Ok, I have observed that whenever we get the old Boxing vs MMA debate, MMA fans, in general, always resort to the "MMA fighter will destroy the boxer in a street fight because the boxer can't fight off his back" argument. Thus MMA is the superior fighting sport. Makes sense...?? First and foremost, I believe that this is a pointless debate to have, since both boxing and MMA are regulated sports with seperate sets of rules. Everyone may have a preference of one over the other, but to say that one sport is better, is your personal opinion, and the argument in reality should end there. However, to declare that MMA is superior, because an MMA fighter has a better ground game then a boxer and thus would win a street fight is not a valid argument. When someone says "streetfight", this should indeed mean a streetfight, not, as is implied with the statement, merely an MMA fight that happens to be fought on paved street rather than in a ring or octagon. A streetfight is just that, a streetfight. This does NOT mean that it is necessarily a one on one fight, man vs man. Does not mean that eye gouging, finger breaking, hair pulling, all of the above, are barred from the fight. It does not even mean that a gun or a knife won't be brought into the fight. What it does mean, is that it is an uncontrolled fight, between an unknown quantity of participants with unknown skillsets and/or weapons, with an unknown instigating factor, whether it be robbery, thuggery, gang violence, etc... Otherwise, as I said, it would simply be an MMA fight on pavement, in which case, yes, the MMA fighter wins. That being said, I beileve that an elite boxer would be a preferable choice over an elite MMA fighter, as your "partner" if you were to engage in an actual streetfight, with the above unknown factors. An elite boxer, more so than an elite MMA fighter, has the ability to neutralise (KTFO) multiple combatants (most likely unskilled in a martial art) more quickly than the elite MMA fighter. Having an MMA fighter as a partner, you would stand a greater chance of that fighter being occupied with a single opponent and unable to assist, than a boxer that can unleash LETHAL (ungloved, yes) combinations faster than most thugs could throw a single punch. The boxer would likely have a greater ability to withstand trauma from a weapon such as a bat or pipe, as they are trained specifically for evasive defence, and in the absence of it effective blocking including tight chin tucking and upper body movement to nullify impacts. On the ground, the boxer is not considerably disadvantaged against a typical street thug. He should be stonger, far more endurance, and maintain ungloved knockout power from most positions on the ground. When your partner is laying a killer armbar on a thug on the ground, it won't help you much as his 3 buddys continue advancing on you. A boxer can, and there are documented cases, quickly nullify street fight threats in a way that MMA fighters, in my opinion, would not. I'll take a boxer with me to the streets anyday. Single Boxer vs MMA fighter, in an MMA fight on the street??? No contest... but that's not a streetfight.