Quote Originally Posted by Sequitorian

No, I’ve got plenty to say, plenty. I just don’t know if it’s worth my time saying it here. I’ve been waiting to see the responses; to see if anyone could understand, even a little bit, what I am saying, - and give me something substantial to reply to. But no, not yet anyway.

The closest was bcollins, but I suspect he’s being sarcastic (I apologize if you’re not, b). No, b, Boxing is not a good example of a martial art. It is, as I said, philosophically different and diametrically opposed to martial arts theory.

As to the rest of you, well, VanChilds and Nate17 are so threatened by the truth of my statements that they want me banned; and Von Milash and Chris N. are just cheap shot artists. Not unexpected. That’s what MMA teaches after all, isn’t it, cheap shots?

Where I come from everyone understood that, and that MMA is nothing more than dirty fighting.
No apology necessary - but I was being quite serious. The driving ideology (not necessarily the philosophical perspective) behind just about any martial art is to improve your ability to impose your will on an opponent (offensively or defensively - same thing). Boxing exemplifies this! While many MA's are geared more for sport than actual combat, a lot of the techniques are quite easily adapted for more realistic scenarios. Boxing has at its foundations good solid fundamentals for ANY discipline - economy of movement, footwork, good defensive techniques, etc. All of these are fundamental concepts for any study of controlling a hand-to-hand combat situation.

MMA fighters may lack the apparent polish of many pro boxers, but then again, it's a radically different sport. That doesn't mean that there is no value to the various arts used - I'd have to respectfully disagree. Strenuously.