Why are some boxers so against Mixed Martial Arts ?

UltimateMale

Met an old buddy of mine who I haven't seen in years. I used to box against him as a nipper but I gave it up while he kept a lifelong interest. He was living in New York for the last 10 years or so. Anyway we got talking about boxing etc and eventually I brought up the subject of the UFC.
Giving my reasons for liking it etc, he just kept insisting they were " failed boxers" and wouldn't accept that a wrestler/Brazilian Jiu Jitsu fighter could take a boxer down and submit him or ko him on the floor.
The vast majority of boxers I've met do enjoy MMA and although they obviously wouldn't have the experience/insight of the various throws, sweeps, locks, chokes etc they can appreciate it all the same. However you do meet some boxers, a minority, who refuse to accept the merits of MMA whatsoever. Floyd Mayweather been a famous one who comes to mind.

So boxers what's your thoughts ?

walshb

I am not a fan, don't not appreciate some aspects, but to me it's just too sloppy at times.
I am not a major fan of wrestling either. Give me Muay Thai any day.

nacho libre

i like Boxing, Wrestling and MMA. while i do find some mma bouts a bit tedious, fights like russow's v duffy and shogun v rua prove it can be just as entertaining as boxing can be.

Vintagekits

walshb wrote: »

I am not a fan, don't not appreciate some aspects, but to me it's just too sloppy at times.
I am not a major fan of wrestling either. Give me Muay Thai any day.

What he said!

Plus I dont like the way it is marketed.

Stuffy

walshb wrote: »

I am not a fan, don't not appreciate some aspects, but to me it's just too sloppy at times.
I am not a major fan of wrestling either. Give me Muay Thai any day.

Hi Walsh b,
This is interesting, yesterday I saw a post from you that stated that you thought Willie Caseys QF and SF were the reasons why boxing is so much better than other sports (in the prizefighter thread). I was thinking that knowledgeable boxing fans usually insist that boxing is an art and not a scrap consisting of wild lunges which is what we witnessed in Prizefighter, although very enjoyable to watch.

Now I like scraps like Caseys QF and SF but how can you suggest that MMA is too sloppy when you validified the reason boxing is a great sport because of the fights we saw in prizefighter, which were extremely sloppy, yet your condemning MMA for this?

deisedelight

personally i dont think you can compare the sports ...apples and oranges.

all the best strikers in the world whether it be boxers , kickboxers, etc still stick to their chosen promotions as thats where the money is. for me the striking particularly in mma is awful even though their stance is completely different. any guys that come from a boxing background like marcus davis, jens pulver etc are failed boxers who could nt cut it in the boxing game simple as but fair play to them making successful careers for themselves in mma.

when you have a guy like brock lesnar, wrestling background or not becoming the ufc heavyweight champion after 3 fights i think it speaks volumes for the depth of their heavyweight devision. incidently dana white who continually prophecises the death of boxing is also a failed boxer.

i think the ufc has done a great job in promoting their sport and their miles ahead of boxing in terms of marketing and promotion etc. dana white and the ferritas deserves huge credit for this. however i dont ever see mma been bigger than boxing worldwide myself. if anything in many ways both sports do promote each other in an ironic way. i think the real victim of the mma rise in popularity will be the wwe and other entertainment wrestling promotions.boxing at the moment is in a very healthy place i feel. 50k at pacman fight, flyod v mosley (6th th biggest fight of all time), klitscho's fight at weekend (60k) and they expect over 30k for cotto fight. compared to a few yrs ago i think boxing has got its act together to a degree but could still learn alot from mma. a slicker version of super 6 format is way forward i believe . also while i cant see it happening one unified boxing body would do wonders for name recognition. theres so much more that could be done to improve boxings presence in mainstream culture but greed is the big obstacle.

Father Damo

Because its absoloute sh1t, looks like a playground brawl and caters to, ahem, a different breed of sports fan (not as if scumbags dont attend boxing or any other sport but UFC seems to have a particular niche into their market)

Obviously not all fans are like this, but it is still like 12 year olds brawling simply dressed up with a minimal amount of rules.

It also gets me how defensive MMA fans are. If someone tells me watching two men beat lumps out of each other in a boxing ring is caveman rubbish, I wont agree, but have your opinion. If football is all nancy boys kicking blah blah blah, again, completely disagree, but each to their own. Same on any other sport- if I tell a rugby fan that union (particularly internationals) bore the living sh1te out of me they can usually handle it. Tell a UFC fan his sport sucks and there is a ten minute rant in defence.

mushykeogh

I think boxers wouldnt be so keen on it because it dilutes their sport a bit. I mean MMA is mix of a lot of different skills and technically there boxing skills mightnt be the best, certainly when they start to fatigue it can get exceptionally sloppy, but then again so can heavyweight boxing when you go outside of the top 5 or 6. I dont mind MMA, understand a bit more now that ive seen mma guys train, the ground work involves a lot of skill but isnt entertaining for me to watch. I prefer stand up just for sheer will and heart that some boxers show, take the ryan rhodes and jamie moore fight last year, moore looked completely shattered but still threw some sweet hooks, even in the the round he got stopped!

MMA v boxing arguments will be around as long as the two sports are, like would a karate guy beat a thaiboxer (no of course!), who would win between batman and superman etc. Different stokes for different folks. Its just cool to like ufc now, just look at the amount of merchandise you see fat lazy loons wearing!

cowzerp

Its worth noting that lots of new MMA fans dont like Boxing either, they listen to Dana White too much and feel that Boxing is the enemy!!
The more seasoned MMA fans and fighters would no better tbh.

With that said, some people like soccer but not Gaa football, its worth noting that if your a boxing fan and watch MMA the striking can look dreadfull at times but there not Boxers at the end of the day-the skill of been competent in all ranges is special and if you where a Wrestler watching MMA you would most likely also be moaning at the bad technique as again there not pure wrestlers, lots where but thats because wrestling fits into MMA very easily..

Anyway, MMA is a very skillfull sport and not really similar to boxing except the idea is to win mano a mano!!

Everyone to there own and even better for me as i have both to do and to watch so get double the pleasure.

consultech

nacho libre wrote: »

i like Boxing, Wrestling and MMA. while i do find some mma bouts a bit tedious, fights like russow's v duffy and shogun v rua prove it can be just as entertaining as boxing can be.

I'd imagine a man fighting with himself would be fairly entertaining alright...

cowzerp

nacho libre wrote: »

shogun v rua prove it can be just as entertaining as boxing can be.

i get ya nacho!!

Shogun v Machida i think you mean..

keane=cock

i actually used to love the ufc. watched it religiously when it first hit the big time. went off it for a few years and recently went back to watch a few fights. wasnt for me again. i could watch 2 bad boxers fighting and have a little intrest but not the ufc anymore.

i understand the ground game and the submitting tactics and the standup(i have done kickboxing judo and a small bit of grappling) but still dont get the same buzz i get from boxing.

as for the next question of who would win a boxer or a mma fighter! in a boxing match, a boxer. in a mma fight, if its a wresting or bjj type fighter against a boxer unless he gets knocked out the mma fighter will take the boxer to the ground. its how they have been trained.

cowzerp

keane=cock wrote: »

as for the next question of who would win a boxer or a mma fighter! in a boxing match, a boxer. in a mma fight, if its a wresting or bjj type fighter against a boxer unless he gets knocked out the mma fighter will take the boxer to the ground. its how they have been trained.

well said..

walshb

Stuffy wrote: »

Hi Walsh b,
This is interesting, yesterday I saw a post from you that stated that you thought Willie Caseys QF and SF were the reasons why boxing is so much better than other sports (in the prizefighter thread). I was thinking that knowledgeable boxing fans usually insist that boxing is an art and not a scrap consisting of wild lunges which is what we witnessed in Prizefighter, although very enjoyable to watch.

Now I like scraps like Caseys QF and SF but how can you suggest that MMA is too sloppy when you validified the reason boxing is a great sport because of the fights we saw in prizefighter, which were extremely sloppy, yet your condemning MMA for this?

Well, I didn't see anything poor, weak or sloppy from Casey and his opponents. I saw grit, stamina, determination, punches in bunches, and all that. It was a tremendous display and Casey showed real skill and punching ability. Yes, there was the odd lunge here and there, but overall, Casey was extremely fluid and consistent. Joe Wale was also so good, his punching ability and ease of delivery was really beautiful.

I love a skilled fighter like Floyd or Whitaker, but gimme Ward-Gatti, Coralles-Castillo, Barrera-Morales every day of the week. People seem to forget, there can also be a huge amount of skill/fluidity/beauty in a savage and brutal fight, you just gotta keep a close eye on it to see it

foams

If you watch the better boxers and how they move and put there punches together it can be hard to watch to MMA lads move across the ring like elephants but the muay thai/K-1 lads arent much better.
And as Walshb was saying aggresive boxers dont often get the credit they deserve, i think alot of them,especially the successful one's are excellent techniquely but choose to fight in an aggressive manner.

Stuffy

deisedelight wrote: »

any guys that come from a boxing background like marcus davis, jens pulver etc are failed boxers who could nt cut it in the boxing game simple as but fair play to them making successful careers for themselves in mma.[QUOTE]

Fair point but boxing is so disorganised that only a select few can actually "make it". With MMA it is to start in the smaller shows and eventually progress to UFC if you are good enough so it is more structured.

[QUOTE=Father Damo;66191008]caters to, ahem, a different breed of sports fan (not as if scumbags dont attend boxing or any other sport but UFC seems to have a particular niche into their market)

Obviously not all fans are like this

I'm an MMA head myself and it doesn't bother me one bit that people don't like MMA but that is a very naive and ignorant view.

walshb wrote: »

Well, I didn't see anything poor, weak or sloppy from Casey and his opponents. I saw grit, stamina, determination, punches in bunches, and all that. It was a tremendous display and Casey showed real skill and punching ability.

Alright but to say you didn't see anything sloppy from Casey is ridiculous tbh (granted there was some good work from his SF opponant). I'm a fan of boxing myself and watch any fights that interest me but if you watch Casey's SF round 2 and 3 and the final you will see alot of sloppy punches. The odd lunge is being extremely generous, the fresh air shots were bad enough but there was very few shots that connected cleanly also. I wouldn't describe punches being blocked by the opponant as real skill and punching ability imo. It was great to watch and he showed real heart and grit, but it was sloppy bar the success he had in the first fight and round 1 of his SF.


My own view is that UFC is alot more organised and as a result is making alot more money than boxing across the board. I love both sports but I would watch all of a UFC event, I would watch the co-main of a boxing ppv if they were lucky. In saying that, the one thing a UFC event will never fill is the buzz and hype of a big boxing event. I will always get a little more hyped for a Pacquiao v Cotto than I will for nearly all UFC main events. But I think that is because the boxing PPV's are less frequent than a UFC event every month.

I don't think there is anything wrong with watching both sports or not, but you do get ridiculous arguments from certain fans of both sports. Many of the posts above arguing against it are long and detailed, but if it was Cricket instead of MMA you wouldn't go to half the effort to detail why you don't like it, so most fans of either sport actually sub-consciencely over defend or criticise imo.

walshb

Stuffy wrote: »

deisedelight wrote: »

[


Alright but to say you didn't see anything sloppy from Casey is ridiculous tbh (granted there was some good work from his SF opponant). I'm a fan of boxing myself and watch any fights that interest me but if you watch Casey's SF round 2 and 3 and the final you will see alot of sloppy punches. The odd lunge is being extremely generous, the fresh air shots were bad enough but there was very few shots that connected cleanly also. I wouldn't describe punches being blocked by the opponant as real skill and punching ability imo. It was great to watch and he showed real heart and grit, but it was sloppy bar the success he had in the first fight and round 1 of his SF.

.

Look, this isn't a computer game where everything is so so precise. They are people who are doing their best to slip, duck and avoid shots. Even the greatest fighters at times miss, lunge, stumble and make "errors". I think you are nit picking.

With Casey I saw real hard and tough scrapping, and NOT street fighting style. He had a whole array of shots; looping, short, long, inside, outside etc. That is not to mention
the heart, guts, excitement and non stop style he employed. This too adds to
a great fight and a great sport. It's not JUST the landing of punches that makes a great
scrap.

Very few shots connected clean? I don't know what to say to this. If you are talking about
percentages, then yes. But, most fighters have a connect percentage of less than 40 percent.

It is irrelevant if shots are being blocked by a fighter. I was strictly talking about fluidity, delivery and ease of throwing. Watch Pacman throw so many effortless shots that were mostly blocked by Clottey. Just because the shots were blocked does not mean that Manny didn't display beautiful technique, fluidity and delivery of those shots.

Stuffy

foams wrote: »

And as Walshb was saying aggresive boxers dont often get the credit they deserve, i think alot of them,especially the successful one's are excellent techniquely but choose to fight in an aggressive manner.

Victor Ortiz instantly came to mind here, he used to be extremely aggresive and payed for it against Maidana. Now everyone expected him to come out against Campbell and brawl, but he put on a great technical display and took Campbell to shreads. The more recent brilliant technical Ortiz gets alot more respect than his previous aggresive boxer style imo.

walshb

Stuffy wrote: »

Victor Ortiz instantly came to mind here, he used to be extremely aggresive and payed for it against MAidana. Now everyone expected him to come out against Campbell and brawl, but he put on a great technical display and took Campbell to shreads. The more recent brilliant technical Ortiz gets alot more respect than his previous aggresive boxer style imo.

Spot on, that display from Ortiz was superb, beautiful to watch and ever so technically sound. Before this fight I had Khan beating Ortiz, now I think it's a pick em.

UltimateMale

cowzerp wrote: »

Its worth noting that lots of new MMA fans dont like Boxing either, they listen to Dana White too much and feel that Boxing is the enemy!!
The more seasoned MMA fans and fighters would no better tbh.

With that said, some people like soccer but not Gaa football, its worth noting that if your a boxing fan and watch MMA the striking can look dreadfull at times but there not Boxers at the end of the day-the skill of been competent in all ranges is special and if you where a Wrestler watching MMA you would most likely also be moaning at the bad technique as again there not pure wrestlers, lots where but thats because wrestling fits into MMA very easily..

Anyway, MMA is a very skillfull sport and not really similar to boxing except the idea is to win mano a mano!!

Everyone to there own and even better for me as i have both to do and to watch so get double the pleasure.

Very good point there. As you say, they have to competent in several ranges, punching, kicking, kneeing, wrestling ( for takedowns and in the clinch), Brazilain Jiu Jitsu ( grappling on the ground).

whaaames

Surely it doesnt have to be one or the other, does it..? (not saying that anybody has said this)

But they're completely seperate sports altogether, and should be viewed as such, boxing is no more MMA's enemy than american football or nascar or professional wrestling. Sure they compete for tv ratings and sponsorship but that's taken as read, it's people like Don King and Dana White consistantly self promoting and slandering the other that is giving the view that the 2 sports are bitter ememies, when the fact is there is there's plenty of room for both.

I know this is a pretty weak argement but Pro Wrestling and Boxing co-existed for donkeys years without this type of rivalry, but then again the wrestlers were show men compared to fighters...
Anyway i love both and don't really see a problem...

Wild_Dogger

I think the whole idea of a "Rift" between boxing and MMA was created by Dana White and his excellent promotional team .

I suspect most purist boxing fans dont take heed of this 'rift' at all.
As such , there is no Boxing vs MMA war .
They are 2 completely seperate sports contained under the "combat" category .

Boxing is more refined under a stricter set of rules , and is concentrated on a more limited area of combat . This raises the bar in terms of quality.

MMA is much broader in their rules , and its easy to see why boxing fans find it 'brutal' .
There dosent appear to be any steroid control either , with these guys like brock lesner etc obvious candidates. Although , I'm happy to stand corrected on this , as I dont know enough about it tbh


Personally I find MMA entertaining , and I'll watch it if there's no boxing on . I can enjoy it for what it is , and they put on a great show as was said earlier .

colly10

UltimateMale wrote: »

Giving my reasons for liking it etc, he just kept insisting they were " failed boxers"

I wouldn't agree with this, it's a completely different sport, there is alot of ****e in it though but I would put that down to being a relatively young sport, the standard will continue to improve

UltimateMale wrote: »

and wouldn't accept that a wrestler/Brazilian Jiu Jitsu fighter could take a boxer down and submit him or ko him on the floor.

The annoys me about UFC fans, a boxer is likely to be submitted in MMA in the same way that a MMA fighter will get knocked out inside a round in boxing. In my opinion though an elite fighter such as pacquaio is likely to do better in MMA than an elite MMA fighter would do in boxing.
It does not matter though, they are different sports, boxers don't tend to compare but MMA fans seem to spend a too much time talking about boxing. An example would be that clown from the MMA earlier today that called out Mayweather, whats the point, why would mayweather fight in a sport he's not trained in when he makes the money he does in boxing, why does the MMA fighter not work his way up in boxing and take Mayweather on then if he believes he is such a "pussy"

UltimateMale wrote: »

However you do meet some boxers, a minority, who refuse to accept the merits of MMA whatsoever.

It's kind of like me having an interest in Soccer and expecting me because of my interest to see merits in GAA. They are not similar.
The skill level is lower than boxing when it comes to striking in MMA (for obvious reasons), I have no interest in watching grappling or wrestling so I don't feel the interest that fans of the sport would, but then again I can understand how people would be interested in it

mushykeogh

foams wrote: »

it can be hard to watch to MMA lads move across the ring like elephants but the muay thai/K-1 lads arent much better.

In thai punches arent regarded at all really, punches landed dont usually score points unless they rock someone to their boots, kicks and knees are scored much more favourably. MMA is a bit like the decathlon in the olympics, the guys can sprint pretty fast, do a decent long jump and shot putt, but there never going to be as good as the guys that specialise in these events.

whaaames

mushykeogh wrote: »

In thai punches arent regarded at all really, punches landed dont usually score points unless they rock someone to their boots, kicks and knees are scored much more favourably. MMA is a bit like the decathlon in the olympics, the guys can sprint pretty fast, do a decent long jump and shot putt, but there never going to be as good as the guys that specialise in these events.

But thats the nature of the sport, to be well rounded, if they were specialised in one particular area wouldnt they just do that instead of MMA. They work hard at every aspect to improve all round rather than just being a jack of all trades...

mushykeogh

whaaames wrote: »

But thats the nature of the sport, to be well rounded, if they were specialised in one particular area wouldnt they just do that instead of MMA. They work hard at every aspect to improve all round rather than just being a jack of all trades...

Thats pretty much what i just said!

whaaames

mushykeogh wrote: »

Thats pretty much what i just said!

were you not slating it? if you werent i apoligise, but i thought u were..???

i thought u were makin' out they were only doin it because they werent good enough at one specific sport..!!

T-K-O

IMO when boxing fans flat out dislike MMA they usually feel threatened by the sport and to a certain extent they should. What attached me to MMA is the stacked cards and in the case of the UFC one title. Boxing could learn a lot on the promotion end of things.

Also a lot of people don't know what they are looking at - they don't appreciate a ground game, wrestling skills, judo etc and they find the striking sloppy or wild - these are silly comments to make when judging MMA. When you watch a fight in ice hockey we don't critisise the guys for being sloppy wild and bad foot work

walshb

T-K-O wrote: »

IMO when boxing fans flat out dislike MMA they usually feel threatened by the sport and to a certain extent they should. What attached me to MMA is the stacked cards and in the case of the UFC one title. Boxing could learn a lot on the promotion end of things.

Also a lot of people don't know what they are looking at - they don't appreciate a ground game, wrestling skills, judo etc and they find the striking sloppy or wild - these are silly comments to make when judging MMA. When you watch a fight in ice hockey we don't critisise the guys for being sloppy wild and bad foot work

Yeah, but hockey players play hockey. Their wildness is almost expected in a fight.
MMA are supposed to be skilled combatants. Some of them are, and very skilled too, athletic and all that. I just find it a wee bit boring, wrestling I never was mad about, but do appreciate the subtle skills and stamina and technique needed.

T-K-O

walshb wrote: »

Yeah, but hockey players play hockey. Their wildness is almost expected in a fight.
MMA are supposed to be skilled combatants. Some of them are, and very skilled too, athletic and all that. I just find it a wee bit boring, wrestling I never was mad about, but do appreciate the subtle skills and stamina and technique needed.

And they are skilled sure the lower you go, it;s can get a little wild, same applies to boxing - the difference is - MMA is a new sport and the pool is smaller.
Personally I love the different techniques, Almeida is one of my favorite fights some say boring I say fascinating..

Sure you will see guys get desperate and swing but we also see that in boxing

walshb

There can be some piss poor boxing matches, I know. In general, when the standards
are good, above good in both, I think boxing is a cut above, and always will be.

I tend to switch off when it goes to ground, where only judo and wrestling folks
can really get enthused. I used to be a fan of judo, but watched it at recent Olympics and
found it has regressed, and got more boring.

T-K-O

walshb wrote: »

There can be some piss poor boxing matches, I know. In general, when the standards
are good, above good in both, I think boxing is a cut above, and always will be.

I tend to switch off when it goes to ground, where only judo and wrestling folks
can really get enthused. I used to be a fan of judo, but watched it at recent Olympics and
found it has regressed, and got more boring.

And that is personally preference - fine. But don't attack the sport just because you're not a fan.

Guys like Silva, GSP, Penn are just as polished as any boxer.

walshb

T-K-O wrote: »

And that is personally preference - fine. But don't attack the sport just because you're not a fan.

Guys like Silva, GSP, Penn are just as polished as any boxer.

Agreed, not my cup of tea, but I do admire those guys, for courage alone.

Wild_Dogger

I like all martial arts. Boxing, Kickboxing, BJJ, Greco-Roman, Muay Thai. I'm an MMA fan but also a Boxing fan and would like to see both do well. I think Boxing won't be changed much by MMA's growth but I think other things may be such as K-1 and WWE. K-1 is adapting MMA rules but are still miles behind UFC and Strikeforce. I think Boxing will stay much more popular than MMA.
MMA is a great sport and is as pure a sport as any. Boxing however is an art and can be used to some extent in MMA even though it's a different class altogether.
Just my 2c.

Wild_Dogger wrote:

There dosent appear to be any steroid control either , with these guys like brock lesner etc obvious candidates. Although , I'm happy to stand corrected on this , as I dont know enough about it tbh

All tested under the Nevada State Boxing Commission.

cowzerp

T-K-O wrote: »

What attached me to MMA is the stacked cards and in the case of the UFC one title.


Boxing could learn a lot on the promotion end of things.

As fighters get more well payed the cards will diminish in quality and all the money will be put on the main event like in Boxing, as far as the 1 title goes-in the UFC ya have the interim titles etc plus there is way more world titles in MMA than in Boxing, strikeforce, UFC, Dream, WEC etc the lists go on, so Titles actually are more available in MMA so this is a big mistruth in reality.

Agreed

Stuffy

cowzerp wrote: »

there is way more world titles in MMA than in Boxing, strikeforce, UFC, Dream, WEC etc the lists go on, so Titles actually are more available in MMA so this is a big mistruth in reality.

Ya but if you put it like that then there is boxing titles in most countries in the world at each division so there is more in boxing in that sense. But that doesn't happen, you won't see Pacquiao going fighting for the Phillipines title just as you won't see GSP going to Bellator to fight for their championship belts.

In MMA if you win a belt in a lower organisation you are not really referred to as a world champion outside that organisation. If you look at the UFC list, alot of the fighters have been KOTC champions etc but they are not called former "world champions" as the promotions are distinctively lower class. This is opposed to boxing where you could have a boxer been referred to as a former world champ when he has won a mickey mouse belt.

cowzerp

Stuffy wrote: »

Ya but if you put it like that then there is boxing titles in most countries in the world at each division so there is more in boxing in that sense. But that doesn't happen, you won't see Pacquiao going fighting for the Phillipines title just as you won't see GSP going to Bellator to fight for their championship belts.

In MMA if you win a belt in a lower organisation you are not really referred to as a world champion outside that organisation. If you look at the UFC list, alot of the fighters have been KOTC champions etc but they are not called former "world champions" as the promotions are distinctively lower class. This is opposed to boxing where you could have a boxer been referred to as a former world champ when he has won a mickey mouse belt.

National titles are not the same as world titles and are only fought for in mma and boxing by national level fighters, plus MMA has several national titles aswell in all countries, boxing can only have 1.

The UFC will not make out the strikeforce champ is a champ but MMA fans will, i think your just a UFC fan and dont get the scene based on your poor knowledge..

Stuffy

cowzerp wrote: »

National titles are not the same as world titles and are only fought for in mma and boxing by national level fighters, plus MMA has several national titles aswell in all countries, boxing can only have 1.

The UFC will not make out the strikeforce champ is a champ but MMA fans will, i think your just a UFC fan and dont get the scene based on your poor knowledge..

You thought wrong, I never mentioned Strikeforce didn't have justifiable champs as it is the 2nd leading organisation, I was talking about smaller shows like King of the Cage and Bellator, maybe you didn't get that due to your poor understanding ability..

I would have poor knowledge in relation to Irish MMA though as thats quite ordinary at best if thats what you mean..

If you have a look at your post you said titles, not world titles so thats why I was referring to national championships also.

titan18

Stuffy wrote: »

Ya but if you put it like that then there is boxing titles in most countries in the world at each division so there is more in boxing in that sense. But that doesn't happen, you won't see Pacquiao going fighting for the Phillipines title just as you won't see GSP going to Bellator to fight for their championship belts.

In MMA if you win a belt in a lower organisation you are not really referred to as a world champion outside that organisation. If you look at the UFC list, alot of the fighters have been KOTC champions etc but they are not called former "world champions" as the promotions are distinctively lower class. This is opposed to boxing where you could have a boxer been referred to as a former world champ when he has won a mickey mouse belt.

That's not true, Fedor doesn't fight in the UFC but is regarded as one of the best fighters around.Just because someone doesn't fight there doesn't mean they are of lesser talent.Most of the top talent are in the UFC but there are very talented fighters outside of it.

On topic, both sports should be able to coexist. They require different skillsets
and both are very entertaining. Some people won't watch MMA as they don't like the ground game but others like seeing that. Pacquaio, Mayweather etc would beat any of the top of the MMA fighters in a boxing match but would be destroyed in an MMA fight by guys like GSP,Anderson Silva etc.

Stuffy

titan18 wrote: »

That's not true, Fedor doesn't fight in the UFC but is regarded as one of the best fighters around.Just because someone doesn't fight there doesn't mean they are of lesser talent.Most of the top talent are in the UFC but there are very talented fighters outside of it.

Where did I say there wasn't talented fighters outside the UFC?? I said the smaller organisational belts aren't referred to as World Championships outside those organisations, such as KOTC, Bellator and MFC. Would you consider the fighting calibre in these organisations as good as UFC or Strikeforce?? Probably not, so they arent referred to as former world champs if they fought in Strikeforce or UFC which is the right way, opposed to boxing where you have ring magazine champions etc.

Did you even read my post?? If so what were you saying is not true?

titan18

Stuffy wrote: »

Where did I say there wasn't talented fighters outside the UFC?? I said the smaller organisational belts aren't referred to as World Championships outside those organisations, such as KOTC, Bellator and MFC. Would you consider the fighting calibre in these organisations as good as UFC or Strikeforce?? Probably not, so they arent referred to as former world champs if they fought in Strikeforce or UFC which is the right way, opposed to boxing where you have ring magazine champions etc.

Did you even read my post?? If so what were you saying is not true?

True, but just cos they don't fight in the UFC, it doesn't mean they're not talented.I don't actually know do they announce any fighter as a former champion of anything in UFC tbh, I've never heard it being announced there. In boxing, it's different, there isn't a huge gulf in class between the the WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO and The Ring, fighters deserve to have it acknowledged that they are former champions, just as if Fedor ever fights in UFC, he should be announced as a former World Champion, even if it was a different division, he's one of the best ever.

Stuffy

titan18 wrote: »

True, but just cos they don't fight in the UFC, it doesn't mean they're not talented.I don't actually know do they announce any fighter as a former champion of anything in UFC tbh, I've never heard it being announced there. In boxing, it's different, there isn't a huge gulf in class between the the WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO and The Ring, fighters deserve to have it acknowledged that they are former champions, just as if Fedor ever fights in UFC, he should be announced as a former World Champion, even if it was a different division, he's one of the best ever.

I never said fighters outside the UFC were not talented, you seem to have totally disregarded my point or just failed to comprehend it.

Yes Fedor should be referred to as a world champ as he was in Pride and beat many top class fighters. Joe Stevenson was the KOTC champ and he isn't called a world champion, which he shouldn't be because he didn't beat the best fighters around, he beat fighters in that organisation which were not world class!

I don't know much about the grading/rep of boxing belts, but I do know that there is a huge gap between the reputation of certain World titles! Most people here will tell you that, what your saying is that the calibre of world champions doesn't differ that much, which is wrong. Bernard Dunne isn't anywhere near the standard of Celestino Caballero and they were world champs at the same time?

titan18

Stuffy wrote: »

I never said fighters outside the UFC were not talented, you seem to have totally disregarded my point or just failed to comprehend it.

Yes Fedor should be referred to as a world champ as he was in Pride and beat the many top class fighters. Joe Stevenson won KOTC and he isn't called a world champion, which he shouldn't be because he didn't beat the best fighters around, he beat fighters in that organisation which were not world class!

I don't know much about the grading/rep of boxing belts, but I do know that there is a huge gap between the reputation of certain World titles! Most people here will tell you that, what your saying is that the calibre of world champions doesn't differ that much, which is wrong. Bernard Dunne isn't anywhere near the standard of Celestino Caballero and they were world champs at the same time?

I don't know

Alright,I misread your post a little bit, but I still doubt the UFC would acknowledge Fedor as a champion, I'm not sure do they do it with any former champions no matter what title they had, but I'm not exactly sure.

No, I'm not saying that the calibre of the champions doesn't differ, but those fighters can be the champion in those belts over others. Most people will generally know who the top few fighters in each weight division are anyway, the belt will mean very little, but just that if they are the WBA champions or WBC champion or whatever, it doesn't really matter. Like as you Dunne, who was the WBA champion, Caballero is a WBA world champion, so is Andre Ward and Juan Manuel Marquez.

One title may be more valuable than another at one point depending on who holds it, but I don't think there's a gulf between each belt just the title holder

Stuffy

titan18 wrote: »

Alright,I misread your post a little bit, but I still doubt the UFC would acknowledge Fedor as a champion, I'm not sure do they do it with any former champions no matter what title they had, but I'm not exactly sure.

No, I'm not saying that the calibre of the champions doesn't differ, but those fighters can be the champion in those belts over others. Most people will generally know who the top few fighters in each weight division are anyway, the belt will mean very little, but just that if they are the WBA champions or WBC champion or whatever, it doesn't really matter. Like as you Dunne, who was the WBA champion, Caballero is a WBA world champion, so is Andre Ward and Juan Manuel Marquez.

Your first part is probably right considering, but he would still be regarded as a world champion amongst the fans, in contrast to people who won smaller organisational belts like I've stated.

Exactly, but fighters who hold World titles that have little reputation shouldn't be described as World champions. This is the problem with boxing, there is so many titles that the best boxers can't have them all, so this leads to alot of good boxers becoming "World Champions", when they infact would never have got a belt if there was only the one belt.
Dunne is a perfect example of this, and it should be noted that he didn't hold the WBA full title, it was somewhat like an interim belt as they created the WBA super champion belt aswell.

Ya the difference in the belt reputation is justified by the title holder as I said

cowzerp

Stuffy wrote: »

You thought wrong, I never mentioned Strikeforce didn't have justifiable champs as it is the 2nd leading organisation, I was talking about smaller shows like King of the Cage and Bellator, maybe you didn't get that due to your poor understanding ability..


If you have a look at your post you said titles, not world titles so thats why I was referring to national championships also.

Wait a min, so now strikeforce is ok! that means there is 2 world champs in MMA!
wec is basically the UFC and they also have world champs that the UFC recognise! thats 3.
Pride world titles where and are recognised by the UFC now that they own it-so that would be 4 only for they have ripped it apart.

Plus there is probably another 50 World titles in MMA also-whether you recognise them or not! Boxing has 4 main ones and 1-2 non recognised ones, even within the 4 main ones the champ is considered the man who beat the man etc.. In boxing you can also unite the titles where in the mma world titles cant be united, Fedor is the best heavyweight in the world and if he holds the "Rumble in Rush" title thats the real World title untill someone beats him. same applies in Boxing.


Plus the initial answer i gave was answering your question on "World champions" it was you that brought national titles into it trying to make your case stronger when in fact each country has several national MMA titles where Boxing only has 1.

The UFC is not MMA and just the biggest branded part of MMA..

mushykeogh

whaaames wrote: »

were you not slating it? if you werent i apoligise, but i thought u were..???

i thought u were makin' out they were only doin it because they werent good enough at one specific sport..!!

Not at all, my point is that some decathletes would prob have qualifying standards for the olympics in at least one event they practice. they are highly skilled in many different events.

joepenguin

Stuffy wrote: »

Dunne is a perfect example of this, and it should be noted that he didn't hold the WBA full title, it was somewhat like an interim belt as they created the WBA super champion belt aswell.

Usually if a fighter unifies titles then they are stripped of at least one belt if the org sees fit. Had it been wba policy to strip cabelerro of the title for not facing mandatories then cordoba would have fought for the vacant title and dunne would have took it off him and be the "wba proper" champ. Only difference here is the wba called cabellero a super champ to keep getting money outta him after stripping him. Thats all the super champ is.
So Dunnes title is of course less valid than say hattons when he had his, martinez as its linear, and calzaghe when he was champ but just as valid as most titles out there that have been picked up as vacated titles recently. Simlilary it is just as valid as all of roy jones belts when he had 7 of them.
Its also worth pointing out that wlad could rightly be called wba champ as he fought chageav who was never beaten in the ring for the wba but they stripped him. How is that different to cab other than financially?
Amir khans title is nothing more than a vacated title passed down through mediocre fighters. Had the wba made hatton super champ or whatever and pacquiao ended up with that belt would people have said kahn wasnt the proper wba champ? they probably would, but since thats not how the rolled back then, people see him as wba champ end of story.
Just to add chad dawson is just wbc interim champ. You cant judge a fighter by the plastic around his waist.

On topic: MMA is in its infancy and needs viewers. They got them by putting on exciting match ups and since there were no stars etc up until now (as in household names) fighters didnt demand as much money. Boxers will be against it from grass roots level as people will take up mma instead of boxing hence diluting the talent field even further.
On a pro level they are competing for ppv numbers so its natural for some people to take an anti mma stance. Its also easy to dismiss the sport as boring and thugish due to its nature.
Some boxers really let themselves down when they voice their opinion on mma. Floyd Mayweather been a prime example.