web
counter
 

Warrior Review: Two Rocky Movies for the Price of One

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (46)



warrior-movie-photo-01-550x349.jpg

Until Bennett Miller’s Moneyball is officially released in a couple of weeks, Warrior will briefly hold the title of “the best sports movie in years.” But unlike Moneyball, which successfully subverts the sports-movie formula, Warrior doubles the formula and quadruples the emotion. It’s Rocky times two: Twice the violence, twice the underdog story, and twice the acting capabilities. There’s absolutely nothing new here, but Warrior capably wrings every last bit of rousing, feel-good energy out of the tired sports-movie template to create an astoundingly entertaining film that just happens to be about MMA.

Gavin O’Connor wrote and directed Warrior and he does exactly what he did with 2004’s Miracle: He hits those high notes hard. He has an uncanny ability to to create movies that grown men would feel comfortable crying over, and the degree of difficulty here is even higher: The trailers give away every single plot turn in Warrior, except the outcome. Yet, it still manages to bowl over its audience.

In Warrior, O’Connor takes the classic underdog story and multiplies it: Joel Edgerton (Animal Kingdom) plays Brendan Conlon, a former MMA fighter turned Philly teacher who comes out of retirement when his daughter’s hospital bills force his house to the brink of foreclosure. Even in his MMA prime, Conlon was only a .500 fighter, better at withstanding punishment than he was at dishing it out. To the dismay of his wife, Tess (Jennifer Morrison) — who never met a pair of pants she cared to wear — Brendan begins secretely competing in amateur matches only to be outed by a student and subsequently suspended. He reconnects with an old trainer (Frank Grillo) and by virtue of some dumb luck, winds up in a winner-take-all MMA Tournament with a $5 million cash prize.

Meanwhile, Tommy Conlon (Tom Hardy), after a mysterious 14-year absence and a stint in the military, shows up in Pittsburgh out of nowhere, and after dismantling the world middle-weight MMA champion in a sparring match at a local gym, he, too, punches a ticket to the MMA Tournament. Tommy, a naturally talented fighter, is fierce but quiet, holding on to a dark secret that builds some conflict into his underdog story.

What connects Brendan and Tommy is a mutual father, Paddy (Nick Nolte), a lifelong drunk whose abuse drove his wife and Tommy into hiding. The only thing that Brendan and Tommy — who haven’t seen each other since high-school — have in common is an intense dislike and distrust of their father, who has recently sobered up and has attempted to re-enter the lives of his sons.

What really elevates Warrior above its sports-movie cliches are the performances of the three leads. Edgerton, who flashed signs of brilliance last year in a supporting role in Animal Kingdom, imbues his character with a gritty but believable determination. The stakes for Brendan — all things relative — aren’t really all that high, but Edgerton makes us believe that saving his home is worth risking his life. Hardy’s character, meanwhile, is ruthless and brutal, capable of knocking a man unconscious with a single punch. With a less talented actor, Tommy could’ve easily be seen as the film’s main villain, a sibling Apollo Creed, but Hardy makes us believe that somewhere beneath the his stoic exterior and years of emotional baggage, there’s a tender heart desperate to reveal itself. That the audience feels so much for both characters makes the finale that much more compelling and gut wrenching.

But it’s the veteran Nolte that is the true, Oscar-contending stand-out in Warrior. He is flat-out phenomenal, a grizzled old man who wears grief and regret on his sleeve. His two sons despise his character, and have every reason to do so, and yet it’s Paddy for whom the audience feels the most compassion, conflicted as it is. More than either of the brothers, it’s Paddy we want to find redemption.

The other factor at play here is the sport itself. MMA is — in my opinion, at least — an ugly, morally reprehensible sport where two men are put in a cage and basically given free reign to beat the shit out of each other. Unconsciousness is the goal, and if there’s a little swelling of the brain, well, so be it. The fact that it’s even legal is proof that we are indeed on the verge of Idiocracy, if we haven’t already crossed into that territory. And yet, there’s no denying that it’s a compelling sport to watch. The stakes are high because death is an actual possibility, and O’Connor does a brilliant job of framing the matches, extracting every last bit of fist-swinging brutality allowed under a PG-13 banner.

Warrior boasts a potent combination of superb acting, vicious beat-downs, and two populist underdog tales that hit all the brain’s red spots. It’s one terrific endorphin high, folks, and if you can tolerate the intensity of the sport, I can’t recommend Warrior enough.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



5 Lead Actors that Should Pull a Gwyneth | Dreamboat Anti-Semitic Mel Gibson Dons Yarmulke, Makes Film about Jewish Hero. What Could Go Wrong?









Comments

So according to you "There’s absolutely nothing new here" yet you "can’t recommend Warrior enough"? I guess there must be some REAL ACTRESSIN goin on huh?

Wait! Is this one of those meta things?

Posted by: logan at September 7, 2011 4:11 PM

If I may interject and be the token defender for MMA in this article. I train in MMA myself and have trained boxing as well. The reason MMA looks so much rougher is simply because cuts and bruises come about easier, that's the reason boxing has the big gloves, not because of safety but rather people at the turn of last century couldn't handle the blood of bare knuckle boxing and was given the same treatment MMA is given. The fact is those small 4oz gloves are safer for the puncher and the receiver than the large 12-16oz boxing gloves. Also the fact that boxers are punched constantly in the head, knocked down, given a 10 count and back up, there is much more brain damage in boxing than in MMA. It isn't a free for all like it was in the early days of the UFC, there are many rules in place to protect the fighters.

Posted by: Jimmy V at September 7, 2011 4:29 PM

I want to see this movie -- hell, I even want to like it.

But I can't get over the MMA part. That's too big a hurdle for me to cross.

Posted by: Rob at September 7, 2011 4:32 PM

Just to add my two cents here, kids. I saw this one too, and I basically agree with Dustin. I'm not a big MMA fan -- I respect the hell out of the training and discipline, but it's not for me -- but this is a hell of a movie. It's absolutely worth seeing.

Posted by: TK at September 7, 2011 4:45 PM

Another MMA defender. For a host of reasons that I won't go into but Jimmy V began to touch upon, MMA is generally safer than boxing. Chances are, a retired MMA fighter will be in a lot better shape than a retired boxer or a retired NFL lineman. Though the injuries that MMA fighters sustain in the ring are more obvious and less agreeable to the squeamish, they're generally more superficial and temporary than lots of other sports injuries.

Posted by: MMA at September 7, 2011 5:24 PM

MMA is — in my opinion, at least — an ugly, morally reprehensible sport where two men are put in a cage and basically given free reign to beat the shit out of each other. Unconsciousness is the goal, and if there’s a little swelling of the brain, well, so be it. The fact that it’s even legal is proof that we are indeed on the verge of Idiocracy, if we haven’t already crossed into that territory. And yet, there’s no denying that it’s a compelling sport to watch. The stakes are high because death is an actual possibility...

This entire portion of you article is... let's call it misinformed. Because calling it 'completely false' would be a touch much considering there's partial opinion sprinkled in.

My first question to you would be, have you ever looked at the rules and/or scoring for MMA?

1. Unconsciousness is NOT the goal. Victory is. Victory is obtained via submission, (requiring mastry of any 1 or more grappling styles) knockout, or winning via a decision based on legitimate and pre-established qualifiers.

In fact unconsciousness is furthest from the goal. As soon as a combatant is not able to reasonably and intelligently defend himself, the match is over. Unlike, say, boxing, where I have til the count of 10 to get my shit back together and continue to get pummeled in the head...for 10, 12, 15, even 18 rounds. How's that for head trauma? MMA never goes beyond 25 total minutes in the ring/cage.

2. Free reign to beat the shit out of each other - in one word. FALSE. There are governing bodies in 44 out of the 50 states that regulates MMA and all of them have the same basic rules. No small joint manipulation. No eye gouging. No downward elbow strikes. No stikes beyond the "headphone" line of your opponenets head. No kicking or kneeing a downed opponent in the head. No groin strikes...etc etc. Saying "to beat the shit out of each other" sells it like a Tijuana cock fight, when there has been years of rule and regulation development to legitimize it.

3. "Death is an actual possibility." And in what other sport is death not? More people have been killed in the last 2 years in professional baseball than in professional (read: regulated by a sporting/gaming commission) MMA. Football players die on the field from highschool on up due to strain placed on the body...you can read about at least 3 of them just this year alone.

4. Dismissing an entire sport the way you have, in my opinion, screams of ignorance and a very-much "holier than thou" approach. To call it morally reprehensible and ugly cheapens everything involved. These men (except for the freakshow local shit that often goes unregulated) scream of pure athleticism. Each and every one of the best in the sport are masters of many disciplines: Wrestling, boxing, jiu jitsu, muay thai, sambo...not to mention a dedication to a cardio regimen that would make most track and field athletes swoon.

Simply put, your opinion seems pretty baseless. MMA is just another combat sport. Just like boxing. What's your opinion on boxing, anyway? I can tell you now that boxing is in most ways extremely more dangerous and brutal than MMA.

I come to Pajiba becuase of the smart, open-minded and informed opinions I read. You couldn't be further off these 3 qualities Dustin.

If you want to try to dismiss MMA, dismiss it as a hybrid sport. Sort of how I dismiss water polo because it's a combination of soccer (handball fouls abound!)and swimming. There's no polo at all until a horse drowns.

Posted by: PissBoy at September 7, 2011 5:26 PM

Calm down about MMA, guys. Geez.

Yes, MMA is safer than boxing by a large degree, but Dustin's right that it's still relatively ethically reprehensible. You would say that fighting in hockey is completely wrong, but in MMA, the fighters are there to do exactly the same thing: beat the other guy up. On top of that, awards are given out for knockout of the night, something that usually results in a concussion for the fighter knocked out. And as pro football and hockey have taught us, concussions are an EXTREMELY serious matter.

MMA is not as bad as boxing, and it's an extremely intricate and well thought-out sport. But it still results in long- and short-term physical harm.

Just keep things in perspective and try to understand why MMA isn't as mainstream and accepted as you might like to think.

Posted by: Alex Goldberg at September 7, 2011 5:46 PM

We're all calm. Just stating facts. But it's the "morally reprehensible" that raises the hackles a little for the defenders. At least it was with me. My first question was, what does morality have to do with it? It's the same morality involved in boxing, grappling, karate, etc. yet those sports aren't dismissed as easilyor at all, since each of them is recognized at the Olympic level.

I think the root of a lot of the dismissal is possibly a combination of a viewer not being able to see that the injuries in MMA, paricularly the cuts, bleed the same blood as boxing cuts, but they seem more brutal because the gloves are lighter and fingerless, and a lack of understanding the rules and regulations of MMA.

Posted by: PissBoy at September 7, 2011 6:16 PM

Shut up about this MMA nonsense. Let's find out what the audience really wants to know about this movie: How naked does Tom Hardy get, and when, and for how long? Are there close-ups? Do they linger?

My wallet's not coming out until I know, folks.

Posted by: Jerce at September 7, 2011 7:43 PM

I only just started watching MMA recently, and as somebody who has never had any interest in watching sports at all (assuming e-sports don't count), I've found it to be a deeply strategic sport and a lot of fun to watch.
Just my 2c.

Posted by: Chugga at September 7, 2011 8:11 PM

People, people, people.

You're missing the point here.

And the point is, will I get to see any of Tom Hardy's bits and if so which and for how long?

Posted by: AM at September 7, 2011 8:25 PM

I'm not going to rehash what other people have said in defense of MMA but as someone who used to cover the sport, I must reinforce that the second to last paragraph is largely false, and based on an uninformed opinion. MMA is no more morally reprehensible than any other sport.

Posted by: Andy at September 7, 2011 8:33 PM

You know, if you don't like combat sports, that's your prerogative. If it isn't your cup of tea, that's fine. If that's all you had said, I would've been like, "Nice review," and moved on. Except that it wasn't. There are maybe two and a half sentences in the second to last paragraph that aren't complete bullshit.

The other MMA defenders have done a great job expounding on the rules and relative safety of MMA, so I won't comment on that. But I do have this to say: boxing, wrestling, judo, Brazilian jui-jitsu, and muay Thai are all widely accepted as sports. What is doing all of those in concurrently with a clearly defined set of rules that in in place to protect the fighter all of a sudden morally reprehensible?

As for the Idiocracy comparison? Well, I can't think of a good way to say "Go fuck yourself." There are plenty of MMA fighters with college degrees. Kenny Florian has a communications degree (which he uses quite effectively in announcing and commentary roles when not fighting); Joe Lauzon has a degree in computer science; Tamdan McCrory has a degree in kinesiology; Rich Franklin has a masters degree in math education. Those last three are intellectually legit areas of study; not some bullshit English or journalism degree.

I'd also like to point out while yes, two men are engaging in unarmed combat, I've seen far more sportsmanship displayed between two fighters than I've seen in most professional football games.

Posted by: APOCooter at September 7, 2011 9:21 PM

I have nothing more to add that won't devolve into a rant, but count me among the MMA fans who immediately wanted to point out how extremely uninformed and untrue that paragraph was.

Also, one of UFC's big statements that deserves to be listened to is something that can't be said for a single year of some non-combat sports, such as football - In UFC's entire history, even including the less regulated early days which is so different to the current product that it doesn't deserve comment in any other context than "look how much better it is now", no one, NO ONE, has been killed OR even sustained a life-altering injury. Not even so much as a broken bone or torn ligament which results in the guy having a limp.

Hopefully when UFC debuts on Fox it'll open a few eyes on what the sport actually is and eliminate a few sadly out of touch perceptions such as Dustin's.

Posted by: Steve at September 7, 2011 9:54 PM

Equating MMA with "Ow My Balls" is very low Dustin. Other than that, I am glad you enjoyed the movie.

Posted by: mc-rox at September 8, 2011 12:06 AM

I hope PissBoy won't take it to hard that I agree with him completely on this one. He was uncharacteristically restrained, while on this one I am ... less so.

Our esteemed overlord's assessment of MMA is completely bass-ackwards - if not forgivable, at least understandable because he is so ill-informed. Beyond blowing the superficial specifics of MMA as practiced are deeper misapprehensions.

First is brutality. Beating a helpless someone senseless is brutal, yet we accept and even seek out insults to our bodies all the time. Surgery? S & M? TSA pat-downs at airports?

Certainly there are some who watch MMA for the cock-fight stylized violence, more seen in movies than the real thing. This isn't what it's about any more than a fetishist watching rock-climbing makes that about tight, straining buttocks in cling-y shorts, splayed sweaty bodies and bondage-gear cleverly disguised in a sport-department. (OK, I gotta find some rock-climbing on the TV right now. I have cable. There's got to be some on somewhere, right?)

We are creatures of flesh (Mmmmmm - flesh.) and impulse as well as intellect. The flesh seeks to test itself, and express itself, and be worn and take it's passenger a merry ride. (Mmmmmm - merryride.) The mind, even if that's what's driving, is incomplete outside the flesh, isolated, solipsistic even.

What, the fleshly cost of MMA makes it brutal? Marathoners trash their knees. Pitchers their shoulders. Sedentary keyboard-jockeys trash their wrists, spines and organs. What we do in the world we do as bodies as much as minds. Everything we do marks us. Maybe the objection isn't so much to the peculiar fleshly costs of MMA, but the reminder of the costs in flesh of every choice we make.

Third - is it the contest of it all that makes it brutal? Winners and losers? In a proper tournament it is absolutely true that there are no losers - to finish the contest is to have won. This is true only because there is a winner of the contest. Someone is the better fighter that day. So, someone will lose the fight. Build to a goal, take your best shot, and accept the outcome - this is the other contest.

And last, what do they gain from it? Knowing so little of MMA, how could one know what they gain? Perhaps doing MMA is costly. Perhaps it's worth it. Maybe ask them. And if all they gain is some money and fame, why is this a mean choice?

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at September 8, 2011 12:11 AM

Those last three are intellectually legit areas of study; not some bullshit English or journalism degree.

Uh, 'scuse me? Talk about some ignorant bullshit. As a journalism grad, APOCooter, I'm going to have to disagree on the uselessness and supposed intellectual dearth of my degree. It taught me to ask questions, tightened up my writing, and served me well for my current career in media, if nothing else.

Posted by: CC at September 8, 2011 1:15 AM

Can we just get back to the highly valid questions raised by AM and jerce?

Posted by: cinekat at September 8, 2011 5:33 AM

Gentlemen,

We are very busy being offended by Dustin's supposed dearth of understanding of the elemental battle and primeval triumph that is MMA fighting. Let us not get mired in bickering amongst ourselves when there is still so much abuse waiting to be hurled at our Overlord.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Julien

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at September 8, 2011 10:04 AM

Dustin, I would say that your vagina is showing, but that would be an insult to all the vaginas that enjoy and appreciate MMA out there. Instead I'll just say that the misinformed fleshy patch where genitals are supposed to be is showing.

Posted by: admin at September 8, 2011 10:22 AM

@Mrs. Julien

You made me laugh out loud, again. Thank you, again.

- Bierce

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at September 8, 2011 11:44 AM

Thank you Mrs. J., as always, your comments are polite and helpful.

Sincerely, your devoted admirer,

Logan

Dustin, you pantywaisted nancy-boy, if you stopped staring longingly at your life-size stand up poster of Ryan Reynolds to actually see a MMA event you might learn something about it.
I realize that would mean you'd have to turn off your endless loop of "Almost Famous" playing on your TV but MMA is an organized, licensed, regulated sport not "an ugly, morally reprehensible sport where two men are put in a cage and basically given free reign to beat the shit out of each other".

Posted by: logan at September 8, 2011 11:48 AM

Uh, 'scuse me? Talk about some ignorant bullshit. As a journalism grad, APOCooter, I'm going to have to disagree on the uselessness and supposed intellectual dearth of my degree. It taught me to ask questions, tightened up my writing, and served me well for my current career in media, if nothing else

Yeah, my English degree did the same thing. Your journalism degree taught you skills for your eventual career. That's what it's supposed to do. But that doesn't make it intellectually demanding. I have en English degree and I graduated cum laude on minimal effort. I'm currently pursuing an applied math degree and I have to bust my ass to maintain a 3.0. There's no question which is more intellectually demanding.

Most investigative journalists are smart as a whip. So are most high level fighters. Anyone who knows anything about the sport would know this. Dustin clearly doesn't. That was my point.

Posted by: APOCooter at September 8, 2011 2:20 PM

Goddamnit, I'm going to get drawn into this, aren't I? Look: I'm familiar with MMA. I watched it a lot in the 90s (remember those tournaments you could rent on VHS? That's how I spent many a weekend with friends). It was brutal. At the time, it was only legal in one or two states, I believe, and I remember the announcers laying out the three rules at the beginning of each match: No biting, no eye-gouging, and no kicks to groin. Otherwise, it was a free for all.

It's certainly possible that things have changed since then, that there are more regulations in play. Maybe it's a safe sport now.

Still, I was careful to say "MMA is — in my opinion, at least — morally reprehensible." There's no fact-finding mission here; there's no research. It's an opinion expressed as such. And how did I form that opinion? On the basis of this movie, where one dude would pin another dude's arms down and wail on his face; where knocking a guy unconscious would not only win you a match but be met with loud ovations; and where attempts were made to pin and twist in such a way as to break an arm or pull a shoulder out of socket. That, too, was celebrated.

Now, if that's not the way that MMA works or is supposed to work, then take it up with the director of Warrior. That's how MMA is depicted here, and that's what my opinion was based upon.

It did not, however, make it any less exciting to watch; in fact, that death was a possible outcome made it all the more thrilling. I enjoyed the hell out of this movie because of the brutality. But then again, it's fiction. And while I may find the reality of it "morally reprehensible" (again, in my opinion), it doesn't make it any less compelling to watch. There are certain facets of the NFL that I also find morally reprehensible, but I still spend 10 hours every Sunday each fall plopped on my ass in front of it.

Posted by: Dustin Rowles at September 8, 2011 2:37 PM

It's sad how many "open-minded" people can't get enough of lecturing those they believe to be their intellectual inferiors on what's OK to do, watch or enjoy. Not getting the attraction is perfectly normal. Needing to feel superior about it is pathetic.

Posted by: Uncle Mikey at September 8, 2011 2:37 PM

"But it still results in long- and short-term physical harm."

So does getting out of bed in the morning.

Posted by: Uncle Mikey at September 8, 2011 2:42 PM

I've tried to let it go, but I can't as I'm a commenting junkue, and I not only have a degree in English, but I used to speak it for a living. Is it just me, or is this phrase wacky:

supposed intellectual dearth of my degree

Shouldn't it be the "supposed dearth of intellectual rigor" or "dearth of intellect required for my degree" or "an assumed paucity of intellectual fortitude necessary to the earning of my university honours"? Something like that? If you're going to try to get fancy, I see no reason not to be verbose as well. Unless you were trying to be witty, then brevity etc.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at September 8, 2011 4:33 PM

Cinekat, Jerce, we are clearly the voice of reason here and we are being REPRESSED.

We are talking PAJIBA TOP TEN ASS here. We demand ANSWERS.

Posted by: AM at September 8, 2011 4:44 PM

I've tried to let it go, but I can't as I'm a commenting junkue. . .If you're going to try to get fancy, I see no reason not to be verbose as well. Unless you were trying to be witty, then brevity etc.

If you're going to be catty and haughty and traipse up and down the Pajiba comments sections criticizing various people and their word choice, I see no reason not to spell check as well. Unless you were trying to be witty, then, hmm, you may have missed the mark.

Posted by: Helen at September 8, 2011 4:55 PM

I feel like Joel Edgerton should be saying, "My eyes are up HERE."

Posted by: coveredinbees at September 8, 2011 5:02 PM

Dustin, death is no more a potential result than ANY OTHER SPORT! Did you miss the fact that no UFC fighter has ever died as a result of ring injuries? That unquestionably boxing, football, hockey, and probably even, yes, soccer are worse for your long-term health? And those videos you saw? They're not MMA. Maybe they were underground illegal cage matches, like you say, I don't know, I haven't seen them. But that's not the sport as it exists today.

Posted by: jmag at September 8, 2011 5:03 PM

It's not so much a traipse as a frolic.

They can't all be gold Helen. I even took the time to criticize myself over on Pajiba Love.

I have an idea. If people want to drown me out, then everyone who is lurking should start making comments. Clever ones. Ones that they have properly proofread.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at September 8, 2011 6:13 PM

I have NEVER seen Mrs. J. Traipse! No proper woman would. Nor gallivant!

Posted by: logan at September 9, 2011 10:10 AM

Dustin, baby, sweetie...stop. Stop hurting us, stop hurting yourself. Take some time off, put your feet up those dogs are barkin'.

I think you need to take a break and refocus and re-energize your craft and writing, the majority of your recent reviews and articles has been just awful.

Do it for us, do it for yourself.

Posted by: Salad_Is_Murder at September 9, 2011 1:02 PM

I agree with the review, I just didn't like the ending at all. It had a needless twist and if it wasn't predictable enough, the twist telegraphed the easy out ending.

Posted by: junierizzle at September 9, 2011 10:38 PM

Why has no one answered my question?

It was a SERIOUS QUESTION.

I'm WAITING.

Posted by: Jerce at September 9, 2011 11:04 PM

I'm waiting, too...

Posted by: jzhz at September 10, 2011 9:53 PM

Still waiting.

Posted by: AM at September 11, 2011 2:11 AM

My only experience with MMA is that I sat next to a pro fighter on a flight to Vegas once. That said, Warrior was definitely one of the better sports movies I've seen (and I've seen most of them). The most important thing to know about this movie though is you only get to see Tom Hardy half-naked once the tournament starts and it doesn't last nearly long enough. But what there is is pretty goddamn glorious. He really should star in a historically authentic Greek wrestling movie, is what I'm saying.

Posted by: Becky at September 11, 2011 4:58 AM

Sigh. Waiting for days. Loyally. Patiently. Now if the lovely Ms. CD or the stunning Ms. JR had written this review I would've received gratification by now.
I say good day sir.

Posted by: cinekat at September 12, 2011 3:45 AM

I'll say this for MMA; it's produced some decent movie stars recently. Scott Adkins is one of the flashiest fight scene guys out there right now (Undisputed 3 on Netflix Instant has a half-dozen fantastic fights,) now Gina Carano looks like she might make Haywire a solid action flick.

If nothing else, we get to see her kick Charming Potato around a diner, so there's always that.

Posted by: Markus at September 12, 2011 11:32 AM

Thank you, Becky. Home rental it is.

Posted by: AM at September 12, 2011 11:37 AM

The other factor at play here is the sport itself. MMA is — in my opinion, at least — an ugly, morally reprehensible sport where two men are put in a cage and basically given free reign to beat the shit out of each other. Unconsciousness is the goal, and if there’s a little swelling of the brain, well, so be it. The fact that it’s even legal is proof that we are indeed on the verge of Idiocracy, if we haven’t already crossed into that territory.

A sport with three five minute rounds, five for title fights, that ends 90% of it's matches via wrestling matches involving referee's decisions, submissions, or judges decisions, and has had TWO in fight fatalities in the past 20 years is barbaric, and will send our society into Idiocracy. Despite the fact that every single other high contact athletic event from hockey, to college football, to pro football, to pro wrestling, to fucking skiing having similar if not higher death rates.

The only reason people think MMA is more dangerous than these sports is because it's old fans were also hardcore ECW fans back in the 90's, which left a really creepy vibe, and because John McCain grandstanded against the sport during the 90's as well. And even if you didn't know that the only reason McCain made the grandstanding was because he was under the thumb of the boxing lobby, which causes far worse brain trauma than MMA on it's worst days, the past several years should've established that John McCain is too fucking stupid to have a valid opinion on anything. Fuck.

Posted by: Devil Child at September 24, 2011 2:47 AM

nice blog, thank you

Posted by: long island jiu jitsu at October 16, 2011 7:28 PM

This turned out to be a very interesting post. I thought at first it would be rather plain and simple. So if you would be so kind to write another one on this.

Posted by: Jaime Lemin at October 25, 2011 8:04 PM