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

[BobDigi5060]

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

Oh yeah, they gotta work. But at least a dud fight is over in 15 minutes. People act like there's no such thing as two timid, gassed boxers, neither of whom have the power to stop each other, clinching and feinting and playing peek-a-boo and landing two good punches each from round 4 to round 10.

I saw Wlad fight, turned it off and went to the gym after the 8th round..... Here in 'Murica we won't get up for any Boxer besides Pacman or Mayweather. We have a lot of Hispanics, but The UFC is still favored.

As for OP, a few things.. Two men in full guard separates the casual cans from the core', and Striking is more appealing than Grappling.

[UnleashtheFURY]

I'm a fan of combat sports. Yeah some UFC fan boys can be ridiculous sometimes, same goes for some boxing fans.

[Joe.Boxer]

Originally Posted by sonyt

MMA takes heart out of fighting, anybody can be MMA fighter.
Boxing you need real mental toughness, MMA not so much.
it bothers me most in MMA.

It's strange how that super-douche hipster tard Rogan goes on about how "mentally tough" wrestlers are .

And "YOU KNOW ROY JONES JR RESPECTS THE HANDS OF FORREST GRIFFIN" will remain the dumbest fight commentary of all time.

[Muchmoore]

Originally Posted by Joe.Boxer

It's strange how that super-douche hipster tard Rogan goes on about how "mentally tough" wrestlers are .

And "YOU KNOW ROY JONES JR RESPECTS THE HANDS OF FORREST GRIFFIN" will remain the dumbest fight commentary of all time.

Wrestling training is probably the most physically exhausting in all of combat sports.

[PIRA]

Originally Posted by 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.

Shit topic from a renowned troll as Beouche pointed out. You can tell this was a general or lounge topic and then was dumped in here by the mods.

Few of the good posters come here anymore - forum is riddled with teenage trolls.

[rusty nails]

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.

or in other words "making adjustments"
take this pretentious garbage back to the general..

[rusty nails]

Originally Posted by Doc

MMA is garbage. Kids game...

this is chess let the peanut brains enjoy their checkers.

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.

Originally Posted by sonyt

MMA takes heart out of fighting, anybody can be MMA fighter.
Boxing you need real mental toughness, MMA not so much.
it bothers me most in MMA.

Originally Posted by Joe.Boxer

It's strange how that super-douche hipster tard Rogan goes on about how "mentally tough" wrestlers are .

And "YOU KNOW ROY JONES JR RESPECTS THE HANDS OF FORREST GRIFFIN" will remain the dumbest fight commentary of all time.

the special bus has arrived..

[sugarngold]

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?

Eh - I'm not sure I would agree with that. Perhaps the casual fans are the ones that want to see more standups in MMA - but the hardcore fans that understand all phases of the game want to see it all. I think the standup rule has been over utilized of late and fighters can certainly use it to their advantage. As an aside - the UFC literally started as a showcase for Gracie Jiujitsu and has morphed into a sport that seems almost uniquely designed to take away the effectiveness of true jiujitsu.

Not to mention the hardcore MMA fans are also the ones that are already fans of boxing, kickboxing, ADCC, etc. We pretty much watch all combat sports. If not - then right - like you said - people should just watch boxing.

[rusty nails]

Originally Posted by sugarngold

Eh - I'm not sure I would agree with that. Perhaps the casual fans are the ones that want to see more standups in MMA - but the hardcore fans that understand all phases of the game want to see it all. I think the standup rule has been over utilized of late and fighters can certainly use it to their advantage. As an aside - the UFC literally started as a showcase for Gracie Jiujitsu and has morphed into a sport that seems almost uniquely designed to take away the effectiveness of true jiujitsu.

Not to mention the hardcore MMA fans are also the ones that are already fans of boxing, kickboxing, ADCC, etc. We pretty much watch all combat sports. If not - then right - like you said - people should just watch boxing.

amen.. the stand up rule has swung completely the other way to the point that if your not dropping bombs then your "wasting time"
its getting to the point where guys are getting stood up in side control after 15 seconds. how are you supposed to educate people??

[Matt Ldn]

Originally Posted by 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.

That is the most ludicrous over simplification. Football is just kicking a ball as far as you want it to go then.

Originally Posted by McGrain

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

I would say much harder due to several factors. The number of weapons, number and length of rounds, biased scoring, lack of fighters (there are fewer fighters who are clearly a cut above the rest), being a young sport etc.

Originally Posted by rusty nails

amen.. the stand up rule has swung completely the other way to the point that if your not dropping bombs then your "wasting time"
its getting to the point where guys are getting stood up in side control after 15 seconds. how are you supposed to educate people??

I feel there is a massive lack of consistency some refs stand them up after 20seconds of not advancing position but still throwing where others will let them do nothing for a minute+

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by rusty nails

or in other words "making adjustments"
take this pretentious garbage back to the general..

Yeah, I think "making adjustments" is how someone who doesn't really have a proper grip of boxing (& English) would see it. In fact it's about making adjustments to the adjustments and how those adjustmens affect the original adjustments and so on - furthermore, not all "adjustments" are inflection points. They are not the same thing. General is not known for it's pretentionsness. Nor do I post there very much. Finally, "inflection points" is actually just as short and easy to type as "making adjustments".

Other than that, good post.

[MattMattMatt]

Originally Posted by rusty nails

or in other words "making adjustments"
take this pretentious garbage back to the general..

Not exactly. An inflection implies the point at which a change in momentum occurs (aka the result), with the adjustment being the cause. Not all adjustments will result in a change in momentum, and not all changes in momentum are as a result of an adjustment.

[lefthook89]

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.

This is probably the best post on ESB

[James23]

Isn't it funny how easily you can point out the naive person who refers to MMA as UFC?

[Ricardo87]

Originally Posted by Doc

MMA is garbage. Kids game...

this is chess let the peanut brains enjoy their checkers.

You can tell that your an ignorant person just by the comment you made. I train MMA but I respect boxing as well. Its two different ball games. SO the people that are saying that they want more stand up and watch UFC are just as ignorant as the person how made this comment