Discussion in 'OT Bar' started by JordanClarkson, Nov 1, 2005.
very well written
yeah great article, totally applies to a LOT of people I know.
lol except it reads just like a fox "news" article would read
"Sammy Morgan, a 23-year-old Minneapolis landscaper and nightclub security person, stepped into the ring with one of the most talented and fierce fighters the UFC has ever seen, a completely unassuming guy named Luke Cummo.Luke is pretty much a dork."
Good article Fox News.
For once its positive towards MMA, but it reads like its been written by a 12 yearold.
good article but it seemed like they were reaching too hard for that analogy
i agree with damiand. the piece was not written very eloquently, but he did get his point across. but i feel like the reason MMA is getting such a bad rap really has very little to do with what he is writting about.
he should have focused more on the fact that MMA is sporting in its purist form and that it is pretty safe and really no different compared to other combat sports out there.
and focus on how people that say its different because the moves used are too dangerous, but compared to a pro boxer its the same. a pro boxers punch would be just as harmful as a roundhouse kick to the face if the person reciving the attack were unprepared for it. the difference between the avarage viewer and a MMA fighter/pro boxer is that they viewer is not trained, so of course it would seem too dangerous. and nowadays fights are stopped before being fatal.
i do like how he portrayed fighters though, in that most are not crazy meathead guys that just want to fight. they can be everyday people that have the same dreams and work harder than most others.
come on man..
It's an article on MMA. It's not supposed to be written eloquently.
all writting if possible should be written best as possible. i'm not blaming him, just saying how it is.
i'm not attacking you in anyway, but how much reading do you do normally? that level of writting is subpar. especially for a news journal.
Articles are written in a different manner than books. This is what he did right.
1. Start off very BOLD.
That's a huge promise that makes you want to read further. When you are writing a book if you start off bold you need to be able to delivery. Often times authors can't do this so they must water down their intro sentences.
2. Focus on a character. He chooses Sam who is a normal guy--a landscape and night club security person. This isn't some psycho who has been fighting in the underground his entire life. He's not a convicted felon. He hasn't killed anyone.
3. Compare and contrast. He used the story of a wealthy Jersey family who were sueing a hotel because they could not host their party. The hotel acted professionally, even covering the cost for invitations. That was a nice gesture on their part. While it's true that he stretches a bit much to compare this to fighting, if you are able to look deeper into the meaning behind it, you would understand that these people live in a completely different reality. They have no sense of honor and no sense of forgiveness. Sam got knocked the fuck out. Luke is the guy who took away his dream and his future. Yet he stood up and shook the guy's hand. In the family's case, nobody purposefully caused them distress. They were the victims of bad luck. Fate is who they truly want to claim damages from but since they can't, the hotel is the next best thing.
And as for writing eloquently, Dickens, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald--they all were horrible spellers, made hundreds of grammar mistakes, and often used poor vocabulary. Why do their books read so great? The copyeditors and editors are the most unappreciated people in writing. They are the ones that spend hours correcting mistakes and polishing up books by rewriting sentences, replacing common words, and correcting silly spelling errors. By the time a book is published it will have been edited 5-10 times, usually by 2-3 editors but sometimes as many as 8-10. Writing is all about getting your message across, not making it sound intelligent--that's what the editors are there for.
I read the news every day. A good article to me is one that makes sense by following a simple structure and when opinions are used they should follow common sense without being too extreme (ie. Bush is evil). Almost every article written by the students at my local college are a 2-3 on a scale of 1-10. In fact, the news paper put out by the community college is far superior. I understand a good article when I see one and when I see a bad one I wouldn't hesitate to critique it. You have to be able to see the big picture meaning you need to understand the target audience, the news source, etc. The article written provided evidence to show that Sam was humble while the wealthy family were not. That was pretty much the point of it all. You'd be surprised how often opinion pieces lack any real evidence to sway you. Instead all they give you is just more opinions.
i agree, but dispite of all the processing and editing it did not recieve, its still sub par, and i had trouble with the flow of it. but i'm glad that you posted it, still interesting to read.
i guess we can agree to disagree, i should just say that i do not like his style of writting.
This isn't high quality journalism in my opinion. I was never comparing the article to "books" ugh in any case.
I really don't understand what's wrong with that article. I would never compare it to articles in like TIME magazine, but it was still pretty solid, and it supports the sport for the most part.
Time magazine is pretty terrible now too.