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.