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.