Image via CrunchBase
It must have been a lazy day for BBC Breakfast. Despite all the other major issues in the world, the team decided a silly over-reaction featuring two children engaged in a legal and supervised sporting contest shown on YouTube warranted phone-in debates, an interview with the Culture Minister and an interview with an MMA coach.
So what's the story? Allegedly a Preston MMA association hosted a night of matches that featured bouts with children aged as young as eight and nine fighting on the card. Kian Makinson is the name of the nine year old competitor featured in the notorious "14 minute" video. Early on the sensationalist nature of the story was obvious. Other conveyors of news over the internet, including evening supposed broadsheets like "The Telegraph" boasted emotive, but not strictly inaccurate headlines that pretty much amounted to - Children Involved in Cage Fight! Newsreaders on BBC Breakfast stumbled over the description of the bout that they clearly had very little familiarization with, explaining how the children wore no visible protective equipment or padding. It would appear that our nation's children are indulging in something than what is little more than a human cock fight! How can something like this be happening in our once great and respectible nation I hear you cry.
NSPCC spokespeople were quick to condemn the bout, as was the usual medical professionals (who seem to be against any activity with children that involves contact), as was our Culture Minister and as were other people involved in the martial arts world, including MMA coaches who teach children. The whole incident has prompted a "police investigation". Get your pitchforks and flaming torches ready people, time to go to Preston!
But hold on a moment, don't you think that it might be a better idea to actually understand what actually went on in that supposed Smokey Joe den of inquity where two young lads fought for their lives amid an audience of perverted adults baying for blood? The truth is that this was a grappling-only bout. This is why no visible protective equipment was worn. You see the bout may have taken place in a cage, the usual place for the sport of MMA matches, but this was a grappling-only match. But they wear head guards in amateur wrestling! I heard you cry. Yes, but they don't wear them in judo or Brazilian jiu jitsu matches do they? Around the country, several times a year, countless numbers of children as young as this and even younger engage in submission grappling competitions. Most of the bouts are of the gi wearing variety, but an increasing number are withouth them. The reason for this is that it provides a clearer road to the sport of MMA. The risk levels are about the same - higher than Badminton or tiddly winks, but probably less dangerous than rugby or American football. This is the sort of bout that was fought at Preston.
Fortunately times have moved on and due to the increasing popularity of submission fighting in the UK there was a large enough body of informed individuals who able to confirm the nature of the sport being watched and that this was not the kiddy version of a gladitorial bout. However, not to let a good story drop attention was quickly switched to the location of the bout. The Culture Minister, Jeremy Hunt, pretty much boiled down the argument that was continuing to cause concern - it was fought in a cage.
Coming from a family of wild animal trainers, I can understand the reaction. We associate the cage with savagery. That's the place that wild animal occupy and the cage serves a functional purpose of keeping them away from us. The early days of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, where it was little more than a raw spectacle than the organized and distinctive sport it is today, used this type of arena for two very good reasons. Firstly its octagonal shape and lack of ropes apparently provided no advantage for any particular style of martial art competing. Secondly it helped convey the idea of the sport being a brutal event. In the early days the UFC actively promoted a controversial image. This shock tactics approach worked in the short term, but ended up backfiring and the legacy of this cultivated infamy can be seen in the subject of this news item.
Hunt's response was very much in line with other uninformed commentators that presented a shocking display of double standards. Both he and they were quick not to condemn children in sport - it's seriously unwise in litte p and big p politics to be seen to condemn physical activity amid the public scares about child obsesity and the unfounded claims about them being the most asocial generation ever. They also both loved to advocate boxing by comparison, which they clearly thought was more respectable. Read that last word again, it really is key to this whole debate. Way to go - so it is better for children to engage in the sport that, above all others, promotes repetitive blows to head than one that doesn't permit striking!
Now for my disclaimer, I am not opposed to children engaging in closely regulated, supervised and controlled boxing competitions. However, let's get matters in perspective. Due to the nature of boxing, which does not permit its participants to clinch or grapple or strike any region of the body save the head and above the waist, it is actually more risky than virtually any other form of legalized combat sport. The heavily padded gloves that were made compulsorary at the end of 19th century to supposedly make the bouts safer actually had an adverse effect. With grappling also taken out of the sport and with a referee that would make sure that nothing but strikes to permitted areas, which included the head, the risk of brain damage significantly increased. Academic research by Johns Hopkins has shown that MMA is a much safer sport than conventional western boxing. Have a look online and you will find many verifiable resources that show the statistics and science show that MMA is a safer sport than boxing. However, it is just not as respectable as our country's institutionalized form of legalized violence.
So even if the said event was an MMA bout it still wouldn't be as dangerous as a boxing match and probably not as risky as a conventional children's rugby match. What is now at issue is the enviroment. That cage makes people feel uncomfortable, but that is just an aesthetic as is the loud music and the general presentation. News flash. Children of this age have been involved in shows like this long before the advent of the UFC and continue to do so today. This is a similar environment to a boxing dinner, where early fights include youngsters. There are plenty of muay Thai and kickboxing cards that feature children and they are often hosted in bars and public houses as well as tower halls and other venues. The audience is generally made up adults - hello, these kids have parents and relatives you know. How is this environment any different from a country fete where alcohol flows freely and children proudly exhibit their skills in various activities, and often compete. As for the baying crowds, yes I can certainly understand a degree uncomfortability with this, but is it really any different that what we see at children's football matches and, indeed, at the aforementioned other combat sport events.
Looking through the plethora of articles on this subject across the net I see that the final weak argument thrown up is the rather weak but familiar old nutshell - it encourages youths to be more violent. Statistically, at least in the US where MMA is at its biggest, youth crime is down. There has been no proven link between increased violence due to the popularity of a combat sport. Yes, violence is probably going to intensify in a bout with people shouting on, but that's going to be the nature of any contact sport and it's the job of the authorities in control to regulate this area. From my experience I have seen officials stop children's submission fighting or MMA bouts way ahead of any possible threat of danger. The fear of recriminations in the growing sue-all society has long been in place before media stories like this one arrived at mainstream attention.
If the bout did not have adaquate controls and supervision in place - and I see no evidence of this being the case - then the promotion, organizers and involved clubs should be held to account. These types of bout will grow in popularity and it is down to those who organize them to strive for improvements where needed. However, the questions regarding its regulation are really a red herring here. What people are in uproar over is that the unfamiliarity they have with this type of event. When people don't understand something they frequently become scared, especially if it involves violence and children. We have a natural desire to protect our young. In fact, that's the main motivation behind my teaching children no-nonsense self-protection methods and MMA at CCMA and why it has become something a niche area for me. Coaches and supervisors should all be vetted and, where possible, have relavant accredited qualifications. These are standards I actively promote and wish to advance. However, it should be in line with what the data shows and not with the way sensationalist media and out of touch members of society feel about an aesthetic.
MMA is a growing sport and fast becoming a viable competitor with boxing. At ground level we see more professionally constructed and managed full time centres installing cages with capable coaches to teach classes in submission fighting and MMA. MMA has several magazines available in most newsagents written by professional journalists and easily outselling all other martial arts media put together. It has competitors at the top end who are earning serious money and gaining increased celebrity status. Many sports manufacturers, services and suppliers are involved in sponsoring even low level events. Meanwhile individual atheletes are commanding deals with energy drink companies and nutritional supplement companies. Unlike many other full-contact combat sports, even low level adult competitors get some form of actual payment, which argues the case against exploitation better than other "more respectable" martial arts. The fact that our Culture Minister and many others have an antiquated impression of a sport that is completely out of sink with the 18-25 year old age bracket is a cause for concern.
There is an argument that this is no better than the male version of a children's beauty pageant, an activity that I feel is a genuine cause for concern, and they have a small point. Just as young girls are prematurely sexualized and put under pressure regarding their attractiveness, young boys are exhibiting their masculinity through an event that showcases them with smoke, music and booming announcements. However, the difference is that young boys will do this almost as soon as they can walk, it's a natural extension of the way they interact socially. Once again, how is it different to a child being involved in a more tasteful talent contest or delivering a recital in front of an audience? The beauty pageant has some inheriently different and more disturbing aspects. Journalists have described the child competitors to be scantily clad - I guess this would also have to apply to swimming competitions and beach volley ball too. Personally I think this is probably another example of our over-sensitivity to events that might sexualize children. I don't think typical amateur boxing bouts between children stripped to the waist caused an upsurge in paedophilic behaviour or traded said children's innocence. I don't think it really crossed anyone's mind in those more reserved times. It was just down to the practicalities of the sport. However, for the sake of argument and respectibility I have no issue with children wearing rashguards and board shorts as mandatory competition kit just as amatuer boxers often wear tee-shirts or vests.
For my money's worth, there really is a type of pornography at work here and it's the less obvious type being spread by those who are sensationalizing this non-story to sell their TV shows and newspapers. Like any form of pornography it excites the primitive stress response. In this instance it is prompting anger and fear through the medium of entertainment.
Comments