boxing vs mma.....lets go

a reply to: Flavian

The MMA lot are tough guys. But nothing compared to the best boxers out there.

Insanity.

Mma is the modern evolved fighting technique that is far superior than one dimensional professional boxing.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Maybe.

I still take the view that Askren thought he was entitled to be in UFC and was too 'hot' to say no to. He felt able to be an ass whilst his ego told him he was irresistible.

All irrelevant either way. Last I heard he was aiming to retire. Silly beggar. I would have liked to have seen him tested in the UFC.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Psychonautics

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Psychonautics

Thats just a silly arguemen though...

OF course hes not unbeatable... im sure theres crushers all over the world that could flatten him

We're talking boxing... which matches according to weight...

In that case he has proven to be unbeatable...

mayweather lost 1 or 2 fights in his amature career, but he improved a lot over the years he fought...

unbeaten in his professional career... and remained until he retired last year... i was hopeing he would keep fighting but he wanted to maintain his record... it would have been smarter to at least take the record from Marciano... and the other guy... i forget his name.

The fact remains, no one could touch him... pound for pound one of the best... IF not the best Boxer in the history of the sport... most of his opponents couldn't even hit him, let alone beat him in the numbers

Not knocking the money mans skills, though his personality may be lacking.

He's the best boxer in the history of his weight class, that's all you can objectively say.

Anything else would be a silly argument

Again though, a top class boxer would annihalate a top class MMA fighter. Just look at Teddy Atlas's comments when asked about McGregor against Mayweather.

The MMA lot are tough guys. But nothing compared to the best boxers out there.

Is there a top class boxer who can defend against leg kicks? You know what I mean? A great boxer doesn't work on multiple levels. They couldn't defend a take-down and wouldn't know how to defend against 'ground and pound.'

Anthony Joshua is a beast; huge guy and explosive fists. Overeem is a middling UFC fighter of similar weight. I'd expect even Overeem to beat Joshua by taking him to the mat or using head kicks. Imagine the head-state of a boxer when he's suddenly required to expand his awareness to attacks from below his guard? A guy who has never received a kick to his thighs?

You might think a boxer could keep the MMA guy out of the pocket with jabs and slipping. Do that and land an overhand right? It sounds fair enough until you consider the MMA guy could kick, knee, grapple and take the boxer to places he's never once trained for.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that a decent pro boxer will be better than nearly all MMA fighters who like to box. Boxing rules would beat any MMA fighter. MMA rules would beat any boxer.

Do we agree it's a silly debate? Yes we do!!

Mma has some excellent techniques but some severe failings too.

The footwork is inferior to good boxing. Or at least ive never seen counter offensive footwork in the mma. A goid boxer will be able to keep to the side or behind a kicker or even grappler.

a reply to: GoShredAK

Mma is not the pinnacle of modern fighting. Its a sport. A damned good one but its not combatives. Mma isnt going to do much on a battle field or against an armed assailant.

Boxings footwork might actually be more helpful in those situation.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: GoShredAK

Mma is not the pinnacle of modern fighting. Its a sport. A damned good one but its not combatives. Mma isnt going to do much on a battle field or against an armed assailant.

Boxings footwork might actually be more helpful in those situation.

The origins of MMA were inspired by RL conflicts and exceeded the potential of single disciplines to cope with physical aggression. It's as combative as it gets.

You're right in saying it won't be much good on a battlefield. Who can train against bullets and explosives? Is boxing any better?

It could be argued to be a 'pinnacle' of fighting if you look at the fighters who've taken part over the years. Nobody yet has been able to rely on the purity of their discipline. Kick boxers, grapplers, all-star wrestlers etc. They've all entered the cage and had to learn other skills to succeed.

Your boxing footwork is a powerful skill as long as the opponent is happy to play by boxing rules. If they want to take you down to the ground and choke you out...you're Fd. If they kick your dancing feet from under you and then swarm on and drop elbows on your skull...you're Fd.

a reply to: Kandinsky

While i agree that its great sport fighting its got very little to do with combatives.

Footwaork means range and timing. Its great at thwarting grappling and striking both.

A lot of boxers have that better than mma fighters.

None if them have it or understand it better than those who train in weapon work. Infuse that sorta footwork and understanding of range and timing and youve got yourself a hell of an mma fighter.

Based on real life conflicts. I dont know about that.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Mma has some excellent techniques but some severe failings too.

The footwork is inferior to good boxing. Or at least ive never seen counter offensive footwork in the mma. A goid boxer will be able to keep to the side or behind a kicker or even grappler.

Its true that there's not enough emphasis on footwork in mma, there are some guys that have great footwork though. Dominick Cruz and Demetrious Johnson are both awesome to watch.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

We'll have to disagree and it's cool.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Nothing wrong with us having a difference of opinion. Its the sharing and exploration of opposing opinions by smart minds that often leads to greater creative hights and insight.