Boxingscene Transplant - My Honest Analysis of Your Sport

[Happiness]

your missing the point.

and your illustration is apples and oranges.

mma and boxing are sports. war is not.

war is war.

mma and boxing are fun to watch.

war is not.

in my and many others opinion mma is more fun to watch than boxing because its a fuller, truer and more complete representation of COMBAT SPORTS.

(Boxing, wrestling and jiujitsu all put together in a synthesis that allows for many more outcomes and much more athletic beauty than boxing alone or judo alone)

hence all the others of themselves have limitations and subtle Combat SPORT nonrealties.

(i.e. in sport gi jiu jitsu there many moves that are completely unrealistic for no gi sport jiujitsu)

your assertion that the logical thought progression of people who prefer MMA to boxing because they think its more realistic should watch war is assinine.

Its logically testing the limits of your premise. You assert boxing artificially imposes limits on what type of marital techniques are allowed, and MMA by merits of allowing more techniques is a better more fuller sport and is therefore better, more evolved and would beat boxing in a "real fight". You entirely ignored the fact MMA, as it is extant, artificially limits combat in multiple ways, the most glaring of which is the embargo placed on all weapons. What i concluded is that the enjoyment of the as sports is not defined by how close they to real combat, or which would beat the other in a fight, becasue neither is particularity close to a real fight. Other factors like personal preference is what gauge which is preferably to an individual, not arbitrary limitations relative to a "real" fight.

Your opinion of what is better to watch is exactly that, your personal preference is of seeing multiple arts mixed together, that has nothing to do with which "more real" . If most real was really how you judged a combat sport, war would be the ultimate for you, becasue it's the most real.

My assertion was actually contesting trying to claim MMA is better by way of claiming a MMA artist will beat a boxer is silly. The implicit understanding of that claim is that which sport is better in a combat situation is in fact he better sport, which is nonsense.

How many times do you see the premise bandied around this forum that MMA is better becasue a MMA fighter can beat a boxer in a fight? That's a totally asinine criteria to base which sport is "better" on.

All sports have different rule sets, and the enjoyment someone gets either contesting of viewing that sports with those guidelines dictates what they prefer.

Couture beating Toney has absolutely nothing to with which sport people prefer to watch.

And as for evolution, MMA under various names is much older than boxing, boxing evolved out of MMA.

 

[MacDiz]

Two completely different sports that have a common origin. Can't really compare them, like football and rugby, or baseball and cricket.

I love both sports, but boxing is in a serious slump at the moment, especially the heavyweight scene.

 

[Happiness]

Two completely different sports that have a common origin. Can't really compare them, like football and rugby, or baseball and cricket.

I love both sports, but boxing is in a serious slump at the moment, especially the heavyweight scene.

Boxing HW scene is pretty strong in Europe.

 

[jlagman]

Its logically testing the limits of your premise. You assert boxing artificially imposes limits on what type of marital techniques are allowed, and MMA by merits of allowing more techniques is a better more fuller sport and is therefor better and more evolved and would beat boxing is a "real fight". You entirely ignored the fact MMA, as it is extant, artificially limits combat in multiple ways, the most glaring of which is the embargo placed on all weapons. What i concluded is that the enjoyment of the as sports is not defined by how close they to real combat, or which would beat the other in a fight, becasue neither is particularity close to a real fight. Other factors like personal preference is what gauge which is preferably to an individual, not arbitrary limitations relative to a "real" fight.

Your opinion of what is better to watch is exactly that, your personal preference is of seeing multiple arts mixed together, that has nothing to do with which "more real" . If most real was really how you judged a combat sport, war would be the ultimate for you, becasue it's the most real.

My assertion was actually contesting trying to claim MMA is better by way of claiming a MMA artist will beat a boxer is silly. The implicit understanding of that claim is that which sport is better in a combat situation is in fact he better sport, which is nonsense.

How many times do you see the premise bandied around this forum that MMA is better becasue and MMA fighter can beat a boxer in a fight? That's a totally as sine criteria to base which sport is "better" on.

All sports have different rule sets, and the enjoyment someone gets either contesting of viewing that sports with those guidelines dictates what they prefer.

Couture beating Toney has absolutely nothing to with which sport people prefer to watch.

Fucking beautiful.

 

[MacDiz]

Boxing HW scene is pretty strong in Europe.

No, it's not. Haye is a joke, who loves running his mouth but will only fight bums. I mean, Audley Harrison? What the fuck has he done as a pro to deserve a title shot? Ridiculous. The Klitschkos are talented but extremely boring, jab jab grab, jab jab grab....

 

[Happiness]

No, it's not. Haye is a joke, who loves running his mouth but will only fight bums. I mean, Audley Harrison? What the fuck has he done as a pro to deserve a title shot? Ridiculous. The Klitschkos are talented but extremely boring, jab jab grab, jab jab grab....

You might want to see how many viewers the Klitschklos get for their fights. The numbers are pretty staggering.

 

[rosettastoned]

Its logically testing the limits of your premise. You assert boxing artificially imposes limits on what type of marital techniques are allowed, and MMA by merits of allowing more techniques is a better more fuller sport and is therefor better and more evolved and would beat boxing is a "real fight". You entirely ignored the fact MMA, as it is extant, artificially limits combat in multiple ways, the most glaring of which is the embargo placed on all weapons. What i concluded is that the enjoyment of the as sports is not defined by how close they to real combat, or which would beat the other in a fight, becasue neither is particularity close to a real fight. Other factors like personal preference is what gauge which is preferably to an individual, not arbitrary limitations relative to a "real" fight.

Your opinion of what is better to watch is exactly that, your personal preference is of seeing multiple arts mixed together, that has nothing to do with which "more real" . If most real was really how you judged a combat sport, war would be the ultimate for you, becasue it's the most real.

My assertion was actually contesting trying to claim MMA is better by way of claiming a MMA artist will beat a boxer is silly. The implicit understanding of that claim is that which sport is better in a combat situation is in fact he better sport, which is nonsense.

How many times do you see the premise bandied around this forum that MMA is better becasue and MMA fighter can beat a boxer in a fight? That's a totally as sine criteria to base which sport is "better" on.

All sports have different rule sets, and the enjoyment someone gets either contesting of viewing that sports with those guidelines dictates what they prefer.

Couture beating Toney has absolutely nothing to with which sport people prefer to watch.

I agree with your point in general, but the "well if you think that way, then war is the ultimate combat sport" stance is pretty silly.

Also not having weapons as a limitation when comparing mma to a real fight? Almost all real fights have kicking or wrestling at some point, as well as punching. Fights where people pick up a chair or pull out a gun/knife are not the norm in my experience haha.

But like I said, I agree with your point. When comparing MMA and Boxing as sports, you should think about how exciting or technical or whatever... Not what guy would win in a street brawl.

 

[jlagman]

No, it's not. Fedor is a joke, who loves running his mouth but will only fight bums. I mean, Zulu? What the fuck has he done as a pro to deserve a title shot? Ridiculous. Georges St. Pierre is talented but extremely boring, hump, hump, hump....

See what I did there?

 

[MacDiz]

You might want to see how many viewers the Klitschklos get for their fights. The numbers are pretty staggering.

That's irrelevant. They're dominating the scene, but do you honestly think in 20 years time people are going to be talking about the Klitschkos? I doubt it man.

Let me put it another way, Soulja Boy sells a lot of records. But he's shit.

 

[jlagman]

I agree with your point in general, but the "well if you think that way, then war is the ultimate combat sport" stance is pretty silly.

Also not having weapons as a limitation when comparing mma to a real fight? Almost all real fights have kicking or wrestling at some point, as well as punching. Fights where people pick up a chair or pull out a gun/knife are not the norm in my experience haha.

But like I said, I agree with your point. When comparing MMA and Boxing as sports, you should think about how exciting or technical or whatever... Not what guy would win in a street brawl.

It's a valid point, and a cold, hard reality check for MMA fans that think that the sport they watch is "real fighting" when it isn't. Anytime you add rules, you dictate the behaviours, viable strategies, an popular techniques employed.

 

[Happiness]

That's irrelevant. They're dominating the scene, but do you honestly think in 20 years time people are going to be talking about the Klitschkos? I doubt it man.

Let me put it another way, Soulja Boy sells a lot of records. But he's shit.

In Europe they will be talking about them in 20 years. HW boxing is weak in America, that's not the same as HW boxing being weak worldwide.

And actually, the Kiltschos are both pretty fine HWs.

 

[MacDiz]

See what I did there?

I do see what you did there, yes. I would agree with you about Fedor to an extent, but he's earned that right as the GOAT, that's like criticizing Ali for fighting Coopman.

As for GSP being a boring fighter? I would strongly disagree there, if you had said Fitch, maybe, but GSP uses wrestling aggressively and has only had 7 decisions in 23 pro fights. If you can't see that, and think he's just lay and pray I won't bother arguing any further.

 

[Ramon Antonio]

The whole discussion of which sport is 'better' or 'more entertaining' is a waste of time. Everyone has their own taste in what they find entertaining. People can give as many arguments as they want but you won't convince anyone to suddenly like the other sport better. It's like me trying to convince you that blue is the best color ever. Either you agree or you don't.

You can however make assumptions about which sport would be more effective in a certain situation but even that won't make a sport more entertaining than the other.

All I can say is that I personally appreciate a good fight wether it be in boxing, MMA or K-1. However for me, K-1 has the highest percentage of entertaining fights, followed by MMA and then boxing. That doesn't mean I'd rather watch a Jon Fitch fight than a good boxing match.

 

[Happiness]

I agree with your point in general, but the "well if you think that way, then war is the ultimate combat sport" stance is pretty silly.

Also not having weapons as a limitation when comparing mma to a real fight? Almost all real fights have kicking or wrestling at some point, as well as punching. Fights where people pick up a chair or pull out a gun/knife are not the norm in my experience haha.

But like I said, I agree with your point. When comparing MMA and Boxing as sports, you should think about how exciting or technical or whatever... Not what guy would win in a street brawl.

It's a simple point, if you are really going to base which the better sport is based on which wins in a fight against the other removing limitations and letting people go at it would be the ultimate test of which sport was "the best".

For example, if i kept MMA rules but allowed both fighters to bring a katana into the fight, called it "extreme MMA" then challenged a mma fighter to a match, would it be a valid argument to claim my sport was better? Because the mma guy never stood a chance if he fought under mma rules. The logical conclusion to that line of thinking is a nuclear missile is the ultimate evolution to martial arts beaucse it beats anything and everyone in a fight.

I could also spout of catch phrases like "more evolved" and "more complete."

The reality is all sports are guided by artificial limitations. It is not the "reality" of a sport or how that sport competes directly with another that dictates what all people find enjoyable about each sport.

Anyway, personally i enjoy watching both sports, but i watch far more MMA than boxing noways. My enjoyment as a viewer is not based on trying to figure out which would beat the other in a fight. My enjoyment is based around trying to see how good each fighter is within the rules.Personal brilliance which captures the imagination is what addicts me to sport, and i see it in both MMA and boxing.

 

[jlagman]

I do see what you did there, yes. I would agree with you about Fedor to an extent, but he's earned that right as the GOAT, that's like criticizing Ali for fighting Coopman.

As for GSP being a boring fighter? I would strongly disagree there, if you had said Fitch, maybe, but GSP uses wrestling aggressively and has only had 7 decisions in 23 pro fights. If you can't see that, and think he's just lay and pray I won't bother arguing any further.

Actually, I don't think you saw what I did there, which was to prove a point; general blanket statements are general.

:icon_neut

 

[Happiness]

Rotfl, next season of TuF immediately after each team is picked all fighters are handed a katana.

TuF noob 1"whats this for?"

Dana "We are going with a slightly different format this year, DO YoU WANT TO BE A FUCKING FIGHTER?"

 

[J Turner]

Actually, I don't think you saw what I did there, which was to prove a point; general blanket statements are general.

:icon_neut

That isn't what it came across as at all. It sounded like you were trying to directly compare boxing's problems with MMA's 'problems' (boxing has far more issues than MMA does right now)

You should try to be more obvious in the future if you want people to understand your point, no sense in messing around.

On topic: I watch both, people think that they counter each other but I don't see that happening at all. Boxing's problems are all Boxing's own fault.

Even if MMA was never invented, Boxing would still be in the exact same position it is today. It's a declining sport, I'm sure I don't have to go into the reasons, everyone knows what the problems are with it.

So, I watch both, I enjoy both just as much as the other. Trying to compare them is really pointless. It's like trying to work out whats better, American Football, or Rugby (sure they are very similar, but at the same time quite different and unrelated to one another)

Point is: There shouldn't be a rivarly between the sports, the only thing they (albeit arguably) have in common is a thier market demographic, but we are in no position to try and quantify that.

 

[endovelico]

and thus, mixed martial arts is the ultimate evolution of combat sports and the purest/truest form of fighting.

Krav Maga disagrees.

 

[jlagman]

That isn't what it came across as at all. It sounded like you were trying to directly compare boxing's problems with MMA's 'problems' (boxing has far more issues than MMA does right now)

You should try to be more obvious in the future if you want people to understand your point, no sense in messing around.

On topic: I watch both, people think that they counter each other but I don't see that happening at all. Boxing's problems are all Boxing's own fault.

Even if MMA was never invented, Boxing would still be in the exact same position it is today. It's a declining sport, I'm sure I don't have to go into the reasons, everyone knows what the problems are with it.

So, I watch both, I enjoy both just as much as the other. Trying to compare them is really pointless. It's like trying to work out whats better, American Football, or Rugby (sure they are very similar, but at the same time quite different and unrelated to one another)

Point is: There shouldn't be a rivarly between the sports, the only thing they (albeit arguably) have in common is a thier market demographic, but we are in no position to try and quantify that.

Dude comes is talking some shit about the Klitchkos being boring, jab and clinch fighters, then tries to "make me aware" of St. Pierre's brilliant technical wizardry on the mats. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me, because if he actually watched and understood boxing, he'd realize that the Klitchkos put on very dominating and technically brilliant performances as well.

I know it isn't the best idea to counter ignorance with more ignorance, but this is a forum, i find it funny, and don't really give a shit.

 

[Metal_Daze]

You might want to see how many viewers the Klitschklos get for their fights. The numbers are pretty staggering.

Yes, but both are closing in the end of their career. Name ONE HW guy that has that name recognition? That's the biggest problem with boxing: they don't see the future, they promote the same names over and over again until they're 40 years old. Then, nobody's there to replace them when they hang them up. I tell you, the day Maywether, Manny and the Klitchko retire will be the sunset of boxing. Who will replace those guys?