Recently the general public was beckoned to watch the ghost of Mike Tyson face one of the most punchable people on the planet in Jake Paul. Without trepidation the public watched Iron Mike highlight packages and hoped to see a 58 year old man turn back the clock and let a whole generation witness one of the most feared men in world live up to his mythos of unmitigated violence.
But Father Time still remains undefeated. And while the public didn't get what it wanted, it got what it deserved. In the aftermath of Tyson-Paul we have heard the call that this fight should have never happened. Purists argue that it demeans the sport, delegitimizes actual boxers, and turns people away from a sport that is already viewed as dying.
At least in the modern era all competitions seemingly have to split themselves between sporting event and spectacle. Just in terms of commercial viability we see changes to our competitions. Commercial breaks influence how a game of hockey is played in the NHL vs your local beer league. The NBA instituted the 3 point rule to make games more exciting. Most sports attempt to blend and sublimate the drives toward spectacle so that it isn't on its face obvious (despite tee shirt canons, give-a-ways, and rule changes). Still there seems a certain grotesque nature in which combat sports push towards spectacle.
I was amongst the calls for this fight to not happen. From a sporting and entertainment stand point I couldn't think how this fight either benefitted the sport or the competitors (except for $$$). But post-fact, let's look at the role of "freak" fights in martial arts in an historical context and it's modern application.
Who's the Freak Here?
One of the major goals of the MMA world has been in the pursuit of legitimacy. Old heads remember the calls to ban MMA in its infancy (Senator John McCain led the charge after UFC 1 calling MMA "human cock fighting"). In 1993, 8 individuals from across the globe were thrust into the world spotlight. These competitors fought each other to prove which "art" was the deadliest in the world thus birthing the UFC kicking off the modern era of MMA. No mysticism, qi, no techniques too deadly to test, just 8 individuals with a proclivity to violence seeing who was the last one standing. But the elements of "freak" fighting still stood strong in these early days. UFC 1 existed as a commercial project for the Gracie clan looking to take a foothold in the United States, deemed more effective than ads in martial arts magazines, and just a continuation of the "Gracie Challenge" (where members of the Gracie clan fought and attacked other dojo's, practitioners, and member's of the public generally). Moreover each competitor represented a single discipline pulling along all fellow practitioners in support of their respective discipline. It was more than a one night tournament, it was which (martial art, nation, or individual) had the pre-eminent claim to be the baddest on the planet).
The visceral and chaotic nature of early MMA couldn't stand if the sport wanted to grow. Over time rules and regulations were adopted to standardize and rationalize the sport culminating in the current Unified Rules of MMA. Does that mean the "freak fest" stopped or were driven to the fringes? I would argue, from a purist standpoint, no. The aesthetics of MMA lend a hand to popular legitimacy but many results of codification served to entrench the element of spectacle. Gloves allow fighters to attack more recklessly than a bare knuckle fight. Rounds came to be so fighters could refresh themselves and have a reset in a fight provided they do not get finished before the round is up. Outside of official rules we see how the UFC's instituted fight kits, not only strip fighters of their individuality, but are based on national lines making each fight not between and individual from x versus individual from y but x vs y. We have seen techniques banned on aesthetic grounds (12-6 elbow, stomps, and soccer kicks in particular) for being too violent brutal to continue in the modern era of martial arts. Spectacle doesn't need to be garrish, in fact the modern spectacle is clean, professional hiding the brutal nature of combat sports.
Furthermore we have seen that as the popularity of early UFC waned in Japan a new monster arose. Pride FC never shied away from spectacle. It retained the more brutal strikes from the early days the became banned in the western world, it removed elbows as cuts stopped more potential violence from occurring. They built and bought the best fighters in the world but still would mix weight classes and host mismatches to answer any of the publics questions about fighting (what if there was no rounds? Sakuraba vs Royce Gracie. What if a pro wrestler fought? Alberto del Rio vs Cro cop...). Built into Pride was a level of showmanship and spectacle unparalleled since the organization went defunct. And though it may be viewed with rose coloured glasses MMA purists still cry out Pride Never Die, despite its mixed heritage as sport and spectacle.
Where Does This Leave Us?
So the fight game is made of sport and spectacle. Do we need to decry every move against the sport towards the spectacle? The spectacle certainly elevates the sport just as it would any other but it would seem that it is more entrenched than in other sports. Maybe it is because the very violent nature of combat sports is spectacular in itself. The masses demand "bread and circuses" not "bread or circuses". When there is no bread and only the circus we fall away from the fantastical searching for nourishment. But when we have bread but no circus we grow bored and wistful, looking for new entertainment. Instead we should be honest about what we want. Do we object to Tyson vs Paul only after the fact? Only when we can collectively admit that self evidence in the absurdity of that match? We look at a match like that and cry out against the circus meanwhile in the lead up we say "maybe he's still got it," "even if he is old he is still an ex champion," "power is the last thing to go." A crowd has been drawn to the circus just to be left wanting, all the while we have long since dawned the make up and have become clowns ourselves.
I Thought This Was a Guide?
"Freak" fights still exist. There is a rejection of the rational fighting world. Even though the world of MMA has evolved in the past decades we still want something new, or in rejecting our modern world, something old. So where do we look? First the thesis of this post is that fighting sports have inherent elements of the spectacle. But there are still odd and strange things happening in the fight game. Some trivial, some are fads passing by, and some maybe sticking around to stay. Let's take a look at some of the weird stuff going on.
The Violent Spectacle
PowerSlap - Shot for shot but slaps. Unhinged. MMA's closest thing to a snuff film. Feel bad for watching it.
Lowkick World Championship - Like PowerSlap but without the brain damage. Silly but ultimately harmless.
Just like the Old-days Spectacle
BKFC - Bare Knuckle Boxing, in someways kind of a legitimate turn to form. 2 minute rounds, circular ring, and bad matchmaking leaves it in the degenerate category.
Wotore - Gloves? No Weight Classes? No. Does it look like Bloodsport? Yes. If you want the old Vale Tudo days look no further.
Ganryujima - Japanese organization sometimes fought on a raised platform. Still focused on style vs style match ups to give an early UFC feel.
MMA with a Twist Spectacle
Thermopylae - Team fighting.
Triad Combat - Its fighting but the ring is a triangle.
What is going on here? Spectacle
Fight Circus - fueled by alcohol, cocaine and the Thailand tourism industry. Pinnacle of MMA absurdity.
Armoured Combat - What if we put knights in a ring.
Josh Barnett's BloodSport - not strictly MMA but a shoot styled pro-wrestling organization harkening to the early days of MMA.
コメント