I still remember the family dinner I ruined by suggesting that Mike Tyson was the greatest boxer in the history of the sport.  The year was 1988.  The meal was hamburger steak and mashed potatoes.  It was a pleasant little evening in southern California.  Then I just had to express my opinion on Mike Tyson, and bring everything crashing down.

I won't bore you with my reasoning.  Let's just say that I was nine years old, Tyson was the undefeated heavyweight champ, and the "Punch-Out!!" game for Nintendo was the best thing to happen to my life since the discovery of candy.  

Conditions, in other words, were ripe for me to say something stupid that would prompt an outraged lecture from my father on the merits of Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis.  Even Rocky Marciano and Jack Dempsey might have made an appearance in there.  I can't be sure, because at some point it all just blended into unintelligible noise.  If not for my mom bringing a halt to the discussion, I might still be sitting at the dinner table listening to the case against Tyson.

The point is, after that evening we were never allowed to discuss heavyweight boxing rankings at the dinner table.  It was placed on a conversation no-fly list in my family, joining such incendiary topics as 'The Ethics of the Death Penalty' and 'Why Can't We Get a Second Dog?'  You just didn't bring it up unless you wanted something terrible to happen.

Over the years I've come to realize that MMA is fertile ground for these types of arguments.  Fans become so passionate and so entrenched in their viewpoints, civil discussions can escalate into personal blood feuds with an alarming quickness.  

In the interest of keeping the peace among MMA fans, here are some topics you probably want to avoid:

Pride vs. UFC

Who's most likely to bring it up: Some guy who just learned about Pride two weeks ago.

Why it's a bad idea: Once something ceases to exist, it becomes very easy to talk ourselves into believing that it was much better than it really was.  This goes for MMA organizations as well as ex-girlfriends.  It's easy to romanticize the Grand Prix tournaments and the head stomps while omitting the Zuluzinho fights and the questionable outcomes.  It's also easy to pretend that all the stuff in Japanese that we didn't understand was brilliant and profound, or that those very young looking ring girls would have really liked us if they'd gotten to know us.  That doesn't make any of it true, though.

How it will end: You'll make a dumb observation about the lack of success for Pride fighters in the Octagon, forgetting the existence of "Shogun" Rua almost entirely, while the other guy distractedly hums the Pride theme music.

Grappling vs. Striking

Who's most likely to bring it up: Someone who knows a lot about one, and zero about the other.

Why it's a bad idea: Anyone who has seriously watched this sport knows that you can't survive in the modern era of MMA unless you're well-rounded.  Sadly, that doesn't stop certain clods from claiming that one aspect of fighting is superior to all others.  If the offending clod is a Taekwondo enthusiast, he may try to tell you that the crescent kick is the most unstoppable attack ever conceived of.  If you're dealing with a former high school wrestler, it's going to be a treatise on how all the best fighters were forged on the mats.  The truth is, they're both wrong, so don't waste your time arguing with them.  Fighters today have to be well-versed in everything, unlike drunks you meet in bars, who only have to be well-versed in talking loudly while spilling a beer on your shoes.

How it will end: One person will shout something about shoulder rolls while the other mimes a double-leg, and that's when the bartender will insist that you both leave.

Old School vs. New School

Who's most likely to bring it up: For some reason, many people tend to assume that older athletes were somehow tougher simply by virtue of coming along in a different era.  This goes for every sport from football to tennis, and I've never been able to figure out why.  Maybe the old-timers put up with more hardships, like taking the train to away games or coming down with polio, but it's not like they had a choice.  Arguing about what would happen if you put a young Don Frye against a modern day Shane Carwin is pointless.  Arguing about what would happen if Don Frye had to fight both Tom Selleck and Wyatt Earp in a three-way mustache battle royal, now that's a question worthy of great minds.

How it will end: You'll mention Anderson Silva, the other guy will stare blankly at you, then you'll spend the next thirty seconds sputtering frustrated sentence fragments about his shameful ignorance.

Boxing vs. MMA

Who's most likely to bring it up: James Toney

Why it's a bad idea: For starters, they're two different sports.  A preference for one over the other is a matter of opinion, and rarely are people willing to change their opinions based on interactions with strangers.  Instead, they're more likely to become increasingly agitated as they argue in favor of the sport they deem superior, and all the while they'll continue acting as if somehow this conversation might have a resolution waiting somewhere in the middle of the next sentence.  It doesn't.  The truth is, MMA fighters are better MMA fighters, and boxers are better boxers.  It's such an obvious, simple point, yet so easy to forget.

How it will end: Toney will mumble something you don't understand and then pull out a Randy Couture figurine dressed as a woman.  In spite of yourself, you'll be amused.