Sportsmanship, MMA, and Sacrificing Victory

(Originally Posted at The Sports Ethicist)

 In his weekly blog, Jack Bowen of the Institute of Sports Law and Ethics discusses a recent MMA incident.  Mike Pantangco submitted to Jeremy Rasner in an amateur bout. (Watch it here) The remarkable thing is that Pantangco was beating Rasner rather soundly. In Pantangco’s word’s:

"I just feel that there's no point fighting him because he didn't train against me and I didn't train for him and I just feel like we're amateur fighters…We don't get money, we don't get paid, and I know that the only thing I'm going to finish the fight is him to go in the hospital or get hurt. I just feel terrible so I'm just going to give him the win." (Source)

In his blog, Bowen praised Pantangco’s action as exceptionally good sportsmanship and a gesture of compassion. Other bloggers and writers similarly praised Pantangco.

While I acknowledge his submission was an act of kindness, I do not agree that this was an act of good sportsmanship. Or, rather, I don’t think that claim is as obvious or as clear as my fellow sports ethicist seem to think.

I do not think Pantangco’s decision to submit was wrong or disrespectful. But I also don’t think it was necessary. Given the circumstances around the fight (Bowen explains), Pantangco and Rasner probably shouldn’t have been competing against each other in the first place. Once the fight is under way, Pantangco and Rasner, as a matter of good sportsmanship, ought to fight to win within the rules, norms, and expectations of their sport. Pantangco saw that Rasner was defeated and further blows would likely inflict unnecessary harm. His decision was to tap out and give the victory to Rasner. But as those more familiar with the sport than Bowen or I have suggested, there were non-sacrificial and non-(serious)-harm inflicting ways for Pantangco to bring the fight to a swift end. A friend of mine who was an MMA fighter and trainer said, “He could have taken his opponent down and ended the fight with a gentle submission”. Now, I am not sure how gentle a ‘gentle submission’ is in the context of MMA but I think it makes it clear that Pantangco’s choice wasn’t between tapping out or inflicting unnecessary and serious harm to Rasner. He had non-sacrificial options that were more in line with the norms and goals of his sport.

This discussion all hinges on a key question. What is sportsmanship? As in so many cases, a common concept we use frequently is hard to pin down. Since at least James Keating 1964 article, “Sportsmanship as a Moral Category,” philosophers of sport have been debating the question.

Without stepping too much into that tempest, I claim that sportsmanship is the embodiment of the kinds of virtues and moral dispositions that are proper for those participating in athletics and sports. I don’t think this is too controversial a claim; that is, until we start to unpack just what the claim really means (a huge project beyond the scope of a blog post).

But one important implication of this claim (one that follows from the nature of virtue) is that sportsmanship ought not to be reserved for exceptional or extraordinary actions. Sportsmanship is the manner of acting to which _all_ the participants should be held. It shouldn’t be analogous to sainthood.

Pantangco’s action of tapping out might be an exceptional act of kindness, but it is not the manner in which we ought to expect or demand MMA fighters to fight. Such dispositions would undermine the sport. The goal in combat sports, as I understand it, is to win the match by inflicting damage on your opponent through the use of a set of fighting skills (the specific kind of combat sport proscribes what is in and out of this set). A principle of tapping out when your opponent is losing or essentially defeated subverts this goal and the very idea of the sport.

I do not want to be misunderstood here. I am not saying that we should have a low moral standard for MMA fighters, that morality doesn’t apply, or that kindness or compassion should play no role in combat sports. I am saying the standard ought to be appropriate to human beings and to the ends of the sport. 

Consider the following analogy. A man might jump in front of speeding car to save a child’s life. This is an exceptional act. One we are likely to praise. But such an action tells us nothing about how to act and live in the world. In a sense, it really has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics is about the goals and principles that guide one’s action and choices. It is about how we ought to approach each day and how to determine what actions we take in life.

Similar with Pantangco. The circumstances of the fight are (as far as I can tell) unique and his action is not generalizable to other fights. His action doesn’t tell us how MMA fighters ought to fight with dignity, honor, and virtue. In other words, it cannot serve as an exemplar of sportsmanship.

A possible objection to what I am arguing here is that while the normal circumstances of life (or a fight) don’t require jumping in front of cars or sacrificially tapping out, there are circumstances which might arise where such actions might be appropriate or called for. True enough. My point is that thinking about these as guides for how to live our lives is at best not useful (since the conditions in these situations are exceptional) and at worst it can undermine what it actually takes to live our lives or play our games well.

Should we watch football?

Article in yesterday's NY Times asking that question:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/weekinreview/24sokolove.html

An excerpt:

There are some who believe that taking physical risks in pursuit of a communal goal — and even watching people take risks — has its benefits. “We learn from dangerous activities,” said W. David Solomon, a philosophy professor at Notre Dame and director of its Center for Ethics and Culture. “In life, there are clearly focused goals, with real threats. The best games mirror that. We don’t need to feel bad about not turning away from a game in which serious injuries occur. There are worse things about me than that I enjoy a game that has violence in it. I don’t celebrate injuries or hope for them to happen. That would be a different issue. That’s moral perversion.”

Sean D. Kelly, the chairman of Harvard’s philosophy department, has a book coming out in January, co-authored with the philosopher Hubert Dreyfus of the University of California, Berkeley, that argues for the value of sports in a secular society. “You can experience a kind of spontaneous joy in watching someone perform an extraordinary athletic feat,” he said when we talked last week. “It’s life-affirming. It can expand our sense of what individuals are capable of.”

He believes that it is fine to watch football as long as the gravest injuries are a “side effect” of the game, rather than essential to whatever is good about the game and worth watching.

But what if that’s not the case? What if the brain injuries are so endemic — so resistant to changes in the rules and improvements in equipment — that the more we learn the more menacing the sport will seem? Where will football, and its fans, go from there?

Sport and Social Progress

This is a nice column by Howard Bryant on ESPN.com, dealing with attitudes towards women and the recent episodes involving Tiger Woods and Ben Roethlisberger. It is hopeful that some progress has been made here with respect to attitudes towards women, but as Bryant points out, we've got a ways to go.

Should Ultimate Fighting Be Legal?

New York state currently does not allow ultimate fighting matches to be held in the state. Advocates are fighting for that to change:

Ultimate fighting advocates push for legalization in NYS

Posted at: 02/18/2010 6:56 PM
By: Matt McFarland

ALBANY - Ultimate fighting is a billion dollar industry, an industry that is currently banned in New York.

But while fans of the sport feel New York is getting closer to legalizing it, their biggest opponent is not yet ready to throw in the towel. From the cage to the Capitol, the knock down, drag out fight to legalize this popular yet polarizing sport continues.

Saying there must be pioneers in sports, Nick Sanzo is speaking from experience. Thirteen years ago, ultimate fighting was no holds barred, bare knuckle brawling. U.S. Senator John McCain even called it "human cock fighting." In 1997, then-governor George Pataki and the legislature banned the sport from New York State. But since then, mixed martial arts, and specifically the Ultimate Fighting Championship, has morphed into a billion dollar industry.

Sanzo says the sport has changed over the years. "We have rounds, we wear gloves. There are a lot of rules: where you can strike, how you can strike," he says. "It hasn't affected the sport. It's made it bigger and more popular."

Ultimate fighting may be popular, yet it is still not legal in the Empire State.

Sanzo, who trains aspiring fighters and runs New York Mixed Martial Arts, argues that, "We're a New York based company that takes our shows to Vermont, but we'd love to have them in New York State. We'd love to see that revenue come to New York state."

And so would Governor David Paterson, even putting it in his budget. Paterson says legalizing MMA could bring the state up to $2 million a year in taxes. Back in 2008 while lobbying the state, UFC released a study. Its findings claim that an upstate show would generate more than $5 million for the local economy.

Without throwing a punch or a kick, Colonie Assemblyman Bob Reilly is without a doubt MMA's toughest opponent. Spearheading the drive to keep the sport outlawed, Reilly claims a recent Marist poll supports his cause. Nearly seven out of ten New York State voters say no to MMA. Reilly cites wide public support against allowing MMA in the state saying, "People literally come up to me every day, saying keep up the fight against it, we don't want it." Reilly adds, "At some time we have to say no to the lobbyists, no to the money and no to the violence."

Right now the sport is legal in forty-two states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and most recently getting the green light in Massachusetts. Also there have been UFC cards in Connecticut at the Mohegan Sun Casino, as well as up in Montreal. Essentially making New York an island. MMA supporters argue there is money to be made and that New York is losing out.

Sanzo thinks, however, the ban is likely to change. "I think we're going to see them at Madison Square Garden. We're going to see them right here in Albany," he predicted. "I think its going to happen. It's just a matter of time."

Reilly counters by saying a "violent" sport is no way to build an economy. "That's not something I want to do," Reilly says. "I hope it's not what the governor wants to do. I hope that's not what the legislature wants to do."

Should ultimate fighting be against the law? Does the money involved make this a political necessity for New York? Is ultimate fighting really a "human cockfight"? Is violent sport immoral? Is legal paternalism warranted in this case?

The New Yorker: Football and Dogfighting

This is worth the read, and merits attention from philosophers of sport.

Consent and potentially harmful acts

During last weekend's British and Irish Lions match against South Africa, Schalk Burger, the Springbok flanker, was sent to the sin bin for attempting to eye gouge Lions wing, Luke Fitzgerald. Burger has since received an eight week ban from the international governing body who deem it as one of the most unacceptable and dangerous actions a player can carry out in the game. Yet Peter De Villiers, the Springbok coach, appeared to make comments that justified Burger's actions. He retorted to those complaining about the over-aggressiveness of the South African players which also left Lions prop, Adam Jones with a dislocated shoulder from a dangerous tackle, "why don't we all go to the nearest ballet shop and get some nice tutus, get a great dancing show going on, no eye-gouging, no tackling, no nothing and then we will all enjoy it. There will be collisions in rugby and I will always pick the hardest guy. If people want to make it soft because we won a series, I cannot do anything about it." (Rees, The Guardian)


Whilst De Villiers has been condemned for seeming to condone foul, and potentially very harmful play, arguably the issue behind all of this is not the manner of the action but the matter of consent. Although there are those that would take a paternalistic stance and say that individuals should not be allowed to consent to the possibility of being eye-gouged, the libertarian position states that if 'rational' 'autonomous' adults do agree to be party to such things then that is their perrogative. So for those players that wish to punch, bite and eye gouge they should be free to participate in a sport that allows such things. In the same way, individuals who do not wish to be tackled or the recipient of other physical contact (as defined according to the laws of rugby) should not play that game (they may, as De Villiers suggested, wish to go dancing instead). The relevant issue here is that in the sport of rugby, players are not consenting to being on the receiving end of particular actions like the one received by Fitzgerald and therefore it is wholly unacceptable for any player to carry (or attempt to carry) those actions out. Rather than encouraging foul and dangerous play (in a win-at-all-cost mentality), coaches have a moral duty to ensure that their players recognise that the matter of consent is intrinsic both to the good of the game and to the development of themselves as moral citizens. This is why De Villiers' comments were tasteless at best, and immoral at worst.