Real fight? MMA is a "REAL" fight. A sport that does not allow kicks on the ground, eye gouging, smothering, rabbit punches, fish hooks, that has rounds, judges, refs, crowds, predetermined environments, gameplans, opponents and has 4oz gloves, mouthguards etc is NOT a REAL fight. Ive never seen a fight end in an omoplata or have 15 minutes of lay and pray. Nor have I seen a real fight where a fighter (Gabriel Gonzaga) was allowed to recover due to a bloody face. Nor have I seen a REAL fight where a fighter was warned multiple times for eye pokes (Kevin Burns).
In fact, Randy Couture MMA's poster boy himself said in a REAL fight he'd do his BEST to keep the fight standing to avoid going to the ground. You're talking about a guy whos predominantly a wrestler. And even he wants to avoid scraping up his knees, elbows etc. It was Royce Gracie himself who said that BJJ may not be the most practical form of fighting in a REAL fight. Going to the ground in a real fight may leave you vulnerable towards others or the surface may not be tailored to ground fighting ie. pavement etc. REAL fights dont take place on comfortable little mats at an MMA gym nor do they take place in a huge octagon. REAL fights are UNPREDICTABLE and spontaneous without predetermined opponents, gameplans, opponents, rules and environments.
Let me first say two things: One, I was a boxing fan before an MMA fan and will always be one -- I am in no way attacking the sport. And two, I fully acknowledge the obvious fact that RJJ would tear up Silva in a boxing ring, and Silva would choke RJJ in a cage.
I know this has been done to death a lot of times before, but I'm surprised to see that it seems many boxing fans here still seem to be denying that MMA is a much closer simulation to a "real fight" than boxing. Isn't it obvious that MMA, even with its sanctioning and the rules that come along with it, is a much more "free" platform/environment for a fight to take place than a boxing ring?
If the excess of rules are really what prevents you from considering combat in a controlled setting to be a "real fight", isn't it logical to consider a boxing fight to be a worse representation than an MMA fight? After all, isn't a boxing fight essentially an MMA fight with no kicks, no takedowns, no elbows, bigger gloves, shorter/more rounds, etc.? So do you consider the early UFCs to be an
even more accurate representation of a "real fight" because of the absence of time limits, weight classes, etc.? I take it you must have been a fan of RioHeroes...
I fail to see what difference there would be if an elite-level boxer and an elite-level MMA fighter agreed to meet somewhere and fight on their own rather than in a controlled setting? Wouldn't the ultimate outcome be the same?
If you saw a video of an elite MMA fighter getting jumped by 5 people in an alley and beaten up, or a bottle being broken on their head, or blindsided with a punch from behind, would you consider their defeat an indication of their fighting ability? No. However, if it was one-on-one with no weapons, would you doubt the best MMA fighter would win in any given reasonable setting against almost anybody?
I just can't seem to grasp why many boxing fans seem to take offense to having their P4P Kings deemed as the best boxers in the world, while MMA's P4P kings as the best fighters in the world.
We should be able to enjoy both sports for what they are, not criticize them.