How can you support boxing/ultimate fighting

[Soulsearcher]

Yes, I am a hockey and football fan. And although there are some hockey and football players that want to hurt other players (e.g. a hockey fight), the goal of hockey is to score and when the puck is in the net the fans go wild. Fans go wild in ultimate fighting when someone is knocked out and bleeding from their ears. And although there are many fans that like the fights, I detest them and have advocated in differing arenas (e.g., minor hockey) to eliminate fighting, which is focus on hurting someone. I detest the fighting aspects of hockey and think they are ugly. When hockey players body check the goal is to knock the person off of the puck – not to injury them. It is not like boxing, where the goal is to cause the brain to bleed. So, I watch the game of hockey because of the enjoyment of the game – not for an explicitly action to hurt another person. Boxing and ultimate fighting, unlike many others sports (car racing, baseball, tennis) is at it core an activity that is explicit to cause bleeding to vital organs. And although this can happen in hockey by accident or purposeful on a players part – it is not an explicit aspect of the game.

Honestly, soul, I see this as a fundamental difference.

Any one who this physical contact in hockey is occasional it telling a lil fib. Checking, fights, everyone who watches cheers a good solid hit by the other side. Never seen someone watching hockey shake their head and offer a prayer or lecture when someone gets a good hip check. This is very much part of the game and watching it shows an encouragement for this behavior, so really you support the physical violence. Same with football. Not sure there's anyway to play the game with out physically assaulting the other players. So if you are a fan and enjoy these games how do you not condone the physical aspects of one sport and yet cheer it on in another? Yes the end goals are different, but the injuries are just as bad if not worse sometimes in hockey and football.

[pam]

I'll be honest. One of the things I look forward to in a hockey game are the fights.

[dash77]

Soul:

I played competitive hockey for years (had my front teeth knocked out) and even had one really good friend and three other ok friends play in the NHL -- I can tell you that there are hockey players that want to hurt others -- but most do not explcity try to cause bleeding to internal organs. The physical contact is to knock a player off of the puck -- not to knock them out. A boxer cheers and dances when the opponent is on canvass -- its an explcit aspect of boxing. Very rarely do you see this is hockey and when you do, it a penality with a suspension. Hockey is a hard hitting sport, but there is protection and the goal is not to knock another person out. There is a big difference. I do not see you connection.

[Soulsearcher]

Soul:

I played competitive hockey for years (had my front teeth knocked out) and even had one really good friend and three other ok friends play in the NHL -- I can tell you that there are hockey players that want to hurt others -- but most do not explcity try to cause bleeding to internal organs. The physical contact is to knock a player off of the puck -- not to knock them out. A boxer cheers and dances when the opponent is on canvass -- its an explcit aspect of boxing. Very rarely do you see this is hockey and when you do, it a penality with a suspension. Hockey is a hard hitting sport, but there is protection and the goal is not to knock another person out. There is a big difference. I do not see you connection.

It's a natural extension. It's physical contact. You'll find a reason to rationalize why it's ok in one case then get upset about it in another when the base ideas are not very different. How can you support any sport where it's acceptable to hit another person, if you condone one, then you understand how others condone another sport. Yes they have protection in foot ball and hockey, but you still like seeing a player get hit, you hit them yourself when you played. It's still human aggression much the same as in boxing and MMA. The presence of padding doesn't change the mentality of hitting another person, just means they can take a bit more of a beating with less damage.

[Dravin]

Dravin:

I do not see how your analogy fits.

If you are going to turn it into a straw man of course it doesn't fit, or maybe you just completely missed my point, that'll have the same result I suppose. Your objection is akin to objecting that apples are less effective at preventing scurvy than lemons when my point was they are fruit.

If someone had depression they should use medications. This is a very real medical condition and there is a large body of knowledge that outlines that anti-depressants can be helpful. In regard to seat belts, there is a large body of research that this saves lives (just go and look at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data – millions of lives have been saved). The reason Loudmouths’ analogy does not work is that I could present a large amount of research evidence that cleanly outlines that millions of people are being hurt and killed who do not wear seatbelts. This similarity does not fit the analogy.

Irrelevant. You stated that the problem is people not putting their faith in the lord but in the arm of flesh as there is a dichotomy (according to you), that taking action by the arm of flesh is incompatible with having faith in the Lord. Either one is faithless to do anything but sit and wait for the Lord to do his thing or action by means of the arm of flesh is not incompatible with faith.

I do find that the fact that you think the arm of flesh having validated itself is proof of legitimacy for relying on it to be amusing though. "The arm of flesh says it can be trusted" is delicious irony.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Dravin

[john doe]

Soul:

I played competitive hockey for years (had my front teeth knocked out) and even had one really good friend and three other ok friends play in the NHL -- I can tell you that there are hockey players that want to hurt others -- but most do not explcity try to cause bleeding to internal organs. The physical contact is to knock a player off of the puck -- not to knock them out. A boxer cheers and dances when the opponent is on canvass -- its an explcit aspect of boxing. Very rarely do you see this is hockey and when you do, it a penality with a suspension. Hockey is a hard hitting sport, but there is protection and the goal is not to knock another person out. There is a big difference. I do not see you connection.

You mean hockey players don't celebrate when they win? I didn't know that. Apparently the ones I have seen drinking alcohol (I assume) from Lord Stanley's Cup are poor sports and will get punished for doing it? Hmmmmmm.

[Moksha]

Just letting out the natural man versus man or natural pittbull versus pittbull or natural rooster versus rooster or natural bull versus matador or natural alien versus predator or natural Kong versus Godzilla.

What could be more natural? Perhaps a steel cage match with Kong and Godzilla versus Bambi and Thumper!

[Moksha]

I think I might have left out the main event for next week: Kong and Godzilla versus Chuck Norris and Iron Mike Ditka.

[pam]

Going back to post #2 of this thread, it was stated then that the OP had his mind made up. It's obvious that is still the case. Does it still need to be debated?

[FunkyTown]

Going back to post #2 of this thread, it was stated then that the OP had his mind made up. It's obvious that is still the case. Does it still need to be debated?

But Paaaaaaam! Someone on the Internet is wrooooooooong.

[Guest]

Oh don't bring Chuck Norris into this... we don't want to risk him getting angry.

You know why there's no signs of life in Mars? Because, Chuck Norris has already been to Mars.

[NeuroTypical]

I could present a large amount of research evidence that cleanly outlines that millions of people are being hurt and killed who do not wear seatbelts. This similarity does not fit the analogy.

You'll have to cite some of that "large amount of evidence" for me. A quick internet search tells me things like 35,000 people die in crashes each year, and maybe 17,000 of them weren't wearing seat belts. Seventeen thousand is far short of your millions.

I call on you to cite your source for the claim "millions of people are being hurt and killed who do not wear seatbelts"

Anyway, it's true that an American has about a 1 in 77 chance of dying in any sort of transportation accident. But it's also true that an American has about a 1 in 315 chance of dying by assault with a firearm. Less likely, but still a real risk.

But can you outline really good research evidence that outlines that boxing or ultimate fighting skills saved people? If we want to get into that debate, I know of multiple studies – including sport studies – that clearly outline that watching violent sports (like boxing) make people more violent.

So, my 6 yr old daughter is taking Tae Kwon Do lessons. Is it your position that I'm making her more violent? If so, call for sources.

If we want to get into a dialogue, there is solid research that outlines that the lax aspect of gun laws is what contributes to killings (among many other factors). The analogy goes not fit.

I think we agree that violent crime has a lot of contributing factors. But I'm pretty sure my analogy fits. There's a risk of dying in a car crash, and there's a risk of being a victim of a violent crime. We try to mitigate risks of harm in cars with seatbelts, and some of us try to mitigate risks of harm by assault via various defensive arts, be they physical or tool-related. So, when you come along demanding to know if someone's husband is "constantly fighting off people", it's a valid comeback to ask if you believe people who wear seatbelts are "constantly getting into crashes".

You seem resistant to absorb it, but yes indeed, there is truly a difference between preparing for a possibility, and expecting an inevitability.

Where is the research that guns will be needed to protect a food supply or that watching boxing or ultimate fighting helps people protect their food supplies?

I just want to make sure I'm hearing you correctly. Are you saying that being involved in defensive arts isn't a problem, but watching them is?

Anyway, we should include President Benson in the discussion, because again, he felt it necessary to include the notion in his book. Here's the complete quote (bolding mine):

Not only should we have strong spiritual homes, but we should have strong temporal homes. We should avoid bondage by getting out of debt as soon as we can, pay as we go, and live within our incomes. There is wisdom in having on hand a year's supply of food, clothing, fuel (if possible), and in being prepared to defend our families and our possessions and to take care of ourselves. I believe a man should prepare for the worst while working for the best.

Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 263-264.

Also relevant is Doctrine and Covenants 134:11: "...we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded."

LM

[Guest]

Dash, it might help you if you study Chinese culture. Martial arts there is almost akin to religion - for a lot of reasons imbedded in history. A lot of these reasons are applicable today in the modern era in a highly developed country.

All you see is the fight that happens on TV. What you don't see are the fights that DID NOT HAPPEN on the streets because a person was disciplined in martial arts. That's the importance of that discipline. Commercialization of boxing/mma competition is an advertisement for the training. When Karate Kid came out in the movies, the mma school my family goes to experienced an increase in enrollment from children wanting to be karate kid. They learn in their first month how to avoid fights in the playground. When Royce Gracie won UFC 3 years in a row, a big increase in men enrolling in Brazillian ju-jitsu happened. They learn in their first month how to control aggression. This is one huge positive for boxing/mma sports.

I think where we don't agree on is your "impression" of boxing/mma. It is really not what you think it is.

A lot of people frown on me for owning pet snakes. They get their impression of my snakes from pre-conceived phobia of snakes and all the stupid snake-eating-a-rat videos on youtube with the punk owner playing heavy metal music in the background while he snickers at the seemingly brutal demise of a rat. But, if you look at the "REAL" snake owning community, you will find that most of us are not like that. Most of us are nature-loving folks who will fight tooth-and-nail against animal cruelty.

This is the same with boxing/mma. You paint us all with a very broad brush when you describe us as blood-lusty folks who cheer when some guy's skull gets bashed into his brain. We are not who you say we are.

Edited September 22, 2010 by anatess

[Wingnut]

Oh don't bring Chuck Norris into this... we don't want to risk him getting angry.

You know why there's no signs of life in Mars? Because, Chuck Norris has already been to Mars.

[dash77]

Obviously there are many of you who have a difference of an opinion and I do not have the time to address all of the individual replies – point by point (or point by counterpoint). For example, in replying to Loudmouth’s question to outline research regarding car crashes and saving lives, here is a single reference: U.S. Department of Transportation - NHTSA - Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Buckle Up America Initiative - DOT HS 809 272. You will have to navigate through the site, but there is a chart on the very front page that clearly outlines the correlation between seat belt use and fatality rate. In 1988, when 45% of people wore seat belts about 2.3 million people died. In 1997, when about 70% of people wore seatbelts the fatality rate went down to about 1.6 million.

Some of the other references are in book form. For example, if you want to learn about different types of studies that outline that more violent sports increases violence in people, you can read such books as the one from Drs. Hundley and Billings called “Examining identity in sports media” or Dr. Betsy Wearing called “Feminist and leisure.”

The point I am making is that I do not have the time resources to rebuttal the many claims point by point – but I would rather make sweeping remarks regarding the overall summary of those who have a different view with four propositions.

First, I do not see myself as distorting other people’s views, what Dravin is referring to as a straw person fallacy. I simply disagree with the values – just because someone has a disagreement does not mean there is a distortation.

Second, I think there is a lot of drifting and rambling by many people, including myself. At essence I am arguing that the sport of boxing and ultimate fighting have an explicitly goal to bruise and bloody vital human organs (e.g. brain, kidneys). This is why the AMA has tried to ban these sports. Other sports such as hockey, tennis, race car driving, and football do not have a desire to damage vital organs explicitly like this. Yes, it can still happened (a hard football collision can cause this or a car crash in racing) – but it is not as explicit where the goal is to cause vital organ failure/damage so a person collapses. When boxers aim to punch it is purposely at the vital organs – when you tackle in football you can often aim for the legs or knees. A good body check is hockey is shoulder to shoulder.

Third, although I can see the fitness benefits of most sports (and although there are also negative aspects, like hockey or race car drivers drinking beer) – I just can’t see a sport that purposely aligns to damaging vital human organs being connected to LDS values of serving and uplifting others. I just can’t see the connection.

Four, I started this post to see how people put these two aspects together. Beside some rambling, I have heard one fairly good justification in regard to learning boxing or ultimate fighting skills – which was by Anatess as she outlined that you can use such skills for self defense. However, I have not heard anything that seem reasonable to me regarding how people can watch boxing/ultimate fighting (spectator) and still align to gospel standards.

I still see watching such sports as pleasure/enjoyment in the natural man – having a sense of emotional or physical arousal by seeing another person suffer.

[NeuroTypical]

At essence I am arguing that the sport of boxing and ultimate fighting have an explicitly goal to bruise and bloody vital human organs (e.g. brain, kidneys).

Ok. I started out disagreeing, and I continue to disagree, despite reading all your posts. From where I'm standing, the goal is to win the game.

I just can’t see...

...

I just can’t see...

...

I have not heard anything that seem reasonable to me...

...

I still see...

Sounds like you haven't budged an inch yourself. Oh well - maybe next time. I'd love to continue the discussion about using firearms in defense. Perhaps you or someone else could start a new thread if there's interest.

LM

[dash77]

Loundmouth:

One quick item of disagreement. Did I not outline that I learned from Anatess that there are places in which self defense is needed. I may not have changed my mind on the boxing/UF sport not being aligned to LDS values, but i did indeed share that i learn some aspects from Anatess and did change my postion on that. You gotta give me some credit!!!

[Tarnished]

Both my husband and I are fans of UFC (ultimate fighting championship) in which most of the fighters use some form or another of Mixed Matial Arts (MMA). We watch it because of the skill and technique that these fighters use. The sport though seeming to be all violence based is actually very much skill based, there are many rules in place to keep the fighters safe and to keep them from being killed or damaged beyond repair. In fact not one person has died in a professional MMA fight where there were professional refs watching the action. This is because the refs stop the action if it gets too close to someone being seriously hurt. Compared to boxing, MMA fights are rather safe in this way.

When it comes to fight sports though there are really two types of fans, there is your beat them up more blood is better type fan, and there is your technique and skill type fan. Of course you are going to hear people cheer when there is a knockout or when there is lots of blood. There are a lot of those fans out there. But there are those fans who are really in it to watch the technique and skill of the fighters and to see a superior sportsman in action. This is the type of fan both my husband and I are. Are there bloody beat them up LDS fans out there, I am sure that there are. But one must remember when watching this kind of a sport that there is skill involved and that there are some people who are watching because they want to see that skill.

It is much like a football or hockey game, there are some people who like to watch the sports because they like to watch people pound into each other, but there are others who watch the sport because they like to see the skill of these superior sportsmen in action. One thing to notice about most of the fighers in MMA sports as well (I say most because not all of them are like this) many of the fighters are very respectful of their opponent, many will bow to their opponent and many after winning will go over and make sure that their opponent is ok before leaving the ring. There are not too many other sports you see this type of behavior in. Football players don't generally check to make sure their opponent is ok after they clothesline him. Hockey players don't usually check to make sure the other guy is ok after checking him into the glass.

It is often difficult to see good points of an activity we don't agree with if we don't make an effort to understand the ins and outs of that activity beforehand. I think MMA events are much like this, if you don't understand the background information, like the safety measures that go into it or the skill and sportsmanship that goes into it then I don't think you can really understand where fans are coming from.

[dash77]

Tarnished:

Perhaps I do not know enough about ultimate fighting to know the difference you have outlined. However, both the American Medical Association and the Canadian Medical Association has called on government to ban this sport. It is a blood sport and is barbaric. Both the AMA and CMA have not created a policy to ban sports like baseball or football.

I still maintain that unlike other sports, ultimate fighting is focused on causing serious injury to the vital human organs. If you can cause the brain to seizure and bleed, you win to the delight of the fans. In other sports, such actions are banned. In football and hockey any hits to the head are banned and suspensions can often occur (except for fighting n hockey, which I vehemently oppose). You can't throw a ball to the head in baseball. But in UF, the goal is to cause serious damage to vital organs.

Sorry, I can't accept it and I'm not sure I can see the Lord sitting there cheering when a persons nose is broken and blood flies everywhere. I do not deny there can be some benefits such as training and fitness – but it is a blood sport that is reminiscent of Roman blood fights. I am not stating this directly toward you, but I do know other UF fans that I think use the watchig skills line as an excuse to cover the fact that they gain pleasure out of watching someone suffer.

[NeuroTypical]

I'd like to mention that because of this thread, I've looked into UFC videos. I'm halfway through watching one on Muay Thai Fighting, and I've got to say I find it fascinating. According to the video, this style of fighting is not just intended to injur people, but kill them. A lot of stick and knifework involved. It's very interesting to watch.

I wouldn't say I'm "a fan" of anything, and this single video I'm watching doesn't really have anything to do with tournaments or screaming fans or anything else that ticks dash77 off. But I am enjoying learning about different fighting styles. And I think I might enjoy watching different styles compete with each other.

[dash77]

I do not deny there can be real learning in watching people fight each other and pitting one style against the other. Anatess has taught me that learning to fight for self-defense is vital in some places.

However, I still think beating another person -- even if both peoplel agree to it, such as in UF, does not fit within the standards descriobed by God. Perhas this Muay Thai Fighting will catch on and in our life time we can watch some fights to the death!!!!

[FunkyTown]

I'd like to mention that because of this thread, I've looked into UFC videos. I'm halfway through watching one on Muay Thai Fighting, and I've got to say I find it fascinating. According to the video, this style of fighting is not just intended to injur people, but kill them. A lot of stick and knifework involved. It's very interesting to watch.

I wouldn't say I'm "a fan" of anything, and this single video I'm watching doesn't really have anything to do with tournaments or screaming fans or anything else that ticks dash77 off. But I am enjoying learning about different fighting styles. And I think I might enjoy watching different styles compete with each other.

I would recommend watching an older film directed by Jean Claude Van Damme called, 'The Quest'.

Story aside, Jean Claude Van Damme decided he wanted to showcase the beauty of martial arts from around the world. It's very successful. Even though the fights are choreographed, they're really spot on for a stylized look at what the capability of given martial arts are.

[Tarnished]

Muay Thai has caught on, it is used in MMA. When MMA first started out the original UFC fights were funded by the Gracie family, they wanted to show the world that their style of martial arts was the best in the world. And they succeeded. Royce Gracie (6ft 3in, 170 lbs) won the championship that year and many years that followed. The Gracie's style of fighting was Brazilian Jiu Jitzu. Since then MMA has evolved becoming something where you can really learn the best ways of defending yourself. Without the sport this would have never happened. In times past each martial art style was learned separately and students were discouraged from learning more than one style. With the onset of MMA martial arts students now learn many different styles of fighting and these styles often work together to make them better fighters.

When it comes down to it, the MMA sport has given martial arts a better understanding of what really works when it comes down to a real fight. Which as Anatess has related, can really happen anywhere.

Some of the moves used in MMA because they come from different styles of fighting can be very pretty, especially the throws. One of my favorite fighters is Jon "Bones" Jones, he uses Greco Roman wrestleing techniques, Judo, Muay-Thai, and Brazilian Jiu Jitzu. I like Jones so much because of the throws that he implements in his fights.

The focus of this whole discussion has been many people pointing out the good points of the sport against an argument about the violence. Always the violence. But you are failing to note the safety measures that are put in place for this sport. It should be telling that not one person has died in a professional MMA fight since it started with the UFC. Yes there are injuries that happen, but injuries happen in most contact sports (football, hockey, rugby, soccer, etc.). And as for the AMA and CMA requesting a ban, almost every article I have found on the matter has mentioned the fact that they called for this ban without doing any research on the sport. In fact from what I read, there has been very little research done on the sport and the medical impacts of it. So though they are a medical association I don't really see their request for a ban based on any concrete research of the sport.

As for how it relates to the gospel, it really depends on how each person interprets what they read. We see this in many different religions and all over this forum board. Many of the fighters are religious, and there are quite a few who are LDS. There is a large following of MMA in Utah. Though one person may interpret the gospel doctrine in one way another person may interpret it differently.

[Guest]

Muay Thai has caught on, it is used in MMA. When MMA first started out the original UFC fights were funded by the Gracie family, they wanted to show the world that their style of martial arts was the best in the world. And they succeeded. Royce Gracie (6ft 3in, 170 lbs) won the championship that year and many years that followed. The Gracie's style of fighting was Brazilian Jiu Jitzu. Since then MMA has evolved becoming something where you can really learn the best ways of defending yourself. Without the sport this would have never happened. In times past each martial art style was learned separately and students were discouraged from learning more than one style. With the onset of MMA martial arts students now learn many different styles of fighting and these styles often work together to make them better fighters.

When it comes down to it, the MMA sport has given martial arts a better understanding of what really works when it comes down to a real fight. Which as Anatess has related, can really happen anywhere.

Some of the moves used in MMA because they come from different styles of fighting can be very pretty, especially the throws. One of my favorite fighters is Jon "Bones" Jones, he uses Greco Roman wrestleing techniques, Judo, Muay-Thai, and Brazilian Jiu Jitzu. I like Jones so much because of the throws that he implements in his fights.

The focus of this whole discussion has been many people pointing out the good points of the sport against an argument about the violence. Always the violence. But you are failing to note the safety measures that are put in place for this sport. It should be telling that not one person has died in a professional MMA fight since it started with the UFC. Yes there are injuries that happen, but injuries happen in most contact sports (football, hockey, rugby, soccer, etc.). And as for the AMA and CMA requesting a ban, almost every article I have found on the matter has mentioned the fact that they called for this ban without doing any research on the sport. In fact from what I read, there has been very little research done on the sport and the medical impacts of it. So though they are a medical association I don't really see their request for a ban based on any concrete research of the sport.

As for how it relates to the gospel, it really depends on how each person interprets what they read. We see this in many different religions and all over this forum board. Many of the fighters are religious, and there are quite a few who are LDS. There is a large following of MMA in Utah. Though one person may interpret the gospel doctrine in one way another person may interpret it differently.

Tarnished, do you remember that UFC fight - maybe it was UFC 4... where that religious guy (wore a cape with a cross on it) fought Royce so hard that Royce got fatigued even if he won the match... so that Royce had to bow out of the championship fight. That religious guy said he is doing it to have an audience where he can proclaim that Jesus is Christ... and since MMA is his only skill, he thought he'd use it. He was pretty cool.

Dash77... here's some more information for you.

The early UFC days was a mess... they experienced growing pains (like all other new sports) where they had to refine the rules for the maximum safety of the players and it took years. So, if you watch the early UFC fights it is completely different than today's MMA fights. A bill was passed in Congress to make sure that MMA fighters get maximum protection (it was started by John McCain) with the urging of the American Medical Association. Today, all MMA fights are attended by a ring physician who has the power to end a fight.

If you really watch an MMA fight, you will notice that fighters don't go for "hitting vital organs". That's one sure way to lose a fight. That's a bad technique. Fighters learned from the old UFC days that "locks" are the most effective... this is similar to a "pin" in wrestling. Thanks to Royce Gracie, all MMA fighters learn to avoid/employ locks successfully. Punching/kicking - you will notice they are not employed as much. It takes too much energy to throw a punch/kick while it is easy to block and evade. You can't last the 3 minute round doing this. Players usually face each other, calculating, waiting for that chance to bring the opponent to the mat to employ the locks. This was perfectly demonstrated by that fight where an MMA fighter faced off a Boxer on the MMA ring. The boxer didn't even get a chance to connect a single punch. He got locked and pinned and the game was over.

In Iron Man 2, there is one scene there where Scarlet Johannsen was asked to fight this guy on the ring. Prior to that, Robert Downey and the guy was punching each other out. Scarlet was reluctant to do so but the guy won't stop asking her, so she performed an awesome "flying armbar" (yes, it's a technical term) to pin the guy and the fight was over in 3 seconds. Zero bruises. I loved that scene.

So yeah, it may seem barbaric and I know there are a lot of people watching it just for the sense of barbarism in it, but most of us "regular folks" aren't in that group.

Edited October 7, 2010 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

I would recommend watching an older film directed by Jean Claude Van Damme called, 'The Quest'.

Sounds great - I'll add it to my netflix queue. Another favorite of mine is Jackie Chan's "Legend of Drunken Master".

If I had the funds, I'd probably get my whole family going on Parker's American Kenpo (aka "Mormon Martial arts"). Not because Parker is LDS, but because of it's practical usage in real life. I have to figure out something - I'm thinking it's part of my stewardship as a father to make sure my two girls don't reach puberty without being confident in their ability to drop an attacker a few different ways.

LM