-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
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.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
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.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
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.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
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 ...
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
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.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
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.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
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.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
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.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
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.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
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
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate17
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.
Thats boxing. Out boxing somebody who knows boxing in a boxing match is the idea. Somebody can't tackle ali to take away his great foot speed. Somebody can't take tyson to the ground to neutralize his punching power. There's a difference between exploiting someones weakness in a style you both now and exploiting someone by using a style they're not familiar with. Power punching, great foot movement, defensive stances, and jabs are all part of boxing.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
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.
This makes no sense whatsover. When two people are competing against each other one on one the difficulty in winning will be on average exactly the same across all sports.
How can it possibly be easier to win in one head to head than another?
It's a mathematical impossibility.
If it was easier for one man to win, then logically it must follow that it's harder for the other man to win.
You're basically trying to make a perfectly balanced see saw rise upwards at one end by placing the identical amount of extra weight on both sides. ::**
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
This makes no sense whatsover. When two people are competing against each other one on one the difficulty in winning will be on average exactly the same across all sports.
How can it possibly be easier to win in one head to head than another?
It's a mathematical impossibility.
If it was easier for one man to win, then logically it must follow that it's harder for the other man to win.
You're basically trying to make a perfectly balanced see saw rise upwards at one end by placing the identical amount of extra weight on both sides. ::**
I've explained this over and over but i guess i'll do it one more time for you bilbo.
You can't compare skill in mma like you do single disciplined matches. In a single disciplined match, everybody has learned the same style. Saying an mma fighter is more skilled than a single disciplined fighter under mma rules is a joke because the only way they would win is by using an element of fighting a purist isn't familiar with. Mixed martial arts is a watered down street fight and you can't prove it other wise. If you like it, good for you but you can't say they are equally as skilled in their fights because if you put most of them against masters of the styles they train in they'll lose. I'm aware that some are champs in various styles, but most are not.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punisher136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
This makes no sense whatsover. When two people are competing against each other one on one the difficulty in winning will be on average exactly the same across all sports.
How can it possibly be easier to win in one head to head than another?
It's a mathematical impossibility.
If it was easier for one man to win, then logically it must follow that it's harder for the other man to win.
You're basically trying to make a perfectly balanced see saw rise upwards at one end by placing the identical amount of extra weight on both sides. ::**
I've explained this over and over but i guess i'll do it one more time for you bilbo.
You can't compare skill in mma like you do single disciplined matches.
In a single disciplined match, everybody has learned the same style. Saying an mma fighter is more skilled than a single disciplined fighter under mma rules is a joke because
the only way they would win is by using an element of fighting a purist isn't familiar with. Mixed martial arts is a watered down street fight and you can't prove it other wise. If you like it, good for you but you can't say they are equally as skilled in their fights because if you put most of them against masters of the styles they train in they'll lose. I'm aware that some are champs in various styles, but most are not.
Every fighter in MMA has the same opportunity to train in multiple styles as any other. There are no purists any more. You can't compete in MMA with out some semblance of both ground game and standup. Sure some are better in certain areas than others but thats any sport. Is it any different than a boxer who depends more on defenes and hand speed than aggression and power? MMA is a sport all its own..so it requires a varied skill set all its own. One can be a great competitor in a singular discipline but not be a great MMA fighter. This isn't the 90's. Its not TKD vs BJJ anymore its best complete fighter vs best complete fighter.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punisher136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
This makes no sense whatsover. When two people are competing against each other one on one the difficulty in winning will be on average exactly the same across all sports.
How can it possibly be easier to win in one head to head than another?
It's a mathematical impossibility.
If it was easier for one man to win, then logically it must follow that it's harder for the other man to win.
You're basically trying to make a perfectly balanced see saw rise upwards at one end by placing the identical amount of extra weight on both sides. ::**
I've explained this over and over but i guess i'll do it one more time for you bilbo.
You can't compare skill in mma like you do single disciplined matches. In a single disciplined match, everybody has learned the same style. Saying an mma fighter is more skilled than a single disciplined fighter under mma rules is a joke because the only way they would win is by using an element of fighting a purist isn't familiar with. Mixed martial arts is a watered down street fight and you can't prove it other wise. If you like it, good for you but you can't say they are equally as skilled in their fights because if you put most of them against masters of the styles they train in they'll lose. I'm aware that some are champs in various styles, but most are not.
The only reason you say that MMA fighters are unskilled is out of ignorance. Guys like Sakuraba, the Gracies, Randy Cutoure, Wanderlai Silva etc are all tremendously skilful athletes. There is a ton of skill that goes into being a top mixed martial artist. I can promise you that it takes every bit as much skill to hone a high leg kick like Mirko Cro Cop as it does to throw a thunderous left hook like Jeff Lacy.
The ground game when you get to understand it is an art form all of it's own with an intriuging chess match with both fighters trying to manouver their opponent into making a mistake that they can capitalise on.
It makes me chuckle that people can actually think that there is more science and more to learn when both fighters can only punch to the head or body than there is when fighters can punch, kick, wrestle, throw, elbow etc.
MMA is a tremendously exciting sport and the skill level of its practitioners is growing all the time.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Thats boxing. Out boxing somebody who knows boxing in a boxing match is the idea. Somebody can't tackle ali to take away his great foot speed.
No thats going away from your original statement man.
Quote:
Beating someone in your element that has inferior skills isn't impressive or take that much skill.
You're twisting it for the sake of your argument and ignore it in all other aspects.
You know why MMA takes more skill? Because they HAVE to take every angle into consideration. Boxers only have to worry about boxing, while MMA fighters have to worry about dozens of styles. You said it yourself my friend, and in that you PROVE that to be a complete MMA fighter it takes just as much if MORE skill.
You say the only way they can win is to use an unfamiliar style. Homey, there is NO UNFAMILIAR STYLE. MMA is MMA and every camp cross trains!! Thats where you aren't doing your homework on the sport.
Saying MMA is watered down streetfighting is funny, since boxing seems like watered down MMA to me. Or maybe a pillow fight.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate17
Saying MMA is watered down streetfighting is funny, since boxing seems like watered down MMA to me. Or maybe a pillow fight.
haha you just earned yourself a :coolclick: my friend
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
.
[/quote]
The only reason you say that MMA fighters are unskilled is out of ignorance. Guys like Sakuraba, the Gracies, Randy Cutoure, Wanderlai Silva etc are all tremendously skilful athletes. There is a ton of skill that goes into being a top mixed martial artist. I can promise you that it takes every bit as much skill to hone a high leg kick like Mirko Cro Cop as it does to throw a thunderous left hook like Jeff Lacy.
The ground game when you get to understand it is an art form all of it's own with an intriuging chess match with both fighters trying to manouver their opponent into making a mistake that they can capitalise on.
It makes me chuckle that people can actually think that there is more science and more to learn when both fighters can only punch to the head or body than there is when fighters can punch, kick, wrestle, throw, elbow etc.
MMA is a tremendously exciting sport and the skill level of its practitioners is growing all the time.
[/quote]
Huh?I havnt posted here in awhile. Looks like bilbo has turned to the dark side or some sh!t...................
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
I have to say I had to do a double take when I started finding myself agreeing with Bilbo on his MMA posts!
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
I have to say I had to do a double take when I started finding myself agreeing with Bilbo on his MMA posts!
Haha we're turning them to the dark side slowly but surely. Muahaha. Cmon Predator you know you want to be evil and shoot force lightning and watch MMA. 8) Maybe not but it was worth a try.
Btw Van I agree with your points in this thread. You got good taste holmes.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1st rd ko
Quote:
The only reason you say that MMA fighters are unskilled is out of ignorance. Guys like Sakuraba, the Gracies, Randy Cutoure, Wanderlai Silva etc are all tremendously skilful athletes. There is a ton of skill that goes into being a top mixed martial artist. I can promise you that it takes every bit as much skill to hone a high leg kick like Mirko Cro Cop as it does to throw a thunderous left hook like Jeff Lacy.
The ground game when you get to understand it is an art form all of it's own with an intriuging chess match with both fighters trying to manouver their opponent into making a mistake that they can capitalise on.
It makes me chuckle that people can actually think that there is more science and more to learn when both fighters can only punch to the head or body than there is when fighters can punch, kick, wrestle, throw, elbow etc.
MMA is a tremendously exciting sport and the skill level of its practitioners is growing all the time.
Huh?I havnt posted here in awhile. Looks like bilbo has turned to the dark side or some sh!t...................
hehe hey buddy long time no see. Yes you are correct I came out of the closet a few months ago and now live openly as an MMA fan. It was tough to admit at first and a few people in here didn't understand but most have grown to accept me as I am I think.
I still love boxing as well though, I just like to swing both ways now ;)
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
I still love boxing as well though, I just like to swing both ways now
As do I. I may criticize it but its in a constructive manner meant to defend my own sport. I've watched and like boxing many years before MMA came around, I just have become a much bigger fan of MMA since the debut of UFC in 1993. Nice to see some open-mindedness Bilbo and thanx for the support!
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
This makes no sense whatsover. When two people are competing against each other one on one the difficulty in winning will be on average exactly the same across all sports.
How can it possibly be easier to win in one head to head than another?
It's a mathematical impossibility.
If it was easier for one man to win, then logically it must follow that it's harder for the other man to win.
You're basically trying to make a perfectly balanced see saw rise upwards at one end by placing the identical amount of extra weight on both sides. ::**
How dose it not make sense.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
This makes no sense whatsover. When two people are competing against each other one on one the difficulty in winning will be on average exactly the same across all sports.
How can it possibly be easier to win in one head to head than another?
It's a mathematical impossibility.
If it was easier for one man to win, then logically it must follow that it's harder for the other man to win.
You're basically trying to make a perfectly balanced see saw rise upwards at one end by placing the identical amount of extra weight on both sides. ::**
Why don't you try a differentail equation.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate17
Saying MMA is watered down streetfighting is funny, since boxing seems like watered down MMA to me. Or maybe a pillow fight.
haha you just earned yourself a :coolclick: my friend
These guys need pillows on there hands so they dont kill people in the ring. Even with the gloves people die.Boxers flat out swat alot harder than a mma pro. I would put my house to say that 160 (171 nat) pound Kelly Pavlik out punches a 205 pound Tito Ortiz. Easily.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
This makes no sense whatsover. When two people are competing against each other one on one the difficulty in winning will be on average exactly the same across all sports.
How can it possibly be easier to win in one head to head than another?
It's a mathematical impossibility.
If it was easier for one man to win, then logically it must follow that it's harder for the other man to win.
You're basically trying to make a perfectly balanced see saw rise upwards at one end by placing the identical amount of extra weight on both sides. ::**
How dose it not make sense.
Are you serious? How can be easier for both fighters to win against each other in one sport than it is in another. It's like a see saw. If it's easier for one guy then it's harder for the other guy.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate17
Saying MMA is watered down streetfighting is funny, since boxing seems like watered down MMA to me. Or maybe a pillow fight.
haha you just earned yourself a :coolclick: my friend
These guys need pillows on there hands so they dont kill people in the ring. Even with the gloves people die.Boxers flat out swat alot harder than a mma pro. I would put my house to say that 160 (171 nat) pound Kelly Pavlik out punches a 205 pound Tito Ortiz. Easily.
Yeah I completely agree, but I would also bet my own house that if the two met in a proper fight Tito would kick Pavliks ass. I'd also bet Tito can wrestle better than Pavlik, and kick harder.
I'm sure the Native American Indians were far more skilled with a bow and arrow than the cowboys. It didn't mean a whole lot though seeing as the cowboys used guns ;)
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
I would go as far to say that Hearns in his prime swats harder than Chuck Liddell. Boxers spend there lives training to do only three things. To deliver a punch, to take a punch and to aviod a punch. All of the other training can fall into that area. I love laughing at these guys swinging with both hands chins hanging out not using the front to jab not using the back throw a power punch. This is why boxers have to wear pillows on there hand as some jackass newbe said. Put it this way. Would you feel more comfortable taking on on the chin from a prime Tito Ortiz or would you feel more safe taking on on the chin From a prime Mike Tyson. Both wearing no gloves.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
I would go as far to say that Hearns in his prime swats harder than Chuck Liddell. Boxers spend there lives training to do only three things. To deliver a punch, to take a punch and to aviod a punch. All of the other training can fall into that area. I love laughing at these guys swinging with both hands chins hanging out not using the front to jab not using the back throw a power punch. This is why boxers have to wear pillows on there hand as some jackass newbe said. Put it this way. Would you feel more comfortable taking on on the chin from a prime Tito Ortiz or would you feel more safe taking on on the chin From a prime Mike Tyson. Both wearing no gloves.
But I don't get your point. Would you rather take a punch from Mike Tyson or be kicked in the face by Mirko Cro Cop?
Or maybe picked up and slammed on your head by Rampage Jackson?
Or choked to death by Randy Couture?
Or have you arm snapped in half by Sakuraba?
It all hurts. ;D
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
This makes no sense whatsover. When two people are competing against each other one on one the difficulty in winning will be on average exactly the same across all sports.
How can it possibly be easier to win in one head to head than another?
It's a mathematical impossibility.
If it was easier for one man to win, then logically it must follow that it's harder for the other man to win.
You're basically trying to make a perfectly balanced see saw rise upwards at one end by placing the identical amount of extra weight on both sides. ::**
How dose it not make sense.
Are you serious? How can be easier for both fighters to win against each other in one sport than it is in another. It's like a see saw. If it's easier for one guy then it's harder for the other guy.
How long dose you average wbc or wbo champ train to become a champ they usually start around 6-11 years old on average. How long has Rich Franklin or George St Perrier trained in MMA. 5 or 6 years and scholastic sports don't count cause those aren't coming out of their pocket.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
I would go as far to say that Hearns in his prime swats harder than Chuck Liddell. Boxers spend there lives training to do only three things. To deliver a punch, to take a punch and to aviod a punch. All of the other training can fall into that area. I love laughing at these guys swinging with both hands chins hanging out not using the front to jab not using the back throw a power punch. This is why boxers have to wear pillows on there hand as some jackass newbe said. Put it this way. Would you feel more comfortable taking on on the chin from a prime Tito Ortiz or would you feel more safe taking on on the chin From a prime Mike Tyson. Both wearing no gloves.
But I don't get your point. Would you rather take a punch from Mike Tyson or be kicked in the face by Mirko Cro Cop?
Or maybe picked up and slammed on your head by Rampage Jackson?
Or choked to death by Randy Couture?
Or have you arm snapped in half by Sakuraba?
It all hurts. ;D
I was comparing strait punching power. A article in 1988 sports illustrated said a Mike Tyson punch is the equivalent to have a phone book on your face and having a major leaguer hit you with a ball bat.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
This makes no sense whatsover. When two people are competing against each other one on one the difficulty in winning will be on average exactly the same across all sports.
How can it possibly be easier to win in one head to head than another?
It's a mathematical impossibility.
If it was easier for one man to win, then logically it must follow that it's harder for the other man to win.
You're basically trying to make a perfectly balanced see saw rise upwards at one end by placing the identical amount of extra weight on both sides. ::**
How dose it not make sense.
Are you serious? How can be easier for both fighters to win against each other in one sport than it is in another. It's like a see saw. If it's easier for one guy then it's harder for the other guy.
How long dose you average wbc or wbo champ train to become a champ they usually start around 6-11 years old on average. How long has Rich Franklin or George St Perrier trained in MMA. 5 or 6 years and scholastic sports don't count cause those aren't coming out of their pocket.
Mate if it was so easy to win at MMA then trust me a whole shat load of boxers would make the transition and come over just to be able to say they were a world champions in two different combat sports.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
It was a simple point of who punches harder a boxer or a mma person. Its a simple comparision.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
I would go as far to say that Hearns in his prime swats harder than Chuck Liddell. Boxers spend there lives training to do only three things. To deliver a punch, to take a punch and to aviod a punch. All of the other training can fall into that area. I love laughing at these guys swinging with both hands chins hanging out not using the front to jab not using the back throw a power punch. This is why boxers have to wear pillows on there hand as some jackass newbe said. Put it this way. Would you feel more comfortable taking on on the chin from a prime Tito Ortiz or would you feel more safe taking on on the chin From a prime Mike Tyson. Both wearing no gloves.
But I don't get your point. Would you rather take a punch from Mike Tyson or be kicked in the face by Mirko Cro Cop?
Or maybe picked up and slammed on your head by Rampage Jackson?
Or choked to death by Randy Couture?
Or have you arm snapped in half by Sakuraba?
It all hurts. ;D
I was comparing strait punching power. A article in 1988 sports illustrated said a Mike Tyson punch is the equivalent to have a phone book on your face and having a major leaguer hit you with a ball bat.
Yes but so what? All a boxer has to learn is how to punch. I'm sure back in Columbus' day there were people in Genoa who knew the local topography better than him. It didn't matter to him though as whilst they were mapping out their local fields and woodlands he was busy discovering America...............
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
This makes no sense whatsover. When two people are competing against each other one on one the difficulty in winning will be on average exactly the same across all sports.
How can it possibly be easier to win in one head to head than another?
It's a mathematical impossibility.
If it was easier for one man to win, then logically it must follow that it's harder for the other man to win.
You're basically trying to make a perfectly balanced see saw rise upwards at one end by placing the identical amount of extra weight on both sides. ::**
How dose it not make sense.
Are you serious? How can be easier for both fighters to win against each other in one sport than it is in another. It's like a see saw. If it's easier for one guy then it's harder for the other guy.
How long dose you average wbc or wbo champ train to become a champ they usually start around 6-11 years old on average. How long has Rich Franklin or George St Perrier trained in MMA. 5 or 6 years and scholastic sports don't count cause those aren't coming out of their pocket.
Mate if it was so easy to win at MMA then trust me a whole shat load of boxers would make the transition and come over just to be able to say they were a world champions in two different combat sports.
Easy....why fight for a couple hundred grand when you can fight for 7 or 8 figures .I think Mayweather Oscar fight was a 39 million dollar purse. how much was the jackson liddell fight for 1/ 18 th of that. Stupid question.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
but i will give +1 out of respect.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
It was a simple point of who punches harder a boxer or a mma person. Its a simple comparision.
I'm not going to argue that many MMA fighters need more technique, but I'm sure that guys like Arlovski, Fedor, Franklin, Pulver, Chuck Henderson are on par as far as punching power
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by southakron314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo
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.
This makes no sense whatsover. When two people are competing against each other one on one the difficulty in winning will be on average exactly the same across all sports.
How can it possibly be easier to win in one head to head than another?
It's a mathematical impossibility.
If it was easier for one man to win, then logically it must follow that it's harder for the other man to win.
You're basically trying to make a perfectly balanced see saw rise upwards at one end by placing the identical amount of extra weight on both sides. ::**
How dose it not make sense.
Are you serious? How can be easier for both fighters to win against each other in one sport than it is in another. It's like a see saw. If it's easier for one guy then it's harder for the other guy.
How long dose you average wbc or wbo champ train to become a champ they usually start around 6-11 years old on average. How long has Rich Franklin or George St Perrier trained in MMA. 5 or 6 years and scholastic sports don't count cause those aren't coming out of their pocket.
Mate if it was so easy to win at MMA then trust me a whole shat load of boxers would make the transition and come over just to be able to say they were a world champions in two different combat sports.
Easy....why fight for a couple hundred grand when you can fight for 7 or 8 figures .I think Mayweather Oscar fight was a 39 million dollar purse. how much was the jackson liddell fight for 1/ 18 th of that. Stupid question.
ok but by your rationale then even just an average pro boxer who isn't making millions should be able to come over and whip ass in MMA....We have yet to see this happen....Right now Jeremy Williams is the only one, he has had some success against very limited opposition.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate17
Quote:
Thats boxing. Out boxing somebody who knows boxing in a boxing match is the idea. Somebody can't tackle ali to take away his great foot speed.
No thats going away from your original statement man.
Quote:
Beating someone in your element that has inferior skills isn't impressive or take that much skill.
You're twisting it for the sake of your argument and ignore it in all other aspects.
You know why MMA takes more skill? Because they HAVE to take every angle into consideration. Boxers only have to worry about boxing, while MMA fighters have to worry about dozens of styles. You said it yourself my friend, and in that you PROVE that to be a complete MMA fighter it takes just as much if MORE skill.
You say the only way they can win is to use an unfamiliar style. Homey, there is NO UNFAMILIAR STYLE. MMA is MMA and every camp cross trains!! Thats where you aren't doing your homework on the sport.
Saying MMA is watered down streetfighting is funny, since boxing seems like watered down MMA to me. Or maybe a pillow fight.
Boxing is a single discipline that has many aspects to it. You bringing up the difference between an outside fighter and an inside fighter is stupid because its all boxing. I'm not saying the parts that make up mma don't take skill. I have said that boxing/kick/boxing/jiu jitsu and whatever else are great styles. When you put them all together in the format that is the UFC it takes away from them. Its a watered down street fight with submissions and you can't possible twist it any other way. Most fights end in the first round (how is boxing watered down when you have to go thru wars that used to last an entire hour. Getting beat in 3 minutes definitely takes a lot more courage than in boxing. ::** )
You wanna watch that shit more power to you its your money your wasting but don't come over here and try saying that mma is a superior sport to boxing or any other single disciplined art because its not. Its a pussified street fight. You wanna put a jiu jitsu match on tv... Fine. I probably won't watch but theres people that will. You wanna put some kickboxing matches on tv... Fine. But don't put on pussified street fights that end in a matter of 3 minutes. It was started to see what style would work in a real combat situation they found out what they needed to know and that should've been the end of it. What they're showing now is crap and i'm DONE talking about it. It's a joke and i refuse to talk about it anymore thats it. You wanna watch it watch it but don't try and worship it like its the best thing ever invented because its not and i'm done talking about it. Boxings not going anywhere and soon enough people will realize how shitty your "sport" is and by "sport" i mean mma not the various styles that the people cross train in.
-
Re: Media mainstream sportscenter starts show with mma vs boxing debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punisher136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate17
Quote:
Thats boxing. Out boxing somebody who knows boxing in a boxing match is the idea. Somebody can't tackle ali to take away his great foot speed.
No thats going away from your original statement man.
Quote:
Beating someone in your element that has inferior skills isn't impressive or take that much skill.
You're twisting it for the sake of your argument and ignore it in all other aspects.
You know why MMA takes more skill? Because they HAVE to take every angle into consideration. Boxers only have to worry about boxing, while MMA fighters have to worry about dozens of styles. You said it yourself my friend, and in that you PROVE that to be a complete MMA fighter it takes just as much if MORE skill.
You say the only way they can win is to use an unfamiliar style. Homey, there is NO UNFAMILIAR STYLE. MMA is MMA and every camp cross trains!! Thats where you aren't doing your homework on the sport.
Saying MMA is watered down streetfighting is funny, since boxing seems like watered down MMA to me. Or maybe a pillow fight.
Boxing is a single discipline that has many aspects to it.
You bringing up the difference between an outside fighter and an inside fighter is stupid because its all boxing. I'm not saying the parts that make up mma don't take skill. I have said that boxing/kick/boxing/jiu jitsu and whatever else are great styles.
When you put them all together in the format that is the UFC it takes away from them. Its a watered down street fight with submissions and you can't possible twist it any other way. Most fights end in the first round (how is boxing watered down when you have to go thru wars that used to last an entire hour.
Getting beat in 3 minutes definitely takes a lot more courage than in boxing. ::** )
You wanna watch that S*** more power to you its your money your wasting but don't come over here and try saying that mma is a superior sport to boxing or any other single disciplined art because its not. Its a pussified street fight. You wanna put a jiu jitsu match on tv... Fine. I probably won't watch but theres people that will. You wanna put some kickboxing matches on tv... Fine. But don't put on pussified street fights that end in a matter of 3 minutes. It was started to see what style would work in a real combat situation they found out what they needed to know and that should've been the end of it. What they're showing now is crap and i'm
DONE talking about it. It's a joke and i refuse to talk about it anymore thats it. You wanna watch it watch it but don't try and worship it like its the best thing ever invented because its not and i'm done talking about it. Boxings not going anywhere and soon enough people will realize how shitty your "sport" is and by "sport" i mean mma not the various styles that the people cross train in.
I didnt' realize that your opinion was the end all and be all....I'm afraid that millions of PPV buys and TV ratings dont agree with you. I dont know how you can respect all of the facets of MMA but not it in itself...to me its a simple sum of its part and the evolution of the ability to meld the disciplines together. The differences between and outside and inside fighter being stupid is no different than you comparing MMA fighters of different varieties. Its all MMA bud. You have yet to explain how competing in MMA somehow minimizes the skills a fighter has in a particular discipline. Furthermore I really dont know what the length of the fights matters. You seem to be reaching at this point. Does football b/c its games are longer automatically make it a more skilled sport? Are sprinters more skilled than marathon runners? No, just different skills.
