Printable View
Thats a given. Anyone watch sportscenter after the fight. They were busting up chuck hardcore. They said (multiple times) and i quote "Good thing he got his spot on entourage before this fight because he's not gonna get it now" ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
LMAO!!!! i love the lack of MMA knowledge on here.
Me too. Ignorance is bliss for a lot of boxing fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastonAssassin
Ha ha, a striker beat Liddell, a boxer would "moidah im"
Ha ha
;D
Lyle give me a break....by this rationale boxing should just be two guys standing in the middle of the ring taking turns punching each other....you wouldn't advise PBF to try to stand bang with Oscar would you? You wouldn'd have told Frazier to try to out box and counter Ali? Would you tell Tyson in this mythical fight to try to submit his opponent? NO..in this mythical matchup using your perspective that MMA fihgters can punch and have poor chins why would I tell any MMA fighter to attempt to go in and slug it with a boxer? I really think its the MIXED part that you are missing...I know you don't appreciate it, but that is what alot of MMA fans like the strategy and versatility....And not just anyone can as you say kick and run....Muay Thai leg kicks take alot of work to master....they are lightning fast and if you aren't used to checking them it happens as fast as a PBF counter. Not to mention they hurt like a SOB...They provide the distance I'd want to keep out of a much superior punchers range and they would greatly reduce the boxers power and movement...its good strategy not some chicken shit cop outQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
I think that mma welcomes boxing training, I saw some preview with rampage and he was working with a well known boxing instructor. Second I don't think there are any mma fans who would say that chuck is a pollished boxer he is just acward to fight and hits hard. I have read alot of people saying mma striking is trash but then giving rampage props for his skills.
the door is wide open for any boxer to step into the cage
No one is comparing MMA to boxing in terms of both of the styles used, of course its gonna be different. They are comapring it to what sport is gonna get the butts in the seats. And AT LEAST MMA is willing to put their fighters against the very best and not just sunday stepovers
Case in point UFC 71 had a few upsets. There is no "weak mandatory to huge fight" in MMA right now, each fight is dangerous.
Within the last years Rich Franklin, Matt Hughes, Georges St Pierre, Diego Sanchez, Mirko Cro Cop AND Chuck Liddell some of the main attractions in the UFC have been upset. And why? Because there's no such thing as a soft "everybody knows who is gonna win" fight in an MMA ring lately. Thats why ;)
The fact that anybody in the ufc can upset a top fighter i think speaks volumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starr
And thats what makes it exciting.. ANYTHING can happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Punisher136
Some of the arguments just dont mix tho. Saying a boxer couldn't hang for 5 seconds in mma when some matches only stay upright and end because of sloppy defense. Or saying mma fighters are more skilled but they get upset more often. I dunno i just can't see how it works out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starr
Yeah but I'm not saying a boxer can't last 5 minutes in an MMA ring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Punisher136
Boxers are good at what they do and MMA fighters are good at what they do. But it would be wrong to say that either is better or greater then the other one. Because it isnt like they get the average shmoe off the street and throw him in the UFC. They actually train hard for it and stuff like that and deserve that respect. Same on the boxers end. Anyone can sit, and analyse and pick apart an mma fighters weaknesses or a boxers weaknesses but in the end that doesnt matter
fair enough
So if you can just barely survive the distance by hanging on and tying up like a little girl then you are rewarded for having a "good strategy"???Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
You can have your MMA it's different but it's nothing I would do even in a street fight
What's funny to me about these arguments is.....
MMA was started to settle these arguments about which discipline was better. What came out of it is that ANY pure striking discipline didn't do well cause they almost always went to the ground.
Check up on some history, watch the first 5 UFC's and then argue about how a great boxer will do so well. They are different sports and using one as the measuring stick for the other is ridiculous.
By the way if you want to use statistics. Wrestlers do much much better than boxers or kickers. The stats don't lie. The wrestlers take a punch while taking down the boxer and then keep them down and the boxer can't throw very hard punches from their backs. It's happened plenty of times, there are plenty of examples. I love boxing, but I don't think Tyson in his prime would have done too well. Dan Severn would have mauled him on the ground, Tyson isn't accostomed to punching at someone who's diving at his legs.
that was true for the beginning but now there are many strikers who are not going to be finished by wrestlers. From what i've seen pure wrestlers are not great finishers like Mark Coleman when he fought Morrice Smith he got him to the ground but didnt have a good arrsenal to finish the fight and when it got to the feet again Smith beat him sensless