cc D. It looks like it's you ans me vs munky and Van. lol. I think we can take 'em.


Van, the reason so few people equate boxing with mma "striking" is because so few mma practitioners do it well, or even properly. MMA "boxing" (what you call striking) is extremely sloppy and really nothing more than two guys slugging it out a la bar/street fight. But how many times have we heard Joe Rogan say things like, "and his BOXING has ccome very far." And as D said, they guys who do box well typically do very well in the sport, and they're not even what the IBF/WBO/WBC/WBA would consider GOOD boxers.

I'm not going to say take a boxer and let him dominate. I do, however, think a top boxer would win most of the time (7-8/10).. I'm not stupid or ignorant or shortsighted enough to say that monsters like randleman or coleman couldn't take them down. Sure they could. But i'll put money on that task being made magnitudes more difficult by the boxer's ability to land shot after shot when they do try to come in. All boxers can box from the outside. It's what you learn first. When Chuck and Mirko keep a guy at bay and avoid the takedown, they're utilizing their better ability to outbox their opponent form the outside. A top boxer could easily do the same, if not more effectively. And like I've always said, teach them the sprawl, which, let's be honest, is a natural reaction and not as hard to "teach" as so many people claim it to be, and they'd be monsters.