"Boxing Is More Technical"

[The Mighty One]

By comparison.... James Toney would beat ALL MMA fighters in a boxing only rules contest.....crafted by years of preperation and competition.

In fact there are few in MMA who would beat even Kimbo Slice in a boxing ring.

[Jim Bowen]

Originally Posted by BobDigi5060

The phrase is thrown around quite often by visitors to this section.. Do any MMA fans really believe Boxing is more technical?

Boxing
-"The Sweet Science"
-"Hit and not get hit"
-Essentially defending and scoring punches

Mixed Martial Arts
-Striking
-Grappling
-Submission (chokes, joint locks and manipulation)

Never thought about it much until now, but I don't see any truth to this statement. I believe Mixed Martial Arts to be the "sweeter science".. More strikes and skills at you're disposal, not to mention to defend and acquire.

Boxing, Muay Thai, BJJ, and other forms of grappling are large pieces of Mixed Martial Arts.. How in the world can Boxing be "more technical" if you are only defending and blocking punches?

Simple. There are specialists in each, MMA tends to have an awful lot of generalists.

Put it this way, the best Muay Thai guys aren't in MMA, some of the very best BJJ guys aren't in MMA, some of the very best Wrestlers are at the Olympics not in MMA, the best boxers aren't in MMA. So basically the reason boxing is more technical is due to the level they take that particular skill to.

At some point in the future i can see the very best in each of these being within MMA (except boxers).

A pure BJJ match between two BJJ world champs will be more technical than any ground action in MMA. The same goes for all the other disciplines. Basically if you dedicate your life to one aspect of what makes MMA and you become a world Champ in that discipline you will be far more technically sound than someone who has all 5 to focus on.

[rusty nails]

Originally Posted by StillWill

Boxing is more technical because the level of skill in boxing is much much much higher. TO be a top boxer you must have mastered the sport, where as in mma some become champion in 2 years like jon jones or brock lesnar.

To put it simply, top boxers are much better at boxing than top mma fighters are at mma

MMA is very young though so its not a very fair comparison

this is such bullshit. its rarely the case that a fighter wins because hes more "technical" or "skillful" than his opponent. If that was the case youd have never heard of guys like chavez, margarito or rocky marciano.
not everyone is a floyd mayweather or a james toney. the bottom line is fighters usually win because theyre more aggressive and they want it more not because of some romantic illusion that they have mastered the craft of "hitting while not getting hit".

[Check_Hook]

Originally Posted by PIRA

The boxing of today is more restricted and thus more refined.

But what is boxing? Is it the restrictive amateur style shown in the Olympics, the slug fests of Ward/Gatti or the unlicenced style (such as recently seen in Snatch for example) which IMO is barely a shade off some MMA bouts?

Take a look at Morales V Barrera 1....Thats boxing

[rekcutnevets]

Boxing is not more technical. It is more specific. When you limit the number of moves in a sport, the skill set becomes more specific, and you limit the number of people that excel at it. Elite boxers have better chins, hand speed, and snappier punches than anyone in the world. Even boxers that appear slow at the elite level are lighting fast if you put them in a gym where just anyone can train.

Wrestling is also very sport specific. That is why all elite level wrestlers are very strong and tenacious. There is a different skill set for wrestling than is needed for boxing. You'll find lots of boxers that aren't physically strong, but they make up for it in speed. You may find some fast wrestlers, but you'll never find a physically weak wrestler at the elite level.

[Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by StillWill

Boxing is more technical because the level of skill in boxing is much much much higher. TO be a top boxer you must have mastered the sport, where as in mma some become champion in 2 years like jon jones or brock lesnar.

To put it simply, top boxers are much better at boxing than top mma fighters are at mma

MMA is very young though so its not a very fair comparison

Totally disagree. The best MMA fighter in the world is just as good at MMA as the best boxer in the world is at boxing. The issue with something being more "technical" than something else is that the person watching it has to know enough to appreciate the techniques involved. On this board there are a lot more people who can appreciate slipping and countering than setting up a double leg takedown with a punch. James Toney has perfect technique with the former, GSP with the latter. One thing is not more "technical" than the other.

[PIRA]

Originally Posted by Check_Hook

Take a look at Morales V Barrera 1....Thats boxing

Great fight - no argument there. But not every boxing match is of this calibre nor of this style.

[Black2023]

Originally Posted by StillWill

Boxing is more technical because the level of skill in boxing is much much much higher. TO be a top boxer you must have mastered the sport, where as in mma some become champion in 2 years like jon jones or brock lesnar.

To put it simply, top boxers are much better at boxing than top mma fighters are at mma

MMA is very young though so its not a very fair comparison

wait -

tyson took 6 yrs of training to be champion-

j. jones 4 yrs...

[Anarchy99]

MMA is proudly home to Olympic gold medal Judoka's, ADCC grappling champions, K-1 kickboxers, and NCAA/Olympic wrestlers. If anything, MMA is missing professional caliber boxers. While I agree 110% that to become a champion in boxing you need to master every aspect of the sport, MMA cannot be denied the the level of skill champions possess. To dedicate your training camp to 4-5 arts in the attempt to perfect your game is far more difficult than training to master 1 art (boxing). However, that being said, boxing is and always will be the Sweet Science and when looked at from a Whitaker/Pep/Mayweather/Tyson aspect, it is the most graceful thing not called ballet.

There are good and bad practitioners of both sports and there are good and bad bouts in both sports too. Comparisons usually result in the same old 'circular' arguments, but it does bring out the passion in people

[Ylem]

Definition of TECHNICAL



1
a : having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject <a technical consultant> b : marked by or characteristic of specialization <technical language>
2
a : of or relating to a particular subject b : of or relating to a practical subject organized on scientific principles <a technical school>



boxing is more technical because it is more specific.


MMA may have more techniques, but that does not make it more technical.

like with computers theres like 10 diffrent techniques for formatting a hard drive but theres only one way to setup a domain controller at a seperate site under a seperate subnet so that it still properly communicates with the primary domain controler.

which is more technical?

formatting a hard drive with the 10 diffrent techniques to choose from or setting up a secondary domain controller under a seperate subnet so that it still communicates with the primary domain controller?

obiviously the setting up the domain controler is more technical because it is more specific, in this same way boxing is more technical because it is more specific.

[VX.Nefarious]

Originally Posted by rusty nails

this is such bullshit. its rarely the case that a fighter wins because hes more "technical" or "skillful" than his opponent. If that was the case youd have never heard of guys like chavez, margarito or rocky marciano.
not everyone is a floyd mayweather or a james toney. the bottom line is fighters usually win because theyre more aggressive and they want it more not because of some romantic illusion that they have mastered the craft of "hitting while not getting hit".

Did you just put Chavez on the same category as Margarito? So now Chavez was just a tough brawler?


Let me tell you something, Chavez was just as skilled as Mayweather, he simply had a different style, he had a superb defense, watch closely, he would slip and roll with the punches, not as flashy as May or Toney, but just as effective. I bet you think LaMotta was just a brawler with a great chin, yes, but he also slipped and rolled with punches.

[Matty lll]

Originally Posted by Ylem

Definition of TECHNICAL



1
a : having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject <a technical consultant> b : marked by or characteristic of specialization <technical language>
2
a : of or relating to a particular subject b : of or relating to a practical subject organized on scientific principles <a technical school>



boxing is more technical because it is more specific.


MMA may have more techniques, but that does not make it more technical.

like with computers theres like 10 diffrent techniques for formatting a hard drive but theres only one way to setup a domain controller at a seperate site under a seperate subnet so that it still properly communicates with the primary domain controler.

which is more technical?

formatting a hard drive with the 10 diffrent techniques to choose from or setting up a secondary domain controller under a seperate subnet so that it still communicates with the primary domain controller?

obiviously the setting up the domain controler is more technical because it is more specific, in this same way boxing is more technical because it is more specific.

Good post.

[rusty nails]

Originally Posted by VX.Nefarious

Did you just put Chavez on the same category as Margarito? So now Chavez was just a tough brawler?


Let me tell you something, Chavez was just as skilled as Mayweather, he simply had a different style, he had a superb defense, watch closely, he would slip and roll with the punches, not as flashy as May or Toney, but just as effective. I bet you think LaMotta was just a brawler with a great chin, yes, but he also slipped and rolled with punches.

sure he was..

[Popkins]

Originally Posted by BobDigi5060

The phrase is thrown around quite often by visitors to this section.. Do any MMA fans really believe Boxing is more technical?

Boxing
-"The Sweet Science"
-"Hit and not get hit"
-Essentially defending and scoring punches

Mixed Martial Arts
-Striking
-Grappling
-Submission (chokes, joint locks and manipulation)

Never thought about it much until now, but I don't see any truth to this statement. I believe Mixed Martial Arts to be the "sweeter science".. More strikes and skills at you're disposal, not to mention to defend and acquire.

Boxing, Muay Thai, BJJ, and other forms of grappling are large pieces of Mixed Martial Arts.. How in the world can Boxing be "more technical" if you are only defending and blocking punches?

Boxing is more technical, MMA is more skilled.

What I mean by that apparent contradiction is:


- Boxing is one discipline, a specialism, a pure art form, so the best boxers in the world are the best boxers in the world, ie: the technical highest-level people in that discipline on the planet


- MMA is many disciplines, an art form containing many skills, so the best MMA fighters in the world may not be the best wrestlers, boxers, kickboxers, or BJJ practitioners, so they are not as technically proficient in any specialism, but to marry all of the skills they have is evidence of extremely high skill levels


At least, this is my distinction. Although people have spoke of MMA now being one hybrid specialism, I don't view it as such.