I'm more compelled by MMA than I am boxing, but as a practitioner, I like boxing more. I think the most exciting boxing matches are better than the most exciting MMA matches, and the most boring boxing matches more boring than the most boring MMA matches (something about 12...long...rounds)

I like boxing more than I like striking mixed with grappling. I think it's more fun to do. I'm better at it, for sure.

MMA is a much better organized sport with more recognized fighters. I'll flat out confess I follow the MMA scene much more closely than boxing's, even though I compete in boxing and don't in MMA.

I don't think the level of athleticism is very different in the sports at this point, because of the influx of national and Olympic class wrestlers. And boxing and MMA are exceptional sports in that pure athleticism is tempered by skill requirements. If you can't run a 40 m in X number of seconds, you'll never make it in the NFL. Unless you're Mugsy Bogues, you're not getting on an NBA team if you're short, etc. But, guys like Bernard Hopkins, Randy Couture, Fedor Emelianenko, Matt Serra, and on a lower level, Kenny Florian etc. prove that being the best athlete can mean very little.

Case in point is Kevin Randleman, perhaps the most athletic person to ever fight in MMA and has a pretty shitty record. He's also a tremendously gifted wrestler, but he never technically mastered the other parts of MMA. Bob Sapp is another example. A freak of nature who got beat on by Fujita Kazuyuki and Mirko Filipovic.

I'll say I'm a bigger fan of MMA than boxing, because A) promoters put together better cards, B) I know who the fighters are, and C) There's only 2 champs at any given weight division. Not 5.