Zoltan wrote:
I have seen a few people mention that MMA is safer than football on this thread and I would love to see a real study that shows this. Football produces more injuries for sure, but is this adjusted for participation rates?
It seems to me an average MMA card with 5 fights produces at least one person being knocked out cold, which by definition is a high level concussion. Also, broken orbitals, hands, etc seem fairly prevalent in the sport to go along with standard knee injuries that almost all sports have. I would think an NFL football game compares pretty well to a MMA card when final injuries are totaled, but the NFL game has 5x as many people participating. I could be totally wrong, but saying MMA is safer than football for it athletes does not seem right.
Basically, while I see your point, there is one big difference between MMA and football, which is how injuries seem to be treated. In the NFL, you're expected to get back on the field ASAP. This past season was the first one where concussions got treated seriously and it was a big story when Philly's Westbrook was set out for a few weeks after suffering two concussions in three weeks. The mindset among most players seems to be that if an injury doesn't completely decimate you, you're a pussy if you sit out.
In MMA, athletes are at the mercy of athletic commissions. If you read mmajunkie.com or a similar site a day or two after a card, you'll find medical suspensions handed out to guys who got KO'd, busted open, etc....where they can't compete for 30-60-90 days, as opposed to saying, "Ah, you got your bell rung....you're in the very next card three weeks later!"
I guess my problem is more with people stereotyping MMA fighters and fans as idiotic, barbaric, blood thirsty fiends when for the vast majority of true MMA fans that is definitely not the case. Do they exist? Yes. I just don't like the bad rap that people place on the sport/fans.
WeAreNC: