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

[Azam]

I think some MMA fans & guys who do mixed martial arts (with some looking to compete in the future) feel the need to validate their sport - usually by saying other combat sports aren't as complexed - by definition that would mean BJJ or wrestling is simple because it's not multifaceted.

Boxing may not be multifaceted in the way mixed martial arts is but it is so fine-tuned like Jukai pointed out - it makes it just as complexed as MMA.

[Bay Area]

I cant believe no one thought my Training Day clip in the first page was funny/original/cool/witty. I put alot of thought into that damnit

[Azam]

Originally Posted by PWR1982

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:




Define what "simpler" means. In a sense, connect 5 / checkers are simpler than 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.

Boxing is intricate in a way mixed martial arts isn't yet and may never be - that isn't to say that MMA is simple though because it's not - it's just as complexed as boxing, just in another way to boxing if that makes sense - that is because boxing has only one facet whereas MMA has many facets.

Let me give an example, imagine all martial arts are like chess - that is to say Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, boxing, Karate are all chess, in boxing you'd just be playing chess on one board (one facet - your hands), in MMA your playing chess on three different boards (multifaceted meaning it involves many aspects of martial arts - standup, grappling etc etc) - when your playing chess on one board it becomes intricate since it's only limited to one board - your time isn't divided it's solely on one board, when your playing chess on three boards simultaneously it's not as limited & won't be as intricate since your dividing your time among three different boards.

That is why Jukai said boxing is fine-tuned because it is & that is what makes it complexed in a way MMA won't be because it's not just limited to your hands.

[Edison Carasio]

I do not really follow boxing as the sport as much as I should but boxing is a complicated and intricate art. Anyone who says otherwise does not understand boxing.

[bubkusjones]

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.

What did I say was factually incorrect? Chess has a greater variety of playable pieces than checkers. MMA has a greater number of allowed techniques than boxing. In boxing and checkers, there are fewer ways for your opponent to attack you than MMA/Chess, thus, fewer ways you need to worry about defending. On the flipside, the limited rules and techniques force the upper level boxers (and checker players) to be that more detail oriented in regards to training and competition. The margin for error in boxing can be much smaller than MMA.

The comparison is accurate enough to warrant stating. And yes, the same can apply, just as fairly, to any of the other individual combat sports that are seen in MMA for the very same reasons. Pure grappling doesn't have to worry about strikes. Boxing doesn't have to worry about grappling or kicks/knees/elbows. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Heh, gotta love that ANY time someone doesn't absolutely worship the altar of boxing, they're seen as ignorant and any knowledgeable person would obviously know that boxing is the supreme end-all of combat sports.

No, I don't follow boxing as well as MMA. I don't follow football or baseball or hell, ANY other sport like I follow MMA. I'd assume that you don't follow MMA like you do boxing, right? Does that somehow invalidate YOUR opinion on this subject? Perhaps you are as ignorant about MMA as you claim I am about boxing?

I think some MMA fans & guys who do mixed martial arts (with some looking to compete in the future) feel the need to validate their sport - usually by saying other combat sports aren't as complexed - by definition that would mean BJJ or wrestling is simple because it's not multifaceted.

Boxing may not be multifaceted in the way mixed martial arts is but it is so fine-tuned like Jukai pointed out - it makes it just as complexed as MMA.

They feel the need to "validate" their sport because you get fighters and fans of other, more "traditional" combat sports insulting and degrading MMA and it's competitors all the time. On the flipside, MMA fighters and fans seem to be at least more openly supportive and appreciative of boxing as a sport.

Look at the recent hooplah about JDS saying that he could knock out one of the Klitschko's. The boxing forum erupted into a chorus of laughs and sneers. Except, what did JDS say that was so very wrong and humor inducing? Is he a pillow-fisted wrestler who likes to Fitch his way to victory? No, he's a heavy handed striker who's knocked out more of his opponents in MMA than not. Is it really unthinkable that JDS could KO either Klitschko (especially when the one has what more than one person has called a suspect chin)?

Yeah, boxers tend to be more detail oriented (especially at the higher levels), but worrying about the degrees in which a person can throw a right cross isn't quite the same as having to worry about whether a guy is going to throw that right cross, kick you with his left leg or fake a power double-leg take-down only to judo-flip you on your ass and transition into an armlock.

It's the "Jack of all trades vs master of one" thing, only, in this case the "jacks" can also be masters of one or two trades (to varying degrees).

[CelticThunder]

For Tito, boxing is more like nuclear physics, and MMA is like laying on top of a checkerboard for 3 rounds.

[Discipulus]

Don't have time to reply in full now. But I follow MMA much more avidly than I do boxing. I am officially king of unfounded assumptions.

[PWR1982]

Originally Posted by Azam

Boxing is intricate in a way mixed martial arts isn't yet and may never be - that isn't to say that MMA is simple though because it's not - it's just as complexed as boxing, just in another way to boxing if that makes sense - that is because boxing has only one facet whereas MMA has many facets.

Let me give an example, imagine all martial arts are like chess - that is to say Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, boxing, Karate are all chess, in boxing you'd just be playing chess on one board (one facet - your hands), in MMA your playing chess on three different boards (multifaceted meaning it involves many aspects of martial arts - standup, grappling etc etc) - when your playing chess on one board it becomes intricate since it's only limited to one board - your time isn't divided it's solely on one board, when your playing chess on three boards simultaneously it's not as limited & won't be as intricate since your dividing your time among three different boards.

That is why Jukai said boxing is fine-tuned because it is & that is what makes it complexed in a way MMA won't be because it's not just limited to your hands.

I understand exactly why he said what he said. I'm not sure you understood my previous post, as I've said basically the same thing you are saying.

It all depends on definitions. Chess is "simpler" than checkers in one way, and checkers is "simpler" than chess in another - depending on how you define what "simple" means, one will be simpler than the other. In your words, the equivalent of the above would be "checkers are simpler than chess, but chess are also simpler than checkers - just in a different way."

The analogy of "mma is to boxing, what chess is to checkers" is still good though. Now whether you think one is simpler than the other... that depends on how you define "simpler." However, if you consider checkers to be simpler* than chess, then you should consider boxing to be simpler* than mma (where simpler* are both defined the same way, or in other words, whether one thing is simpler* than the other is judged by the same standards in both scenarios above).

[James Keith]

Originally Posted by PWR1982

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.

Restrictions create more variety in other ways. There's more types of punches in boxing because of the restrictions. If you had to worry about being kicked or elbowed or taken down, there's a lot of moves and counters you would not try. Strategies aren't simper as a result, just different.

Dunno what connect 5 is. But if you're doing chess right, you're thinking as far in advance as your brain can handle. In checkers I think doing this is pretty pointless.

[Azam]

Originally Posted by bubkusjones

They feel the need to "validate" their sport because you get fighters and fans of other, more "traditional" combat sports insulting and degrading MMA and it's competitors all the time. On the flipside, MMA fighters and fans seem to be at least more openly supportive and appreciative of boxing as a sport.

Everyone hears their sport get shit-talked, heck knockdown karate gets a lot of shit spoken about it, so does martial arts like Wing Chun, it works both ways many MMA fans have spoken a tonne of crap about many other martial arts & TMA's like karate before Machida came & pretty much shut up alot of fans & people. There are plenty of boxers that are openly appreciative of MMA as well.

Originally Posted by bubkusjones

Look at the recent hooplah about JDS saying that he could knock out one of the Klitschko's. The boxing forum erupted into a chorus of laughs and sneers. Except, what did JDS say that was so very wrong and humor inducing? Is he a pillow-fisted wrestler who likes to Fitch his way to victory? No, he's a heavy handed striker who's knocked out more of his opponents in MMA than not. Is it really unthinkable that JDS could KO either Klitschko (especially when the one has what more than one person has called a suspect chin)?

Lol what is so wrong with the boxing forum erupting in laughter? Wouldn't you laugh your ass off & be incredulous if a professional boxer claimed they could beat an MMA fighter - didn't everyone laugh their ass off at James Toney saying he could beat couture? JDS wouldn't be fighting an MMA fighter - he would be fighting a guy who just uses his hands & has a high KO rate against guys who only use their hands - I'm sure the boxing forum wouldn't have erupted in laughter had he said I would wrestle him to the ground and ground & pound him till he quits or choke his ass out or even rag-doll him like a bitch lol - what would you say if a professional boxer who had a little wrestling experience in high school said that he could beat a professional wrestler at wrestling.....

Originally Posted by bubkusjones

Yeah, boxers tend to be more detail oriented (especially at the higher levels), but worrying about the degrees in which a person can throw a right cross isn't quite the same as having to worry about whether a guy is going to throw that right cross, kick you with his left leg or fake a power double-leg take-down only to judo-flip you on your ass and transition into an armlock.

It's the "Jack of all trades vs master of one" thing, only, in this case the "jacks" can also be masters of one or two trades (to varying degrees).

Well it's relative to their sport isn't it? Why would a boxer have to worry about whether a guy is going to throw a right cross, kick etc etc he is only going to worry about what's relative to his sport - it is the same as having to worry about a guy throwing you, then kicking etc etc relative to their sport, since boxing will be that much intricate because of the sole focus on the hands.