tito's analogy : boxing is checkers , mma is chess

[Discipulus]

Originally Posted by DCnMO

Standup (regardless of what form) is like checkers. Grappling is like chess. But it's important to note that even checkers requires some intelligence.

Uh...? I hope you're just trolling, because that was some dumb shit you just said.

[Edison Carasio]

If boxing is checkers, then what is kickboxing?

[Discipulus]

Originally Posted by Edison Carasio

If boxing is checkers, then what is kickboxing?

Chinese checkers, obviously.

[thugpoet]

Originally Posted by Discipulus

Chinese checkers, obviously.

lol

[KyleInAction]

Originally Posted by DCnMO

Standup (regardless of what form) is like checkers. Grappling is like chess. But it's important to note that even checkers requires some intelligence.

Please explain the fuck out of yourself.

[bubkusjones]

Originally Posted by aduriz

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/spo...ks-perth-show/


just wanted to post this here instead of the boxing or ufc forums to avoid the usual and endless " boxing vs mma " debates

what's your take on this cliché'd analogy thrown around by boxing and mma fans ? is the standup techniques of boxing , the angles , defense etc.... more similar to chess ? or are the multiple variants of mma more fitting for that analogy ?

It's accurate enough. Chess is more complex (as far as pieces, their abilities and the rules) than checkers (which has two types of pieces with a basic movement limitation and the only difference between them is a king can move backwards in addition to forwards).

MMA has so many more ways to attack and defend than boxing, even if you're just looking at the stand-up portion.

That being said, it's not like boxing or checkers are layman sports. The best in each analyze and critique themselves and their opponents to such levels of detail that you sometimes can't get in the more complex sports of MMA and Chess, simply because you have too many varied options to consider.

[Discipulus]

Originally Posted by bubkusjones

It's accurate enough. Chess is more complex (as far as pieces, their abilities and the rules) than checkers (which has two types of pieces with a basic movement limitation and the only difference between them is a king can move backwards in addition to forwards).

MMA has so many more ways to attack and defend than boxing, even if you're just looking at the stand-up portion.

That being said, it's not like boxing or checkers are layman sports. The best in each analyze and critique themselves and their opponents to such levels of detail that you sometimes can't get in the more complex sports of MMA and Chess, simply because you have too many varied options to consider.

So is pure grappling also like checkers? Is kickboxing like checkers?

People who say stuff like this generally don't know much about boxing. That's not to say you're willfully ignorant of the sport, and the art of boxing, but I'm willing to bet that you don't follow it the way you probably follow MMA, which explains your comment.

[Jukai]

People believe because there is less to worry about in boxing, it's simpler. That's not true at all. Because there is less to worry about, everything is so fine tuned to the point where the complexity matches that of something like Mixed Martial Arts.

[Discipulus]

Originally Posted by Jukai

People believe because there is less to worry about in boxing, it's simpler. That's not true at all. Because there is less to worry about, everything is so fine tuned to the point where the complexity matches that of something like Mixed Martial Arts.

Exactly. And people usually only have that opinion about boxing, whereas you rarely see anyone dogging on wrestling, BJJ, kickboxing, etc. for being "limited" and therefore simpler. Boxing has produced some of the most impressive athletes of all time.

[PWR1982]

Originally Posted by Discipulus

So is pure grappling also like checkers? Is kickboxing like checkers?

People who say stuff like this generally don't know much about boxing. That's not to say you're willfully ignorant of the sport, and the art of boxing, but I'm willing to bet that you don't follow it the way you probably follow MMA, which explains your comment.

The analogy to checkers is fine, except that checkers are not a good choice of a game, as it's a game that is basically "solved" - like tic tac toe for example. A better analogy would be naughts and crosses (connect 5 in a row, played on a paper). And yes, by this logic, pure grappling is to mma, what kickboxing is to mma (to some extent, the complexity might be a bit different between each, but it should be relatively similar, in comparison to what they are to mma).

Discussions like this are all about definitions - people are getting somewhat offended by someone calling this or that "simple" because their definition of "simple" is different. For example:

Originally Posted by Jukai

People believe because there is less to worry about in boxing, it's simpler. That's not true at all. Because there is less to worry about, everything is so fine tuned to the point where the complexity matches that of something like Mixed Martial Arts.

Define what "simpler" means. In a sense, connect 5 / checkers are simpler than chess, as there's more variety in chess. But in a sense, there's less strategic aspects, and more pure brain power/"think in advance" sort of abilities emphasized in connect 5, so you could also say it's chess that's the "simpler" game. By your logic/definition, chess is simpler than checkers/connect5.