MMA Thread

[ThunderHorse]

Sure it is. And if someone was claiming that it would be obvious that rugby players would dominate in NFL football, as you are with boxers in MMA, then I would say they should be doing it.

A. Don't kid yourself, any professional sport becomes about the money. No matter how much you love the game or the sport, there's a reason guys aren't choosing to do it for free. If it wasn't about the money, we would never have to worry about seeing big boxing matches get scuttled because of money, but it happens. It might not be the primary force behind every fight, but it is behind many.

B. Well, you claim that the boxer would obviously win an MMA fight because their hand speed, jab, and footwork would nullify any other skills the MMA fighter might have, so why wouldn't they try it? This may come as a shock to you, but many fighters are - as many professional athletes in any sport - very competitive. They like to challenge themselves and prove themselves. Its why you see world class jiu jitsu guys move into MMA, MMA fighters into boxing and kickboxing, and so on. Why would this apply to other forms of combat sports but not boxing? So it wouldn't necessarily be about the "easy buck", but also the chance to prove themselves. Or are you going to claim that boxers are so pure of their love for their sport that they wouldn't be tempted by sure base urges?

Your picking a fight for no reason...

please provide a quote where I specifically said Boxers would dominate in MMA... none the less where I said boxers would dominate in a street fight, which was the original argument. truth is I never said boxers would dominate in either, I simply said to believe that a MMA fighter wins 99% of the time is Naive.

if it was ALL about money, you wouldn't see boxers going through 20 - 30 fights before the real cash started coming in...

obviously money has a lot to do with the sport, but it has a lot to do with any professional sport. don't underestimate the fact that some people can't just give it up, take Ali for example, he was fighting long past his prime, and many say he should have stopped fighting completely after Ali - Frazier 3 (Thrilla in Manilla), Ali sure as hell wasn't broke. nor was George Foreman when he came back and won the heavyweight title at 45, nor is James Toney who is in his 40's yet continues to fight for no other reason then he wants to be heavyweight champion of the world, Vitali Klitscho held a position in office for his country but decided to come back to boxing, I doubt he has money problems.

I'm not saying $ isn't a big part of the sport, it is a big part of every professional sport, whether it be Football, Basketball, or Boxing... but MMA and Boxing are completely different when you start talking money.

for example, I saw a video a while back saying that Chuck Lidell had a main event fight where he was paid 250,000K. there's undercards for boxing matches that more then that. which brings up the point... why would you switch sports to something your not as good at, not to mention, even if you ended up being the best in it, you wouldn't make any more $ then you are now? switching to MMA would be one of the dumbest things a boxer could do, for both reasons.

[Bigpapa42]

maybe if the MMA guy manages to get a hold of him... otherwise, a good boxer's hands are so fast, much faster then ANY MMA guy's hands, that buddy would be asleep on the floor before he could even lunge for a take down, and that's no joke, Boxer's hands are so fast, and so freakishly powerful, not to mention the speed they have, the only chance an MMA guy would have is getting buddy on the ground, and most boxer's move their feet so well and are so fast that its not like buddy is going to open up and go for a takedown without getting tagged 3 or 4 times in the face. and whiffing after the boxer moves.

So you're saying that the only possible chance an MMA fighter has is to go to ground... and that's its going to be very difficult for them to get the boxer to the ground.

If you were not trying to say that a boxer in an MMA fight has a significant advantage over the MMA fighter, then please clarify.

[Kuzzy Powers]

I couldnt even read all of this cause its like someone who wont give up an argument that really cant be won...

[Steel Mamba]

lol @ Mayweather running around like a little girl. It sounds like you're the one that doesn't know boxing. Mayweather is one of the most technically sound fighters in the sport.

[ThunderHorse]

So you're saying that the only possible chance an MMA fighter has is to go to ground... and that's its going to be very difficult for them to get the boxer to the ground.

If you were not trying to say that a boxer in an MMA fight has a significant advantage over the MMA fighter, then please clarify.

you didn't do much to help your cause there...

First, clarify where I said they were fighting in an MMA fight.

Second, I said what I said to put the argument out that its also Naive to believe that a boxer is utterly defenseless against a MMA fighter, which was being insinuated.

I'm sorry I find it stupid that an MMA fighter is going to dominate in a street fight every time because he can tackle a boxer. I guess its completely irrational to think that a boxer doesn't have a chance in a fight because they hit harder or they have good footwork.

This is what I don't understand, no where did I say that a boxer wins or dominates in a fight, even in your quote, I never said a boxer dominates in an MMA match (as your trying to say) nor do I say the dominates in a street fight (which was what the original debate was about before you started making up things).

I don't even think a boxer wins 5 times out of 10 in a street fight against an MMA guy, but I simply believe its ignorant to think that 95%+ of MMA fighters would beat boxers in a street fight.

[ThunderHorse]

lol @ Mayweather running around like a little girl. It sounds like you're the one that doesn't know boxing. Mayweather is one of the most technically sound fighters in the sport.

No,

James Toney is an example of one of the most technically sound fighters in the sport.

Mayweather is a perfect, and I mean clean cut PERFECT example of a boxer, but he isn't a fighter, which is why you never see him willfully trade throws.

Toney is a fighter, he boxes but its the old school type of boxing, where they actually fight, Mayweather picked up the new age run and jab which in large part was started by Ali, perfected by guys like Ray Leonard, and taken to the extreme with guys like Mayweather.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying, Mayweather is a great, GREAT boxer, but he isn't a fighter.

[Bigpapa42]

Okay, for one, you mention the fight going to ground. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on boxing as you seem to consider yourself, but I'm pretty sure the rules in professional boxing don't allow takedowns. Which means you are either talking about an MMA fight or an "open rules" fight, which is a whole lot closer to an MMA match than a boxing match. I'm sorry, but I attempted to use logic to read one of your posts. If that isn't how they are intended to be read, please let me know.

You quite clearly stated that the MMA fighter would have once chance to win - go to ground - and that it was very difficult to do. As not only would the boxer punch him three or four times when he shoots in, but also simply be able to sidestep. So again, please clarify how you are not saying the boxer would dominate with the statement I quoted.

It seems that most logical fans look at it this way - a boxer has a much better chance against an MMA fighter in a boxing match because there is only discipline involved and the boxer is almost certain to be better at it. In an MMA fight, there are multiple disciplines involved, and the boxer is only going to have training in one, which doesn't translate directly. Whereas the MMA fighter is going to have multiple approaches with which to attack the boxer. Thereby having a significant advantage over the boxer in an MMA, even if the MMA fighter is not truly top-level in the other disciplines.

[ThunderHorse]

Okay, for one, you mention the fight going to ground. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on boxing as you seem to consider yourself, but I'm pretty sure the rules in professional boxing don't allow takedowns. Which means you are either talking about an MMA fight or an "open rules" fight, which is a whole lot closer to an MMA match than a boxing match. I'm sorry, but I attempted to use logic to read one of your posts. If that isn't how they are intended to be read, please let me know.

You quite clearly stated that the MMA fighter would have once chance to win - go to ground - and that it was very difficult to do. As not only would the boxer punch him three or four times when he shoots in, but also simply be able to sidestep. So again, please clarify how you are not saying the boxer would dominate with the statement I quoted.

It seems that most logical fans look at it this way - a boxer has a much better chance against an MMA fighter in a boxing match because there is only discipline involved and the boxer is almost certain to be better at it. In an MMA fight, there are multiple disciplines involved, and the boxer is only going to have training in one, which doesn't translate directly. Whereas the MMA fighter is going to have multiple approaches with which to attack the boxer. Thereby having a significant advantage over the boxer in an MMA, even if the MMA fighter is not truly top-level in the other disciplines.

I seriously don't even understand what your trying to prove...

I've already said more often then not an MMA guy is going to win in a street fight, I simply said its naive to think that a boxer is completely defenseless if in some fucked up way a street fight was to occur between the two.

am I wrong for thinking that an MMA boxer doesn't win a street fight every time?

[ThunderHorse]

Again, this is all speculation... its not like you could prove it if you wanted to.

[BigBiss]

As I understand it, it was suppose to be a fix but Ali got scared and it was a shoot, hence the fact that absolutely nothing happened besides Inoki kicking him.

If Inoki fell back on his kicks that would fall in line with other shoots he has been in.

[Bigpapa42]

I seriously don't even understand what your trying to prove...

I've already said more often then not an MMA guy is going to win in a street fight, I simply said its naive to think that a boxer is completely defenseless if in some fucked up way a street fight was to occur between the two.

am I wrong for thinking that an MMA boxer doesn't win a street fight every time?

Well, you made a statement about the advantages a boxer would have over an MMA fighter in an MMA fight or a "street fight". Myself and several others disagreed with those points. You said you never made such a statement, at which point I quoted and asked for clarification. Now you're saying that you think the MMA fighter would have the advantage, which seems to be a direct contradiction to the statement I quoted. To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure where you've been trying to go with all of this. My point was initially to contradict your "the only chance an MMA guy would have is getting buddy on the ground" statement, but now you're saying that's not what you said...

You're free to believe whatever you want. But when you make a post in the MMA thread stating that the only chance an MMA fighter would have against a boxer is to take it to ground and that any takedown attempts would be easy to avoid because of a boxer's footwork, don't be surprised when you are asked to justify those statements. But again, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to read the "the only chance an MMA guy would have is getting buddy on the ground" post and get that you're trying to say that the boxer has a fighting chance.

[ThunderHorse]

Well, you made a statement about the advantages a boxer would have over an MMA fighter in an MMA fight or a "street fight". Myself and several others disagreed with those points. You said you never made such a statement, at which point I quoted and asked for clarification. Now you're saying that you think the MMA fighter would have the advantage, which seems to be a direct contradiction to the statement I quoted. To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure where you've been trying to go with all of this. My point was initially to contradict your "the only chance an MMA guy would have is getting buddy on the ground" statement, but now you're saying that's not what you said...

You're free to believe whatever you want. But when you make a post in the MMA thread stating that the only chance an MMA fighter would have against a boxer is to take it to ground and that any takedown attempts would be easy to avoid because of a boxer's footwork, don't be surprised when you are asked to justify those statements.

Seems to be, but like you've admitted yourself, you didn't bother to read the entire argument.

as I also clearly stated, it was to show that a boxer isn't purely defenseless if an MMA guy decided he wanted to try and tackle him, I see you enjoy going to prior points and pointing them out as if I've never clarified them, but we both know I've done this, which should also mean that the conversation on that particular part of the argument probably should cease, seeing as I can only assume we both see it the same way, or we both don't.

And it is the only chance an MMA guy has, just like the only chance a boxer has is if he manages to stay on his feet. you honestly believe that an MMA fighter can hang with a boxer standing up?

I figured that was conventional wisdom, would I be wrong in doing so?

But again, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to read the "the only chance an MMA guy would have is getting buddy on the ground" post and get that you're trying to say that the boxer has a fighting chance

Easy, read the entire argument before you jump in with assumptions.

[Liquidrob]

you know how easy it is to get a clinch in boxing without taking much damage?

gettng a tie up is easy, some of the best boxers cant stop a guy from getting a tie up over and over again, jounreymen can make a fight go to a decision by just grabbing holding the whole fight

hopkins can throw a overhand, lead with his head and tie you up over and over

the percentages are just not in the boxers favor of landing a clean shot when someone wants to shoot a takedown or just grab, without proper training, its almost a done deal

[ThunderHorse]

you know how easy it is to get a clinch in boxing without taking much damage?

gettng a tie up is easy, some of the best boxers cant stop a guy from getting a tie up over and over again, jounreymen can make a fight go to a decision by just grabbing holding the whole fight

hopkins can throw a overhand, lead with his head and tie you up over and over

the percentages are just not in the boxers favor of landing a clean shot when someone wants to shoot a takedown or just grab, without proper training, its almost a done deal

Tell me where I can find MMA fighters exclusively fighting Boxers and I'll believe you...

that way you'd actually have factual evidence...

but so far, the only thing your putting up is speculation... which is fine, but don't shoot me down for speculating and then do it yourself.

[Bigpapa42]

Given that the statement I've quoted is the initial argument you've made, I'd say its a relatively notable one to focus on. Regardless...

I would not agree that the MMA fighter has no chance standing in your "street fight" scenario. In MMA, there are these things called kicks. Low kicks, high kicks, body kicks... So even if the MMA fighter has to keep it standing, he can use those things called kicks to keep the boxer out of striking distance so the boxer can't use those killer jabs you've talked about. A couple of unchecked leg kicks could hurt the boxers legs to the point where it messes up his footwork and reduces his punching power. It also makes a takedown easier. See, that's why many people feel that MMA fighter has the advantage in an MMA or open fight against a boxer - because there are multiple ways to attack the boxer. The boxer is limited.

And you are absolutely correct on it being speculation. Way to disprove other arguments and nullify your own at the same time.