An Iconic Fantasy Baseball Community
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
Amazinz wrote:Of course. But this has all been spurred on by high profile boxers and media personalities (such as Lampley) running their mouths. These are the guys saying they can enter MMA rules and dominate. It wasn't the other way around.
Tavish wrote:brewcrew4you wrote:There are two ways a boxer can beat a MMA fighter:
1. The boxer hits hard enough that he knocks the MMA guy out when he shoots.
2. The boxer has a fast and accurate enough jab that he can keep the MMA guy off of him the entire fight.
Boxers think that they are the toughest guys around, but look at Kit Cope, for example - world champion kickboxer, and he got the crap pounded out of him multiple times in the UFC because he couldn't defend the takedown...
Or 3, have it a boxing match. I'm pretty sure that boxers would have a tough time posting up Shaq or hitting a Zumaya fastball too. MMA and boxing are completely different sports. I'm not much of a gambler anymore, but I would definitely take my chances that a boxer would have a better shot winning a MMA than I would a MMA fighter winning a boxing match.
The lunging jabs and looping overhead hooks that most MMA fighters rely on would get them knocked out fairly quick in a boxing ring. Just like a boxer would be in a world of hurt against a strong takedown fighter like Koscheck or Hughes.
Amazinz wrote:As for Lampley's comments, I couldn't disagree with you more. Lampley has really been making some outlandish comments. He knows that the sport he loves is dying and he strikes out at a thriving sport that continues to steal away more and more of boxing's fan base. Either you're not totally familiar with everything Lampley has said or you're blinded by your dedication to boxing IMHO.
“You know, one of the specificities in that question is, ‘Will boxing have to cede its place on the stage to other fighting forms like Mixed Martial Arts?’ Mixed Martial Arts is entertaining, [but] the kind of skill level you saw in the ring tonight – there’s nothing in Mixed Martial Arts which is within light years of what Mayweather and De La Hoya are able to do with their hands.”
Amazinz wrote:Max Kellerman, a huge boxing fan, took umbrage to the comment as well so it's not just loony fan boys like me and the other crazies in this thread.
The Boxing vs. UFC Debate Continues
No holds barred fighting, known today by the sanitized moniker mixed martial arts (MMA), has always had at its base the grappling arts, and in particular Brazilian jiu-jitsu. The set of techniques which are next in line as most effective in MMA is wrestling.
Most boxing people know the same about Brazilian jiu-jitsu and wrestling as they do haute couture, honest finances, and getting subjects and predicates to agree.
I've been part of this debate for over a decade now, doing my part to oppose the actions of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to close this sport down. I've done so both as a journalist embedded in the NHB/MMA world, and as one embedded in the boxing world.
Despite the growing acceptance of mixed martial arts by the American regulatory commissions such as Nevada, New Jersey, and in early 2006 California, there are still many in boxing who view these events as some type of wild battle royales involving barbarians and thugs found in some parking lot or bar. The MMA enthusiasts counter by rattling off the lengthy and growing roster in these events of Olympic champions in wrestling and judo, black belts in jiu-jitsu and judo, world and national wrestling champions, kickboxing world champions, and those with impressive credentials in more than one of these disciplines.
Yet these events still appeal to largely different audiences. The MMA audience is far less discriminating as far as striking technique is concerned than the boxing audience is. In MMA you will thus too often see two world-class specialists in one or another form of grappling engaging in what mainly becomes a boxing or kickboxing match. For a boxing aficionado, it can be as painful as any sports fan watching Michael Jordan play baseball, any country music fan enduring Willie Nelson being placed in duets with various pop mediocrities, and any writing fan having to plow through most of today's sportswriting, and especially the drivel and hack jobs which pollute the boxing and MMA "literature" if you can even call it that.
But the MMA fans can't get enough of this, and parry the boxing fans' barbs by stressing the intricate and artistic grappling techniques that lie at the core of their beloved sport. They also emphasize that many boxing people are still willfully ignorant of accepted martial arts techniques like chokes, which are legal in Olympic judo, for instance. And, the MMA folks argue, the boxing folks fail to realize that punching an opponent on the ground almost always gives the puncher far less leverage than if he were standing right in front of him and could sit down on his punches. Plus, they usually add, if one guy gets in trouble, the ref is there to stop the fight, which almost always happens far sooner in MMA than in boxing, or that the other fighter can tap out and quit honorably, whose equivalent in boxing is still taboo.
So who, if anyone, is right? This is not exactly like debating which tastes better, chocolate or vanilla, because what has thus far gone on in the exchanges between the two sides has focused more on the realm of fighter safety, level of athleticism, the comparative aesthetics of these two types of fighting, and the like.
The best way for the open-minded, intelligent, and sports-savvy boxing fans (and I hope there are billions and billions of you) to learn about an event like UFC is, like just about anything else, to investigate it. The best yardstick is to examine its best product to observe just what it has to offer in its fullest development.
Users browsing this forum: AntonioPype and 4 guests