Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southakron314

I sound like an old man in the 1950's talking about rock-n-roll. " Im afriad its here to stay."

---

...but Rock'n'Roll was cool....MMA isn't


When it all comes down to the simplicity of the sport people just want to watch boxing....very few people want TKD or ju jitsu or wrestling......fans either want Boxing or WWE.

I just hate that people who can't hack it doing anything else have to make up something like a bunch of pussy ass spoiled brats. The X-Games, And One Basketball, etc they all can't hack it anywhere else

I've said it once and i'll say it again. It takes more skill to win a single disciplined match than a mixed one. In a single discipline (boxing, kick boxing, jiu jitsu, collegiate wrestling, etc.) your options are limited so you have to be greatly skilled to exploit the options you do have. You can clearly measure talent because one person doesn't have something to fall back on that they know better than their opponent. UFC is like letting someone punch in a wrestling match; Its like letting someone tackle somebody in a kick boxing match.

The initial idea was great (kind of a nadal-federer clay/grass court bar bet kind of experiment) but basing a sport around a bar bet is a dumb idea (yeah it makes money but so does meth). Now it is a watered down street fight where somebody has several options to win and skill is hard to measure. A lot of the fights look very amaturish (some outlets more than others) and the concept of the UFC as it stands now is pointless. The only thing the UFC could do worth while is finding a guy who excels at all points of combat or has a fighting style so perfect that he never loses a fight and both of these are impossibilites.

The gracie's won the initial tournament and thats cool hats off to them but they didn't face the best boxer or kick boxers out there at the time. Tyson was well established as a boxing powerhouse by the time the UFC came around and if im not mistaken Vitali Klitschko was a well established kick boxer as well yet they were not in the tournament for whatever reason. The Significance of this is, in a fighting atmosphere where things are multi dimensional, being better on the ground will only serve you well if you can get thru the range that someone in a pure "striking" art can dish out at you.

In the situation where you excel at the ground and your opponent excels fighting upright he has the advantage because the fight starts upright and taking it to the ground means nothing if you can't get thru his ranged punches or kicks. Taking out your opponent in your element before he can even get to his is an advantage that boxers and kickboxers (muai thai as well as suppose) have over someone who is a pure jiu jitsu/ wrestling guy. Cross traing is fine and dandy but theres no way that somebody can become both a master boxer and an excellent jiu jitsu artist or wrestler.

Take any mma fighter and put them in the ring with the rules of any single disciplined arts they have trained in. Against a boxer they lose. Against a kickboxer they lose. Against a wrestler they lose. Against a Muai Thai fighter they lose. Against a Jiu Jitsu guy they lose. Against any single disciplined martial artist (and i'll say this despite the fact that i think a lot of traditional martial arts are unsuitable for combat anyways) they lose if that fight takes place under any single discipline rules.

What you're essentially saying when you say an mma fighter beats a boxer/kickboxer/jiu jitsu fighter under mma rules is that an mma fighter does not have enough skill to beat a guy in a single discipline and can only win if he has an advantage at one thing or another over the other guy. If it stays up the pure boxer/kickboxer/muai thai (striker) wins. If it goes down and stays there, the wrestler/jiu jitsu guy wins. Pure artists have more skill than mixed ones. FACT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southakron314

I sound like an old man in the 1950's talking about rock-n-roll. " Im afriad its here to stay."

---

...but Rock'n'Roll was cool....MMA isn't


When it all comes down to the simplicity of the sport people just want to watch boxing....very few people want TKD or ju jitsu or wrestling......fans either want Boxing or WWE.

I just hate that people who can't hack it doing anything else have to make up something like a bunch of pussy a** spoiled brats. The X-Games, And One Basketball, etc they all can't hack it anywhere else

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punisher136

I've said it once and i'll say it again. It takes more skill to win a single disciplined match than a mixed one. In a single discipline (boxing, kick boxing, jiu jitsu, collegiate wrestling, etc.) your options are limited so you have to be greatly skilled to exploit the options you do have. You can clearly measure talent because one person doesn't have something to fall back on that they know better than their opponent. UFC is like letting someone punch in a wrestling match; Its like letting someone tackle somebody in a kick boxing match.

The initial idea was great (kind of a nadal-federer clay/grass court bar bet kind of experiment) but basing a sport around a bar bet is a dumb idea (yeah it makes money but so does meth). Now it is a watered down street fight where somebody has several options to win and skill is hard to measure. A lot of the fights look very amaturish (some outlets more than others) and the concept of the UFC as it stands now is pointless. The only thing the UFC could do worth while is finding a guy who excels at all points of combat or has a fighting style so perfect that he never loses a fight and both of these are impossibilites.

The gracie's won the initial tournament and thats cool hats off to them but they didn't face the best boxer or kick boxers out there at the time. Tyson was well established as a boxing powerhouse by the time the UFC came around and if im not mistaken Vitali Klitschko was a well established kick boxer as well yet they were not in the tournament for whatever reason. The Significance of this is, in a fighting atmosphere where things are multi dimensional, being better on the ground will only serve you well if you can get thru the range that someone in a pure "striking" art can dish out at you.

In the situation where you excel at the ground and your opponent excels fighting upright he has the advantage because the fight starts upright and taking it to the ground means nothing if you can't get thru his ranged punches or kicks. Taking out your opponent in your element before he can even get to his is an advantage that boxers and kickboxers (muai thai as well as suppose) have over someone who is a pure jiu jitsu/ wrestling guy. Cross traing is fine and dandy but theres no way that somebody can become both a master boxer and an excellent jiu jitsu artist or wrestler.

Take any mma fighter and put them in the ring with the rules of any single disciplined arts they have trained in. Against a boxer they lose. Against a kickboxer they lose. Against a wrestler they lose. Against a Muai Thai fighter they lose. Against a Jiu Jitsu guy they lose. Against any single disciplined martial artist (and i'll say this despite the fact that i think a lot of traditional martial arts are unsuitable for combat anyways) they lose if that fight takes place under any single discipline rules.

What you're essentially saying when you say an mma fighter beats a boxer/kickboxer/jiu jitsu fighter under mma rules is that an mma fighter does not have enough skill to beat a guy in a single discipline and can only win if he has an advantage at one thing or another over the other guy. If it stays up the pure boxer/kickboxer/muai thai (striker) wins. If it goes down and stays there, the wrestler/jiu jitsu guy wins. Pure artists have more skill than mixed ones. FACT.

---

Lyle just wanted to point out that i hate WWE. >:mad And Punisher the whole thing about MMA fighters losing in any single discaplined match is just not true. Most mma fighters were or are a champion at a single discapline many were kickboxing champs, college wrestlers, naga winners ect. I guess the only art that isn't well represented is boxing and thats probably becouse there is a well established pro. org. where boxers are looking to make more money. I was one of the better TKD fighters for a while but there is no pro tkd and I have some talent in boxing and jujitsu so i just don't see the point in wasteing any of that talent. I know that you think tkd is good for nothing and that if i don't train in only boxing that my hands will be crap but i hope i can prove u wrong ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdboy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southakron314

I sound like an old man in the 1950's talking about rock-n-roll. " Im afriad its here to stay."

---

...but Rock'n'Roll was cool....MMA isn't


When it all comes down to the simplicity of the sport people just want to watch boxing....very few people want TKD or ju jitsu or wrestling......fans either want Boxing or WWE.

I just hate that people who can't hack it doing anything else have to make up something like a bunch of pussy a** spoiled brats. The X-Games, And One Basketball, etc they all can't hack it anywhere else

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punisher136

I've said it once and i'll say it again. It takes more skill to win a single disciplined match than a mixed one. In a single discipline (boxing, kick boxing, jiu jitsu, collegiate wrestling, etc.) your options are limited so you have to be greatly skilled to exploit the options you do have. You can clearly measure talent because one person doesn't have something to fall back on that they know better than their opponent. UFC is like letting someone punch in a wrestling match; Its like letting someone tackle somebody in a kick boxing match.

The initial idea was great (kind of a nadal-federer clay/grass court bar bet kind of experiment) but basing a sport around a bar bet is a dumb idea (yeah it makes money but so does meth). Now it is a watered down street fight where somebody has several options to win and skill is hard to measure. A lot of the fights look very amaturish (some outlets more than others) and the concept of the UFC as it stands now is pointless. The only thing the UFC could do worth while is finding a guy who excels at all points of combat or has a fighting style so perfect that he never loses a fight and both of these are impossibilites.

The gracie's won the initial tournament and thats cool hats off to them but they didn't face the best boxer or kick boxers out there at the time. Tyson was well established as a boxing powerhouse by the time the UFC came around and if im not mistaken Vitali Klitschko was a well established kick boxer as well yet they were not in the tournament for whatever reason. The Significance of this is, in a fighting atmosphere where things are multi dimensional, being better on the ground will only serve you well if you can get thru the range that someone in a pure "striking" art can dish out at you.

In the situation where you excel at the ground and your opponent excels fighting upright he has the advantage because the fight starts upright and taking it to the ground means nothing if you can't get thru his ranged punches or kicks. Taking out your opponent in your element before he can even get to his is an advantage that boxers and kickboxers (muai thai as well as suppose) have over someone who is a pure jiu jitsu/ wrestling guy. Cross traing is fine and dandy but theres no way that somebody can become both a master boxer and an excellent jiu jitsu artist or wrestler.

Take any mma fighter and put them in the ring with the rules of any single disciplined arts they have trained in. Against a boxer they lose. Against a kickboxer they lose. Against a wrestler they lose. Against a Muai Thai fighter they lose. Against a Jiu Jitsu guy they lose. Against any single disciplined martial artist (and i'll say this despite the fact that i think a lot of traditional martial arts are unsuitable for combat anyways) they lose if that fight takes place under any single discipline rules.

What you're essentially saying when you say an mma fighter beats a boxer/kickboxer/jiu jitsu fighter under mma rules is that an mma fighter does not have enough skill to beat a guy in a single discipline and can only win if he has an advantage at one thing or another over the other guy. If it stays up the pure boxer/kickboxer/muai thai (striker) wins. If it goes down and stays there, the wrestler/jiu jitsu guy wins. Pure artists have more skill than mixed ones. FACT.

---

Lyle just wanted to point out that i hate WWE. >:mad And Punisher the whole thing about MMA fighters losing in any single discaplined match is just not true. Most mma fighters were or are a champion at a single discapline many were kickboxing champs, college wrestlers, naga winners ect. I guess the only art that isn't well represented is boxing and thats probably becouse there is a well established pro. org. where boxers are looking to make more money. I was one of the better TKD fighters for a while but there is no pro tkd and I have some talent in boxing and jujitsu so i just don't see the point in wasteing any of that talent. I know that you think tkd is good for nothing and that if i don't train in only boxing that my hands will be crap but i hope i can prove u wrong ;) 

---

Those that were champs in single disciplines are probably best served there and are not equally as great in the other aspects. A kickboxing champ will keep it up as i doubt (desptie his cross training) he wants to test his luck on the ground. Same with a wrestling champ. I'm sure he's looking for a way to take it down as soon as possible so he doesn't have to try and hang with somebody who has an advantage over him standing up. I'm not saying boxing is the end all stand up style im just saying you're better served in a style (boxing/ kickboxing/ muai thai) where you can end the fight before you're taken into the other guys element.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punisher136

---

Those that were champs in single disciplines are probably best served there and are not equally as great in the other aspects. A kickboxing champ will keep it up as i doubt (desptie his cross training) he wants to test his luck on the ground. Same with a wrestling champ. I'm sure he's looking for a way to take it down as soon as possible so he doesn't have to try and hang with somebody who has an advantage over him standing up. I'm not saying boxing is the end all stand up style im just saying you're better served in a style (boxing/ kickboxing/ muai thai) where you can end the fight before you're taken into the other guys element.

[/quote]

ya your right that when you go into a fight you want to make the other guy fight your fight. Its kind of like Oscar training for Mosley when he fights him he probably doent want to keep the fight in close but mosley does want to get inside and throw fast combos. But its a good feeling when your training pays off and you can beat a guy standing or on the ground.

If there were respective pro leagues (wouldn't happen in america but maybe across the globe in some places) for the various fighting styles, i'm sure the champs that are now in mma would head to them (if the pay was comparable). The problem with that is that theres so many different fighting styles (some of which are not suitable for actual combat: kung fu and karate aren't feasible, the jury's still out on tae qwon do as i haven't seen enough of it yet to pass judgement) you'd need atleast 10 different leagues for them all and by that point your pool of participants would be greatly diminished. Even now there's probably more ranked fighters in the heavyweight division for boxing than there are total combatants in the UFC and K-1 combined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punisher136

What you're essentially saying when you say an mma fighter beats a boxer/kickboxer/jiu jitsu fighter under mma rules is that an mma fighter does not have enough skill to beat a guy in a single discipline and can only win if he has an advantage at one thing or another over the other guy. If it stays up the pure boxer/kickboxer/muai thai (striker) wins. If it goes down and stays there, the wrestler/jiu jitsu guy wins. Pure artists have more skill than mixed ones. FACT.

---

If we can all agree that most top MMA fighters were at one point dominant participants and even world champions in specific combat disciplines and that they also have become cross trained in other disciplines to be at least adequate then I dont see how you get anything factual out of your generalization. I agree that boxing is a more technical sport than MMA as a whole. If you take BJ Penn for example: he was the first non brazilian and one of the youngest ever to win the BJJ world championship, he has a very well respected standup game and a resume like no other. He is considered one of the best BJJ practitioners in the world and also top all time P4P mma fighter. Is PBF a more skilled boxer than BJ is a MMA fighter? Maybe, but not one of the HW champs is IMHO. So you really have to look at it on a one on one basis. I personally love the chess match in top MMA fights in seeing who is going to be able to make their opponent fight "their" fight. I loved watching Big Nog take a beating only to pull out an arm bar on crocop for the win, or watch Coleman dominate Williams only to eventually get KO'd. I find it hard to put any generalization to MMA fighters. They are such a myriad of people. These guys come from all walks of life and experiences. Most were great pure artists and are now well versed in multiple disciplines. As far as being more skilled than championship boxers, well like I said this has to be on a one to one comparison not as a generalization.

Quote:

---

What you're essentially saying when you say an mma fighter beats a boxer/kickboxer/jiu jitsu fighter under mma rules is that an mma fighter does not have enough skill to beat a guy in a single discipline and can only win if he has an advantage at one thing or another over the other guy. If it stays up the pure boxer/kickboxer/muai thai (striker) wins. If it goes down and stays there, the wrestler/jiu jitsu guy wins. Pure artists have more skill than mixed ones. FACT.

---

Yes of course. Jack of all trades, master of none. Its called MIXED Martial Arts. Thats why I don't like the Boxing(or any style for that matter) versus MMA debate. There's nothing to debate about, each is very different with the exception of ONE element, and in the long run all we get is everyones personal reason why they don't like one or the other, with no gratifying truths.

Maybe if you read this quote from Bruce Lee you will realize what MMA is.

Quote:

---

"To set the record straight, I have NOT invented a new style, composite, modified or otherwise; that is, set within distinct form and laws as apart from "this" style or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. So do remember that the term Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which we see ourselves. The name brand is nothing special."

---

He knew what it was, and that was back in 1965. Its not about being the best boxer/wrestler/kickboxer in the world. MMA is about beating your opponent, and becoming the best FIGHTER possible. Not to be confused with the best ARTIST possible. And thats why I love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nate17

Quote:

---

What you're essentially saying when you say an mma fighter beats a boxer/kickboxer/jiu jitsu fighter under mma rules is that an mma fighter does not have enough skill to beat a guy in a single discipline and can only win if he has an advantage at one thing or another over the other guy. If it stays up the pure boxer/kickboxer/muai thai (striker) wins. If it goes down and stays there, the wrestler/jiu jitsu guy wins. Pure artists have more skill than mixed ones. FACT.

---

Yes of course. Jack of all trades, master of none. Its called MIXED Martial Arts. Thats why I don't like the Boxing(or any style for that matter) versus MMA debate. There's nothing to debate about, each is very different with the exception of ONE element, and in the long run all we get is everyones personal reason why they don't like one or the other, with no gratifying truths.

Maybe if you read this quote from Bruce Lee you will realize what MMA is.

Quote:

---

"To set the record straight, I have NOT invented a new style, composite, modified or otherwise; that is, set within distinct form and laws as apart from "this" style or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. So do remember that the term Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which we see ourselves. The name brand is nothing special."

---

He knew what it was, and that was back in 1965. Its not about being the best boxer/wrestler/kickboxer in the world. MMA is about beating your opponent, and becoming the best FIGHTER possible. Not to be confused with the best ARTIST possible. And thats why I love it.

---

Welcome to the forum.... :coolclick: #2 for you. very good post and simply put... I like Jeet Kune Do cause you can make it your own after learning the fundamental basics, you grow into making it personal and tailored to yourself ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punisher136

What you're essentially saying when you say an mma fighter beats a boxer/kickboxer/jiu jitsu fighter under mma rules is that an mma fighter does not have enough skill to beat a guy in a single discipline and can only win if he has an advantage at one thing or another over the other guy. If it stays up the pure boxer/kickboxer/muai thai (striker) wins. If it goes down and stays there, the wrestler/jiu jitsu guy wins. Pure artists have more skill than mixed ones. FACT.

---

If we can all agree that most top MMA fighters were at one point dominant participants and even world champions in specific combat disciplines and that they also have become cross trained in other disciplines to be at least adequate then I dont see how you get anything factual out of your generalization. I agree that boxing is a more technical sport than MMA as a whole. If you take BJ Penn for example: he was the first non brazilian and one of the youngest ever to win the BJJ world championship, he has a very well respected standup game and a resume like no other. He is considered one of the best BJJ practitioners in the world and also top all time P4P mma fighter. Is PBF a more skilled boxer than BJ is a MMA fighter? Maybe, but not one of the HW champs is IMHO. So you really have to look at it on a one on one basis. I personally love the chess match in top MMA fights in seeing who is going to be able to make their opponent fight "their" fight. I loved watching Big Nog take a beating only to pull out an arm bar on crocop for the win, or watch Coleman dominate Williams only to eventually get KO'd. I find it hard to put any generalization to MMA fighters. They are such a myriad of people. These guys come from all walks of life and experiences. Most were great pure artists and are now well versed in multiple disciplines. As far as being more skilled than championship boxers, well like I said this has to be on a one to one comparison not as a generalization.

---

Some are former champs yes but how often does someone beat them at their own game? It takes less skill to win an mma match than it does a single disciplined match. Those champs were the best at their game and if they participated in matches that were shearly in their element they would win an overwheliming majority of the time. What i'm saying is when you say an MMA fighter beats a purist under MMA rules, you're stating that he has to have an advantage over the purist to beat him (basically a fighting form hes not necessarily an expert in). Is he going to beat a boxer or kickboxer standing up? No. If he gonna out wrestle a jiu jitsu champ or a collegiate all stater on the ground? No. Now i realize that some people were champs in these disciplines, so in some cases they ARE the purists in these matches. I'm still saying that having an mma ruled fight takes away from some of the skill involved in the various arts because you're basically allowing people to punch in wrestling matches and tackle in kick boxing matches. The initial idea was great and intriging but that should of been the end of it. Making a sport to see who can make a kickboxer submit and who can knockout a wrestling champ is kinda dumb IMO. I'm aware that these people are now cross trained in what they used to lack in (boxers learn wrestling and jiu jitsu fighters learn some muai thai etc.) but what is a sport where you can fight standing up or on the ground with whatever style you want to learn under a loose set (loose in the fact that there aren't rules to dicourage the usage of one style or another) of rules? It's a watered down street fight with rules and a ref. Street fights don't clearly resemble boxing or any ground art but rather a mix of them. You're watching a mix of them.

No one's gonna argue with you over the fact of wether or not theres great talent in boxings heavyweight division because there isn't. Most of them are overweight jobbers who aren't in shape and the ones that are in shape can't block and have terrible chins. Other than that you have previous greats trying to comeback and they have little shot of doing so and Vitali Klitschko.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic...it seems we are discussing the subjective entertainment value not the skill required. Your terminology confuses me as well. Sometimes they are purists and sometimes they are MMA fighters. I don think the MMA rules diminish the skills from pure arts. CroCops kickboxing skills aren't lessened b/c he competes in MMA. Augmented? Sure but he is no less talented b/c of the org he fights in. I pose this question: In the Sean Sherk vs PBF fight that Dana White proposed you have one of the best technically skilled boxers against a good MMA LW but one that is very one dimensional...If Sherk were able to get the fight to the ground and pound out a win or get a sub you'd say it shows he has less skill b/c he couldn't stand with PBF, but if PBF were able to keep the fight standing and stuff all of Sherk's takedowns you'd say it shows boxing superiority. Well which one is it, b/c to me its the same thing. Yes each fighter has a specific skillset that they depend on but the real skill that would matter would be their ability to impose their kind of fight on the other. All of Sherk's ground fighting counts for naught if he can't get PBF to the ground and PBF's awesome boxing skills are meaningless if he is on his back the whole fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanChilds

I'm not sure I'm following your logic...it seems we are discussing the subjective entertainment value not the skill required. Your terminology confuses me as well. Sometimes they are purists and sometimes they are MMA fighters. I don think the MMA rules diminish the skills from pure arts. CroCops kickboxing skills aren't lessened b/c he competes in MMA. Augmented? Sure but he is no less talented b/c of the org he fights in. I pose this question: In the Sean Sherk vs PBF fight that Dana White proposed you have one of the best technically skilled boxers against a good MMA LW but one that is very one dimensional...If Sherk were able to get the fight to the ground and pound out a win or get a sub you'd say it shows he has less skill b/c he couldn't stand with PBF, but if PBF were able to keep the fight standing and stuff all of Sherk's takedowns you'd say it shows boxing superiority. Well which one is it, b/c to me its the same thing. Yes each fighter has a specific skillset that they depend on but the real skill that would matter would be their ability to impose their kind of fight on the other. All of Sherk's ground fighting counts for naught if he can't get PBF to the ground and PBF's awesome boxing skills are meaningless if he is on his back the whole fight.

---

It has nothing to do with entertainment value i have said nothing of the sort in my last posts. If floyd wins standing up it proves nothing. It shows that a boxer outboxed a guy who isn't good at boxing, nothing special. If Sherk wins on the ground, it again proives nothing. Its a guy out manuevering a boxer that has no clue what hes doing on the ground. Beating someone in your element that has inferior skills isn't impressive or take that much skill.

Thats like someone bullying on a little kid because they can't fight back effectively. Would a boxer be excited if he knocked out some scrub on the street? No. Just like an mma guy shouldn't be impressed when he makes a stand up fighter tap out on the ground. It proves you know something that your opponent doesn't. At that rate it doesn't matter how good you are at it, because just knowing alittle trumps his nothing. Floyd's skill can be measured because hes going up against guys who know the exact same thing he does just like a jiu jitsu champs skill can be measured in a jiu jitsu tournament.

I would not say floyd is a superior fighter if he beat somebody not experienced in boxing by standing up (you can train all you want to, it ain't the same as getting in the actual ring for a few fights with boxers and only boxers) just as you could not say sherk is a more skillful fighter if he beats floyd on the ground because even if floyd cross trains he hasn't had a bout in ground fighting styles and he wouldn't be ready for that sort of thing. So again i'll say the initial idea was great but whats the point of continuing it?

Now its been made apparent that in any fight if you can take a guy out before he takes you to the ground, you're better off but on the same token, its better to be well trained in ground styles because most fights go the ground regardless. The initial idea was to find out what styles worked best in real combat scenarios. Now thats its been proven you need a little bit of everything, whats the point of continuing other than to televise watered down street fights to prove the findings of the initial tournaments? I don't understand why its necessary to make fighting into a sport. Because thats what Mixed Martial Arts is. It's a fancy name for street fighting with rules.

well I guess I'm just a redneck uncultured lout ;D ...but I like watered down streetfighting with rules and a ref...I enjoy the the multitude of styles and the complete fighters that we are seeing today in GSP/Fedor/Shogun. I like the wondering whose style is going to prevail...I dont see much difference in the PBF vs ODH fight. We all knew that ODH was going to try to make it a brawl and a slug fest and bust up Floyd and we all knew that PB wanted a boxing match in the center of the ring and showcase his hand speed, reaction time and foot work. We watched to see who would be able to impose their plan...I think as MMA evolves you will continue to see total fighters and not just a great wrestler who is ok at standup but fighters that are well rounded in all areas like the guys I mentioned. It wont be about wrestler vs striker anymore but total fighters...give it a chance Punisher.

Quote:

---

Beating someone in your element that has inferior skills isn't impressive or take that much skill.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't beating someone by exploiting their weakness and using your strengths THE POINT OF COMBAT FIGHTING?? I really don't think Mohammad Ali beating Sonny Liston with his footwork instead of pure strength diminishes his skill in boxing. I really don't think Mike Tyson's use of his pure strength diminishes his boxing skill when he annihilated all those guys in the 90's, or Lennox Lewis' jab against everyone he faced. If you agree, then you prove yourself wrong, and if you don't you are diminishing ALL combat sports instead of the one you hate.

As for MMA having inferior skill requirements, I prefer to think that learning and trying to master 12 different styles takes a hell of a lot more work/skill than focusing on just ONE. Don't you think it would be easier if students only studied MATH instead of all the forms of education? Of course they'd be better at MATH then regular students. But that, as your argument, is incomparable and too unrealistic to take seriously.

Lastly, saying MMA is watered down streetfighting is just ridiculous. Its the most ELITE system offered, its safe and they have more skills and time put in than any streetfighter. Its like me saying boxing is a complete joke, where fighters dance around like ballerinas hitting each other with pillows. That sounds alot more watered down to me.

I respect your opinion though, even though I don't see any realism there. I just hope you'll respect mine, as well as come to respect the people that train their life away to become COMPLETE fighters.

Why are we even debating this? Its like comparing apples and oranges.

Why don't we just appreciate what both fighting disciplines have to offer and get on with it.

I am a fan of both...apples and oranges I mean hehe