Off Topic Thread too point uh

mfceiling wrote: »

I think boxing has become fairly meh...mainly due to the politics and vast array of belts available at each weight.

Fighters are being kept apart and I can't think of too many boxers who people are on edge to watch their next fight.

Frampton is a great talent for us in Ireland but even then he probably isn't as well known or recognisable as McGregor.

MMA will grow stronger and last night certainly helped their cause.

I agree - I've basically no interest in boxing and bar going to the o2 for the Bernard Dunne world title fight I've only barely followed the sport.

I started following MMA around 2012 when one of the KM coaches I trained with was fighting a division 2 (I think) fight out in tallaght and after that I started following the UFC and to be honest, the fighters are very accessible, do a lot of interviews about their fights and experiences and it seemed much more like a sport than an exhibition.

I don't doubt it will go the way of boxing but I still think there is something raw about UFC and it has more realism as a result. It's also has a niche support and unusual crowd. I mean Alienware were main sponsor for one of the fighters last night.

mfceiling wrote: »

I think boxing has become fairly meh...mainly due to the politics and vast array of belts available at each weight.

Fighters are being kept apart and I can't think of too many boxers who people are on edge to watch their next fight.

Frampton is a great talent for us in Ireland but even then he probably isn't as well known or recognisable as McGregor.

MMA will grow stronger and last night certainly helped their cause.

Boxing has always had politics, it has always had different belts, nothing new there at all, even at its height in the late 80's the super middleweight division had 4 including the WBO,

I'm not denying that last night was good for mma, it was probably its most high profile fight, but its still not in the same stratosphere as boxing, maybe if it trebles or quadruples over the coming years in both purses and revenue, and boxing halves, then maybe we can have a proper comparison, until then, its a poor relation

.ak

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Its a bit ridiculous that McGregor was looking to the ref to get them off the ground in 2nd round when Mendes was doing tons of damage with his elbows.

Ah you chance your arm when you can. I think he was suggesting he wasn't really fighting tho.

.ak

Teferi wrote: »

You'd feel a little sympathy for Federer, it's perhaps beyond him to win it now. Still, he has plenty to look back on.

Loved that 2nd tie breaker but he struggled to get the ball in from the baseline. Then when he did Djokovic just took off... Still first two sets were a proper scrap!

.ak wrote: »

Loved that 2nd tie breaker but he struggled to get the ball in from the baseline. Then when he did Djokovic just took off... Still first two sets were a proper scrap!

I'd think if Federer was 26-28 he'd dominate the sport still. Just his bad luck to be up against a superb player in Novak, anyone else, he'd be well over 20 majors now

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree - I've basically no interest in boxing and bar going to the o2 for the Bernard Dunne world title fight I've only barely followed the sport.

I started following MMA around 2012 when one of the KM coaches I trained with was fighting a division 2 (I think) fight out in tallaght and after that I started following the UFC and to be honest, the fighters are very accessible, do a lot of interviews about their fights and experiences and it seemed much more like a sport than an exhibition.

I don't doubt it will go the way of boxing but I still think there is something raw about UFC and it has more realism as a result. It's also has a niche support and unusual crowd. I mean Alienware were main sponsor for one of the fighters last night.

The realism is one thing that will help MMA. The best boxers used to have this aura of invincibility, but people are starting to realise that even the most average of UFC fighters would destroy their boxing counterparts in a real fight, the baddest man on the planet is now Fabricio Werdum, not Klitschko. Maybe that won't count for as much as I think, but I reckon it is a factor

Tox56 wrote: »

The realism is one thing that will help MMA. The best boxers used to have this aura of invincibility, but people are starting to realise that even the most average of UFC fighters would destroy their boxing counterparts in a real fight, the baddest man on the planet is now Fabricio Werdum, not Klitschko. Maybe that won't count for as much as I think, but I reckon it is a factor

Variety helps also - of the wins last night by KO, two were from knee's and one was a full arm bar around the neck.

Tox56 wrote: »

The realism is one thing that will help MMA. The best boxers used to have this aura of invincibility, but people are starting to realise that even the most average of UFC fighters would destroy their boxing counterparts in a real fight, the baddest man on the planet is now Fabricio Werdum, not Klitschko. Maybe that won't count for as much as I think, but I reckon it is a factor

Really? Depends what you mean by a real fight? Queensberry rules? MMA rules? Street fight?

Zzippy wrote: »

Really? Depends what you mean by a real fight? Queensberry rules? MMA rules? Street fight?

A one on one fight with no rules, unarmed obviously... It's not particularly a slight on boxers, they only train one discipline, but it's true nonetheless

Stheno

Out of curiosity is there a women's mma movement?

thomond2006

Stheno wrote: »

Out of curiosity is there a women's mma movement?

Absolutely. Ronda Rousey is probably the biggest name in the sport!

irishbucsfan

Stheno wrote: »

Out of curiosity is there a women's mma movement?

The headline of the next event is a women's fight, Rousey/Correia:

http://www.ufc.com/event/UFC190

Tox56 wrote: »

A one on one fight with no rules, unarmed obviously... It's not particularly a slight on boxers, they only train one discipline, but it's true nonetheless

Totally ridiculous point so. Just as easy to say a trained boxer would destroy most MMA fighters in the boxing ring...

irishbucsfan

Zzippy wrote: »

Totally ridiculous point so. Just as easy to say a trained boxer would destroy most MMA fighters in the boxing ring...

It's not a ridiculous point at all. One of the reasons people find boxers impressive is because they're impressed/intimidated by the idea of them in a fight outside the ring. That's one of the draws for all combat sports really.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's not a ridiculous point at all. One of the reasons people find boxers impressive is because they're impressed/intimidated by the idea of them in a fight outside the ring. That's one of the draws for all combat sports really.

Really? Can't say that's ever occurred to me watching a boxing match. I'd just enjoy the skill on display. Anyway, this is all getting a bit "union is better than league" - they're very different sports and it's just down to personal preference.

Zzippy wrote: »

Anyway, this is all getting a bit "union is better than league" - they're very different sports and it's just down to personal preference.

You're not wrong.

I reckon Sexton could beat O'Gara in MMA though...

/discuss

:pac:

irishbucsfan

Zzippy wrote: »

Really? Can't say that's ever occurred to me watching a boxing match. I'd just enjoy the skill on display. Anyway, this is all getting a bit "union is better than league" - they're very different sports and it's just down to personal preference.

Well if you are only watching boxing for the skill then there's a massive wealth of it that you're missing out on in mixed martial arts if you just dismiss the sport, including the striking you find in boxing.

Zzippy wrote: »

Totally ridiculous point so. Just as easy to say a trained boxer would destroy most MMA fighters in the boxing ring...

The whole aura around the top boxers like Mike Tyson was that he was the toughest man in the world, that he could beat up any man alive in a fight. They called him 'the baddest man on the planet', and rightly or wrongly that was a huge part of his aura/mystique. My point is that this was before MMA, and it's not really an angle boxing promoters can use anymore, because we know it's not true. The UFC on the other hand actually use the exact phrase 'the baddest man on the planet' to describe their heavyweight champion, and they do it for a reason.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well if you are only watching boxing for the skill then there's a massive wealth of it that you're missing out on in mixed martial arts if you just dismiss the sport, including the striking you find in boxing.

Where have I dismissed the sport? I don't find it appealing personally, I have doubts over the independence of sports where the participants are all employees of the promoters, but I understand the appeal to fans. It's just not for me. Apples and oranges...

Tox56 wrote: »

The whole aura around the top boxers like Mike Tyson was that he was the toughest man in the world, that he could beat up any man alive in a fight. They called him 'the baddest man on the planet', and rightly or wrongly that was a huge part of his aura/mystique. My point is that this was before MMA, and it's not really an angle boxing promoters can use anymore, because we know it's not true. The UFC on the other hand actually use the exact phrase 'the baddest man on the planet' to describe their heavyweight champion, and they do it for a reason.

That's all marketing BS. If people want to buy into it fair enough, let them off. People are getting very defensive about any perceived criticism of the sport - I actually couldn't give a sh1t who would win in a no-rules fight, I just don't think it's a valid comparison and automatically favours MMA fighters. It's like putting an army sniper in the ring with a special forces commando and giving them knives to fight with. No contest. Equally valid to say "put the MMA fighter in a boxing ring and he wouldn't last 2 rounds, therefore the boxer is tougher".
Anyway, I'm out. Union is definitely better!

Pudsy33

50m for Raheem Sterling. Football is ****ed.

Zzippy wrote: »

That's all marketing BS. If people want to buy into it fair enough, let them off. People are getting very defensive about any perceived criticism of the sport - I actually couldn't give a sh1t who would win in a no-rules fight, I just don't think it's a valid comparison and automatically favours MMA fighters. It's like putting an army sniper in the ring with a special forces commando and giving them knives to fight with. No contest. Equally valid to say "put the MMA fighter in a boxing ring and he wouldn't last 2 rounds, therefore the boxer is tougher".
Anyway, I'm out. Union is definitely better!

I never denied it is a marketing strategy, but it's used as a marketing strategy for a reason, that shít sells, and boxing no longer has it like it used to in the days of Tyson because of the rise of MMA. I'm not trying to use it as evidence one sport is better than the other

I'd also say fighters in the UFC aren't employees, they're considered independent contractors

Tox56 wrote: »

I never denied it is a marketing strategy, but it's used as a marketing strategy for a reason, that shít sells, and boxing no longer has it like it used to in the days of Tyson because of the rise of MMA. I'm not trying to use it as evidence one sport is better than the other

I'd also say fighters in the UFC aren't employees, they're considered independent contractors

If you look at some of the early MMA fights there were guys in wrestling outfits against guys in full length gi's and everything in between.

Now, the real world has distilled fighting forms into a few "these work best" and it's homogenised the sport to wresting, boxing, BJJ and Muai Thai with a few extras thrown in but that is still a wide field as against pure strike fighting.

Anyway, this isn't a UFC/MMA v Other Sports discussion, just highlighting that it's a legitimate sport with plenty of appeal to a potentially wide audience. And Sexton would KO O'Gara early in the 1st. Just saying. HAYOOOO

pickarooney

Pudsy33 wrote: »

50m for Raheem Sterling. Football is ****ed.

Would he even get a game for Kildare?

Hadn't heard about this before, nice touch in fairness

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/arsenal-star-mesut-ozil-has-paid-for-11-brazilian-children-to-have-lifesaving-surgery-10383835.html

.ak

Stheno wrote: »

Out of curiosity is there a women's mma movement?

Yep, it's actually massive in the US.

justsomebloke

Stheno wrote: »

Out of curiosity is there a women's mma movement?

Somebody hasn't seen the expendables 3 then

Stheno

Pudsy33 wrote: »

50m for Raheem Sterling. Football is ****ed.

What's the big fuss about this guy? Is he a ****e player?

Stheno wrote: »

What's the big fuss about this guy? Is he a ****e player?

He's not ****e but that's one of the highest transfer fees ever and he's totally unproven really. Man Utd just bought three players for less than Sterling alone.

Stheno

Interested Observer wrote: »

He's not ****e but that's one of the highest transfer fees ever and he's totally unproven really. Man Utd just bought three players for less than Sterling alone.

Is it a bit like the big fuss when Joey Barton (I think) went to one of the Spanish clubs for an eye watering amount of money?