Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Hair: The final verdict


More than 40 soccer players have received a warning letter for violating the United Arab Emirates Football Association Guidelines for unethical hair. Before I heard about this, I was unaware that hair could be ethical or unethical. But the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. After all, I do tend to have a strong reaction to a person's hair, and it seems to be based on something deeper than simply my subjective preference. So I concluded that hair can, indeed, be ethical or unethical, and came up with my own standard for judging the ethics of hair. It is based on the following question:

"If I had a child, and the child came home with this hairdo, would I continue to let him or her live in my house?"

If the answer to the question was yes, I deemed the haircut ethical. If, on the other hand, the answer was no, I deemed it unethical. 

I went through some of the world's favorite athletes and sports figures and judged whether or not their hair met my criteria. 

Here are my results:

Synopsis: Nothing says good fathering like growing out a mullet to teach your son a lesson. And when you're Oklahoma State Football coach Mike Gundy, your mullet gets national news coverage, and that makes it all the better.

Image result for mike gundy mullet

Final verdict: Ethical

Synopsis: Jamaican sprinter Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce may not have been able to bring home a third consecutive Olympic gold in the women's 100 m, but if there was a competition for best hair, Fraser's do in Rio definitely would have been in contention for the gold.

Image result for shelly ann fraser pryce rio 2016

Final verdict: Ethical

Synopsis: I think former West Bromwich Albion defender Paul Scharner may have been inspired to style his hair after a certain dog-fur-loving Disney antagonist, and its as awful as she is... By the way, has anyone ever noticed the likeness a soccer ball pattern has to a Dalmatian's print? 

Image result for paul scharner hair

Final verdict: Unethical

 Synopsis: There comes a time in a man's life when he must accept the fate of his hair, look himself in the mirror and say, "I'm balding," then kiss his once beautiful locks goodbye. For Ivorian soccer player Gervinho, that time should have been long ago... Someone please buy this man a razor.

Image result for gervinho

Final verdict: Unethical

Synopsis: Just when you think former Portuguese soccer player Abel Xavier's hair could not get any weirder, he goes and does something like this...

Image result for abel xavier

...And totally redeems himself!

Final verdict: Ethical

Synopsis: There was a time when I believed that Tim Tebow could make anything look good, but a now infamous hazing tradition by the Denver Broncos definitely proved me wrong. The great Tebow himself couldn't save this friar tuck hair cut.

Related image

Final verdict: Unethical

 Synopsis: Having long hair in combat sports is not always convenient. Many MMA fighters choose to keep their hair short, or shave it in the back where an opponent's hands are most likely to get caught and tangled in it. But I'm not quite sure the advantage that UFC bantamweight Ashlee Evans-Smith sees in shaving only the left third of her head.


Final verdict: Unethical

Synopsis: All great things must come to an end. But this past version of NHL right winger Jaromir Jagir's hair can best be described as the place where body meets soul.

Image result for jaromir jagr

Final verdict: Ethical

Synopsis: OK, so this one isn't his hair, it's a hat. But this bad boy landed Denver Broncos linebacker Von Miller on ESPN's Not Top Ten plays, quite an accomplishment if I've ever heard of one.

Image result for von miller fox hat

Final verdict: Ethical

Synopsis: No need to waste mere words on Green Bay outside linebacker Clay Matthews' style... Matthews' hair speaks for itself.

Image result for clay matthews hair


Final verdict: Ethical

Do you have a favorite athlete whose hair you think might be unethical? Post a picture and brief synopsis in the comments below, and I'll let you know my final verdict.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Love at First Fight: The Ethics of MMA and Why We Watch It

            A recent conversation got me thinking about why we watch certain sports over others and what our choice of sports tells us about ourselves. The tail end of the conversation, and the part that really got we asking these questions, went something like this:

Friend: "One sport I will never understand is MMA. I mean, really, what kind of person wants to watch two people beat each other like that?"

Me:...

            Awkward silence....followed by... more awkward silence.

            My response, or lack thereof, let him know at least one person who would watch these barbaric beatings. He seemed rather amused by this, as apparently, and I get this quite often, I don't seem like that "type."

            This conversation really got me thinking, though. Who is the "type" to watch MMA? And, as indicated by the tone of his voice when he asked "what kind of person...," is there something morally contemptible about MMA fans, or about the sport in general?

            And that's how I stumbled upon the topic of this week's blog post: The ethics of MMA and why we watch it.

            Before we can understand the type of person who watches MMA and pass moral judgment upon them, we need to have at least a loose understanding of the ethical issue at hand. The question of the morality of a sport whose objective it is to inflict injury on another to the point where they can no longer defend themselves is nothing new. Father Richard A. McCormick, a Catholic moral theologian and teacher, discussed just this in his 1962 Sports Illustrated article "Is Professional Boxing Immoral?"

            McCormick, I believe, aptly captures the essence of the problem. Though perhaps without giving a definitive answer, he illustrates why, exactly, boxing in particular poses this special philosophical question. And so, we will turn to Father McCormick's elucidation of the topic as a foundation for our own discussion.

            In a nutshell, McCormick discusses the unique position of boxing (at the time) as the only sport "whose primary objective toward victory is to batter and damage an opponent into helplessness and the incapacity to continue." McCormick sites facts to back up his position on boxing, pointing to the frequent brain injuries received during boxing bouts as evidence of its immorality.

            Here, some may argue that other sports, such as football, are immoral because they also cause brain trauma among players. However, as McCormick indicates, these injuries are incidental- that is, the purpose of football is to get the ball across the goal line in order to score points, it is not to cause head trauma. In boxing, the primary goal of the sport is to incapacitate the opponent. It is the injury caused in combination with the purpose of the sport that makes it morally questionable, not simply the fact that such injuries may result from participation in the sport. In a sport like football, intentionally trying to injure an opponent is regarded as clearly unethical. It is here that McCormick poses the important question, "If direct damage to the opponent is immoral in all other sports, why not in this business of violence?"

            He answers this question, "theologians believe that when a man pounds another into helplessness, scars his face, smashes his nose, jars his brain and exposes it to lasting damage, or when he enters a contest where this could happen to him, he has surpassed the bounds of reasonable stewardship of the human person."

            This is not the only issue at hand, either. McCormick sites the "fostering of brutish instincts" as another morally objectionable aspect of boxing, eloquently describing the concern:

"The crowd too often has come for blood and the knockout. The knockout is the touchdown pass, the home run of boxing. The nearer it is, the more frenzied the howling of the crowd... We occasionally hear the referee urge the boys to mix it up, give the fans their money's worth. When a boy is being mauled around the ring, the arena comes alive and emotions run high. The fighter is goaded by the crowd; his own fury further stimulates them. The brutish instinct is in command. At this pitch the finest moves in boxing are missed or—worse—greeted by a chorus of hissing and booing...The modern prizefight is increasingly the canonization of brute force—and that at a time when we are struggling with all our might to understand the meaning of force in the world."

            And with these two problems in mind, McCormick concludes that boxing is, indeed, immoral.

            Which brings us back to the ethics of MMA. The similarities between boxing and MMA are clear. Using the same criteria as McCormick used, it seems that certainly if boxing is immoral, then MMA, which, at least on the surface, is even more brutal than boxing, must also be. After all, McCormick was concerned about facts, specifically the facts surrounding head trauma, and a 2014 study in Ontario, Canada found that "rates of KOs and TKOs in MMA are higher than previously reported rates in other combative and contact sports."    

            So I guess the verdict is in. MMA is unethical.

            ...Or is it?

            First, some of the conclusions that may be drawn from the 2014 Canadian study, such as the inference that greater numbers of knock outs equal higher rates of traumatic brain injury, seem to be directly contradicted by another more recent study done at the University of Alberta, which found that, while MMA fighters were more likely to suffer minor injuries, such as bruises and contusions, boxers were more likely to lose consciousness during a bout or suffer serious eye injuries.


            McCormick himself leaves room for a combat sport, even some version of boxing, to be considered moral, saying, "Some, possibly many, elements of professional boxing could be radically altered, in which case it is quite conceivable that a different moral evaluation of the sport would have to be made." Could it be that MMA could meet the criteria for a morally acceptable, "radically altered," version of boxing?

            One element that McCormick takes contention with is the prominence of head shots in boxing. "...It is craniocerebral injury that recently has engrossed the attention of the medical world," he writes. "Because of the premium placed on the KO and the TKO, the head has always been the prime target in professional boxing. Blows directed to the head or face comprise about 85% of all blows delivered in the ordinary bout. Body blows are principally diversionary tactics to lay open this prime target."

            But in MMA, there are other ways to end a fight. Depending on the fighter, and his or her background, a submission may be more in store than an actual knockout. Submissions, such as chokeholds or armbars, give the fighters a chance to tapout before they suffer permanent injuries, and take away some of the "premium placed on the KO and the TKO." Given that the primary goal of the bout is no longer simply to knock another fighter unconscious, it seems that on this count, MMA is actually more ethical than boxing.

            Additionally, McCormick writes:

"... even at the professional level the differences between individual fighters are tremendous. There are those in superb condition who fight once or twice a year to defend a title—and these are the champions who are hit the least. Then there are those who all but drag themselves into the ring to have their brains rattled on a month-to-month basis. To group these together in a single sweeping rejection would be unrealistic and hazardous."

             Some fans of the UFC, the highest level of professional MMA, often complain that the fighters do not fight enough. But this is something that McCormick seems to think would make the sport more ethical, as it makes the sport safer for its participants.

            Finally, to get to the question that started it all, what kind of person does watch MMA? Is it, as McCormick described boxing fans, those brutish beasts looking for blood? Or is there something more to it, something deeper and more admirable at play? If so, then on this count, MMA would also be more ethical than boxing.

            Perhaps for some, it is the blood that attracts them. Perhaps there is a segment of MMA fans that only wishes to see harm inflicted upon another human being, and who takes pleasure in the failings of the defeated fighter. But I hope, and perhaps naively believe, that this is not the primary draw for the majority of MMA fans. And if my attempts at intellectual musings on the ethics of MMA have so far been unconvincing, seeing as it is Valentine's day and all, I will now speak from the heart.
Related image
Photo by Rey Del Rio/Getty Images

            MMA is a highly technical sport. Like any technical sport, it is an art, and a well executed move is beautiful. A submission or knockout, even if brutal, is the final brushstroke of a magnificent artwork. There's a certain tension in the fact that something so beautiful can result in something so ugly, such as a smashed in face or a broken leg. But perhaps this juxtaposition of the beautiful with the barbaric is what gives MMA its allure. It's real. It's just like life. A mix of beauty with harsh reality. And that is why, in the fighters, we see ourselves. We see the daily grind, the hard work that either pays off or doesn't. We see ourselves in the winner as well as the loser. We see our own fights in life, the ones we are going after all on our own, with no teammates to bail us out.

            So I guess the answer to my friend's question is that the type of person who enjoys watching MMA is the type of person who appreciates beauty on a deep level. Or someone who has fought some sort of battle in life, whether it be large or small. Or someone who understands the complexities of life, and sees it reflected in what may be the least likely of places. Or someone who just enjoys the sight of blood. The type of person who enjoys MMA could be anyone, really. Because just like any great work of art, it will have different meanings for different people. They will bring to the art work their own life experiences, and interpret it accordingly. For some people, no amount of study or background will make them appreciate Picasso's Guernica, just like no number of words in a silly blog post will make them appreciate MMA. For others, the sport will grow on them, but it will take time. And for the rest of us...Well, for the rest of us, it was love at first fight.

Monday, February 6, 2017

Confessions of a Confused Football Fan


               Yesterday, as I prepared my breakfast of two fried eggs with Colby-Jack cheese and thick-cut bacon on toasted English muffins, I pondered what I should write my first blog post about. Given the topic of my blog is sports, and given that the most watched sporting event in the US was taking place later in the day, it seems appropriate that I would write about the Super Bowl. However, I figured that every sports blogger would be discussing this topic, and really, I'd have nothing of value to add to the conversation.  That fact, paired with my dislike for the Patriots, led me to the belief that I would not, after all, be discussing the game. I mean, did I really want to dedicate my first blog post to Tom Brady, one of my least favorite people on the planet? 

                No, Tom Brady did not deserve the breath it would take to say his name, much less the time it would take to type it out. So, no, I decided. I would not be writing about the game. The more time that passed, the more resolute I became in my decision not to write about Patriots, my dislike for them too strong to waste one second writing about them. By the time the game started, I was 100 percent certain I would find a different topic to write about this week. Even as half time neared, with the Falcons up by 21 points, I was certain I would have nothing to say about this year's Super Bowl. After all, attention given to the Patriots, whether positive or negative, is still attention.

                Sure, I could join the myriad bloggers and gleefully gloat at the dismal performance of the Patriots, I could add to the influx of blogs speculating how much time the has-been Tom Brady has left in the NFL, calling for his retirement. I could talk about how over-rated the Patriots were, and how arrogant and over-confident their obnoxious fans were. But I figured there would be plenty of such posts. Instead I would not worry about writing a blog, and to just enjoy the demolition taking place before me.

                I watched with delight as the Falcons ran up the score. With every Falcon touchdown, and every Brady sack, the room rang with my sadistic laughter at the humiliation of the loathsome Patriots. My heart sang with joy when Robert Alford picked off a Brady pass, running it back for the 82 yard score.

                I wasn't too disappointed when the Patriot's finally scored a field goal at the end of the first half. A shut out would have been nice, but it was unrealistic with this Patriot's offense. And when the Patriots did finally score their first touchdown, any disappointment was offset by the ensuing PAT miss. Ha! A missed PAT...that's embarrassing!

                But with the next Patriot score, my attitude began to change. The smirk began to melt from my face. Would the Patriots do it? Would they erase a 25 point deficit to take the title of World Champs? No. Of course not. The commentators had said over and over again that no team had ever overcome a deficit greater than 10 points. It would be...impossible. So why did I feel, deep in my heart, against all odds, this...this...fear? Yes, even then, I felt it. The tide turning. Tom Brady finding his groove. It was clear, yet unbelievable. I knew, though, as much as I hated to admit it, that if anyone was capable of such a feat, it was Tom Brady "the comeback kid." 

                And I had to admit, that as much as I dislike him, as much as I delight in his misfortune, I respect him. Because only true respect could evoke fear in such circumstances. My anxiety grew with every completed pass and every minor Falcon miscue. And then it happened. Julian Edelman made the craziest, most ridiculous, most unbelievable catch I've ever seen. A catch that will define his legacy, a catch that will live on in Super Bowl lore for the rest of eternity, and a catch that caused me to look deeply into myself and reevaluate who I am as a person.

                Because at that moment, something strange happened: the anxiety that I felt growing in the pit of my stomach, that was pressing against my chest, continued to grow. The feeling was the same but the cause had changed. The cause had inverted itself, from fear to... hope? Yes, that was it. Hope. Not hope for the Falcons, but hope for the Patriots. Because in that moment I knew: the Patriots must win. I tried to deny it, to brush it off, to push the feelings away. How could I, Molly George, life-long Denver Broncos fan, hater of the Patriots, queen of deflategate jokes, how could I suddenly be hoping for a Patriots victory?

                Perhaps it was because with the Edelman catch I realized that God wanted the Patriots to win, because, quite frankly, that catch was divine. Or maybe it was because in that moment, I knew that a Patriots comeback would solidify Tom Brady as the unequivocal greatest of all time. But why would I want Tom Brady to have this title? I know I already admitted to respecting him, but don't I still despise him?  After all, I have always been a Manning fan. Even before he played for the Broncos, I defended him as the greatest. I argued with Brady lovers, looking at stats and scores and accomplishments on all levels to defend the charismatic Colts quarterback. So what was it that made me secretly want Brady to pull this one off?

                I realized then that it was the fact that I already knew, deep down, that Brady was the greatest of all time. His playoff performances, his super bowls, his underdog story. And I knew that if he won this game, if he somehow pulled off this sensational victory, that not only could I admit that he is the greatest, but that I must admit that he is the greatest. Because if there was any doubt, even the slightest what-so-ever, about who deserved the title of greatest of all time, I could not in good conscience ascribe that title to Brady. But if he led a 25 point comeback in this super bowl, on top of all his other accomplishments, there would be no doubt. If he pulled off this win, I could finally say, guilt free and with a clear conscience, that Tom Brady is the best who's ever lived.

                And so, for the remainder of the game, I felt my soul being ripped in two. There was the part of me that still wanted the Patriots to lose, that still wanted to remain in denial about Tom Brady's greatness. And then there was the part that wanted Tom Brady to prove, without a doubt, that his abilities are unparalleled by any being ever. There was the part of me that wanted to see the underdog Falcons silence the sports media. And then there was the part that wanted to witness the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history. And so, when the Patriots tied the game and the clock ran down to zero, when the Patriots won the coin toss, my soul was in turmoil. Everything I thought I knew about myself was in disarray. I still thought that I might want the Falcons to win, and in fact rooted for their defense all through that overtime drive.

                But when the Patriots did score that final touchdown, the first touchdown of overtime to seal the win, I burst into uncontrollable laughter. Laughter of disbelief. Laughter of relief. And, yes, finally, laughter of jubilation. How my laughter at the Patriots' tribulation had slowly turned into laughter of joy at their eventual triumph made me think hard about who I am as football fan, and more deeply as a person. It also made me reconsider my decision not to write a blog post about the Super Bowl. For, while surely there will be countless  blogs, articles and commentaries offered about the historic victory- the first Super Bowl overtime, the largest comeback in Super Bowl history, the record 5th Super Bowl title- the greatness of the game deserves every word written about it. And Tom Brady, the comeback kid, deserves every word of praise in every post on every blog that has been dedicated to him and his achievements. So here's one more, for Tom Brady: the Greatest of all Time.

(AP Photo/Darron Cummings)
Tom Brady