Thread: Article claims that Donaire-Montiel demostrates that MMA is safer than Boxing

MMA and UFC News, Rumors and Videos - FightLine.com

What do you guys make of this? In my opinion, the article is bullshit, because I've seen many an occasion where in MMA, a fighter who is out of it takes more punishment. Henderson vs. Bisping is a classic example.

That is complete bullshit. So what he's saying is, if Donaire had much smaller gloves on, landed that punch and then, thanks to the ground game in MMA, jumped on Montiel and landed another one or two punches, that would have been safer? Fighters often take added punishment when they're unconscious in MMA, like you say look at Bisping-Henderson as one example among many.

Originally Posted by bzkfn

MMA and UFC News, Rumors and Videos - FightLine.com

What do you guys make of this? In my opinion, the article is bullshit, because I've seen many an occasion where in MMA, a fighter who is out of it takes more punishment. Henderson vs. Bisping is a classic example.

Bullshit. Can think of numerous examples where i've seen a floored and defencless guy take a clean punch in MMA.

He's singled out the Montiel - Donaire fight because it was a rare occurence. The referee imo got it badly wrong and Montiel took two unecessary shots. You cannot make a comparison when you are basing it on a rare occurence.

When a fighter suffers a knockdown in Boxing, the referee breaks up the action. He then has roughly ten seconds to assess the fighters condition. In MMA, this window of opportunity isn't always there, unless the downed fighter is clearly concussed. Even then, you are relying on the referee to be quick enough to jump over the downed opponent before the other fighter levels him again. The Henderson - Bisping KO is a good example of how this can go wrong.

Again, it would be unfair to compare based on two isolated incidents. However, imo there is less margin for error in boxing. But that's only my opinion.

They're both dangerous sports. I just feel boxing has a little bit more class about it. That much is evident when watching a boxing broadcast. A boxing commentator will more often than not be calling for the referee to call a halt to the fight if a fighter has taken too much punishment. Or, if a fighter has been ko'd, a boxing commentator will show genuine concern for his welfare, and that will be of more importance than showing the re-run of the KO. When i've seen a similar event on the UFC, all i hear is Joe Rogan shouting 'Ground and Pound Baby' or something equally as cringe inducing. Then it will cut to a bunch of jumped up Americans making gang gestures to the camera.

That's only my own experience of watching both sports though. I'm sure a MMA fan will tell me i'm wrong.

Although I don't think the Montiel KO was a good example I do agree that boxing carries far more risk to it.

It's not the one punch devastating knockouts that do the damage. Montiel will be fine.

It's the guys who get hurt, but not hurt enough to stay down. They are rocked and maybe out on their feet but because in boxing you can only fight by throwing punches they are able to survive and take a long and protracted beating.

That is the point the article writer is making. It's common in boxing for one guy to be outclassed in a fight, but for him to be competent enough to defend himself for many rounds, maybe even all 12 and finish the fight, although they accumalate a terrible amount of punishment as a result.

In MMA that rarely happens. Once a fighter is in trouble they are vulnurable to being taken down and stopped. Fights are often over in minutes. It may look more brutal but statistically it is far far far safer, in terms of deaths.

A quick google search shows 68 boxing related deaths from 2000-2009.

So far there has been one MMA death, ever.

It's not possible to argue the fact imo. Quick and brutal knockouts are not as dangerous as long, drawn out and protracted beatings.

Well... the article makes no argument that actually supports the treads statement. His argument lambastes the referee for not stopping the fight when it was clear the fighter could no longer defend himself. He uses Jones' statement to support his statement, however Jones' holds no official position for monitoring the fight and only offers an opinion as to why referee's had poor judgment. The article doesn't even come close, and can easily be turned around to the contrary with his opening argument about how the fight can continue even if the fighter is knocked down.

i agree that boxing is less safe

and i agree with bilboa it isnt the one punch KOs that are the problem

boxers take a constant thudding to the head that causes the problems

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Although I don't think the Montiel KO was a good example I do agree that boxing carries far more risk to it.

It's not the one punch devastating knockouts that do the damage. Montiel will be fine.

It's the guys who get hurt, but not hurt enough to stay down. They are rocked and maybe out on their feet but because in boxing you can only fight by throwing punches they are able to survive and take a long and protracted beating.

That is the point the article writer is making. It's common in boxing for one guy to be outclassed in a fight, but for him to be competent enough to defend himself for many rounds, maybe even all 12 and finish the fight, although they accumalate a terrible amount of punishment as a result.

In MMA that rarely happens. Once a fighter is in trouble they are vulnurable to being taken down and stopped. Fights are often over in minutes. It may look more brutal but statistically it is far far far safer, in terms of deaths.

A quick google search shows 68 boxing related deaths from 2000-2009.

So far there has been one MMA death, ever.

It's not possible to argue the fact imo. Quick and brutal knockouts are not as dangerous as long, drawn out and protracted beatings.

See, I agree with this, and had the writer used an example of a boxer taking a sustained beating, such as Pacquiao-Margarito and used that as the basis of his argument I wouldn't dispute it. You rarely see someone take a drawn out beating in MMA because when someone is hurt, it invariably ends quickly. Using a 2 round demolition where, in an MMA fight, he probably would have jumped on the downed opponent and landed a few more blows before the referee's intervention as evidence to support his claim is poor. I agree with what you've said though

Originally Posted by Cressa121

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Although I don't think the Montiel KO was a good example I do agree that boxing carries far more risk to it.

It's not the one punch devastating knockouts that do the damage. Montiel will be fine.

It's the guys who get hurt, but not hurt enough to stay down. They are rocked and maybe out on their feet but because in boxing you can only fight by throwing punches they are able to survive and take a long and protracted beating.

That is the point the article writer is making. It's common in boxing for one guy to be outclassed in a fight, but for him to be competent enough to defend himself for many rounds, maybe even all 12 and finish the fight, although they accumalate a terrible amount of punishment as a result.

In MMA that rarely happens. Once a fighter is in trouble they are vulnurable to being taken down and stopped. Fights are often over in minutes. It may look more brutal but statistically it is far far far safer, in terms of deaths.

A quick google search shows 68 boxing related deaths from 2000-2009.

So far there has been one MMA death, ever.

It's not possible to argue the fact imo. Quick and brutal knockouts are not as dangerous as long, drawn out and protracted beatings.

See, I agree with this, and had the writer used an example of a boxer taking a sustained beating, such as Pacquiao-Margarito and used that as the basis of his argument I wouldn't dispute it. You rarely see someone take a drawn out beating in MMA because when someone is hurt, it invariably ends quickly. Using a 2 round demolition where, in an MMA fight, he probably would have jumped on the downed opponent and landed a few more blows before the referee's intervention as evidence to support his claim is poor. I agree with what you've said though

Yeah that's it really. He is right imo in citing that boxing is more dangerous, but the example he used to demonstrate it was feeble.

Had that particular fight taken place in MMA Montiel would have took at least one more concussive punch to the face whilst semi conscious on the floor.

Had he used Katsidis vs Amonsot, Calzaghe vs Lacy, or more tragically Jesus Chavez vs Leavander Johnson his claims would be completely justified.

Those kinds of beatings can't really happen in MMA as it's impossible to be consistently dominated and outclassed in that sport without being taken out. In boxing it's possible as the only form of offence is pugilsm and if the guy is competent he can defend himself, albiet at a cost. If the boxer could just grab his exhausted opponent in a head lock or kick his legs out from under him, it would end the fight without the brain being further traumatised.

Both sports are dangerous perhaps in different manners but they can both end up with an opponent dead or seriously injured.

Smaller gloves and allowing knees and kicking can lead to any number of bone fractures and more cutting and swelling. The bigger gloves in boxing are more dangerous to the brain, because you can hit harder (up to a certain point) with bigger gloves.

Allowing a fighter to "come to scratch" is a flaw from a medical standpoint, but its been a part of the sport forever.

I stopped reading after the first two paragraphs... what drivel...

The Author is of the misinformed belief that all you have to do is beat a 10 count and the bout will continue.

No.

You have to be able to STEADILY rise to your feet, comfortably within 10 seconds (any time over 8 is down to the ref's imediate discresion). The referee will then examine you and determin whether or not you are in a fit enough state to continue you fighting.

If the lights are on, but nobody is home then it doesn't matter if you got up on ten... you've been counted out on your feet. Simple as.

You cannot drunkinly stagger back on to your feet and take more punishment.

Referees are trained to look at your pupils, palour, balance and awareness (often asking a random question, what colour are that guy's shorts? where are you? etc) and they also take it consideration the punishment you have taken up until the knock down.

How many times have you seen a MMA fighter, get caught with a concussive punch, get laid out flat, out before he even hits the mat and then have his opponent shoot straight on top of him followed by a barrage of elbows/punches. yes the referee may quickly stop this... but in boxing as soon as you're on your way down - that's it, you've got a possible concussion and the action is halted until it is deemed safe for you to go on.

In MMA, you got hit with a concussive shot and the action doesn't immidiatly stop... the window for follow up hits in much greater.

Yes as soon as you're on the mat, the fight stops if you can't defend yourself, but the time to assess this takes longer than it does for the opponent to land more shots.

In boxing, not only do you have to able to stand back up, get properly looked over... you also have to be able to fight on... look at roy jones last fight... you have to be able to hit and not be hit... even if you just tuck up... if you don't answer back, the fight is over. Even if you do throw back... if there's no defence, the fight is over.

If you can't hit and (not 'or') not be hit during the following exchange then the fight is as good as over.

What fucking tripe.

Both sports are dangerous and you cannot use one referees actions to say that one system is safer than another... look at the rules... not one event.

Originally Posted by AdamGB

I stopped reading after the first two paragraphs... what drivel...

The Author is of the misinformed belief that all you have to do is beat a 10 count and the bout will continue.

No.

You have to be able to STEADILY rise to your feet, comfortably within 10 seconds (any time over 8 is down to the ref's imediate discresion). The referee will then examine you and determin whether or not you are in a fit enough state to continue you fighting.

If the lights are on, but nobody is home then it doesn't matter if you got up on ten... you've been counted out on your feet. Simple as.

You cannot drunkinly stagger back on to your feet and take more punishment.

Referees are trained to look at your pupils, palour, balance and awareness (often asking a random question, what colour are that guy's shorts? where are you? etc) and they also take it consideration the punishment you have taken up until the knock down.

How many times have you seen a MMA fighter, get caught with a concussive punch, get laid out flat, out before he even hits the mat and then have his opponent shoot straight on top of him followed by a barrage of elbows/punches. yes the referee may quickly stop this... but in boxing as soon as you're on your way down - that's it, you've got a possible concussion and the action is halted until it is deemed safe for you to go on.

In MMA, you got hit with a concussive shot and the action doesn't immidiatly stop... the window for follow up hits in much greater.

Yes as soon as you're on the mat, the fight stops if you can't defend yourself, but the time to assess this takes longer than it does for the opponent to land more shots.

In boxing, not only do you have to able to stand back up, get properly looked over... you also have to be able to fight on... look at roy jones last fight... you have to be able to hit and not be hit... even if you just tuck up... if you don't answer back, the fight is over. Even if you do throw back... if there's no defence, the fight is over.

If you can't hit and (not 'or') not be hit during the following exchange then the fight is as good as over.

What fucking tripe.

I think most of us could probably reel off a hundred fights or more where that has not been the case.

Boxing IS more dangerous than MMA because boxers can take a sustained beating, whilst still being able to 'defend' themselves.

Gerald Mclellen, Michael Watson, Leavander Johnson, Spencer Oliver, Billy Collins are just a few examples.

For all it's seeming violence this just doesn't happen in MMA. There has never been a high profile fatality, or even high profile brain injury.

Now their ears and teeth on the other hand.....

Yes, you can take a more sustained beating... but the author is acting like you can get up, barely conscious and be allowed to fight on?

Maybe if the ref is absolutely incompetent you can... but it is not the norm in boxing.

The majority of referees now days are either overly careful or they get it spot on...

Of course a few fuck up... but the longer MMA is around th more you will see MMA refs fuck up too.

If you put a sport that has been around for decades up against one that has been around for centuries than of course one is going to have a higher number of injury and fatality than the other.

I don't think that either sport is massively different in terms of the level of danger... just the types of danger.

Originally Posted by AdamGB

Yes, you can take a more sustained beating... but the author is acting like you can get up, barely conscious and be allowed to fight on?

Maybe if the ref is absolutely incompetent you can... but it is not the norm in boxing.

The majority of referees now days are either overly careful or they get it spot on...

Of course a few fuck up... but the longer MMA is around th more you will see MMA refs fuck up too.

If you put a sport that has been around for decades up against one that has been around for centuries than of course one is going to have a higher number of injury and fatality than the other.

I don't think that either sport is massively different in terms of the level of danger... just the types of danger.

Yeah I agree the OP used a piss poor example to demonstrate his point. But boxing is without doubt a more dangerous sport in terms of long term risk to health.

I don't see this as necessarily bad though. Danger in sport is part of what makes it appealing. There is a reason why Formula 1 and the Grand National are popular imo, and it's not because people like to see objects make their way around a circuit.

If the referee had only seen Montiel having a 3 second seizure, he would have stopped the fight right away. But he did not see it. He was busy guiding Donaire toward the neutral corner while Montiel twitching on the canvas.

....Most MMA fighters don't know how to throw a proper punch anyway