New York Assemblyman Bob Reilly is leading the opposition against the legalization of professional mixed martial arts (MMA) competition in New York. He recently distributed a manuscript entitled "The Case against Ultimate Fighting in New York State".
MMA is one of the fastest growing sports in the world and is currently legal in most states. New York City (Madison Square Garden in particular) is for obvious reasons a very desirable potential site. As a media and entertainment mega-market, a major MMA promotion (specifically the UFC) in NYC at "the Garden" would almost certainly produce a live gate well in excess of 15-20,000 people (not to mention pay-per-view dollars in the tens of millions).
In these difficult economic times and with the State of New York (like many others) facing a significant budget shortfall, the potential revenue streams generated by sporting events of this magnitude are difficult to ignore.
Assemblyman Reilly states that his case against ultimate fighting (MMA) centers on three main assertions:
1. Ultimate fighting is a form of violence that harms the participants and has a negative effect on children, adults and our society as a whole.
2. Ultimate fighting would have a negative effect on the economics of New York state and local municipalities.
3. The majority of New Yorkers do not want ultimate fighting legalized in New York State.
Though I have intelligent comments regarding points 2 and 3, as a fellowship-trained, orthopedic spine surgeon, assistant clinical professor, Chairman of a department of orthopedic surgery with significant expertise in the potential medical ramifications of contact and combat sports, I will limit my comments to professional opinions related to Assemblyman Reilly's first assertion.
The dictionary defines violence as: swift or intense force and rough or injurious physical force or action. By this common definition, MMA is clearly a violent activity. But to be consistent, aren't many other activities that are common and currently permissible in the state of New York also clearly violent?
Using the common definition, all contact sports -- including (but not limited to): football, boxing, hockey, lacrosse, wresting, rugby and karate -- qualify as violent activities. Many other sports that are not commonly viewed as traditional contact sports by this definition should classified as violent activities as well (e.g. extreme sports including motocross, skateboarding, bmx bicycle events and many others).
Collisions between female high school soccer players, a runner colliding at full speed with a catcher at home plate, hockey players checking each other against the boards or a basketball player taking a charge are all examples of very common, permissible violent sporting activities that occur on a daily basis throughout New York state.
Despite the negative comments of some sports personalities cited by Mr. Reilly, to the best of my knowledge (and a thorough online review) of past and current credible medical literature there exists no significant body of work that clearly establishes or even opines a causal relationship between MMA and the moral decay of our society, on any level. Despite cuts, scratches and bruises, MMA has never been proven to be any more or less harmful to children or adults than most other contact sports.
Assemblyman Reilly also references a medical article from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine ("Incidence of injury in professional mixed martial arts competition," July '06 Journal of Sports Science and Medicine) that reviewed reported injuries occurring in all professional MMA events in the state of Nevada between September 2001 and December 2004. This article revealed that 40.3% of fighters sustained some sort of injury during their contests. Fortunately, virtually all of these injuries can be accurately described as minor (cuts, scrapes, bruises and minor fractures in that order). There were no major injuries or deaths. The most serious of the minor injuries were eye pokes (less than 3 per 100 competitors). There were NO serious impairments of vision reported.
Just because MMA may evoke a negative emotional response by some viewers or offend the sensibilities of a portion of society, these feelings should not be interpreted, extrapolated or viewed as established scientific or clinical fact.
Contrary to what was implied in Mr. Reilly's manuscript (by way of the reference to the defunct Japanese version of MMA known as Pride), the Unified Rules of MMA are extremely similar to those of professional boxing and do not reward or encourage inflicting bodily injury to ones opponent.
MMA certainly has its share of minor, non-life or limb threatening injuries. Lacerations, soft tissue injuries, occasional broken bones and other injuries occur in all sports (both contact and non-contact) on all levels. Fortunately, with readily available techniques of modern medicine these types of injuries are easily addressed.
There are many opinions regarding the acceptability or appropriateness of many common sporting activities. Deer hunting is a perfect example.
Many people would say that in today's modern society with major supermarkets within reach of virtually every community that deer hunting for sport is unnecessary, barbaric and inhumane. There are many other good, law abiding citizens that would state that deer hunting is a time-honored tradition and a integral fiber of the fabric of America.
Each argument is made with equal zeal and passion by fine, hard-working people. They just happen to disagree. But the fact of the matter is deer hunting continues to be legal in upstate New York and illegal in Manhattan.
In my opinion, therein lies the wisdom and acceptable compromise to this debate. Allow the question of the appropriateness of legalized professional MMA to be a regional issue.
It may very well be unacceptable to Assemblyman Reilly's constituents and they should be able to decide what public activities they condone in their community. But citizens of other areas of New York may have a very different view. They should also be allowed to determine the permissible public activities that occur in the communities in which they live and work.
In the state of New York, as contact and many non-contact sports currently exist, from a physical injury risk perspective MMA (as governed by the unified rules) is an acceptable sporting activity.
Mr. Reilly cites an outdated AMA policy statement that opposed the legalization of MMA. It is interesting to note that the AMA policy statement against MMA was made before the modern-era of MMA and the adoption of the current unified rules. This policy statement has not been readdressed since the implementation of the unified rules.
MMA like many activities is not enjoyed by everyone. But to suggest that the risk profile or potential negative social impact is onerous or significantly varies from that of other currently permissible professional sports is not supported by credible medical facts or clinical studies.