Old head boxing fans loathe MMA , but less technical boxers always put butts in seats

[Sunfish]

Please tell me how many seats Delray Raines fills lol.

4 million

 

[DeJulez]

This cunt and his wacky threads.

 

[Shoemaker]

4 million

Fuck!

 

[PUO3]

Oh

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

Gatti had some skills.

Besides, Gatti was charismatic. People just liked him. He'd have drawn a crowd if he were ball room dancing.

What do you think does better though a charismatic point fighter or a charismatic brawler? in terms of casuals.

Eh, I started to post a few gifs with shitty MMA punches and guys getting caught with that trash, (which i think is more of the problem, how those guys get clipped with simpleton telegraphed punches); but I decided not to. It'd become a gif-circlejerk of back and forth gif posting. Could be fun for a minute but, nah... we can find any clip we want to to try and prove a point but the fact are facts. MMA striking is far far inferior to anything an accomplished boxer like Gatti and beyond had and it shows the 1st minute of any tape comparing the two sports. Lack of or low technique in boxing is still light years ahead of the best MMA striker out there. Just throwing a typical punch for a boxer by an MMA'er is laughable, looks laughable, and is even more hilarious when the opponent gets KO'd with that silly throw of the right... THATS why its not taken seriously by boxing fans. Everything in the stand-up game of MMA, from throwing punches to angles to movement is just "5yr old toddler learning to box" quality.
Guys getting KO'd or smacking each other around in MMA just isnt all that impressive.

Part of it is because guys are more willing to do it in MMA. How often do you see two guys slug it out in boxing for the fans? Very rarely. In MMA a loss is not end of the world. All these boxers that are 15-0 on the come up are too scared to get caught imo

 

[Seano]

What do you think does better though a charismatic point fighter or a charismatic brawler?

They're equally important just for different reasons. A fighter that fans don't enjoy watching can still draw if he can talk and back it up. Mayweather is a great example of that.

Gatti on the other hand, drew crowds because he was a good looking guy who fought his ass off. People didn't care if he didn't win.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

They're equally important just for different reasons. A fighter that fans don't enjoy watching can still draw if he can talk and back it up. Mayweather is a great example of that.

Gatti on the other hand, drew crowds because he was a good looking guy who fought his ass off. People didn't care if he didn't win.

Right, I agree and my point is I don't think people cared any bit about his technique as long as his fights were exciting, which is why I don't understand the disdain for MMA brawling. Exciting is exciting. An NFL superbowl is more fun if it's 52-49 thanks to defenses with crappy technique compared to a 6-3 game because defenses are super elite and technical.

 

[nastyleft]

I guess its a matter of taste and; for lack of a better word;"sophistication" with casuals versus hard core fans. I for one actually like a hard fought defensive battle in football games where the tension is so high, the next score can be the one to win it. But then again, Im a purist, I played at a high level, I understand the nuances of what makes a difference. If its two teams executing brilliantly on both sides of the ball where scoring is hard to get, and every big play actually means the balance or momentum in the game, Im all for it. If its just shitty defense against two great offenses that cant be stopped, eh, cool but not great football. And if its two shitty offenses that turn the ball over unforced, keep dropping passes and cant move the ball cause ther qb sucks, rb sucks or Oline is bad, and the score is low then thats just bad football. Its not all about the score its about the execution......With boxing its the same thing with hard core fans.
The same way a lot of people say the Bonner vs Griffin fight was the most exciting in history that put the UFC on the map, theres an even larger group that believes it was just two guys with bad cardio and sorry defensive skills just whailing at each other.
The difference is, boxing has a much longer heritage and history in sports which has resulted in a much larger fan base of "educated" core viewers that recognize the difference in skilled combat while standing vs the alternative.

 

[PivotPunch]

Gatti was a much better boxer than anyone who ever stepped into a MMA cage/ring.

Your claim is also wrong. The biggest draw ever is Mayweather. Beside Mayweather Pacquiao, Canelo and Cotto. All great boxers. In Europe it's Wladimir Klitschko who is a great technical boxer.

So wtf are you talking about. Most MMA fans prefer strikers even hardcore fans

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

Part of it is because guys are more willing to do it in MMA. How often do you see two guys slug it out in boxing for the fans? Very rarely. In MMA a loss is not end of the world. All these boxers that are 15-0 on the come up are too scared to get caught imo

This is very true. What's Randy Couture's record, 19-10 or something and he's considered an ATG of MMA. A loss can set a boxer back years, even set them back forever it seems.

 

[Seano]

This is very true. What's Randy Couture's record, 19-10 or something and he's considered an ATG of MMA. A loss can set a boxer back years, even set them back forever it seems.

Couture was rewarded with a title fight everytime he lost.

Stuff like that was why it was so hard for some boxing fans to take mma seriously as a sport. I think most people have come around since, though.

 

[nastyleft]

Yeah the talent pool being so thin, Randy was always in the mix at the top win/lose/or draw.

 

[JayE]

The whole idea that it's extremely difficult to bounce back after losing your 0 in boxing is bizarre and I don't know who started it. It doesn't come close to standing up to scrutiny. Santa Cruz's reputation is now stronger than it was before he was unbeaten. Manny Pacquiao had several losses before he entered the American mainstream and he also lost a few times while in the American mainstream, and it didn't hurt his drawing power.

 

[nac386]

The whole idea that it's extremely difficult to bounce back after losing your 0 in boxing is bizarre and I don't know who started it. It doesn't come close to standing up to scrutiny. Santa Cruz's reputation is now stronger than it was before he was unbeaten. Manny Pacquiao had several losses before he entered the American mainstream and he also lost a few times while in the American mainstream, and it didn't hurt his drawing power.

Canelo got more popular after his loss too.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

Couture was rewarded with a title fight everytime he lost.

Stuff like that was why it was so hard for some boxing fans to take mma seriously as a sport. I think most people have come around since, though.

That and guys could come in with not many fights and win the title. Lesnar won it after a couple (of course against Couture) and even Weidman beat arguably the GOAT with no amateur fights and in his 11th fight or so. Fair arguments I guess, the sport is still young though and the talent pool pretty thin compared to boxing really.

 

[bad seed]

You don't appreciate the fine art of technical haymakers?

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

Gatti was a much better boxer than anyone who ever stepped into a MMA cage/ring.

Your claim is also wrong. The biggest draw ever is Mayweather. Beside Mayweather Pacquiao, Canelo and Cotto. All great boxers. In Europe it's Wladimir Klitschko who is a great technical boxer.

So wtf are you talking about. Most MMA fans prefer strikers even hardcore fans

You are talking in absolutes.

The whole idea that it's extremely difficult to bounce back after losing your 0 in boxing is bizarre and I don't know who started it. It doesn't come close to standing up to scrutiny. Santa Cruz's reputation is now stronger than it was before he was unbeaten. Manny Pacquiao had several losses before he entered the American mainstream and he also lost a few times while in the American mainstream, and it didn't hurt his drawing power.

Because he was exciting and not scared to brawl

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

That and guys could come in with not many fights and win the title. Lesnar won it after a couple (of course against Couture) and even Weidman beat arguably the GOAT with no amateur fights and in his 11th fight or so. Fair arguments I guess, the sport is still young though and the talent pool pretty thin compared to boxing really.

Weidman and Lesnar had wrestled for 20+ years though can't really compare to boxing

 

[JayE]

Because he was exciting and not scared to brawl

So... you agree that what you just said is bullshit, then? That's what I'm getting from this.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

Weidman and Lesnar had wrestled for 20+ years though can't really compare to boxing

Well many pro boxers have a hundred amateur fights before they make the pro ranks. They still might have 30 fights with an 0 before they have a title fight.

Some people who hate MMA and love boxing use the "he's only had a handful of fights and now is champ, MMA is easy" argument, I think it's dumb but people do say it. MMA and boxing are quite different but really they're both the largest combat sports in the public realm so it's natural comparisons are made.