Watching MMA Boxing is so much more entertaining than real boxing match.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Real fighting is everything goes besides groin kicks, eye pokes or weapons.

Real fights dont allow weapons now? So if someone pulls out a bat, does it become "Fake fighting" or some type of evolved fighting that has yet to be named?
 
Real fights dont allow weapons now? So if someone pulls out a bat, does it become "Fake fighting" or some type of evolved fighting that has yet to be named?

what about small joint manipulation? it's pretty easy to break someones fingers and end the fight
 
You've just called someone a moron because you're not capable of having a reasonable debate with them, the only one who should be embarrassed is you.

Twat's a bit of a weird thing to call someone over the internet too, you need to work on your game a bit.

I think twat is a great word
 
Real fights dont allow weapons now? So if someone pulls out a bat, does it become "Fake fighting" or some type of evolved fighting that has yet to be named?

"Real fighting" was a throw away term I used to describe a FFA test of all the martial arts in inter-species hand to hand combat.

Weapons, eye gouging & groin strikes are game breakers and thus should not be allowed in the rule set. It's the same reason they stop a boxing match when a punch hits below the belt.

Congratulations. It takes a special kind of stupid to need this kind of explanation.
 
Location: Milky Way

Have a seat you corny mf.



You can't keep up with argument.

What a surprise.

You posted one of the worst champions in MMA history being KO'd by a decent boxer.

I could post a gif of one of greatest champions in boxing history in James Toney being ankled picked & strangled by a mediocre MMA fighter in Randy Couture.



MMA is a FFA fight. Boxing is a punching match.

There is no debate as to which simulates a real fight. MMA does and boxing doesn't.

Your GP / Surgeon analogy stinks but I'll employ it to explain why you're view is myopic.

In boxing you have only have one "tool" to perform one "surgery". Your tactics & strategy will of course change based on opponent but your procedural is essentially the same.

In MMA, any & every technique works. We've already seen the highest levels of muay thai, capoeria, karate, wrestling, BJJ & sambo. In MMA you can be a GP or specialize in any particular surgery, whether it be BJJ, Sambo, boxing, muay thai etc.

In the early days we did not, until the skill level & highest level practitioners in their field participated. Eventually, 5 - 10 years down the line you will see MMA fighters have elite boxing.

There is already too big of a training cross over between MMA fighters, boxers & the highest level kickboxers for there not to be.



Don't confuse the truth for me thinking boxing stinks. In early 2017, I'm more so looking forward to the boxing schedule.



I agree. It's easier for boxers to polish their hands because that's all they work on. That's essentially my argument. MMA fighters have to train so many more disciplines just to stay on their feet in a fight.

Now we're seeing parity in the wrestling skills between wrestling specialists & strikers. Eventually we will see striking parity.



Don't confuse catch up with looking exactly the same. Like I already said, most boxing stances won't work in MMA.

We've already had the highest levels of BJJ, wrestling, sambo, muay thai, karate, catch, tae kwon do etc.

Boxing will catch up too.

Again, this isn't a boxing v MMA post. I'm a big fan of both sports but the truth is the truth.

Fair points but I do disagree that a fighter that is spread so thin can excel as an elite level boxer, opposed to guys that are in the gym 6 days a week perfecting one martial art. You could get an exceptional fighter that could do it, but I've been boxing over 20 years and I'm still learning new shit.

And how much time does an mma fighter spend a week training pure boxing. At my old gym the mma guys spent far more time wrestling, jitz and kickboxing/MT than any boxing.

I can't disagree with your points that Mma practitioners have reached the top level in other martial arts but a top boxer in his prime has not crossed over to mma, where as world class wrestlers, bjj, Kickboxers etc have moved to mma because of the money and popularity of the sport. And that has been since the sports inception.
 
Last edited:
"Real fighting" was a throw away term I used to describe a FFA test of all the martial arts in inter-species hand to hand combat.

E.g., testing their legitimacy once employed against bears and wolves and other threatening species?

I think his point was that the term "real fighting" is completely arbitrary and essentially meaningless. The definition of a "real fight" is basically a roundless, judge-less MMA fight according to what you've said, but of course there's no objective reason for why those conditions are chosen, other than it's just what you like. It's certainly not what would be intuitive to a lot of people.
 
I watch boxing for boxing and mma for martial arts and fighting. I enjoy both a lot. I never understood people who tune into mma and shit on the boxing in the sport. Like why are you watching mma for boxing? You watch mma for fighting and different techniques.
 
I watch boxing for boxing and mma for martial arts and fighting. I enjoy both a lot. I never understood people who tune into mma and shit on the boxing in the sport. Like why are you watching mma for boxing? You watch mma for fighting and different techniques.

I'd actually estimate the majority of people who watch the average big PPV card watch MMA primarily just for the striking. From that perspective, considering the striking in MMA is of a much lower quality than what you tend to see in boxing or some variations of kickboxing, I can see the complaints (not that the average viewer really understands a lot of what they're watching, anyway). Let's not forget that Griffin/Bonnar is what many consider the turning point for MMA in the popular imagination in the US. It was a sloppy brawl between two guys with no power and poor skill. I don't know why someone would even really bother watching MMA if they didn't care for the grappling aspects of the sport, as they're just watching an inferior striking product. I watch MMA because I genuinely enjoy the sport, and that involves everything that comes with it. When it all comes down to it, the actual quality of the product rarely matters when it comes to whether or not something sells in combat sports. The larger stories around the fight or fighters is what the majority of the consumers care about.
 
I'd actually estimate the majority of people who watch the average big PPV card watch MMA primarily just for the striking. From that perspective, considering the striking in MMA is of a much lower quality than what you tend to see in boxing or some variations of kickboxing, I can see the complaints (not that the average viewer really understands a lot of what they're watching, anyway). Let's not forget that Griffin/Bonnar is what many consider the turning point for MMA in the popular imagination in the US. It was a sloppy brawl between two guys with no power and poor skill. I don't know why someone would even really bother watching MMA if they didn't care for the grappling aspects of the sport, as they're just watching an inferior striking product. I watch MMA because I genuinely enjoy the sport, and that involves everything that comes with it. When it all comes down to it, the actual quality of the product rarely matters when it comes to whether or not something sells in combat sports. The larger stories around the fight or fighters is what the majority of the consumers care about.

I can understand that line of thinking, but for me mma is like human chess with high stakes consequences. Look at Lineker vs Dillashaw, Lineker couldn't open up and throw his volume like he normally does because he was being taken down. That's the chess match. It's problem solving at the highest level. There are mma strikers who could beat some kickboxers and boxers in a standup fight, it's already been proven. I understand at times it isn't the most technical, but mma is about implementing your craft and game plan and I enjoy that.
 
I can understand that line of thinking, but for me mma is like human chess with high stakes consequences. Look at Lineker vs Dillashaw, Lineker couldn't open up and throw his volume like he normally does because he was being taken down. That's the chess match. It's problem solving at the highest level. There are mma strikers who could beat some kickboxers and boxers in a standup fight, it's already been proven. I understand at times it isn't the most technical, but mma is about implementing your craft and game plan and I enjoy that.

I do, too, it's just that's not really what many people care about. There were plenty of people complaining about how Dillashaw fought Lineker, for example, and this is among people who follow MMA close enough to post about it online.
 
I do, too, it's just that's not really what many people care about. There were plenty of people complaining about how Dillashaw fought Lineker, for example, and this is among people who follow MMA close enough to post about it online.

I didn't have any issue with it, Tj smashed him from the top position, he didn't stall or just hold on. It was a clinical mma performance. I understand casuals probably wanted TJ to stand in front of him and trade punches with him because it would have been more exciting and given Lineker a legit chance to win but that's not what mma is. Most of those people really aren't fans of mma, they just like seeing the highlight reel ko's or submissions. They only enjoy the exciting elements of it, those people really outweigh the actual fans of the sport.
 
Stop trolling. Or do better at it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top