[Miyamoto]

Nicely done, Nedders. Here's mine:

Dear Michael,

Wow. Just... Wow.

I'm actually amazed that I'm writing this for two reasons: first, I doubt highly that you'll ever read it. As you mentioned, your email in-box is sure to be inundated with the high-pitched, blood-thirsty squeals of the many "MMA apologists" (what do we have to apologize for??? more on that later...), so it's likely that the following will be lost in the inter-ether. Secondly -- and more importantly -- the tenor of your article is such that I can only conclude that you won't listen to any pro-MMA argument, no matter how fact based, and no matter how well formed.

So, with this in mind, I set forth on my fool's errand. You, sir, are my windmill. Call me Don Quixote.

First, let me address some of your direct quotes: "Many of the ultimates are nothing but thugs and ruffians." Okay. Shall we start a list of boxers who are ex-cons? Violent offenders? No, we don't have that kind of time. Seriously, the idea that you'd even front this as an argument knowing the history of the sport you're championing is truly flabbergasting to me.

"All that league has done is take a few former nightclub bouncers, knuckle crackers and parolees, put on some fancy TV graphics and told them, "Kick the other guy in the nuts.""

It's an interesting, if untrue, characterization of MMA -- and one that indicates to me that you began and ended your familiarity with MMA during its early years. Unfortunately, we are not in those early years -- we are in the years that multiple Olympic medalists and Olympic-caliber athletes compete in the sport. The names Lindland, Gardner and Yoshida should ring a bell. No, I'm afraid that your description doesn't live up to the facts of the current MMA field. Now, I'm not suggesting that MMA is without its malcontents. However, before you start listing them, I'd like you to begin with looking at the roster of boxers for parolees.

"No skill is required to knee someone in the groin (and it happens despite rules stating it is illegal)."

This really cracks me up. Yes, it does happen. When knees to the legs are allowed, frankly, it's pretty easy to accidentally hit someone in the groin. However, knees to the groin seem to occur less frequently in MMA than low blows in another sport I could mention.

"No UFC goon has or ever will possess the grace and natural showmanship of De La Hoya or the true fearsome fighting skills of Mayweather."

"Notice the word: skills. This match will not resemble a bar-room brawl but meticulous, highly practiced, man-to-man warfare between two skilled, all-time athletes."

I'd love to have the opportunity to sit with you, Michael, and pick out a few fights to watch. To teach you a little bit about what you're looking at. You seem to be suggesting that to do what the athletes in the UFC do requires no skill -- but you clearly have no idea what's involved. Your perception is colored by your culture -- you're brought up on boxing, so you think if someone doesn't move like a boxer, it's because he's unskilled. You'd ask someone to ride a motorcycle like he rides a ten-speed.

It takes tremendous MULTI-DIMENSIONAL skills to be a successful MMA fighter in today's age. Frankly, too many skills to truly master any of them in most cases. I'll grant you, Mayweather punches better than anyone in the UFC. Of course he does. Because it's ALL he does. Imagine a sport that featured only jabs. If someone dedicated as much time and was blessed with as much talent as Mayweather in this hypothetical sport, he'd jab better than Mayweather, because his focus would be on jabbing and jabbing alone. However, he'd adopt certain movements that took advantage of the rules in his sport, and his jab would likely be different than a traditional boxing jab. Head to head with Mayweather, he'd beat Floyd jabbing. Floyd would kill him boxing.

Well our hypothetical "Jab" sport is to boxing what boxing is to MMA. It's that simple, and that true.

"The UFC should be banned..."

Based on what? The culturally-biassed perception that you have that it is more violent than boxing? I'm aware of a study that shows that the injury rate in boxing and MMA are on a par. It's worth noting, though, that the injuries in boxing are heavily weighted toward head trauma -- MMA's injuries are more evenly distributed across the body. The reasons are clear: watch an average boxing match versus the average MMA match, and you'll see that the number of strikes to the head are much higher in boxing. A fighter gets in trouble in boxing and he clinches, only to be separated by the referee to receive more punishment. He gets knocked down, and is given a standing-eight count to recover and go back into the fray -- and go he does, because there is a culture in boxing that frowns on the notion of submission. To admit that the opponent is superior can be catastrophic to a fighter's career. Just ask Roberto Durran.

On the other hand, if an MMA fighter gets in trouble and clinches, the clinch isn't broken. He can change the dimensions by taking the fight to the ground, or by striking from closer range. If the referee perceives that a fighter is in danger, the fight is ended -- immediately. No standing-eight, no going back in to receive more punishment. And, finally, the notion of submission is embraced: fighters can, at any time, say that they've had enough. Frankly, I find that to be far more civilized. Don't you?