Evidence of the negative neurological effects of combat sports has a long history and continues to grow. Despite an awareness of these dangers individuals still make the choice to partake, with the freedom to make an educated choice often cited as a counter to concerns over long term health. This freedom should be respected, and there are both higher risk activities for people to engage in (e.g. BASE jumping, free climbing), and comparable negative evidence found in more mainstream sport (e.g. football, NFL). However, combat sports do find themselves in a unique category where harm to the opponent is the explicit goal rather than an unfortunate byproduct. Using the established workplace framework of Risk vs. Hazard, and utilising the evidence base from both martial endeavours and the wider sporting field, this work will argue for a recategorization of combat sports as those which bypass risk and give participants a 100% exposure to the hazard and it’s concurrent effects on health. It is hoped the use of this framework can give some structure to the ongoing debate about the place of these sports in modern society. No suggestion is made that these activities be stopped, merely that those taking part (or looking to begin) can make a choice that is better educated and distinguishes the hazards of combat sports from the risks present in other domains.