SB Nation User Blog: josemonkey

Kenny Florian was interviewed by the local Fox affiliate in Philadelphia. The interview is pretty...

josemonkey — Fri, 15 May 2009 13:29:35 -0000

Kenny Florian was interviewed by the local Fox affiliate in Philadelphia. The interview is pretty bad -- the interviewer clearly doesn't know anything about MMA. I particularly like the part where he asks about "what's his name" that Kenny's fighting. (Um, BJ Penn . . . you know, the lightweight champ?)

The Ultimate Female Fighter?

josemonkey — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:41:50 -0000

Women's MMA suffered a major setback when EliteXC crashed and burned. The future of professional MMA for women is unclear; so far, no other major promotions have shown an interest in building up the sport for women like EliteXC did. One possible way to reinvigorate women's MMA and generate interest would be to create a reality show like The Ultimate Fighter for women. "TUFF: The Ultimate Female Fighter" Okay, the name is corny, but hear me out…

The first season of TUF introduced MMA to many new fans. The UFC's mainstream success and profitability is, arguably, a result of the boost it got from the first season of TUF, which climaxed with the unforgettable Griffin vs. Bonnar stand-up war. The key question, of course, is whether plugging in female fighters to the formula will yield similar results.

Right now, they aren't very many well-known female fighters. I think that having a show like this could help promote some of the most promising female fighters and expose them to a wider audience. Consider how many fighters enjoy name recognition now thanks to being on TUF. While it's true that some of the TUF alums are more deserving of the spotlight than others, it's clear that the visibility of being on TUF has helped several fighters go from being nobody to being a contender almost overnight.

Frankly, I don't think the format of the show would need to change in any meaningful way. After all, we're talking about fighters and athletes, not a bunch of pom pom girls. I wouldn't be surprised if they did alter it, though. Anyone who's watched a female fighter get interviewed knows that there is a double-standard in how women's MMA is covered. If you don't believe me, listen to some of the questions that female fighters are asked in interviews (like this one with Gina Carano) and ask yourself if they'd ever ask Chuck Liddell the same questions. ("When's the last time you cried?" and "Would you ever pose for Playboy?" WTF.) So, I suspect they'd feel the need to alter the show in some way, but it's probably not warranted. This seems inevitable to me.

When thinking about what a female version of the show would look like, one of the first things that comes to mind is that atmosphere of the house would be decidedly different. I don't mean to stereotype here, but I find it hard to believe that a group of women would behave the same way the guys on the show do. Having said that, I'm not sure what the dynamic of the house might look like, but it would be interesting to find out.

What do you guys (and girls?) think?

BTW, I've heard others toss around this idea to varying degrees on other MMA blogs. So, a tip of the hat to "NDN" who posted a comment about women's TUF on this thread over at 411mania.com and "Miss Rara" who submitted a similar question over at Cage Potato today.

Lifting the Ban: The Overton Window

josemonkey — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:51:44 -0000

Despite its rising popularity, professional MMA is still illegal in several states in the US. Part of the challenge of getting MMA legalized is changing the perception of the sport; as long as there are people who view MMA as a barbaric spectacle, there will be many obstacles to widespread acceptance. While most efforts to change public opinion focus on education that helps to break down misconceptions about MMA, there is another approach to changing perception that is potentially worth exploring.

There is a concept in political theory called "The Overton Window." Wikipedia describes the concept as follows:

The Overton window is a concept in political theory, named after the former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Joe Overton, who developed the model. It describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on an issue. Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable. Delivering rhetoric to define the window provides a plan of action to make more acceptable to the public some ideas by priming them with other ideas allowed to remain unacceptable, but which make the real target ideas seem more acceptable by comparison.

Basically, the idea is that an idea needs be acceptable before it can become popular, and it needs to be popular before it can become policy. If you wish to make something policy, you need to alter the idea of what's acceptable by promoting the unthinkable.

To apply this theory to legalizing MMA, we first need to define the range of opinions that will define our window. One possible way to define this spectrum is as follows:

All combat sports are immoral and should be banned.
Some combat sports are acceptable, like boxing, as long as they are regulated and only professionals can participate.
Some combat sports are acceptable, like boxing, and amateurs and pros should be allowed to participate.
MMA is acceptable, as long as it is regulated and only professionals can participate.
MMA is acceptable, and amateurs and pros should be allowed to participate.
No holds barred fighting competitions should be legal, as long as the participants are willing.
Street fighting should be legalized.

Certainly there are all sorts of other ways to define this, but let's use this as the basis of our discussion.

Right now, I think it's fair to say that opinions #2 - #3 are in the "window of acceptability." Depending on where you live, #4 and #5 may also be considered acceptable.

By Overton's logic, one way to achieve the desired perception shift is to actually promote more radical concepts, such as those espoused in views #6 and #7. If an organization were, for example, to begin actively promoting Tyler Durden-style street fighting, it would make big news. Many people would very likely be outraged and offended by such an unthinkable idea. If this idea were to get enough traction in the media, you would likely see a counter-argument being made; people would begin speaking out against this unthinkable idea.

So, what does that accomplish? Well, by focusing people's outrage on something more outlandish, MMA becomes more tolerable. People would begin to adopt a "well, at least they're not street fighting" attitude. If you believe Overton, this could lead to more widespread acceptance of MMA.

Some might argue that this approach is manipulative and dishonest. I can't say I disagree, and I'm not really sure if I would be comfortable using these tactics myself. But the efficacy of the approach is undeniable. (If you're unconvinced, try Googling for "Overton window" and "school vouchers" or "Overton window" and "estate tax" for some examples of how previously unthinkable ideas have been made into law.)

I'd be interested to hear any thoughts other fans might have about this idea, or other ideas to push for MMA legalization.