Yeah but this could possibly be more attributed to a certain amount of insecurity (for lack of a better term). Unless you ask them about the skill, experience, and heart it requires to compete, their opinion on that remains obstructed and can't be assumed by a statement that only compares one aspect of a fight game.
There's zero reason for a guy who has only done BJJ to get upset if I say his balance and technique when throwing punches sucks. Yes he can turn around and say my grappling sucks if that's the case, but speaking about his punching ability doesn't even begin to insinuate anything about his BJJ.
Maybe my insecurities stem from biased editoral work.
http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=2188&zoneid=4
"Even if an MMA fighter did beat a top boxer in an MMA fight, Lampley said it would "mean nothing" because "it's a bar fight," and he could go to a bar at any time if he wanted to see a bar fight."
I mean, i didn't see the live broadcast so i don't know, but this seems pretty damned negative to me. I'm also assuming by calling them "bar fighters" he's removing the fact that they train just as hard as boxers in order to be good. Meaning... no heart, skill, but maybe they have experience... in bar fighting.
I don't like one sport over the other. I am not an MMA fanboy that hates boxing--like i said before i like it. I just can see why people think the boxing community discourages/looks down upon MMA or any sort of Martial Art.
"Human cockfighting" "bar fighting" ect ect. you can't ignore the bias. Just because it's a new sport doesn't mean its bad.
Sure, they may not have the best footwork, best balance, ect ect. but maybe the critism is unwarrented because those aspects of the game are not "have them or loose"--you have other things you can work on, and still manage to win an MMA match.
Boxing, you gotta have them, or else your a bad boxer.