Suikoden Urgent and Inspirational Kosher Objective Xperience

Suikox Home | The Speculation Shelter | Tablet of Stars | Suikoden Timeline | Suikoden Geography |Legacies


  [ View Profile | Edit Profile | Nation System | Members | Groups | Search | Register | Check PMs | Log in | FAQ ]

Boxing vs. Mixed Martial Arts (UFC)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Sports
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rovalis




Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Post Count: 323
Location: Soto Caridad
3612 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:49 pm    Post subject: Boxing vs. Mixed Martial Arts (UFC) Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

My idea on it is fairly simple. I respect boxing for what it is, but it's just so limited. Mixed Martial Arts is everything, and more closely resembles a REAL fight.

I'll throw down a more in-depth opinion after some responses.
_________________
And so it went, the inexorable elimination of the superfluous...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tullaryx

Custodiae Corvi


Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Post Count: 5577
Location: Apacheta
4092785 Potch
200 Soldiers
20 Nation Points

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I'm sure this really belongs more in the Sports Forum. One of the mods will move it in due course.

I have nothing against either style of fighting. Both have their appeal and place in the sports world. I think the derogatory attitudes from both camps towards the other just makes them look foolish. MMA fighters do have matches which resemble fights more than boxing, but even then it's really not streetfighting. With the rules implemented to make MMA fights less brutal than it had been in the past to keep government regulators off their back, MMA circuits have become mainstream.

Boxing has been getting a bad rap from fight fans of the younger generation due to it being boring. Maybe the heavyweight class has become a joke and a shadow of its former glories, but boxing has had a continued resurgence of the middle and lighter weight class which seem to have fight of the year honors year in and year out. The only thing which bugs me about boxing nowadays are the promoters who end up dictating who fights who instead of just pairing up the top two fighters in the division to see who is best.

This is where MMA has found an advantage they could exploit. Since they don't have multiple promoters its always easier in the UFC and Pride FC to put together a match between the top fighters in their division. We rarely see that now in boxing unless promoters agree to get it done.

Personally, I prefer boxing over MMA fights when it comes to sheer spectacle and brutal fights. MMA fights either slow down once grappling and submission techniques begin (not that I mind but it does slow down the matches) or they end too quickly once someone goes down from a kick or punch and the opponent cashes in and starts pounding away.

We don't see that in boxing unless you have such powerful and menacing fighters of the Tyson kind. Ask the true fight aficionados which have been the best fights of the past ten years and most likely it will be matches between boxers from middleweight down to flyweight. I mean anyone who has seen the three fights between Arturo Gatti and Mickey Ward will have seen some of the best fights of the past decade. The trilogy of Marco Antonio Barreira and Erik Morales have also had fight of the year honors. Lately, the fight trilogy to make the best fight books have been the Manny Pacquiao and Erik Morales trifecta.

I've followed MMA since it's early UFC days and I honestly admit that none truly stand out in my mind as fight of the decade or even go down in fighting history as part of the greatest fight department.

Do I see MMA as just a passing trend and fad? Not really, since I see it as a growing sport which would in time be as profitable for its owners, promoters and fighters as boxing have been for those involved in it. But for someone to say boxing has gone by the wayside doesn't really know the sport or its history and never really seen great fights.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Scarlet Assassin

Disciples of Death


Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Post Count: 5509
Location: Xasta Grassland
331436 Potch
0 Soldiers
2442517 Nation Points

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Moved to sports and...

I took boxing lessons as a kid and I think that a lot of people mistake the pace of boxing and the strategy involved for a boring fight. If one doesn't understand the thought process of a boxer as he's staring down his opponent, than I'm sure the fight could look very uneventful, but as someone who has been in the ring, let me tell you that it's more about nerves and, reflexes, and brain power than strength. That's why Foreman came back after retiring and could still take on opponents half his age.
_________________

Chief of Beat-em-up Honeys Division, Devoted Protector of Lady Tifa Lockhart
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Tullaryx

Custodiae Corvi


Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Post Count: 5577
Location: Apacheta
4092785 Potch
200 Soldiers
20 Nation Points

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Yeah, Foreman is a very good example. I would also say that Sugar Ray Leonard was another fighter who seemed to defy his age since he took down top fighters after top fighters years after he was said to have been past his prime and washed up due to several injuries with a detached retina being just one of them.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Agahnim

Endurvakning


Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Post Count: 3057
Location: Mauthe
932410 Potch
200 Soldiers
36 Nation Points

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I used to follow PRIDE for a long time and sometimes UFC, but I was quite disappointed to see PRIDE get taken over by UFC; especially in the manner that PRIDE went out. As a big fan of Kazuyuki Fujita, it was upsetting for me to watch him go out in defence of PRIDE and lose to a UFC guy like Jeff Monson.

As for boxing vs. mixed martial arts, I'll go with MMA everytime, just because the wrestling and matwork is one of the most interesting elements of this kind of competition for me; although I have watched quite a lot of K-1. One of the main things that puts me off boxing and similar things is the big gloves they wear. I know that it still hurts an awful lot to be hit with one of those big gloves, but it doesn't look as painful as when someone gets hit by the smaller MMA gloves, to me.
_________________

"The strong manly ones in life are those who understand the meaning of the word patience."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Before I address the actual question, there are a few sub points that I want to address.

First off, about boxing being boring, it can be. So can MMA. In fact, nearly all of the MMA fights I've seen have been quite boring and homogenous "take the guy down, elbow him in the temple until the ref stops it". Matches in every sport or activity can be boring or can be exciting. MMA isn't really an exact analogue for a real fight. In real fights, you can't tap out out of reflex of the pain that will come from a submission. Further, in a real fight, your first goal shouldn't be to take someone to the ground, where in many MMA fights they drop to the ground to pound away as soon as possible.

Secondly, in response to Agahnim's comment about the gloves, having been hit with both, I just want to say that neither is pleasant, and are unpleasant in completely different ways. The boxing glove may have some padding, but it disperses over a wider area. Really, it's like comparing being hit with a bullet and a bowling ball. Both can be quite painful, both can be lethal. The gloves may be bigger in boxing, but don't let that fool you into thinking the pads deafen the blow a lot, because they often don't.

Now, for the question at hand. Well, first off, there are a lot of different scenarios that flavor this question, so lets get a few of the obvious out of the way. First, and most importantly, let's assume equal skill levels. A good but not great MMA fighter will still likely lose to the best boxers and vice versa. The only way to make the question a fair one is to assume that the MMA fighter is equally good at being an MMA fighter as the boxer is at being a boxer. Let's assume both are equally talented and both are rather good. This will make the question somewhat decent to answer.

Second, let's assume it's just a normal fight. An equally skilled MMA fighter in a boxing match will lose to the boxer. The more likely varied skill set of an MMA fighter won't make any difference in that scenario.

So, let's look at who has the advantage. A common argument is that an MMA fighter will win because they have to do more in their respective sport. I don't buy that, and here's an analogy to explain why. Take a triathlete. To be a successful triathlete, they have to train and be good runners, good cyclists, and good swimmers. Does that mean the best triathlete is doing to beat the best runner in a foot race or a Tour de'France caliber cyclist in a bike race, or an Olympic class swimmer in a pool? No, they wouldn't win, because all the time they spent on the other sports, the specialists have spent perfecting their trade.

The same applies to boxing vs. MMA. There are a lot of things in boxing that MMA fighters can't be as proficient in as a boxer. There are a lot of hits that MMA fighters that would either be dodged completely be the boxer or, at the minimum, have the blow deflected or weakened in some way. The boxer's punches are going to be harder than the MMA fighters, because that's what the boxer trains to do. They're going to be better punchers than the MMA fighter. This means that at at least a fists length, the MMA fighter is at a disadvantage.

That said, if the MMA fighter can get the boxer to the ground, they'll have a better chance to win, assuming they are a ground fighter. However, a lot of that depends on the style of the fighter. Not all MMA fighters are submission experts, and not all are good ground fighters. That factors in.

Now, let's assume the MMA fighter is a capable ground fighter. To win, he needs to be able to get in to get the fighter to the ground without taking too much damage, which the boxer would be able to dish out better as long as they are standing. If they can't, the boxer would have the solid advantage. If they can, the MMA fighter would have the advantage. To be able to, they need to be agile enough to get in quickly yet tough enough to take the blows they are going to inevitably take. In addition, when they are on the ground, they need to be sure the boxer isn't able to take them out unexpectedly. There are plenty of MMA fighters who can do that, but can they do it to equally talented boxers, who are going to have the skill and toughness to deal with it? That's another question.

So, in conclusion, it's not a black and white situation, it's a complex one. Both sides have their advantages and both sides have the potential to beat the other. In the end, you're not going to have equally skilled, so I think you're likely to see a mismatch in some way or another, because neither side is likely to want to make themselves and their sport look bad by entering that scenario. I think, realistically, you would more likely see a fight between a scrub and a good fighter in any matchup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
ferrouslupusrex

Ferrouslupusrex


Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Post Count: 369
Location: Grasslands
563 Potch
673 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Boxing is actually a more dangerous sport than MMA simply because the repeated blows allowed to the head in boxing will eventually lead to brain damage as opposed to very little punishment done in MMA because the refs are very quick enough (or too overzealous) to step in and stop the fight before the other fighter gets too injured.

But MMA takes the cake but I just find watching 2 grown men raising the other's leg and humping them (mat work often resembles this) as manly :)

My father says what kind of freaking homo thing was I watching. I said this is how real fights happen. He says that's too idiotic because in real fights the one on top would have already squeezed the balls of the bottom guy. It would no longer be a fight once the opponent hit the floor so being the good son, I would switch it to boxing and return to MMA IF it's a fight between strikers. He find striking manlier than matwork :roll:
_________________
- 108 Soldiers, 1 for EVERY star.
Keynes' (Chapter 1 Hero) performing his kata
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fundertaker

Mountain Stallion Riders


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Post Count: 1959
Location: Barko Saywa
336708 Potch
200 Soldiers
14 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Your father needs to encounter a Gracie somewhere. Whatever he tries, he'll be the one crying like a baby when the one he encountered put him in an armbar after 5 seconds of fight and a BJJ takedown. And I'm not a fan of them (Gracies), nor am I putting down your father, but this is what would happen.
_________________
Tinto: Kicking Asses is our Speciality


This post is officially Fundertaker Approved
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
ferrouslupusrex

Ferrouslupusrex


Joined: 16 Jun 2007
Post Count: 369
Location: Grasslands
563 Potch
673 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

But you know, Technically he IS correct. In a street fight. The bottom guy would have scrambled eggs if the other decides to fight dirty (hehe...) There is just very little that you can do when you are in the bottom position and the other guy had already crushed your balls. There is no way anyone can think straight after their sac has been crushed.

In real fights where one has to absolutely win, his 'strategy' makes a lot of sense. An armbar is less effective than one ball crushing grip, dont you agree?
_________________
- 108 Soldiers, 1 for EVERY star.
Keynes' (Chapter 1 Hero) performing his kata
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shabadoo




Joined: 19 May 2004
Post Count: 82

56688 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Amyral wrote:
Before I address the actual question, there are a few sub points that I want to address.

First off, about boxing being boring, it can be. So can MMA. In fact, nearly all of the MMA fights I've seen have been quite boring and homogenous "take the guy down, elbow him in the temple until the ref stops it". Matches in every sport or activity can be boring or can be exciting. MMA isn't really an exact analogue for a real fight. In real fights, you can't tap out out of reflex of the pain that will come from a submission. Further, in a real fight, your first goal shouldn't be to take someone to the ground, where in many MMA fights they drop to the ground to pound away as soon as possible.

Secondly, in response to Agahnim's comment about the gloves, having been hit with both, I just want to say that neither is pleasant, and are unpleasant in completely different ways. The boxing glove may have some padding, but it disperses over a wider area. Really, it's like comparing being hit with a bullet and a bowling ball. Both can be quite painful, both can be lethal. The gloves may be bigger in boxing, but don't let that fool you into thinking the pads deafen the blow a lot, because they often don't.

Now, for the question at hand. Well, first off, there are a lot of different scenarios that flavor this question, so lets get a few of the obvious out of the way. First, and most importantly, let's assume equal skill levels. A good but not great MMA fighter will still likely lose to the best boxers and vice versa. The only way to make the question a fair one is to assume that the MMA fighter is equally good at being an MMA fighter as the boxer is at being a boxer. Let's assume both are equally talented and both are rather good. This will make the question somewhat decent to answer.

Second, let's assume it's just a normal fight. An equally skilled MMA fighter in a boxing match will lose to the boxer. The more likely varied skill set of an MMA fighter won't make any difference in that scenario.

So, let's look at who has the advantage. A common argument is that an MMA fighter will win because they have to do more in their respective sport. I don't buy that, and here's an analogy to explain why. Take a triathlete. To be a successful triathlete, they have to train and be good runners, good cyclists, and good swimmers. Does that mean the best triathlete is doing to beat the best runner in a foot race or a Tour de'France caliber cyclist in a bike race, or an Olympic class swimmer in a pool? No, they wouldn't win, because all the time they spent on the other sports, the specialists have spent perfecting their trade.

The same applies to boxing vs. MMA. There are a lot of things in boxing that MMA fighters can't be as proficient in as a boxer. There are a lot of hits that MMA fighters that would either be dodged completely be the boxer or, at the minimum, have the blow deflected or weakened in some way. The boxer's punches are going to be harder than the MMA fighters, because that's what the boxer trains to do. They're going to be better punchers than the MMA fighter. This means that at at least a fists length, the MMA fighter is at a disadvantage.

That said, if the MMA fighter can get the boxer to the ground, they'll have a better chance to win, assuming they are a ground fighter. However, a lot of that depends on the style of the fighter. Not all MMA fighters are submission experts, and not all are good ground fighters. That factors in.

Now, let's assume the MMA fighter is a capable ground fighter. To win, he needs to be able to get in to get the fighter to the ground without taking too much damage, which the boxer would be able to dish out better as long as they are standing. If they can't, the boxer would have the solid advantage. If they can, the MMA fighter would have the advantage. To be able to, they need to be agile enough to get in quickly yet tough enough to take the blows they are going to inevitably take. In addition, when they are on the ground, they need to be sure the boxer isn't able to take them out unexpectedly. There are plenty of MMA fighters who can do that, but can they do it to equally talented boxers, who are going to have the skill and toughness to deal with it? That's another question.

So, in conclusion, it's not a black and white situation, it's a complex one. Both sides have their advantages and both sides have the potential to beat the other. In the end, you're not going to have equally skilled, so I think you're likely to see a mismatch in some way or another, because neither side is likely to want to make themselves and their sport look bad by entering that scenario. I think, realistically, you would more likely see a fight between a scrub and a good fighter in any matchup.


You have some interesting points, and I agree that anything remotley resembling a valid comparison would require two on a similar echelon of talent. But IMO it is next to impossible to get one MMA guy against one boxer and make a valid comparison. They're so many varrying skill sets and fighters in MMA that I just don't see it being possible.

Let's for a second take two fighters of a similar level, say Sean Sher and Floyd Mayweather, I am in no way saying that Sherk is to MMA what Mayweather is to boxing just a quick comparison of champions from what I think are similar weight classes. In a straight fight IMO Sherk will win this fight 9/10 times simply because I can't see Mayweather being able to do anything to stop the takedown and once he's on the ground he can't do anything. Vice versa in a boxing match Mayweather would deystroy Sherk much the same way. Although if you take an MMA guy who's main game is punching he'll be picked apart by a boxer.

Not to mention you have other things to throw in like Muay Thai Guys who like to utilize the clinch, I know boxing does have some clinching in it but it's not utilized the same way as kickboxing. Also with the kicking and kneeing aspect that can take away from the boxers game since he will loose some mobility on acount of being left open to some strikes.

Also on another note, I have a cousin who's a big boxing fan and doesn't like MMA. He has some valid points like the stand-up being sloppy, which in many cases is true (not everyone is Anderson Silva) but he also says that then they'll just go to the ground for the majority of the round. It's really hard to appreciate the ground fighting if you don't know what your looking at much as the same way with MMA fans saying the pacing is boring just because they don't know the subtlety to watch for in the fights.

For the most part this debate really just boils down to which one you perfer watching/practicing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Sports All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
suikox.com by: Vextor


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  Username:    Password:      Remember me