Fans will often boo the ground game, because its two guys on the floor locked in a war of edges, and often stalemating for the most part. Im a little bit fucked up, so i like to imagine im watching crouching tiger, hidden dragon, and they are flying through the air, or some shit. ^The Jokers RNC just werent the same without make up. Unfortunately, for a lot of UFC fans, it looks a lot more like that directors other great success - Brokeback mountain. Explaining the wall game to a boxing friend, i remember telling him, the thing you need to understand, is you are watching a close game, and if one of them makes a mistake, the fight will be over. "...man, i prefer boxing. Theres something sweet about a knock out..." goes the reply. And the reply has been summed up by "go watch that then" for as long as i can remember. Same with wrestling. "Go back to WWE". Only times are changing, and point fighting boxers, and wall game merchants are assuredly next in line, after those dirty LNPers, have been purged from "the big org". In boxing, predominant point fighters like Mayweather have a degree of lineage and pedigree in the sport. Their art is appreciated by a confident pedigree of fighting. LNP can be abated with a stand up, if it truly is stalling. The point based boxing game is interesting over 12 rounds, but seems like an impovershed "experience" over 3. Walling your opponent is a fascinating game of edges, that can turn to a KO as quick as Frank Mir is unable to say "tap". But again, it is for the most part unpopular. Its an art that can also be broken up with an intervention, if it stalemates. Are these two arts in any way objectively better than a marginal ground game? And doesnt it all beat the shit out of two guys banging like retards, in a school yard windmill competition?