Why I love the UFC: Confessions of a Closet MMA Fan.

I like to pretend that I’m a fairly sophisticated person. I read good books. I enjoy classical music. I enjoy the theater. I love expensive food! I’ll talk economics or politics with whomever ever will listen. But, alas it appears I’m just a brutish redneck at heart. Why, you might ask? I love mixed martial arts (MMA). Specifically, I am fan of the Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC). Now of course I couldn’t actually pull off any mixed martial arts moves. (My fighting strategy consists of rolling up in the fetal position and screaming for my mommy.) Nevertheless, I love watching the sport. (Yes I said sport.) It all started about four years ago when I happened to be flipping channels one night and I landed on the Spike TV channel. I normally don’t watch Spike TV, in fact at the time I didn’t even realize that was the name of the channel, but this time instead of flipping right past it I stopped. I stopped because I saw two men (the announcers said their names were Forrest Griffin and Stephon Bonnar) in what looked like an octagon shaped cage locked in an epic battle of wills. According to the announcers these two men were fighting for a contract with UFC as part of the UFC’s reality TV show “The Ultimate Fighter”. It was clear that both of these men wanted this contract very, very badly. They were hitting each other with all manner of kicks, punches, and wrestling takedowns. Neither man would give an inch. This went on for three five-minute rounds. It was absolutely amazing to watch such display of determination and stamina. When the bell rung signaling the end of the final round the crowd exploded, cheering the super-human effort displayed by both fighters. Simultaneously both fighters embraced and raised each other’s arms in a show of respect. (The judges declared Forrest Griffin the winner, but because this remarkable performance was the work of both men the UFC awarded both men contracts.)

I was awe struck by this performance. I had just witnessed two athletes, evenly matched in skill, locked in battle of wills, both desperate to win the opportunity to fulfill their dreams of being a professional fighter. Neither fighter relented and both were utterly exhausted when they were done. And despite the fact they had just spent fifteen minutes locked in hand to hand combat, both men showed tremendous respect for their opponent the moment the matched ended. This was both compelling and inspiring. I was hooked.

After the fight I immediately went on Netflix and rented all the UFC videos I could find. The more I watched the more intrigued I became. Before I had stumbled upon the Griffin/Bonner fight, I had always believed that “cage fighting” was appalling and barbaric. I was alarmed that anyone would pay to see such a thing. After immersing myself in the UFC I have learned that “cage fighting” has evolved from its barbaric beginnings into a very disciplined and sophisticated sport.

The men who fight in these matches are not bar room brawlers or lawless thugs. In most cases these are men who are extremely accomplished athletes. This is especially true in the upper echelons of the sport. The UFC’s current and former heavy weight champions both competed at the Olympic level in wrestling. The current light-heavy weight champion is a black belt in Brazilian Jujitsu and Karate. The middleweight champion is a champion in both kickboxing and jujitsu. The elite fighters have training regimens that would make NFL players pass out from fatigue.

The fact that the top fighters in MMA are masters in multiple disciplines means that the strategies for these fights can be extremely complicated. In addition, multiple disciplines means there are a variety of ways a fight can come to a conclusion. This adds to the suspense of the matches. It also lends itself to upsets. If fighter A has a style/discipline that is uniquely suited to exploit fighter B’s weakness, then fighter A can upset fighter B even if fighter A is the overall inferior fighter. This is fairly rare in match ups between top fighters, but it occurs just frequently enough to enhance the drama and anticipation during a fight.

Another positive element of the multi-discipline nature of MMA is the fact that it brings masters of the different fighting styles from all over the world to compete. As the sport grows the quality of the athletes improves and because the pool of talent is literally worldwide. Consequently the sport is always evolving which makes MMA all the more intriguing to follow.

In the end, I know this sport is not for everyone. Ultimately it is a violent sport and the fact of the matter is blood is spilled and the competitors seek to inflict pain on each other. (However, the sport is arguably safer than boxing, professional football, and hockey. But I’ll save that for another blog entry.) So, I understand those who shun the sport and those who simply find it distasteful. Nevertheless, I choose to see it as the perfect combination of discipline, skill, aggression, strategy, and determination. I see men who have the courage to push themselves to their limits mentally and physically in the ultimate test of will.

Am I simply seeking to rationalize my own bloodlust and aggression? Have I become desensitized to the brutality? Am I glorifying violence by cheering on these men as they seek to inflict pain on one another? Maybe, maybe not. I really don’t know how being a fan of the UFC reflects on my personality or psyche but honestly I don’t care, because I’m hooked.

President Obama

There are very few moments during a life time where one knows, with certainty, that they are witnessing history. The evening of Nov. 4th, 2008 was one of those rare moments. It was somewhere around 11:00 pm eastern time when Barack Obama was declared the next president of the United States. Never, in the history of the world, has a man with dark skin obtained such great power and influence. Never, in modern western history, has a man from a once enslaved and oppressed minority risen to govern a majority white nation. Only in a country as diverse and dynamic as United States, could institutional bigotry and social inequality be reversed in a generation's time. Now, of course, Mr. Obama's election does not mean racial inequality is eliminated, but it is a major bench mark that has been cleared in a remarkably short period of time. This is truly a great moment in our country's history.

During such a moment, it is extremely tempting to mistakenly assume that the man at the middle of this moment is great simply because the moment itself is great. Many in the nation's media have fallen prey to this temptation even before the election was won. Even more are now expressing admiration and heroworship, projecting this moment's greatness on to a man that has yet to prove worthy of such praise.

Make no mistake, Mr. Obama's achievement should certainly be admired and appreciated. In fact, if he does nothing else of substance in his career he will always be remembered for this moment. However, this moment alone does not make Mr. Obama a great man, nor does it mean that he is destined to be a good leader. The fact is President elect Obama's victory was as much a product of circumstances beyong his control (unpopular war, economic crisis, unpopular president, etc...) as it was his campaign. In addition, the exit poll data tends to show that Mr. Obama did not overcome any significant amount of bigotry in the electorate. So, while Mr. Obama's victory was certainly historic it was not improbable or extraordinary, given the circumstances.

In reality, a review of Barack Obama's relatively short career shows little sign of courage, leadership, vision, etc... or any of the other traits you might expect to find in a great man. In fact, Barack Obama's career is the protrait of shrewd opportunist who exploited associations and legal loop holes to advance his career, all the while avoiding any political confrontation that might have hindered his rise to power. This, of course, is something that can be said of most of the politicians in Washington. But that is precisely the point. Barack Obama has not shown himself to be anything more than an extremely ambitious and shrewd politician.

So, I hope that the people of this nation will appreciate this wonderful moment but will also not be too hasty in attributing greatness to a man who has yet to demonstrate it.

Anecdote about McCain

About 18-20 months ago I was flipping channels (my wife loves it when I do this) and I stopped on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" because I saw that he was introducing John McCain as his next guest.  Anyone who watches the daily show knows that over the years John McCain has been a regular guest on the hit news parody show.  At this point in time, John McCain had already begun his campaign for the Republican nomination but the campaign was off to a horrible start.  The polls showed him running fifth behind his republican rivals and only garnering single digits in those polls.  Most pundits said McCain simply didn't have a chance because he had centered his campaign around winning the war in Iraq.  At that time the war was going terribly and it's unpopularity had led to a massive republican defeat in the 2006 elections.

John Stewart almost immediately began peppering John McCain about his failing campaign strategy and more generally about the war.  As McCain attempted to respond to Stewart's questions Stewart often interrupted him, making light of his responses.  Finally, toward the end of this awkward interview Jon Stewart essentially asked Senator McCain why he chose to hitch his campaign to this disastrous war.  Senator McCain, looked at the audience and said with conviction, "I'd rather lose a campaign than see my country lose a war".  The heckling audience then grew quiet and Stewart stopped joking, while Senator McCain explained that he felt it was his responsibility to do everything within his power to ensure that the U.S. adopted and executed a winning strategy in Iraq, even if it meant sacrificing his aspirations to be president.

Regardless of what one thinks about the war in Iraq, it is refreshing to see a politician take a stand that appears contrary to that politician's own political interests.

If in fact Senator McCain actually was the election in November that will be moment I remember from this campaign more than any other.

Obama's big blunder

Much of the talk after the completion of the Republican National Convention last night has been of VP nominee Sarah Palin's impressive speech and about the fact that is presidential race appears to neck and neck heading into the last two months.  It is truly remarkable that this race is so close.  Given poor approval ratings for the GOP, and in particular George W. Bush, the democrats had a huge advantage going into this presidential contest.  Unfortunately for them that advantage has been almost completely squandered by extremely poor strategic decisions by Obama campaign.

Approximately two months ago, shortly after Obama officially wrapped the nomination, the McCain campaign launched a series of ads calling into question Senator Obama's experience and leadership capabilities.  They followed this up with a couple ads mocking his cult like following and his "celebrity" status.  Essentially, the McCain camp has spent the last two months driving home themes brought out in these ads.  This strategy has been extremely effective and over the last two months the polls have been trending in McCain's favor.  One of the reason's this strategy has been effective is the Obama camp's misguided strategic response.  Senator Obama has spent the last two months trying to answer the questions raised by the McCain campaign about Obama's leadership, experience, and qualifications.  Intuitively, one might think this is a reasonable strategy but in Obama's case he walked right into a trap.

In response to the McCain camp's ads and attacks, Senator Obama organized a highly publicized trip to the middle east and Europe.  The trip produced several wonderful photo ops for Obama and the international media swooned all over him.  Many pundits said that the trip was a smashing success and showed McCain had over played his hand when he goaded Obama into visiting Iraq.  Unfortunately the pundits they completely missed the point, evidenced by the fact that Obama's trip had absolutely no effect on the polls.

By taking this extremely hyped trip to the middle East and Europe, Obama simply reinforced the McCain campaign's emphasis on international affairs and national security (where McCain has natural advantage).  It also allowed the McCain campaign to continue, without interruption, to compare and contrast Obama's record on national security and international affairs (or lack thereof) with Senator McCain's rather extensive record.

Since Obama's international trip, the Obama campaign has continuously allowed him to be lulled into debates about experience, international affairs, and national security.  Some of this is unavoidable.  Obama certainly can't control whether or not Russia decides to make headlines by invading Georgia, but the Obama campaign has been incapable of changing the subject even when the opportunity presents itself.  Even Obama's selection of VP seemed to reenforce the McCain's criticisms of Obama.  When Obama announced the selection of Joe Biden, he specifically highlighted his experience and foreign policy expertise.  This move indirectly highlighted the lack those qualifications in Obama's own resume.  In addition, it undermined the "change" theme that Obama had built his whole campaign around.

Just this last week the Obama campaign was again lulled into a trap by the McCain camp after the selection of Governor Sarah Palin.  Foolishly, the Obama camp criticized Governor Palin's experience and foreign policy expertise.  All this accomplished was flooding the news cycle with stories about the Obama campaign attacking Palin's experience and then the McCain campaign returning fire by highlighting Obama's flimsy record.  Every minute the Obama campaign spends comparing Sarah Palin's experience as a small town mayor with Obama's experience as a state senator, is a victory for McCain because Obama isn't running against Palin, he's running against McCain.  The fact is the more Obama talks about his relatively humble resume the better McCain looks to voters.

Just today, Obama appears to be doubling down on this horrible strategy.  At rally today he asked McCain, "where have you been the last 26 years?"  This line is referring to McCain's 26 years in congress and suggesting that McCain is just now "talking about reform".  This may be the most extremely foolish line of attack the Obama campaign has yet attempted because sets McCain up to respond by listing all of the reforms that McCain his authored or championed in congress (campaign finance reform, earkmark reform, immigration reform, etc...).  It also gives the McCain campaign one more chance to compare his record with Obama's record.

The sad thing for Obama supporters is that this whole misguided approach is completely avoidable.  All Obama has to do is concede the experience/foreign policy issue to McCain and shift the focus to other issues.  I'm not suggesting he come out and say, "Senator McCain would make a better commander in chief than me."  I'm saying that Obama can subtly acknowledge that McCain has an advantage in one area of this race while shifting the focus to the areas where the advantage seems to lie with Obama.  I would advise that Obama say something to this affect, "Senator McCain has lived a remarkable life and has acquired a great deal of valuable experience throughout his career.  In fact, I believe he would make a good commander in chief.  Unfortunately though Senator McCain is wrong on so many issues that are important to the citizens of this country I do not believe he would make a very good president."  Obama should then finish this statement by mentioning one particular issue he is "right" on and McCain is "wrong".  If I were Obama I would offer a similar type of response every time the McCain camp tries to bring up the issue of experience or qualifications.  Overall, if he makes a concerted effort to focus the race back on domestic issues he can shift the momentum back in his favor.

The fact is, no matter how hard he tries or much he spins, Obama will never measure up to Senator McCain in terms of experience and qualifications.  Senator McCain has one of the most impressive biographies of anyone serving in public office today.  He is one of the most respected politicians in the country, regardless of party.  Obama simply cannot compete with this and should not try.  Ultimately you can never win any competition if you are matching your weaknesses against your opponent's strengths.

USA Basketball

Due to my new role as "stay at home Dad", I had the opportunity to watch the US men's basketball team play Greece this morning in the Olympics.  Just a couple years ago, Greece upset a heavily favored U.S. team at the world championships in Japan.  It was one of the most disappointing games in U.S. men's basketball history because U.S.A basketball had made great efforts leading up to the World Championships to better prepare the team for international competition after being thoroughly embarrassed at the Olympics in 2004.  Despite these efforts the US team fell in Japan to a Greek team that did not have a single NBA player on it's roster.   As a result, this rematch took on a special significance for team USA.  In the end, the men's team cruised to a 92-69 win and demonstrated the type of effort that spectators have rarely seen from team USA since pro players began competing in the Olympics.  

The funny thing about this game for me was that I really didn't care that much whether or not the U.S. won.  Sure, I rooted for the American men to win and I was proud of the effort they displayed but whether or not the U.S. wins the gold in basketball means about as much to me as whether or not the U.S. women are able pull off a gold medal in water polo.  In fact, I might actually care more about the U.S. women's water polo team.  (However, I enjoy watching men's basketball a great deal more.)  The reason for this is that the performance of the U.S. men's basketball team in no significant way reflects the quality or caliber of basketball in United States.  That may sound counter-intuitive, but there are several reasons why that statement is true.

First, the rules that govern international basketball are very different from NBA rules.  The international game is played at a different pace than NBA basketball and international referee's call games differently than NBA referees.  Why are all of these differences significant?  Well, imagine if Michael Phelps and the rest of the US swim team swam different types of swimming strokes and in a different size swimming pool than those used in the Olympics.  Would the Olympics really be an accurate measure of team USA's quality as a swim team?  The answer is no.  The same can be said of the men's basketball team.  Second, teams the US faces in the Olympic tournament consist of players that have played together in international competition for years.  The US comparatively has little experience in international competition and have players that have only played a handful of games together.  The fact is the NBA and ,by extension, USA basketball has never fully embraced international basketball.

That said, USA basketball and the NBA have made more of an effort over the last four years to develop an actual international men's basketball program that more closely resembles that of other countries.  In fact, if the US does win gold it will be because of these recent efforts.  Nevertheless, until the NBA embraces international basketball has full partners and/or international basketball realizes it's in their best interest to tailor their game more toward NBA basketball, Olympic basketball will never truly be a competition to determine the best men's basketball team in the world and basketball itself will never truly be an international game.

Comments on the Conflict between Russia and Georgia

While watching the news today I heard a news anchor ask an "expert" if the United States still has the "moral authority" to challenge Russia's invasion of Georgia after the United States' invasion of Iraq.  While such a such a question certainly didn't surprise me, given the general political leanings of major news networks, I still found the premise behind the question mildly absurd.

Certainly many nations around the world objected to the U.S. led invasion of Iraq and many of the reasons for opposing the invasion were valid.  There is no question the invasion hurt America's image around the world.  But to believe the idea that the United States somehow forfeited it's authority (moral or otherwise) to speak out against Russia requires one to suspend reality and ignore history.  

First of all, the differences between the U.S. led invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Georgia are almost too numerous to count.  (To outline all of these differences, would be too time consuming but one simple example is the fact that the Saddam Hussein violated the 1991 Gulf War cease fire agreement and 15 separate U.N. resolutions.  While Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili's most egregious crime appears to be distancing his country from Russia's "sphere of influence".)

Second, one unpopular war does not erase the overwhelming  number of times U.S. has sacrificed it's own blood and treasure in defense of allies and in humanitarian efforts around the world.  It also does not erase the fact that U.S. is still the most rich and powerful democratic nation on the planet.

Because the Iraq War has been such an important and heated political issue in this country over the last several years, we tend to lose perspective when evaluating it's importance and understanding it's significance from a global and historical perspective.  The U.S. has been involved in a number of unpopular military engagements over the last century, but America's positive contributions to the world (see World War II, Cold War, etc...) far out weigh her missteps and the rest of the world knows it.

What in the world is going on?

Can someone explain to me why in the world Brett Farve is about to leave the Green Bay Packers? Better yet, why on earth would Packers even be considering trading him or releasing him? Why would two groups be so amazingly intent on acting against their own best interest (particularly the Packers franchise)?

The Greenbay Packers were a field goal away from making the Super Bowl last season. Anyone who watched the Giants vs. Packers NFC championship game knows that Green Bay could have easily won that game. Last season Brett Farve had one of the best seasons of his career. In fact, he seemed to have toned down his gun slinging style and made smarter decisions in the passing game. On top of that, the man that Green Bay has slated to replace Farve has no real NFL experience. So, logic would dictate that the Packers would be thrilled to have Brett Farve back even if he jerked them around during the off-season for the third year in a row. Why would you want an inexperienced QB to take over a Super Bowl contender when you could have one of the all-time great QBs (who can still play at a high level) comeback and lead your team to promise land? Especially when the QB coming back is a SUPERSTAR, beloved by fans around the league (especially your own), and is the franchise's future ambassador. This may sound cras, but there is still a ton of money to made off Brett Farve even after he retires. It is certainly in the Packers' overwhelming, financial interest to maintain a good relationship with Farve.

There are only two reasons I can think of that might have led the Packers to not welcome back Brett Farve with a parade. The first is that the Packers coaches and management believe that Aaron Rodgers (the young back up) is going to be something special and they want to stop paying him big dollars to sit on the bench and have him as their starter for at least a couple years before he becomes a free agent. I highly doubt that this is Packers' true motivation for their rejection of Brett Farve's comeback. Being this close to a Super Bowl, you don't turn the reigns over to an inexperienced QB if you don't have to. The window of opportunity to win a Super Bowl in the NFL is so small, it trumps all other considerations.

The second is that the Packers' coaches and management were so tired of the will he/won't he come back roller coaster (a roller coaster they've been on for the last three off-seasons) that they did not receive the news of Farve's comeback with the appropriate excitement. Which in turn, offended Farve and set off a PR battle between Farve and Packers that made their relationship unworkable. This is the scenario that I think really unfolded because when a franchise acts against it's own perceived best interests it's generally because there are underlying political/personal tensions that push the franchise to take an unexpected course of action.

While I sympathize with Packers management and coaches feeling that Brett Farve was holding their team hostage for the third season in a row, they still made the wrong decision not welcoming Farve back with open arms. I believe they will particularly regret this decision if Farve somehow ends up on a team in their division. I respect that coaches and management have to draw the line and assert their authority so that players aren't the ones calling the shots. Unfortunately for the Packers there are some players in pro sports that are bigger than the coaches, management, and the rest of the team combined and Brett Farve is one of those players.

Don't you dare "go negative"!

It happens every presidential campaign cycle. The two major candidates promise to "take the high road", "stick to the issues", "not sling mud", (insert cliche here), etc... I've always found this amusing considering there's never been a candidate in the history of campaigns that has promised to "take the low road" or "play dirty". Yet, every four years we hear the same self-righteous promises of positivity followed shortly by both candidates strongly condemning the other of "going negative".

The most amazing part about this presidential campaign tradition is that the media act as though this is a new phenomenon. Columnists and reporters write dozens of articles every presidential campaign about how "negative" the campaign has gotten and how one or both of the candidates broke their promise to take the high road. It is absolutely remarkable how gullible the media is when it comes to this silly little finger pointing game that EVERY presidential candidate plays.

This past week has provided us a wonderful example of the "going negative" finger pointing game. The McCain campaign released two separate campaign adds over the last two weeks each built around the theme that Barack Obama is more popular fad than legitimate presidential candidate. In these ads the McCain campaign juxtaposes images of Barack Obama with images of pop icons that are more famous for the personal exploits rather than anything they've accomplished (see Paris Hilton). The Obama campaign immediately accused the McCain campaign of "going negative" and the media (like Pavlov' s dogs) immediately followed with dozens of segments, columns, and articles about the adds and whether or not they were too negative. (In general it was clear the media felt it already knew the answer to the question and that the answer was clearly- yes.) The New York Times even went as far as to publish an editorial stating that one of the ads (the one featuring Paris Hilton) was "tinged with racism". Their evidence of this was that the add contains images of young white women (Paris and Britney) followed by images of Barack Obama. (Irony of the New York Times' editorial I'm sure was lost on the editors because it's hard to see irony way up high in your ivory tower. Nevertheless the racist and stereotypical perspective rests not within the McCain's ad but within the editors' column, because it is the New York Times editors that seem to think that the image of a black man and young white women cannot be shown together without inferring some sort of negative relationship.)

The problem with all of this, besides the fact that it's a huge waste of time, is that one man's "negative" ad is another man's legitimate critique. Is the McCain campaign wrong to suggest that Barack Obama might be more show than substance? Some would say, yes. Others would say, no. That is exactly the point. It's all subjective. More importantly it's part of American politics and has been since Thomas Jefferson had his surrogates print "negative" editorials and articles about his political rivals (Alexander Hamilton and John Adams) in papers that were friendly to him.

Would our politics be better off, if the candidates simply spent their time debating the issues? Possibly. I think I personally would prefer if John McCain simply stuck the major political issues and avoided any political ads that included Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. (In McCain's defense, he has offered multiple times to hold weekly town hall debates with Barack Obama until the week before the election and Barck Obama has rejected his offer every time.) On the other hand, tough campaigns prepare each candidate for the intense scrutiny that either one of them will have to deal with on a daily basis as President of the United States.

This country has done alright, choosing it's leaders over the last 200+ years, better than any other modern democratic country. In the end, the biggest flaw in our presidential politics may not be the "negative campaigns" but the silly idea that presidential campaigns are supposed to be completely "positive".