MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos

MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos (http://www.mmaforum.com/)
-   General MMA Discussion (http://www.mmaforum.com/general-mma-discussion/)
-   -   KOTC Ring Girls (http://www.mmaforum.com/general-mma-discussion/28329-kotc-ring-girls.html)

davidm724 12-16-2007 09:52 AM

KOTC Ring Girls
 
So I just got a set of KOTC as an early christmas present to myself (hey, it was cheap), and I thought there was something a little funny about the ring girls...

Actually, I realized it wasn't really the ring girls, it was the filming of the ring girls. If you watch the UFC, you see the girl walk by, smile and wave to the camera. But on KOTC, the cameraman will zoom in on their ass and follow them along. Or, they'll catch a close up of their tits and hold it for a good 10 seconds. It took a minute for me to snap out of it and realize what was going on... because hey, I got no problem checkin them out.

The problem I do see though is that it is a pretty cheesy thing to do. I mean the guy zoomed in on tits and ass like I was looking through beer goggles. I could appreciate it, but I felt like it was pretty classless. In the eyes of many, I believe this is a bad way to represent MMA as a classy sport, unless KOTC is destined to stay underground. What do you guys think about it?

sirdilznik 12-16-2007 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm724 (Post 415254)
So I just got a set of KOTC as an early christmas present to myself (hey, it was cheap), and I thought there was something a little funny about the ring girls...

Actually, I realized it wasn't really the ring girls, it was the filming of the ring girls. If you watch the UFC, you see the girl walk by, smile and wave to the camera. But on KOTC, the cameraman will zoom in on their ass and follow them along. Or, they'll catch a close up of their tits and hold it for a good 10 seconds. It took a minute for me to snap out of it and realize what was going on... because hey, I got no problem checkin them out.

The problem I do see though is that it is a pretty cheesy thing to do. I mean the guy zoomed in on tits and ass like I was looking through beer goggles. I could appreciate it, but I felt like it was pretty classless. In the eyes of many, I believe this is a bad way to represent MMA as a classy sport, unless KOTC is destined to stay underground. What do you guys think about it?

Yeah I know what you mean. If they're going for the "bunch of seedy lookin' dudes in some basement" feel then that's the way to go I guess. I got no problem with seeing some ass, but they could class it up a little bit. The shit they got going on now winds up looking like a "Girls Gone Wild" video too much.

davidm724 12-16-2007 11:51 PM

Exactly what I was thinking. I mean, I feel like they are in the stone-age of MMA. For instance, MMA's female audience is getting big really fast, and I think even they would appreciate a tasteful display of a ring girl. My girlfriend watches UFC with me and she talks about how hot the ring girls are. I agree with her, and we move on. If she were to watch KOTC with me, she would be like, "what, is the cameraman following her around with a boner?" The ring girls aren't bad, it's merely how they're displayed. I just think it's bad for the sport.

rufio.e0 12-18-2007 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm724 (Post 415848)
Exactly what I was thinking. I mean, I feel like they are in the stone-age of MMA. For instance, MMA's female audience is getting big really fast, and I think even they would appreciate a tasteful display of a ring girl. My girlfriend watches UFC with me and she talks about how hot the ring girls are. I agree with her, and we move on. If she were to watch KOTC with me, she would be like, "what, is the cameraman following her around with a boner?" The ring girls aren't bad, it's merely how they're displayed. I just think it's bad for the sport.

very good point. Same way with the Art of War shows. Girls on stands in less-than skimpy clothing with a camera (literally in some cases) up their skirts. Don't get me wrong... I like to look and all, but unlike the higher quality shows... I can't take my wife to one of these (not without getting dirty looks anyway).

Ferdelance 12-21-2007 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm724 (Post 415254)
So I just got a set of KOTC as an early christmas present to myself (hey, it was cheap), and I thought there was something a little funny about the ring girls...

Actually, I realized it wasn't really the ring girls, it was the filming of the ring girls. If you watch the UFC, you see the girl walk by, smile and wave to the camera. But on KOTC, the cameraman will zoom in on their ass and follow them along. Or, they'll catch a close up of their tits and hold it for a good 10 seconds. It took a minute for me to snap out of it and realize what was going on... because hey, I got no problem checkin them out.

The problem I do see though is that it is a pretty cheesy thing to do. I mean the guy zoomed in on tits and ass like I was looking through beer goggles. I could appreciate it, but I felt like it was pretty classless. In the eyes of many, I believe this is a bad way to represent MMA as a classy sport, unless KOTC is destined to stay underground. What do you guys think about it?

Where do I sign up for KOTC? For the longest time, I was wishing that somebody would do just what you described, as opposed to pretending that the girls aren't there, or just giving you a nanosecond glimpse of her face and her hands holding the sign.
To answer your question:I think that sounds great!
How do I sign up?
:thumb02:
Ferdelance

PanKrato 12-23-2007 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm724 (Post 415254)
So I just got a set of KOTC as an early christmas present to myself (hey, it was cheap), and I thought there was something a little funny about the ring girls...

Actually, I realized it wasn't really the ring girls, it was the filming of the ring girls. If you watch the UFC, you see the girl walk by, smile and wave to the camera. But on KOTC, the cameraman will zoom in on their ass and follow them along. Or, they'll catch a close up of their tits and hold it for a good 10 seconds. It took a minute for me to snap out of it and realize what was going on... because hey, I got no problem checkin them out.

The problem I do see though is that it is a pretty cheesy thing to do. I mean the guy zoomed in on tits and ass like I was looking through beer goggles. I could appreciate it, but I felt like it was pretty classless. In the eyes of many, I believe this is a bad way to represent MMA as a classy sport, unless KOTC is destined to stay underground. What do you guys think about it?

For real,
They need to get a life. We're here to watch the arts of unarmed combat, not a bunch of worthless hoes. People with no respect for girls need to get out more.

Deadpool 12-24-2007 01:36 AM

I think KOTC is aiming for that appeal.

Ferdelance 12-24-2007 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PanKrato (Post 420248)
For real,
They need to get a life. We're here to watch the arts of unarmed combat, not a bunch of worthless hoes. People with no respect for girls need to get out more.

"Worthless hoes?" I am really quite sure that their boyfriends/husbands and family members would disagree strongly with that,indeed,take extreme personal umbrage over a remark like that,that is, if they didn't attribute it to coming from the mouth of someone terminally brain dead.
You've never met these ladies. In the few instances in my life when I was actually able to personally meet some professional models,they were all fine ladies who saw modeling and the subsequent media exposure as a stepping stone to careers in cinema,or music,or some other media-intensive enterprise.
I personally object to the word "ho." I agree with the people who see it as a disparaging term that is essentially misogynistic in import.It entered mainstream vocabulary by way of the cultural abomination known as "gangsta rap" and the low life criminals who tried to re-invent themselves as quote un-quote "rappers."
I sincerely feel that the word "ho" has no place in the vocabulary of a gentleman.
More importantly,though, your other comments bring to mind the debate that occurred sometime ago over the free TV airing of the Lee Marvin movie "Point Blank." To re-cap, in the original movie, there is a very,very brief scene where an actress, I believe it is Angie Dickinson,appears topless in what was supposed to be a topless bar in California.
That brief scene was cut out for free TV viewing.
But the critics said:Look what was left in the movie!!!
"Point Blank" was, at the time, one of the most ultra-violent movies ever made!Those who were responsible for the TV editing found nothing objectionable at all about showing somebody getting blown away by being shot in the head with a high-powered rifle.
Or what about the scene where Lee Marvin gets set up in the back of a bar,and there are three hoods waiting for him.One of them has a pipe, one of them has a blackjack, and I believe the other has a chain or something equally vicious.
The scene where Lee Marvin fights for life has to be one of the most ultra-violent scenes in a movie of its time.
So the critics raise the question:Why is it all right to show somebody being murdered by a high-powered rifle or show somebody being set-up in an alleyway and being beaten by hired thugs,but it's not okay to show a woman's breast?
I say the same thing.
Why is it okay to see somebody get kicked in the head or smashed in the face or guillotine choked,or subjected to an excrutiatingly painful submission hold, but it is wrong to give someone a glimpse of a beautiful woman who has a nice body?
And I want to go on record as one of those people who believe that a woman's body, when it is beautiful, is one of the most beautiful things in the universe!
Just my opinion,
Ferdelance

davidm724 12-25-2007 04:58 AM

My point was that the filming of the ring girls was extremely distasteful. Pardon PanKrato for using the term "worthless hoes", but that is exactly what they were portrayed as through the filming. They weren't wearing much less than any ring girl, if any less, but the camera man is filming them like some voyeur in a mall. Notice PanKrato says, "people with no respect for girls need to get out more." That tells me he was just explaining that the camera men have no respect for the ring girls. Am I wrong?

Good movie by the way. However, nobody here has a problem with a beautiful woman on display. That's the whole point of the ring girl. But while they do their walk around the ring just like every other ring girl, the KOTC cameras are exploiting them. So, it is not the girls we think are classless, it is those who are filming them.

Ferdelance 12-27-2007 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm724 (Post 421342)
My point was that the filming of the ring girls was extremely distasteful. Pardon PanKrato for using the term "worthless hoes", but that is exactly what they were portrayed as through the filming. They weren't wearing much less than any ring girl, if any less, but the camera man is filming them like some voyeur in a mall. Notice PanKrato says, "people with no respect for girls need to get out more." That tells me he was just explaining that the camera men have no respect for the ring girls. Am I wrong?

Good movie by the way. However, nobody here has a problem with a beautiful woman on display. That's the whole point of the ring girl. But while they do their walk around the ring just like every other ring girl, the KOTC cameras are exploiting them. So, it is not the girls we think are classless, it is those who are filming them.

The Probability and Statistics courses that I have taken have stressed the fact that all possibilities have to be taken into consideration before any kind of a valid conclusion can be reached logically.
That said, I have to cop to the fact that I have not seen KOTC,I don't exactly know what you are talking about,and the possibility does exist that if I saw it,maybe I would agree with you.
Maybe I would find it even more objectionable than you do!
But I doubt it.What I find is that some of the discussion here mirrors what was said in Loudon Wainwright's famous essay on the miniskirt,written back when the mini-skirt was first introduced, around 1965 or 1966.As Loudon Wainright recalls, he was raised to believe that,in his words,"if a lady is about to have difficulty with her skirt," he's talking about,say,the wind or something blowing her skirt up like the famous subway grate scene in the Marilyn Monroe movie "Seven Year Itch," well, a gentleman is supposed to avert his eyes.But what Loudon Wainright discovered is that the mini-skirt introduced an entirely new paradigm:a gentleman is not supposed to look away.
Au contraire.
A gentleman is supposed to gaze to his heart's content,or at the very least, an appreciative glance is de riguer.
I don't know what the girls you are talking about are wearing: I assume that they are wearing minis,which are so de rigeur at this point that minis have become boring to me, or hot pants/shorts made out of spandex,or tank tops or halter tops made out of some kind of flimsy material.But I will assume for the purposes of discussion that they've got on minis.
If you can see up her dress:Big deal.
It was designed for exactly that purpose!
If you can see the nipples of her breasts through the material of her skimpy top:Big deal!
It was designed for that purpose.
What I personally object to is when they cut the camera away from the girl so you won't see her ass, or they keep the camera on the girl from the shoulders up.
I hate that crap, and I feel that it is unnatural.
I will also stick by my guns in saying that the word "ho,"used for any reason or in any context, simply has no place in the vocabulary of a gentleman.I would say in passing what was said to the staff of the college radio station about vulgarity,profanity,and dirty words on the air,namely,you should possess a sufficiently large vocabulary that enables you to express yourself without using those kinds of words.
Enough about that.
I am really more interested in hearing more about what you think about the movie "Point Blank."
Why did you think that it was a good movie?
I believe that it is out now in VHS or DVD,although I have not seen the uncut version.I first saw it as a teen, when there was that hub-bub that I mentioned in the above post about what was aired and what wasn't.I liked it then,especially for how they set up the scene for Lee Marvin's encounter with the three thugs in the alley,the part where there was a singer spoofing the Godfather of Soul James Brown by screaming like James Brown,and handing the microphone to people in the audience so they could scream,too.Then the part came when Lee Marvin got the best of the last thug and knocked him through the wall and his body crashed onto the stage and that girl started screaming and everybody thought that it was part of the act!
Wild.
But now I think of that movie as like one of the ultimate Hollywood tough guy movies,like "Showdown in Little Tokyo" where Dolph Lungren takes on those three hoods without even putting down his cup of tea!
That blew me away!
Like Lee Marvin's encounter with the thugs:that's Hollywood tough guy stuff.Now as an adult, I know that nobody could take the kind of shot that Lee Marvin took that laid him out face down on his stomach in the alleyway,nobody could take a shot like that and then fight back like he did!
If that shot didn't knock him out,not to mention getting hit in the head like that could have killed him outright, at the very least he would have been so stunned or senseless,there is no way he could have fought back.
No way.
But yeah, for wild, Hollywood tough guy stuff,"Point Blank" makes it.
But I would like to hear your thoughts on it,specifically.
Respectfully responding,
Ferdelance


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.8 , Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2