http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/4/26/4270348/free-market-judging-vs-government-judging
I made a post on bloodyelbow about why the UFC needs free market judges, refs, etc, instead of government appointed ones. Bloodyelbow gets read by alot of mma fans. Any help, by registering and posting on the site would be appreciated.
in the news today:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-ufc-dana-white-20130430,0,3612597.story
Dana White is calling for the government to update its rules on eye pokes. The rules were written for boxing. And of course, we all know, the government uses a one size fits all solution to everything.
The fingers need to be free to allow proper grappling.
I just want knees to the head back. Just that and i'm a happy MMA fan.
"
I just want knees to the head back. Just that and i'm a happy MMA fan."
Ultimately, the UFC will try and provide whatever the fans want. That is why they should be in charge of making the rules, not some government commission.
Not that I think he would answer you, but Steven Crowddouche seems to be pretty big into UFC...
And there was a thread kind of related on sport governing body monopolies from a long time ago
http://mises.org/community/forums/t/25909.aspx
WBO is corrupt beyond repair (remember Pacquiao v Bradley?)
I do Muay Thai/BJJ fighting at AZ Combat Sports, and there are loads of discussions there about how to efficiently and consistently judge the outcome of a fight. The simplest way the majority of us agree upon is to 'finish' the fight. The recent Jones v Sonnen fight ended with an eye poke apparently (though no one noticed Jones' broken toe until Rogan interviewed him after the fight ended...). I wouldn't have agreed, but the fact of the matter is that you're right: using government appointed anything will be less efficient that privately appointed anything.
Controversy would obviously arise from 'finishing' a fight, but solutions to efficiently judging that term would be more easily uncovered privately. I think fans would appreciate that.
But the government always uses good policies and they are always in favour of public welfare. So it is better to some of its chances.
things to do in Boston for kids
Extrapolating out of this example, try to realize what you are saying: "a small group of people always make the right choice for the individual." Is this better than saying: "the individual making the right choice for the individual" ?
just do black market fights to the death, have at it, have fun
"just do black market fights to the death, have at it, have fun"
good luck finding good fighters for that.
ufc should get the rulebook and refs they want.
the black market fights to the death or severe injury made huge money, so i doubt that there is not a way to make it a finacialy viable business.
rome did well with gladiators fan wise.
not saying ufc would go for this streetfight no rules, but another business sure could and make money for it.
"rome did well with gladiators fan wise."
but they used slaves, didn't they? and we don't know what other alternatives would have popped up, because the people had a highly regulated market, right?
cab21: just do black market fights to the death, have at it, have fun
i said in the next post i think free market is most efficiant. in this case free market would be ufc choosing what rules it has and it's business can rise or fall acording to the market.
ufc as a company is not looking for no rules streetfights, but in a free market a company that does could appear.