Trading Shots: Did Leslie Smith's mangled ear warrant a stoppage?

In this week’s Trading Shots, MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes and retired UFC/WEC fighter Danny Downes discuss Leslie Smith‘s gruesome injury at UFC 180, plus the questions raised by the stoppage that awarded the victory to Jessica Eye.

* * * *

Fowlkes: Danny, on Saturday night at UFC 180, we saw Leslie Smith lose a fight via doctor’s stoppage when her ear began to part ways with the other part of her ear, which is generally not supposed to happen to a person:

It was gross, dude. What I want to ask you today is, was it worth stopping the fight over?

Smith didn’t seem to think so, and I can almost (but not quite) see her point. You don’t need an ear to fight. It’s arguably a cosmetic injury, even if having two intact ears is cosmetically very important to most people. Was it, as fellow female fighter and just sayer of stuff Angela Magana claimed, sexist to stop the fight solely because the pretty lady’s face started falling apart? Or is this one where we can all agree that things had gone too far for the sake of a sport and were only going to get worse?

Downes: When referee Herb Dean initially called it off, the “this is sexist!” thought popped into my mind. After thinking it over, though, I don’t think that’s the case. Sure, it’s easy for such a masculine man like me to say that, but there’s no real evidence to make that claim.

Sexism certainly exists in MMA and the world at large, but this was a bad stoppage – not a bad, sexist stoppage. This is one of those situations in which the look of the injury was far worse than the injury itself. It’s like when a fighter gets a cut on his/her head. People see all the blood and want the referee to stop the fight even though it has no real impact.

At the same time, this may be a “cosmetic” injury, but look at the pictures of her ear after the fight (come on, you know you want to). What would have happened if she pulled a Mick Foley and ended up having her ear completely torn off? Would everyone say, “Good thing they continued that fight. She earned that deformity!”

Most fighters will want to fight no matter what. The job of the referee and doctor is to save a fighter from himself/herself. Think about Jon Jones’ fight against Chael Sonnen. What if Jones had to go to a second round with his de-gloved toe? Would we call that a “cosmetic” injury? You don’t really need a big toe the same way you don’t really need two ears.

Fowlkes: As the owner and enthusiastic user of two big toes, I’m going to have to disagree with that last statement. While an athlete might not need a big toe, the same way Nick Newell has proved that a fighter doesn’t need two hands, it sure helps. The lack of it will force certain adjustments in terms of technique and game plan whereas the loss of an ear would not. So there is a difference between what happened to Jones and what happened to Smith.

But I’m confused. You say this was a bad stoppage, but it also doesn’t seem like you think it should have continued. So which is it? Because for me, while I agree that it probably looked worse than it was (and no, I did not want to look at the photos, though I did anyway), I do think that there is a point where our collective sense of decency and decorum and, yes, somewhat selfish desire to not feel like a pack of savages outweighs the fighter’s right to continue for as long as she feels physically able.

I respect you, Leslie Smith, but it’s not good for you or the sport or the viewer for us to watch you get your ear ripped off your head. And what, even after you’ve been Van Gogh’d on FOX Sports 1, are we supposed to just keep watching? That seems more than a little absurd.

Like you, however, I don’t think it’s the least bit sexist. I think that if it had been Dennis Bermudez’s ear that went all horror show on us, we’d feel just as eager to shut it down. At the same time, I’m also forced to wonder if it isn’t a little bit weird that we can’t handle seeing someone’s ear get gross, but have no problem with watching their brain get concussed or their hand get shattered.

What’s that about, do you think? Is it just the visual difference between internal and external injuries? Is it that one is so common, while the other is disgustingly novel? Or are we just hypocrites?

Downes: I don’t know if we’re hypocrites, but we certainly lack consistency. We tolerate brain damage and watch “Ultimate Knockouts” with glee, but cringe when someone’s ear looks gross. In Smith’s case, I think this stoppage can be both bad and good. That statement may be a little too Zen for you, young grasshopper, so I’ll explain.

Stopping the fight was a bad decision in the short term. Smith was still competitive, and the ear was not affecting her performance. In the long term, it was a smart decision to stop the fight.

Think of the decision to get a tattoo. In the short term, it seems like a great idea. You’d look so awesome with a sweet barbed wire tattoo around your biceps. Maybe even toss some giant angel wings on your back for good measure. After a few years, you wake up and realize you’re a guy with giant angel wings on his back. In Smith’s case, instead of being permanently stuck with a bad tattoo, she’d be missing an ear.

Fighters don’t normally consider long-term implications of their actions, but that’s why certain protections should be in place. We all hate hearing lines like, “You’re going to have to kill me to beat me,” but many are willing to take it to that extreme. Obviously referees can’t protect them from all physical harm, but they have a responsibility beyond calling time out when someone gets kneed in the crotch. We just have to determine what that line is.

Do you think that Herb Dean crossed that line? Why should we feel bad if someone loses an ear? Is this really about protecting fighters or protecting the brand? The UFC would have a PR nightmare if Smith’s ear was laying in the middle of the octagon, but it would hurt your buddies in the so-called media, too. How would you explain that event to your colleagues in other sports? MMA isn’t a vicious blood sport; we let fighters keep both their ears!

Fowlkes: Colleagues in other sports? Ha, good one. But I will freely admit that my reasons for wanting to see that fight stopped were as much about not making this sport out to be the barbaric display that its detractors say it is as they were about wanting to see Smith continue to live the rich, full life of a two-eared individual.

But it’s not just a matter of not wanting to see MMA criticized as a sport in which people get their ears punched off. It’s also a matter of not wanting MMA to be a sport where people get their ears punched off. If that fight had continued – if, in other words, Smith had gotten her wish and cageside officials had allowed her ear to go out on its shield – I think you know what kinds of columns those of us in the so-called media would have written today. They would not have been in praise of the regulatory structure that lets a person get senselessly maimed just so she can prove a brand of toughness that wasn’t seriously in question.

I understand the argument from the fighter’s perspective. They’ve got money and dignity and careers on the line, and they put in so much work just to get there that they think they are owed the right to a more satisfying conclusion than TKO stoppage due to grossness. That’s fine. They can think that. But the reason we have all those other people hanging around is because we don’t always agree with them. We want to watch a sport, not a public maiming, and the fact that we want to watch it is what makes it a job for those who do it. They don’t have to like it when we draw a line that may seem arbitrary or unfair. Neither do they have to keep playing by our rules if it’s so important to them to fight their own ears off.

Downes: We both agree that stopping the fight was best for the sport and for business. I disagree with your final sentence, though. The system is already stacked against fighters enough when it comes to opportunities and monetary compensation. Now we can’t even give them abstract victories? Yes, logically (and perhaps ethically) speaking I agree with the decision. I do think that there’s a danger of coming off as patronizing. Not because she’s woman, but because she’s just a dumb fighter who doesn’t know any better.

It’s easy to dismiss Smith’s protests as shortsighted or reckless, but we also have to admit that she was robbed of something last night. She still felt like she had something to offer in that fight, and it was taken away. Officials have a duty to protect fighters, and fans/media should support them in that endeavor.

At the same time, we need to be aware of our condescension. We say that we respect fighters, but do we really? Whenever we disagree with something they say or do, it only takes seconds before someone trots out the tired, “They must have been hit too many times in the head,” line. We may want Leslie Smith to keep both her ears, but let’s hope we let her keep her pride, too.

For complete coverage of UFC 180, stay tuned to the UFC Events section of the site.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who also writes for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.