Isn't it funny how most UFC fans don't like boxing, yet want to see more stand up?

[Xerant]

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

This is the stupidest fucking argument out of all of them.

Anything you're allowed to do in boxing, you're allowed to do in MMA.

And in MMA you have SO SO many more options for attacks. SO SO much more to train.

How anyone can say that boxing is deeper as a combat sport than MMA is beyond me.

Dont quit. You will get it.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

How anyone can say that boxing is deeper as a combat sport than MMA is beyond me.

I'll have a punt.


It's geeky as fuck, but in boxing I deal with these points in the fight I call "inflection points." I don't write about it or even post about it because nobody wants to hear about that shit, but in a nutshell I mean points in the fight where very subtle changes which are hard to detect cause much larger shifts in the momentum of the fight. The ability to spot them represent sthe difference between a good boxing analyst (not to mention trailer) and an average one.

As an example...a circling fighter with a moving style is circling to his own right 30% of the time for the first four rounds. His opponent has the kind of jab which is brilliant when he can get it working but can see him out-jabbed by the best jabbers he faces because of certain mental or physical limitations (think Oscar). Our man - doing the circling - is a speedster and was rellying upon that to keep him from the jab, but actually Oscar is landing it a fair bit. After four, his corner advices him to start circling to his right less, say 15% of the time. Now Oscar's jab is landing less and our speedster is making the angles on his own jab. That's an inflection point. Go deeper. The speedster decides that he's not going to circle to his right at all any more because he's having so much success. That's an inflection point because he's showing less variance and Oscar times him over the top with a right that dumps him in a round he was winning at a canter that he's now lost 10-8.

What evaporates an inflection point is "the puncher's chance." A good boxer controls a slugger with a series of well judged inflection points then gets wiped out for KO8. Inflection points are what make boxing deep - what makes it "chess."

In MMA there are many more "puncher's chances". Kicks. Knees. Punches. Take downs. Referee splitting. Submission. Locked guard. Etc. etc. After a take down new types of inflection points can develop BUT they are not reprasentative of an overall pattern because the two begin the following round in a different arena - on their feet.

In this sense, I think boxing can be regarded as literally deeper in terms of complexity (think chaos theory) if not in terms of technique. I believe this is also what MMA fans mean when they describe it as "more exciting". Less subtlty on offence, fewer terminals for evolution of the fight mean it is more likley to end suddenly and very violently.

Although on the flip-side, inflection points can open up the chances to land destructive punches.

[KERRIGAN]

Whilst I quite like MMA, the thing it will never have compared to boxing is the gutsy rounds that one sees in the 9th round of Ward-Gatti, because as soon as someone was hurt like Gatti was, he would get finished and not have the chance to display such courage.

Similarly, you will never see something like the 10th round of Corrales/Castillo play itself out in MMA.

[Haggis McJackass]

Originally Posted by KERRIGAN

Whilst I quite like MMA, the thing it will never have compared to boxing is the gutsy rounds that one sees in the 9th round of Ward-Gatti, because as soon as someone was hurt like Gatti was, he would get finished and not have the chance to display such courage.

Similarly, you will never see something like the 10th round of Corrales/Castillo play itself out in MMA.

Um, watch Edgar and Maynard.

[Matt Ldn]

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

This is the stupidest fucking argument out of all of them.

Anything you're allowed to do in boxing, you're allowed to do in MMA.

And in MMA you have SO SO many more options for attacks. SO SO much more to train.

How anyone can say that boxing is deeper as a combat sport than MMA is beyond me.

Its quite apparent to most people that MMA is built to reenact one on one fighting in its most raw form as much as possible. Its a scrap, exciting, explosive brutal. Boxing is not this. There is a greater need for strategy in boxing because in MMA freak knockouts from kicks, knees and punches are far more common. Its a bit late for me to explain myself well but it is far more deep due to its focus. MMA is jack of all trades master of none, thats not an insult I'm a fan of both sports but I have never seen an MMA fight that has felt like a story in the same way some boxing fights have.

One student may study several marketing modules, finance, accounting and economics. He has a broader more complete knowledge of business as a whole. The other just studies economics. Who has the deeper knowledge? Without being rude Haggis you know its true, you do make some good points about idiotic fans on both sides of the fence

Originally Posted by KERRIGAN

Whilst I quite like MMA, the thing it will never have compared to boxing is the gutsy rounds that one sees in the 9th round of Ward-Gatti, because as soon as someone was hurt like Gatti was, he would get finished and not have the chance to display such courage.

Similarly, you will never see something like the 10th round of Corrales/Castillo play itself out in MMA.

You make serious posts? This is very true its what causes the number of freak knockouts etc. What would just be flash knockdowns are more likely to end fights in MMA than boxing.

[boranbkk]

Originally Posted by Cleto_Reyes

They want to see more stand up in UFC because wrestling on the ground for a UD is boring. If they want to see more stand up, why don't they turn to boxing?

This is utter shite.

I'm neither an MMA guy or a Boxing guy, I'm in the middle I'm a Muay Thai guy with interests in both MMA and boxing, so I've no axe to grind either way and tend to see it from both sides.

The truth is MMA fans seem to be more opened minded about combat sports and contrary to your opening statement MMA guys like and very much respect boxing. The hate and condescending arrogance towards MMA seems to be very one way and comes very much from Boxing fans, which is proved day in day out on this forum with threads like this one. Almost all the hate on this thread is coming from Boxing fans not MMA fans. I really don’t understand why it’s all such an issue there’s enough room for all the combat sports, the more the merrier….

[concrete sledge]

Do you have real evidence that "most UFC fans don't like boxing"?

I enjoy all types of combat sports and I think most UFC fans do as well.

Stupid thread.

[Haggis McJackass]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I'll have a punt.


It's geeky as fuck, but in boxing I deal with these points in the fight I call "inflection points." I don't write about it or even post about it because nobody wants to hear about that shit, but in a nutshell I mean points in the fight where very subtle changes which are hard to detect cause much larger shifts in the momentum of the fight. The ability to spot them represent sthe difference between a good boxing analyst (not to mention trailer) and an average one.

As an example...a circling fighter with a moving style is circling to his own right 30% of the time for the first four rounds. His opponent has the kind of jab which is brilliant when he can get it working but can see him out-jabbed by the best jabbers he faces because of certain mental or physical limitations (think Oscar). Our man - doing the circling - is a speedster and was rellying upon that to keep him from the jab, but actually Oscar is landing it a fair bit. After four, his corner advices him to start circling to his right less, say 15% of the time. Now Oscar's jab is landing less and our speedster is making the angles on his own jab. That's an inflection point. Go deeper. The speedster decides that he's not going to circle to his right at all any more because he's having so much success. That's an inflection point because he's showing less variance and Oscar times him over the top with a right that dumps him in a round he was winning at a canter that he's now lost 10-8.

What evaporates an inflection point is "the puncher's chance." A good boxer controls a slugger with a series of well judged inflection points then gets wiped out for KO8. Inflection points are what make boxing deep - what makes it "chess."

In MMA there are many more "puncher's chances". Kicks. Knees. Punches. Take downs. Referee splitting. Submission. Locked guard. Etc. etc. After a take down new types of inflection points can develop BUT they are not reprasentative of an overall pattern because the two begin the following round in a different arena - on their feet.

In this sense, I think boxing can be regarded as literally deeper in terms of complexity (think chaos theory) if not in terms of technique. I believe this is also what MMA fans mean when they describe it as "more exciting". Less subtlty on offence, fewer terminals for evolution of the fight mean it is more likley to end suddenly and very violently.

Although on the flip-side, inflection points can open up the chances to land destructive punches.

Great post.

However, you are describing the very top level of skill in boxing. And at the equivalent level of skill in MMA, similar struggles and tactical considerations open up. I mean, if your primary skillset is a wrestler and you go for three takedowns against Cigano and he stuffs all of them, what next? What's your plan? You gonna go toe-to-toe and hope to lay him out with one strike? You gonna try the same thing again and again while he stuffs each takedown attempt easier than the last and punches the shit out of you while you fail to impose your gameplan on him?

Boxing at its highest level is art created in human movement. But then, at the highest level, that is true for virtually any sport.

And a LOT of boxing matches are sloppy, predictable, boring affairs. For every wrestler grinding out a decision with top control, there's a boxer keeping an outmatched, discouraged opponent on the end of a lazy jab and running the clock down.

It's pros and cons with MMA's small gloves and hard strikes from kicks and knees. Yeah it's an equalizer and a tiny mistake can cost a guy the fight. It can encourage a safety-first mindset for that reason. But it also allows for more shifts in momentum.

You are right in saying that there is great subtlety in boxing at the highest level.

But in the direct chess versus checkers comparison?

Checkers has only one type of piece. Boxing has only one type of attack.

Checkers pieces have very limited movements. Boxers have a very limited strike zone.

Chess pieces have a wide variety of movement options. MMA has a wide variety of combat disciplines.

In that comparison, boxing is checkers. MMA is chess.

[Beouche]

Originally Posted by boranbkk

This is utter shite.

As are nearly all his threads. The guys a pathetic troll

[Vic-JofreBRASIL]

I´m not sure tbh.....I think most of the MMA fans like Boxing, at least a little bit, they watch the important fights....

[Haggis McJackass]

Also, with boxing you can always break it down to very simple components.

You judge your distance. You select your punch. You throw it. It lands or it doesn't. Rinse. Repeat.

In MMA, there is a longer chain of progression. You get the takedown. Now you start to work, and you have options. You can try to pass guard. You can look to take the back. You can try to get your hooks in. You can try to isolate an arm. Etc etc etc. There's a lot more "5 step processes" (for want of a better expression.)

I still don't know fuck all about the subtleties of the ground game, but I have learned to appreciate key moments in the grappling that I didn't recognize when I started. It's fun to appreciate a little bit of the scrambling and the submission battles on the ground, the key moments oftentimes aren't immediately obvious. It's a game of subtlety just the same as boxing is, except there's a wider variety of tools available and there's a higher chance of a sudden equalizer or momentum-shifter.

[McGrain]

Would you (or anyone else) say MMA fights are easier or more difficult to predict accurately than boxing?

[hit me HARDER]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Would you (or anyone else) say MMA fights are easier or more difficult to predict accurately than boxing?

I'd say its very similar. The higher profile the fight, the easier it is.

When you get to 'mid-card' type of fights they're mostly 50/50.



McGrain mate, please see my last post in my thread & respond to it.

Nice one.

[Beouche]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Would you (or anyone else) say MMA fights are easier or more difficult to predict accurately than boxing?

Probably yes, mostly due to the tiny gloves = higher chance of KO

Also a lot of boxing fights are mismatches, the UFC does what it can to avoid that scenario. Cherrypicking isnt rife in MMA

Also, one mistake in MMA can cost you the match. Look at Fedor Werdum

[Haggis McJackass]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Would you (or anyone else) say MMA fights are easier or more difficult to predict accurately than boxing?

I've always been good at predicting the outcome of boxing matches. I'm rarely taken by surprise. MMA I'm less confident about, but I have followed boxing for a lot longer. So I don't know if I'm good at picking combat sports, or just boxing.