a tradition for Canadians.
    To profess oneself to be against savage violence with one breath, and quoting hockey and football as paragons of "controlled" violence, with said violence being peripheral is a complete contradiction. It is only what one would expect from someone who has never participated in either sport, or any sport for that matter. Hockey brings to mind the Brawl involving the Senators, McSorley braining Brashear from behind with the blade of his stick, Bertuzzi sucker punching Moore, and the countless brawls that happen at least once a game, with no gloves, rules, or interjection. I recall one NHL player getting punched once by a big man, and fracturing his cheek and orbital. Quoting football as peripherally controlled violence makes me think this guy's only exposure to the sport has been from the couch. Violence, and the attempt to hurt and smash your opponent is the key to football tackling. It's one of the biggest draws of the sport. Add to that the history of marital violence, public violence , on the field violence and not to mention Michael Vick's dogfighting, and a trend emerges. Seems hockey and football have their fair share of savagery, both on and off the field of play.
    "The goal of UFC or "Mixed Martial Arts" fighting and boxing is to strike and overpower another human being."  - This statement may have been true about boxing (the striking part). But power has been used against boxers before, and a little known figure by the name of Royce Gracie disproved this, using inferior striking, and less power to prevail or more aggressive, stronger men using technique, finesse and intelligence.
"Olympic wrestling does not harm the human body while one single punch to it causes immediate harm." - I can say from experience, that slams I was subjected to in wrestling caused me infinitely more damage than any punch that I've taken. This once again shows a lack of any experience in regard to either sport.
"The only logical explanation must be that the vast majority of fighters and organizers must have been mentally and/or physically abused growing up because the main way they express their self-worth is to hurt others so as to feel better about themselves." - This is the most inflammatory statement of the bunch, likely responsible for a lot of hate email received lately. It is a grossly negative generalization of a large group of varied individuals. The very statement itself defies logic, which is kind of amusing, considering that he opens with his "logical justification". It is further ludicrous seeing as how he's likely never met, spoken to, or watched any MMA competitors. It is this kind of ignorance that I would expect a quality publication to avoid publishing. There's no basis for such judgement, and it truly puts anything this gentleman has to say into the trash. It demonstrates a total lack of effort into understanding the psychology behind competition, and a total lack of comprehension behind the martial arts training.
"Wrapping "fighting and boxing" in themes of sportsmanlike honour and regulation is misleading." - Wrapping fighting and boxing in themes of sportsmanlike honour and regulation is not misleading. It's the baseline from which combat sports grow. These themes are guidelines to conduct regarding your opponent and yourself. MMA competitors are shining examples of class and honour, Georges St. Pierre and Anderson Silva, two of the best in the world, exemplify this. They are humble in the face of success, and respectful to their opponents. They are intelligent, and well spoken, and strive to teach what they have learned to their disciples.
"Fighting and bullying should be repulsive to any civilized person." - I am a civilized person. Who are you to say I am not? I find bullying, the act of picking on someone weaker than oneself, to be a cowardly, dishonourable act. Truly repulsive. I also find that blind, purposeful ignorance is also repulsive. Fighting, however, is not so cut-and-dry. A bully fighting a smaller, nerdy kid, and beating him bloody is awful. I was that kid. That same bully starting a fight with a small, nerdy kid who happens to train wrestling/Jiujitsu (the most effective art in MMA) and getting controlled, beaten up, and forced to say uncle is a triumph, and would be seen by any as a picture perfect example of successful self-defense. I was that kid also. Two highly trained martial artists agreeing to compete under certain rules in fairness and honour is a bad thing somehow? Other trained martial artists being avidly interested in watching the outcome makes it wrong?
"If society condones these activities, it directly leads young people accepting fighting and aggressiveness as OK and the "cool, tough" way to deal with conflict." - If Mike had ever taken a single martial arts class, he would never make this statement. An intrinsic part of martial arts training is the focus on responsibility with respect to one's use of violence. Martial arts training does for many what their parents neglect to do. They put violence and the use thereof in perspective, allowing that it is not always possible to avoid violence, but the true martial artist make every effort to avoid that step. The problem today is that many feel the way Michael does, that violence is abhorrent, and has no place in society. Yet one look at headlines today relates how effective that approach is. Parents ignore the possibility of violence, yet kids grab hold of it regardless of their parents' protecting them from seeing it. Young people are left to look to their role models for guidance, television, music and sports figures. In America, football is idolized, and history is full of football captains not being held accountable for horrific crimes because of their status, leading to a feeling of disregarding the rules. Gun violence is everywhere in tv, movies and music, and is reflected by a rise in gun violence.  Even some sports stars are caught with guns, waving guns, using guns. How is that not a problem worth writing about? And somehow, it's wrong to compete in a sport where they stick to violence without weapons, where the safety of the fighters is paramount, where either participant can end the fight without being hurt, and where the fight and all the agressivenes ends when the fight does, with respect and brotherhood? The lack of these guarantees were all reason's I've never been in a street fight, as it's just not safe, or worth it. My martial arts training has enabled me to avoid fighting. Isn't that contradictory to Mr. Trepanier's statements........
"It takes a stronger man to control his violent urges than to give in to them." - This is the strength that martials arts, and indirectly, mixed martial arts, develops.
"We should be raising boys and girls to be repulsed by violence." - I agree, to a point. But this is a completely unreal opinion. Does Mike suggest we use emotional conditioning to stamp out these vile urges? Or should we perhaps accept this aggressive side of human nature, and present it to our children with the perspective of self-defense, conflict avoidance and negotiation, and competition?
"The only place for fighting is in personal and societal self-defense." - Self defense from whom? In this ideal society, from who would you protect yourself? If, instead of limiting the presentation of violence to personal and societal self-defense, perhaps we should present fighting within the perspective of self-defense, conflict avoidance and negotiation, and competition.  Perhaps in THIS ideal society, there would be no one to defend ourselves against, but only an acceptance of violence as part of the human condition, and relegating it to these particular facets of life. Instead of going after the symptoms of a societal illness, perhaps the problem lies in the manner in which we raise our children, allowing them to watch, listen to, and hear about violence, yet being told that violence is bad, without any real perspective being used. If people can positively express their violence in a safe and sanctioned manner, there is no need to be violent in our day-to-day interactions. Let's face it, punching someone in the face that chooses to be there and train/fight you is much better than carrying a gun and shooting someone, no matter the case.
 "We are reverting to ancient gladiatorial spectacles and martial values." - Reverting? Humanity has yet to advance past gladiatorial spectacles and martial values. History is merely a string of wars and battles, one after the other. Covered up, written by the victors, or ignored on the global stage. People have yet to stop killing each other. One of the driving forces of what was the most powerful economy on the planet was based upon their military industrial complex. And it's getting worse, with kids bringing guns, knives, bats, mace and all sorts of weapons to school, murdering each other in the halls. The poor and patriotic are being shipped across the seas to die in droves to support an economic powerplay, essentially a global-scale bullying tactic, to force other developing nations into compliance with a one world economy.  And somehow, Mr. Trepanier thinks we, at some point, moved past these low points for humanity? Tibet has managed so, but their dedication to higher ideals made them easy picking for China's oppression. Native American societies had reached such a societal high-point, of symbiosis with the world, but it made them vulnerable to the invading, murdering Europeans. The only nation to succeed so far has been Butan, striving for Gross National Happiness over Gross Domestic Product, and it has taken decades and some of the bravest, most forward-thinking governance this planet has ever seen. I fear for their sovereignity.
"I am saddened about this and will do everything in my power to stand up for non-violence and human civilization." - I am saddened by the misguidedness of your motivation Mike, and wish you wouldn't waste your time and effort on fighting against a sport that seeks to provide a safe, secure, and beneficial environment for these incredible athletes to prove the worth of their training, to feel the thrill of competition.  
For any and every person who's felt the rush of competition, the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, the dream is that of professional competition. Being payed to dedicate your life to something you love without quarter, to push yourself and achieve victory is a dream of mine.  It is a dream that few accomplish, even fewer of whom are wrestlers, and martial artists. For years, the only option, such as this, was to teach, and train. This often led to having to sacrifice one's financial well-being, or, in my case, to have to give up your sport to be able to live.  Some successful college wrestlers found success, in professional wrestling, but that is far from competition, and is a reprehensible practice in an of itself. Some found their path to the Olympics, but were right back doing 9-5 afterwards, often with wrecked joint, or muscles. The emerging sport of MMA gives a place for these athletes to practice their creed, to do what they love, and not have to pay any more consequences than those from fighting in the ring.  To ignore and ban something like this will only serve to drive it underground, where it is much more dangerous, and with less to gain from it. If forced to hide, inevitably the sport becomes on par with drugs and organized crime. It is this manner of enforcement that puts marijuana control into the hands of scumbags, who present young kids with the harder drugs. But at the same time, prohibition seems to make things more popular, and just as you see more and more kids smoking weed (cause the cool kids who rebel do it), if bans on MMA succeed, there will be an increase in unsanctioned events occurring, with little to no medical assistance on hand, and less money going to the fighters putting their well-being on the line, and more going to line the pockets of those criminal organizations who would be willing to fund such events. Pandora's box is open, there's no getting the cat back in the bag.
Further, I wish people like Mike would take the time to survey those at the top of MMA.  The thugs and bullies are by far the minority of MMA fighters. Kimbo Slice may get a lot of press, but he is an anomaly. Thugs and bullies simply don't see very much success in this sport. People don't like to train day in and day out with egotistical animals that are there to hurt people. It takes a certain type of humility to learn this sport, as everyone who is serious about it must learn to tap out, to submit, in order to learn. If someone has a bad attitude in training, it is ground out of them by continual teaching by that person's training partners, and if they don't learn to have respect for themselves, and through that, their opponents, they are not welcome to train very long.
In closing, I would like to ask that you forward this letter to Mr. Trepanier.  His brand of ignorance is a frustrating one, as it is what develops on the couch, watching pro wrestling and drawing conclusions from that and  the occasional uninformed viewing. I know that this letter is far too long to include in any kind of publication, but I would request that you publish less biased and ignorant letters.  Or at least present an opposing opinion that is at least informed in such matters.  I truly feel that a world that practices martial arts, and that accepts violent tendencies within the right framework such as sanctioned competition, is a much more realistic, and realizable ideal societal view.
Sincerely,
aej