valetudo Posted July 24, 2007 Report Share Posted July 24, 2007 As the two "ultimate" sports get closer to a real face off..... I say MMA rocks, steriods aside. yes I know apples and oranges............... what do you think???? which do you prefere???? stick a fork in boxing ... It's done :shock: 8) :? :x :oops: :cry: :wink: :roll: :twisted: :evil: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: Piss!! http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/best+of+boxing/video/xsv4u_boxing-review-of-2006_news http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/best+of+mma/video/x2d6za_best-of-pride-themmaforumsdotcomufc_extreme http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/best+of+k1/video/x1gxpo_k1-best_sport You Decide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingang Posted July 24, 2007 Report Share Posted July 24, 2007 I practice BJJ, have dabbled in boxing and varous other martial arts going on around 16 years. The MMA thing, while I love it, is nothing new, Lee, Inosanto, Benny the Jet and a lot of other martial artists have been cross training for decades, though I believe since the introduction of UFC, Pride FC, etc, the skill level has risen considerably. As for what is better, it is maybe up to the individual, not the style. You look at a MMA fighter, they are all rounded fighters, usually their repertoir consists of Muay Thai for stand up striking and BJJ and wreslting for takedowns and submissions. People keep on arguing that someone like Tyson or Lewis would get schooled in the cage, but I don't believe so. No one that has entered the octogon has even come close to their boxing skills. It is all relative, a boxers rang is medium to close, if he can bridge the gap, staying out of kicking range, then he is in his comfort zone and deal out the punishment, so most fighters will want to keep on hacking at his legs, or shoot for a takedown or tie them up in the clinch. I prefer MMA, I find it exciting and the ultimate test of skills, I don't really like the thought of standing toe to toe with someone and repeatedly smashing each other in the head. Jay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizardo Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 boxing has been corrupted so much and there are so few quality fights that yes i think mma has become much more of an honest exciting challenge... used to love the hearns/ hagler/ leonard/duran era...and been some magical fights since but seems the quality nowadays is poor.... mma especially UFC offers the best fighters against the best fighters..... just wish i could get it on my true package... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelis Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 I like K1 more than UFC because I personally don't think groundfights are fun to watch, I know there's a lot of skill involved though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 Don't think we will ever really know until it becomes popular for a boxer to try MMA...which probably never happen simply because how much money is tied up in the boxing world. Pretty sure some one like Rampage get knocked out quick by Tyson in his prime. While I truly love MMA and hate boxing I gotta be honest and say I think a great boxer would beat a great MMA fighter any way of the week...I mean the only real advantage the mma fighter is going to have is on the ground. and while it may be easy to shoot in and take down some one with below average hands....it's a different story when he is shooting on some one who has spent the majority of his life training boxing i think the boxer, assuming he's one of the best, would tend to win for a very simple reason: there's more money in boxing and therefore it will tend to attract better athletes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 Don't think we will ever really know until it becomes popular for a boxer to try MMA...which probably never happen simply because how much money is tied up in the boxing world. Pretty sure some one like Rampage get knocked out quick by Tyson in his prime. While I truly love MMA and hate boxing I gotta be honest and say I think a great boxer would beat a great MMA fighter any way of the week...I mean the only real advantage the mma fighter is going to have is on the ground. and while it may be easy to shoot in and take down some one with below average hands....it's a different story when he is shooting on some one who has spent the majority of his life training boxing i think the boxer, assuming he's one of the best, would tend to win for a very simple reason: there's more money in boxing and therefore it will tend to attract better athletes. I would definitely have to strongly disagree with boxers being better athletes. They are just better skilled. what does it mean to say they're "better skilled"? mike tyson in his prime was relying on 'skill' rather than 'talent'? i don't think so. although i will say it's very hard to separate talent from training--what would michael jordan have been without the work ethic and hi-tech training? i doubt you can meaningfully separate talent from skill, unless you limit your definition of athleticism to things like speed, strength, acceleration, agility, stamina, etc. if you're saying they're better skilled as in, boxing is more effective as a martial art, it's an interesting angle and more complicated than it might appear on the surface. a lot more money goes into training a boxer than an MMA fighter. as a martial art though it's very limited--there's a lot of things you cannot do in boxing, and therefore a lot of ways boxers aren't practiced in defending themselves---in other words, a lot of fighting skills in play in any sort of open fighting competition that boxers just don't have, at least as part of their sport. and i still think, if you're gifted enough to be a professional athlete, and versatile enough to consider competing in many different sports, 10 times out of 9 you'll go for the big paycheck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valetudo Posted July 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 Don't think we will ever really know until it becomes popular for a boxer to try MMA...which probably never happen simply because how much money is tied up in the boxing world. Pretty sure some one like Rampage get knocked out quick by Tyson in his prime. While I truly love MMA and hate boxing I gotta be honest and say I think a great boxer would beat a great MMA fighter any way of the week...I mean the only real advantage the mma fighter is going to have is on the ground. and while it may be easy to shoot in and take down some one with below average hands....it's a different story when he is shooting on some one who has spent the majority of his life training boxing i think the boxer, assuming he's one of the best, would tend to win for a very simple reason: there's more money in boxing and therefore it will tend to attract better athletes. This is only about the Tyson comment. Tyson in his prime was an amzingly skilled fighter. Look at his upper body movement, timing, combo's, body shots, defensive ability, and check the jab, it was perfect for a man that size. Only when you experience something can you see somethings. The post was which is "the better combat sport" and while i appriciate the "sherdog-like" comments to express your knowledge, lets look at stuff. Jeramy williams will fight mma soon and whlie not close to a great, has almost as good a amatur predigree as anyone. The timing of boxing doesn't translate into mma and LOTS of guys who broke the tp 40 have tried and failed, but its apples and oranges. We can't compare it. pulver, clarke, mercer (too old), nishi, lil nog, matt skelton and loads of others tried and failed, but then so would the BEST mma striker based fighter on boxing. imo. Look at all the ways to win, the abilty to switch breathing from strliking to grappling (hard), multiple subs blah, blah. As for boxing corrupted. Don't mma aint. Fake records, mis-matches,drug and steroid abuse, lack of sanctioning blah blah. which is the better sport for combat.......................mma>boxong as far as combat goes. Discuss I would definitely have to strongly disagree with boxers being better athletes. They are just better skilled. what does it mean to say they're "better skilled"? mike tyson in his prime was relying on 'skill' rather than 'talent'? i don't think so. although i will say it's very hard to separate talent from training--what would michael jordan have been without the work ethic and hi-tech training? i doubt you can meaningfully separate talent from skill, unless you limit your definition of athleticism to things like speed, strength, acceleration, agility, stamina, etc. if you're saying they're better skilled as in, boxing is more effective as a martial art, it's an interesting angle and more complicated than it might appear on the surface. a lot more money goes into training a boxer than an MMA fighter. as a martial art though it's very limited--there's a lot of things you cannot do in boxing, and therefore a lot of ways boxers aren't practiced in defending themselves---in other words, a lot of fighting skills in play in any sort of open fighting competition that boxers just don't have, at least as part of their sport. and i still think, if you're gifted enough to be a professional athlete, and versatile enough to consider competing in many different sports, 10 times out of 9 you'll go for the big paycheck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valetudo Posted July 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 i became all "mma-forum-keyboard-warrior" for a bit All mma lovers pm each other time to start swapping dvd's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valetudo Posted July 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 no need to share dvd's ....google utorrent and you can download most show...at least UFC the next day after the event **** quality and its better on dvd, mma nights at my place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valetudo Posted July 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 http://www.dailymotion.com/related/3974806/video/xba1a_fedor-emelianenko-highlight-hl_sport/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumper Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 I like K1 more than UFC because I personally don't think groundfights are fun to watch, I know there's a lot of skill involved though.... As a spectator sport boxing is far better than MMA, just my personal opinion. To watch two guys rolling around the floor grappling. You need to have an understanding of the skill and difficulty involved in what they are trying to do. However anyone without much knowledge of boxing can enjoy a fight... Punches are aimed to the head and body... Someone with some knowledge can enjoy it even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizardo Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 if anyone is interested they do MMA training here in Bangkok...on surawong...professionally trained brazillian ju jitsu tutor.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizardo Posted July 26, 2007 Report Share Posted July 26, 2007 EMAC, Executive Martial Arts Center 410/3 Executive Building. 3rd Floor Surawong Rd., Bangkok 10500 Tel: (+66)-02-631-4606 Click here to view MAP Email: [email protected] Click here to visit EMAC website Brazilian Jiu Jitsu group classes twice a week, please contact them by email for more information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valetudo Posted July 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2007 shamrock vs shamrock.........its coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valetudo Posted July 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2007 Boxing "The sport of Kings". Heritage, 3000 years...MMA "An acronym". Heritage, 20 years of scrapping. Not that I don't appreciate the ridiculous spectacle put out on ESPN for entertainment of the bloodthirsty subscribers... I can appreciate a skilled athlete as much as the next bloke, but don't compare the two just coz they involve infliction of pain. Boxing is a skill. MMA is a sport. MMA was popular during early greek olympics under the name pankration its the same name the olympic commitee will use when they use it in the ollies. Its also called vale tudo and has about 90 years in brazil too. even the great john.l.sullivan was tapped by mma guy before the turn of the century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
condotown Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Boxing is dead.... Or should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Boxing is dead.... Or should be. and don king should be up on accessory to sporticide charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RYU666 Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 As the two "ultimate" sports get closer to a real face off..... I say MMA rocks, steriods aside.yes I know apples and oranges............... what do you think???? which do you prefere???? stick a fork in boxing ... It's done :shock: 8) :? :x :oops: :cry: :wink: :roll: :twisted: :evil: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: Piss!! You Decide none of the above. I prefer Karate actually but also like to watch people perform Kung-Fu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Boxing "The sport of Kings". Heritage, 3000 years...MMA "An acronym". Heritage, 20 years of scrapping. Not that I don't appreciate the ridiculous spectacle put out on ESPN for entertainment of the bloodthirsty subscribers... I can appreciate a skilled athlete as much as the next bloke, but don't compare the two just coz they involve infliction of pain. Boxing is a skill. MMA is a sport. MMA was popular during early greek olympics under the name pankration its the same name the olympic commitee will use when they use it in the ollies. Its also called vale tudo and has about 90 years in brazil too. even the great john.l.sullivan was tapped by mma guy before the turn of the century. i think many fighting sports claim pankration in their lineage but MMA in its current form is a recent development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierrelasvegas Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 I start with karate in the 70's then turn to full contact in the 80"s. Boxing is a art but something is missing. I live in las vegas ,that give me the chance to see some ufc and some training. People forget that 5 time 5 minutes fight in mma is very long run. A good BJJ fighter has a big edge. The ground fight is not always exciting but very real from street fight. Bottom live i vote for mma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valetudo Posted July 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 I agree MMA is a recently recognised sport. But so is boxing in its current form ...Queesberry rules are also relatively new, 1867 I believe. The Mallapuranas were cross training wrestling, subs and striking in 1731. Just as boxing changed from the early Minowan battles to London Prize Ring rules (1743) to Queensberry. Pankration changed to Vajramushti to Valetudo and to MMA ( I guess from the early UFC's and Pride fc promotions. But don't exclude Shooto or Pancrase). Yes the rules have been modified but the essence of the sport has been around just as long, it was hidden but definaltly there. The evolution of mma has been startling recently, just boxing in the 70's and then the 90's when techniques rapidly advanced. This is the time of mma. Boxing will always exsist but mma will take primary pole position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now