Photo by Todd Lussier/Zuffa LLC

There has been a reoccurring theme in all of the fights that have primarily supported ‘The Notorious’ Conor McGregor’s three headline bouts in Las Vegas at the MGM Grand.

Each and every one of the co-main events has been a battle that can appeal to the primal urges of the most experienced spectator, or in the cases of new viewers, many whom McGregor has brought to the table, they see some kind of lawless fight to the death unfolding before their eyes.

Of course, they’re wrong in terms of lawless nature of the contests. However, members of the MMA community hold the likes of Lawler and MacDonald aloft for their grit and determination they showcased at UFC 189.

As a person who is very much conditioned to the sport, I found myself marveling at that drive of both Lawler and MacDonald back in July as I sat by the Octagon. In doing so, I’m nearly agreeing with the first time viewers that are appalled by the sights. We both realize there is a lot of damage taking place. We’re just reacting to it in different ways.

Grandmothers wake up to watch McGregor’s fights in Ireland.

Imagine a woman in her 70s with a fresh cup of tea in her hand, just up out of bed at 4.30 am to make sure she doesn’t miss another chapter in McGregor’s meteoric rise. Just as she is about to dip her Rich Tea biscuit into the warm golden-brown liquid, she looks at the television screen and sees Lawler’s lip hanging off, MacDonald’s nose broken into his face, Luke Rockhold astride Chris Weidman as he lands unanswered blows or Holly Holm’s arms becoming lifeless as she’s choked unconscious by Meisha Tate. I think we can all agree that it would be a bit of a culture shock for them.

Of course, the spectacle of MMA is very important. I’m adamant that fans and contrarians are created based on their first look at the sport. If you haven’t seen mixed-martial-arts competition before, it’s so out of the ordinary that you’re forced to react to it. Either you want to see more of it, or you never want to see it again. It just so happens that a lot of Ireland’s introductions have come via the most epic of contests.

After his defeat to Nate Diaz, one of Ireland’s best-loved Olympians, Sonia O’Sullivan, wrote a piece called, “Is MMA really sport if it enters the death zone?”, for the most prestigious newspaper in the country, The Irish Times.

O’Sullivan wrote:

“There was also a review of the choke-hold earlier in the evening that sent Holly Holm out of the octagon unconscious: is this just one step away from death? Sport is a game, something that we do for health, fitness or else watch for entertainment. I don’t think anyone would feel comfortable watching a sports event if one of the athletes is left dead.”

“Unfortunately, this has happened in the past, in the case of accidental death; however, the purpose of winning should not be to kill the opposition. We have all used phrases such as killing and annihilation when talking about sport, but not in the literal sense. Only now I fear we may be allowing this to happen in front of our eyes. What example is this for young children to aspire to? It is not something that you would like to see emulated in the playground.”

Following his triumph over Chad Mendes back in July to claim the interim featherweight title, a roundtable of some of the biggest names in Irish sports journalism debated the legitimacy of MMA on Sean O’Rourke’s show on RTE Radio 1.

One of their primary reasons for downplaying the sport was based on what transpired during the Lawler and MacDonald bout, which was unanimously voted ‘The Fight of the Year’ by a number of leading MMA publications.

“I didn’t get up for it,” said Paul Kimmage of the Sunday Independent when asked did he watch McGregor versus Mendes.

“I’m intrigued by it and I’ve been asking about it for a long time. Do we engage in it? There is a lot of pantomime to it and a lot of show, and it’s barbaric. I’m repulsed by it. I’ve watched it and I’m repulsed by it and I’m thinking, do we, the mainstream media, engage with this? Clearly he’s got a lot of support.”

“I think we’re going to have to he’s a global star now, isn’t he?” Damien Lawlor offered.

Orla Bannon cut in: “One of the fights on the undercard, I can’t remember the names of the two guys that were in it, I mean that was barbaric. Both guys were covered in blood. They looked horrendous afterwards, whereas McGregor comes out and he looked grand after it.”

Whether they were aware of it or not, Kimmage, Lawlor and Bannon probably sent more people looking to see with what the fuss was all about with the sport. Despite sharing a common opinion of MMA with a lot of people in the country, they are adding to the conversation. For UFC, they are probably happy that people are talking about it rather than saying nothing at all. The history of the world’s flagship MMA promotion is built on controversy to a certain extent having once sold their product on the “two men enter, one man leaves”, “no holds barred” narrative.

Being the opposition to the MMA phenomenon in Ireland is lucrative too. Every time fans of the sport see articles calling the sport into question, they share them out hoping others will share in their outrage. Unfortunately, in the digital media landscape, and outraged click is counted the same as an intrigued one, so both sides of the argument exist in a strange symbiotic space as the trend continues.

Check out these related stories:

Conor McGregor Is Now Being Courted With Russian Citizenship

Frankie Edgar Is Likely to Be Overlooked for McGregor Shot Again

Beyond Defeat: The Importance of McGregor’s Reaction to Diaz Loss