i want your opinions on this (boxing vs mma)

[PUO3]

I'm not defending mma matchmaking, Dan Henderson is getting ready to fight Bisping for the belt lol
And I wouldn't say that is always true. RDA just got knocked out and lost his belt and is going to fight Tony Ferguson next which is just as tough if not a tougher fight than Alvarez. You don't see as many gimme fights at the top of mma as you see in boxing. Hell there are some boxers who will take gimme's coming off wins let alone off losses. It's really a case by case scenario.

Thats just not true on any level. Their top guys fight bums all the time.

Further, theres no where near the talent pool that boxing has.

 

[robjenkins2]

Thats just not true on any level. Their top guys fight bums all the time.

Further, theres no where near the talent pool that boxing has.

Talent pool doesn't matter if top guys are fighting top guys and you would have to give me examples. Typically if you are in the top ten in the ufc you fight nothing but top guys every time out. Keyword, typically.

 

[nastyleft]

In a nutshell, MMA fighters are NOT great fighters. There are few and far between. Most are at a decently high level, but when supposed best in the division champions are getting KO'd something silly after a couple title defenses it only waters down the parity that there still is in MMA. Is that better for the fan? Sure, it makes for unpredictable fights, but ti sit here and say, all these guys are great because anyone can win is disingenuous, when we all know that the "great" fighters in any sport find a way to overcome adversity and still win. If you have champions that are losing because they had a lapse of concentration, didn't train as hard and or are losing in one sided contests, it's because the divisions just aren't as great as some would like to think they are.

The UFC os a monster hype machine that turned itself into a multi billion dollar enterprise convincing many people of just that. Being the monopolists they are I would love to see a group of promoter/managers that figured out a way to make the MMA fighters more money by lining up their own fights in venues they covered themselves and go the way boxers do and tell Dana White and his croonies to go fuck themselves. I think the pitch wouldn't be too hard. You can now promote whatever brand you want to, get as many sponsors as you want, wear whatever you want, commercials everything without the UFCs intervention. And be called a true World Champion fighting g anyone from any promotion anywhere in the world. Imagine guys like Cain Velasquez, Overeem, John Jones, and even GSP in his comeback saying fuck it, I know my marketing power, I don't need the UFC. Shit even Brock or maybe Honda vs Cyborg finally.

 

[robjenkins2]

How do you know if someone is great if they don't fight good competition that can potentially beat them consistently? If you look at other sports, athletes and teams lose all the time, that's competition. Tiger Woods was the best for a long time and lost consistently, Serena Williams loses, the Warriors lost 18 games last year. A lot of these combat sports records are fallacies, it's nice to have a good record but if you didn't beat anyone or fight anyone who could really push you it doesn't really mean anything. If there are only one or two guys in a division that can actually compete with the top guy then that is not a sign of strength of a division, parity is however.

 

[PUO3]

Talent pool doesn't matter if top guys are fighting top guys and you would have to give me examples. Typically if you are in the top ten in the ufc you fight nothing but top guys every time out. Keyword, typically.

Talent pool does matter. There are a few top tier guys in MMA and the rest dont sniff that status.

Furthermore, most UFC's top fighters are hype machines which get brutally derailed.

 

[nastyleft]

How do you know if someone is great if they don't fight good competition that can potentially beat them consistently? If you look at other sports, athletes and teams lose all the time, that's competition. Tiger Woods was the best for a long time and lost consistently, Serena Williams loses, the Warriors lost 18 games last year. A lot of these combat sports records are fallacies, it's nice to have a good record but if you didn't beat anyone or fight anyone who could really push you it doesn't really mean anything. If there are only one or two guys in a division that can actually compete with the top guy then that is not a sign of strength of a division, parity is however.

You have to fight them and WIN! Defend your damn belt! Not just get stomped out like any other chump. When that happens it only makes me say, "hmm maybe he wasn't all that great to begin with". I felt that way when Anderson Silva beat Rich Franklin the 1st time. A dude outta nowhere with a nice reputation pretty much blew right through him. It wasn't until The Spider continued on a historical tear beating everyone that I was convinced, "ok, yeah, Franklin got beat my a greater man..." There's nothing good about parity, it just means theres no one great enough to carry the mantle setting the standard of dominance. I use the eyetest. Are the Cleveland Cavaliers better than the 1991 Chicago Bulls or the team they beat for the Championship? Hell no.
The Warriors losing to the Cavs in the final hardly surprises me when they were down 3-1 in their last round against OKC...Then they're UP 3-1 in the final with Cavs only to lose???!!! THAT'S called parity, and parity is never good. How do you judge a great if they don't dominate? You can only have one or two greats in any year. Otherwise it's all parity with no stand outs. You must stand out to be great.....
By the way, Serena is great because she does NOT lose the big tournaments. Very seldom... Tiger Woods did NOT lose the big tournaments, he crushed his competition by double digit strokes, look at the early-mid 2000s records...

 

[robjenkins2]

Talent pool does matter. There are a few top tier guys in MMA and the rest dont sniff that status.

Furthermore, most UFC's top fighters are hype machines which get brutally derailed.

Talent pool could just mean there are more mid tier and lower tier fighters. There aren't anymore elite guys in boxing than there are in mma and mma fighters get tested more often so that you can actually say they are top tier. Take GGG for example, who has he beaten at all to be considered top tier? Now by the eye ball test we would all say that he is a top notch fighter, but how do we truly know if he doesn't fight anyone credible? When you actually fight good competition you are going to lose. Boxing is the only sport I can think of where the athletes have long stretches of unbeaten dominance, and that is by design. It's all a big ruse outside of some outliers like a Floyd Mayweather.

 

[Marc A]

This thread should be in the wasteland .

Both sports are fun to watch

Yes UFC is hype and that's ok it entertaines


And yes boxing is the king of combat sports around the world with a deeper talent pool which is why it's amazing when you see elite va elite . And it does happen often .


It's bs to argue everyone who is being honest knows this

 

[Sharkey]

I do not think that. I do think they (UFC,ZUFFA) do an amazing job of convincing MMA fans than everyone in their next PPV is the cream of the crop and that a guy with less than 10 pro fights is currently the best there is. Fans think that everyone is elite in the UFC so a bad catchup simply isn't possible.

e.g. We have someone on the boards here who regularly posts about the UFC who somehow thinks that a matchup between the 11th and 15th ranked fighters in a division falls under the category of "great fight" despite both being pretty patient type fighters who have never been in anything close to a "great fight" as far as action goes and with the only somewhat relevant "win" between them both being of one of the worst robberies MMA has seen in recent years.

 

[nac386]

Every time a belt switches hands in the UFC, a new GOAT is born. The fans are ridiculous. Seriously, how many active guys have been called the "GOAT" of their weight class in the last year by at least a handful of people in the heavies?

Mighty Mouse, Cruz, Jones, Aldo, Conor, Wedum, Miocic, McGregor, Dos Anjos, Silva, Cain, Fedor, GSP...did I miss any? Probably several, honestly.

For some reason, they are obsessed with believing that everybody is a magical talent as soon as they experience some success. The problem with that, is that when that magical talent inevitably gets knocked out, it exposes how overrated so many of these guys are.

It's not just silly fans either. Joe Rogan, the unofficial UFC spokesperson, says the same crazy stuff.

MMA fans need to just wait. Give your sport time to develop real great fighters. Saying that everybody is great cheapens what it means to be great.

 

[Kovalev's "Man Bag"]

Both sports are great, TS. You're acting like boxing is dead and sucks. Well, did you watch UFC 200? Tell me that event delivered when we both know that it didn't. UFC fighters are getting popped for PEDs left, right and center by USADA, some of the biggest names in the sport. Yet, you're asking what happened to boxing? I'd be asking what happened to MMA, with the UFC by far being the premier organization leading the way. The UFC was just sold and has new ownership. Let's see how that pans out over the next several years before you question how boxing is doing.

 

[nastyleft]

I'd would say Mighty Mouse, Dominic Cruz, Aldo, Anderson Silva and GSP could be called great because of their dominance over time in their divisions. When you take on the "top ranked" guys over and over again defending your belt many times with little to some danger it's something to take note. Either all their challengers sucked or the dude is pretty damn great.

I'd put Werdum at legendary status because he has wins over everyone prominent at HW in his career, except Overeem. Understand how impressive that is...Cain also because Werdum is the only guy that really beat him since the flukish haymaker from Dos Santos.
I would probably put Jon Jones in there as well. He's been just unbeatable for a long time and has beaten ever former champion at LHW that ever existed, minus Chuck.

 

[nastyleft]

Funny this was a shitty thread to begin, with but we've pretty much carried it for 2 pages..lol

 

[robjenkins2]

You have to fight them and WIN! Defend your damn belt! Not just get stomped out like any other chump. When that happens it only makes me say, "hmm maybe he wasn't all that great to begin with". I felt that way when Anderson Silva beat Rich Franklin the 1st time. A dude outta nowhere with a nice reputation pretty much blew right through him. It wasn't until The Spider continued on a historical tear beating everyone that I was convinced, "ok, yeah, Franklin got beat my a greater man..." There's nothing good about parity, it just means theres no one great enough to carry the mantle setting the standard of dominance. I use the eyetest. Are the Cleveland Cavaliers better than the 1991 Chicago Bulls or the team they beat for the Championship? Hell no.
The Warriors losing to the Cavs in the final hardly surprises me when they were down 3-1 in their last round against OKC...Then they're UP 3-1 in the final with Cavs only to lose???!!! THAT'S called parity, and parity is never good. How do you judge a great if they don't dominate? You can only have one or two greats in any year. Otherwise it's all parity with no stand outs. You must stand out to be great.....
By the way, Serena is great because she does NOT lose the big tournaments. Very seldom... Tiger Woods did NOT lose the big tournaments, he crushed his competition by double digit strokes, look at the early-mid 2000s records...

Tiger lost all the time in his prime, including majors. Serena loses big tournaments too, she just got upset by that huge underdog last year. The 1991 Bulls team lost 23 games. Sports are built on parity and competition and are meant for losses to happen. Rich was a quality fighter but he lost to a style that was better than his, mma is more about style's matchups more so than boxing. I like both and can appreciate both but the boxing model is to avoid real challenges for as long as you can to get to that big payday and I can't blame the athletes for that, that's what the system dictates.

 

[nac386]

Tiger lost all the time in his prime, including majors. Serena loses big tournaments too, she just got upset by that huge underdog last year. The 1991 Bulls team lost 23 games. Sports are built on parity and competition and are meant for losses to happen. Rich was a quality fighter but he lost to a style that was better than his, mma is more about style's matchups more so than boxing. I like both and can appreciate both but the boxing model is to avoid real challenges for as long as you can to get to that big payday and I can't blame the athletes for that, that's what the system dictates.

I don't disagree with the idea behind your post, but you cannot compare tournament sports like golf and tennis, or team sports with 80 games per year, to fighters who fight only a few times per year.

 

[robjenkins2]

Every time a belt switches hands in the UFC, a new GOAT is born. The fans are ridiculous. Seriously, how many active guys have been called the "GOAT" of their weight class in the last year by at least a handful of people in the heavies?

Mighty Mouse, Cruz, Jones, Aldo, Conor, Wedum, Miocic, McGregor, Dos Anjos, Silva, Cain, Fedor, GSP...did I miss any? Probably several, honestly.

For some reason, they are obsessed with believing that everybody is a magical talent as soon as they experience some success. The problem with that, is that when that magical talent inevitably gets knocked out, it exposes how overrated so many of these guys are.

It's not just silly fans either. Joe Rogan, the unofficial UFC spokesperson, says the same crazy stuff.

MMA fans need to just wait. Give your sport time to develop real great fighters. Saying that everybody is great cheapens what it means to be great.

People need to stop lumping all mma fans together, not every fan thinks that way. Just because that is how it is promoted does not mean that it how it is perceived. Woodley just won the belt in spectacular fashion, doesn't mean I think he's even the best fighter in the division. You make some good points though, we live in an world where everyone overreacts. In mma specifically, you can't really tell how great a fighter truly is until he is tested by every style that is out there, or at least that's how I look at it. You might be great against one style of fighter but how well would you do against someone who brings a whole different set of tools. It's rare to see someone who can stand that test and still remain on top standing.

 

[robjenkins2]

I don't disagree with the idea behind your post, but you cannot compare tournament sports like golf and tennis, or team sports with 80 games per year, to fighters who fight only a few times per year.

I was thinking that myself, but the point is that every great athlete loses. The Olympics for example, there are people who will medal who didn't even win the worlds. Jordan Burroughs is one of the greatest wrestlers ever and he has lost some matches. Competition and sport dictates that you lose some.

 

[nastyleft]

Tiger lost all the time in his prime, including majors. Serena loses big tournaments too, she just got upset by that huge underdog last year. The 1991 Bulls team lost 23 games. Sports are built on parity and competition and are meant for losses to happen. Rich was a quality fighter but he lost to a style that was better than his, mma is more about style's matchups more so than boxing. I like both and can appreciate both but the boxing model is to avoid real challenges for as long as you can to get to that big payday and I can't blame the athletes for that, that's what the system dictates.

Tiger didn't lose the big ones. You can't win Every Smaller tournament in golf it's impossible. And Serena may have gotten upset but go ahead and count out the last majors she's won in a row before then...Wimbledon, French Open, US Open etc. I'm not saying people have to go undefeated...especially when they compete 80-90 times a year like NBA, tennis games per match within a tournament. The point is when you fight once maybe twice a year and you lose every other one??? You may not be that great. I can't believe youre comparing other sports where they play way more times per year with a "champion" that would only has 12 fights TOTAL...

 

[robjenkins2]

I'd would say Mighty Mouse, Dominic Cruz, Aldo, Anderson Silva and GSP could be called great because of their dominance over time in their divisions. When you take on the "top ranked" guys over and over again defending your belt many times with little to some danger it's something to take note. Either all their challengers sucked or the dude is pretty damn great.

I'd put Werdum at legendary status because he has wins over everyone prominent at HW in his career, except Overeem. Understand how impressive that is...Cain also because Werdum is the only guy that really beat him since the flukish haymaker from Dos Santos.
I would probably put Jon Jones in there as well. He's been just unbeatable for a long time and has beaten ever former champion at LHW that ever existed, minus Chuck.

Werdum submitted Overeem in Pride with a kimura, good post though.

 

[nac386]

People need to stop lumping all mma fans together, not every fan thinks that way. Just because that is how it is promoted does not mean that it how it is perceived. Woodley just won the belt in spectacular fashion, doesn't mean I think he's even the best fighter in the division. You make some good points though, we live in an world where everyone overreacts. In mma specifically, you can't really tell how great a fighter truly is until he is tested by every style that is out there, or at least that's how I look at it. You might be great against one style of fighter but how well would you do against someone who brings a whole different set of tools. It's rare to see someone who can stand that test and still remain on top standing.

It's not all MMA fans, but it is a major part of MMA fan culture. Look in the heavies, and count how many threads have "GOAT" in the title on any given day. It's really strange to me.