Media Consumption of Mixed Martial Arts among College Students: A Preliminary Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionPankration, one of the feature at the ancient Greek Olympic Games, has been described as a mixture of Hellenic boxing and wrestling (Walter, 2003). This all- encompassing fighting competition ended only when one of the two combatants surrendered, was knocked out, or killed (Perrottet, 2004). In recent years, a modernized version of such physical contests has emerged in the form of Mixed Martial Arts, commonly known as MMA. In similar fashion to the historic duals, competitors employ boxing and wrestling, along with a variety of martial arts techniques to battle opponents.The growing popularity of mixed martial arts, as evidenced by the increased coverage of the sport in newspapers, popular sport magazines, media research journals, and on the Internet, lends itself to scientific inquiry about the prevailing trends of direct and indirect consumption of the sport. Anecdotal evidence suggests that MMA competitions have successfully captured an increasingly wide audience including the oft evasive, yet appealing 18 to 34 year old male market (Lopez 2009, Sanders, 2006). Blinebury (2006) reports that MMA's most popular North American brand, the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) has increased in popularity over the past several years. According to Hedegaard (2008), the current owners Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta purchased the company in 2001 for a mere $2 million. In 2010, reportedly sold 10% of the company to Flash Entertainment for $120 million, suggesting UFC is now valued at approximately $1.2 billion (Fox, 2011a).The UFC now annually offers 12 to 14 live pay-per-view (PPV) events, which are commonly distributed to international destinations including Australia, Brazil, Canada, and the United Kingdom (UFC, 2008a). While total gate receipts for these have thus far increased by approximately $3.5 million in 2011 compared to 2010, PPV purchases have dropped significantly over the same time period (Fox, 2011a). In large part because of injuries to individual star athletes, PPV profits have plummeted by $26.5 million (Fox, 2011a). This explosion in popularity of has also paid dividends for the combatants themselves. While earnings can typically be as low as $4,000 for undercard fighters (Fox, 2011c), PPV main event competitors can earn as much as $2.5 million per fight, as Georges St. Pierre reportedly did in the spring of 2011 (Fox, 2011b).As evidenced by the continued growth of these physical competitions, is a growing need to study this sporting phenomenon. Kim, Greenwell, Andrew, Lee, and Mahoney (2008) noted, there is a need for research specifically related to MMA fans... in order for sport marketers to make educated decisions about promoting these events (p. 110). While media consumption of MMA products appear to be a popular starting point of shedding light on this emerging sport, are several approaches worth exploring. For example, Kim et al. (2008) examined the motivations driving spectatorship of this combat sport. Meanwhile, Lim, Martin, and Kwak (2010) examined the relationship of media consumption with consumers' risk-taking, emotion, and attitudes.The current research endeavors a more descriptive approach to expanding the literature of MMA media consumption. The aims of this study are to gather and examine information regarding the trend of growing awareness and consumption of the MMA product. More specifically, we seek a better understanding of how much/often MMA is being consumed as well as clarification on the popularity of methods of consumption (direct or indirect). The research question guiding this inquiry was: have direct and indirect methods of MMA consumption changed over recent years for a specifically targeted group of consumers?As is discussed below, much anecdotal evidence points to the rapid growth of MMA consumption. However, to our knowledge, this is the first attempt to scientifically measure and differentiate methods of consumption (direct and indirect), therefore expanding the literature and understanding of MMA from a sport marketing perspective. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".