April 1, 2008

Re: Mr. Jeff McDonald’s article (March 28, 2008), “Cage-fight craze finds young fans nationwide.”
Internet source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080328-9999-1n28fight.html

Dear Jeff McDonald:

We would like to formally respond to your article titled “Cage-fight craze finds young fans nationwide” (March 28, 2008). We took exception to some blatant inaccuracies in the article, as well as the article’s sensationalized nature that distorts the mixed martial arts (MMA) phenomenon. First and foremost, you failed to refer to the sport by its proper name, “mixed martial arts.” Instead, you stated it was “also known as mixed martial arts,” but repeatedly referred to the sport as “cage fighting” (a total of six times and obviously in the title), and once as “human cock fighting” – a term used by critics in the 1990s, but one that has since lost its currency in and out of the MMA community. Furthermore, equating MMA gyms to the movie “Fight Club,” irrespective of whether or not particular gyms teach children, is absurd. It is clear that you visited The Alliance Training Center and spoke with some of its coaches. Did you witness or hear members there planning underground fights, or did you drum up this exaggerated comparison to draw in readers?

What follows are some basic inaccuracies in your article that merit correction. You noted that “CBS announced a deal last year to broadcast prime-time fights...” To the contrary, their partnership with the MMA organization Pro Elite was announced last month. While the movie “Never Back Down” is obviously exploiting MMA’s recent popularity, it absolutely does not represent MMA the sport. The movie does not depict even one sanctioned MMA match and inappropriately associates underground street fighting with MMA. We also noticed that your article claims the best MMA athletes can make millions in commercial endorsements and tournaments, which we feel is an irresponsible assertion and may only apply to a few MMA athletes; in reality, the vast majority are lucky to make $1000 per competition. Moreover, tournaments are extremely rare in contemporary MMA competitions. And finally, your notion that “eye gouges” need to be limited in MMA is ludicrous; they have always been illegal. We suggest you peruse some of the major MMA websites to get a better understanding of the general rule sets.

At this point, we would like to focus on a broader thread in your article – the alleged danger MMA poses to society, insinuating that by teaching children MMA, they may become more violent outside of sport. Although you provided a more balanced discussion of this topic, it is critical that when discussing a topic as important as youth violence that the most accurate information be disseminated. Research shows that successful youth violence prevention programs provide social support and that having additional levels of social support beyond the family can prevent future juvenile delinquency. In short, youths who do not have a strong social support system are more likely to engage in maladaptive coping mechanisms (i.e., antisocial fighting behaviors) when encountering stressful life events. If we understand the core principles that are encouraged at many of these MMA gyms and training centers, we may find that there are emphases on respect, dignity, and integrity – the same core values found in the traditional martial arts. These multiple layers of the social fabric that MMA offers can enhance youths’ social networks in a positive manner by teaching positive attributes and providing an extra dimension of social support.

Studies on social capital (interpersonal relationships that facilitate action) also show that family and the child welfare system have more of an impact on children when it comes to aggressive behavior prior to junior high, and that violent subcultures are more likely to exert a direct effect on adolescents and young adults. In other words, families also have a huge responsibility when it comes to developmental behaviors. Thus, it is absolutely important to make sure we draw the line between what is good and what is bad about MMA so that parents are well informed enough to pass on the information to their children.

This is not to place the entire burden on parents, as is so commonly done by community-based organizations that want to dismiss their own responsibility in children’s developmental growth. Our point is that parents are highly important, and they need to have good, reliable information. We know first hand of MMA programs in Southern California, such as “Fight for Kids” (http://fightforkidsinc.com/) in Lakewood, that teach children various combat sport disciplines, in which the instructors take extra steps to decrease juvenile delinquency by stressing scholastic achievement, conflict resolution, and staying drug free. Our point is not necessarily that children should be fighting in MMA competitions. Rather, we suggest that evaluation of youth programs account for the values promoted by instructors, the quality of service provided to youth, and the outreach made to families. At a time when the public’s knee-jerk reaction is simply to punish violent youth without looking for quality intervention programs, it is irresponsible to engage readers with headline grabbing rhetoric that indiscriminately stereotypes MMA.

Sincerely,
Thao Ha, ABD, Oceanside, CA, Sociology Faculty, MiraCosta College
Pramit Mohapatra, Baltimore, MD, Founder of FightTicker.com
David Mayeda, Ph.D., Honolulu, HI, Author of Fighting for Acceptance: Mixed Martial Artists and Violence in American Society