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

[MattMattMatt]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I'll have a punt.


It's geeky as ****, 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.

You will see this more and more in MMA as it becomes more mature as an international sport with deep grass roots. The actual form of fighting itself is still going through the growing pains of a relatively new sport in the public conciousness, and we are only just beginning to emerge from the early stages where certain types of fighters dominated for a period of time due to a lack of broad technical ability amongst the general MMA community.

As time passes, and techniques are honed to defend against the prevalent styles, we will see fewer 'punchers chance' moments, and more 'inflection points. This has already happened quite a bit in the ground game, but not so much with the stand up, at least to the extent of my knowledge.

The ability to spot these adjustments on the fly will start to become the factor that separates a great fighter from a good fighter, in the mean time there are still too many technical flaws that often allows the great fighters to win by much more simplistic means.

Each generation will get better. Even kids training in MMA now will still be getting tuition from guys who competed in the earlier stages of MMA, hence won't quite have developed the appreciation for the subtleties that will start to become important. When this generation of fighters move on and some become trainers, then we will have kids being trained from the start with broader sense of MMA. Repeat this a few times and we can start to compare boxing and MMA. Right now, it's not even like comparing apples and oranges, it's more like comparing grapes and wine.

[Johnstown]

i do have to say..about 2 1/2 years ago i went too a mixed mma boxing show in my home town. Some local mma fighters fought...the best fighter being Eli Garshnick...about 8 mma matches, amateur and pro..than about a 15 minute intermission with two pro boxing fights..one of the pro fights being local fighter pro Andres Taylor fighting Garrett Wilson...a pretty good match up realtive speaking. anyhow...sitting in front of me was a big group of mma meatheads....bunch of guys with mowaks...weightlifting like bulds... (but maybe they did wrestle in schoo or something) not sure if they were actual fighters or whatever...but as soon as the mma fights ended...they left....was hard for me to figure why you wouldnt stick around to watch two pro boxing matches....not like they got some money back by leaving....anyhow...

[Primate]

Maybe they had somewhere else to be.

[Johnstown]

Originally Posted by Primate

Maybe they had somewhere else to be.

Yeah I am sure they did...friday night around 10 pm..my guess is they had to go to a bar and tell girls they were just at the fights...and try to make them think they were actually fighting. Then when that doesnt work they hooked up with the one fat girl who has low self esteem due to being fat and molested by her step dad, took her back and gang banged her.

[KERRIGAN]

Originally Posted by Johnstown

YThen when that doesnt work they hooked up with the one fat girl who has low self esteem due to being fat and molested by her step dad, took her back and gang banged her.

You just described Stoo and Neville's regular Saturday night routine.

[boranbkk]

Originally Posted by MattMattMatt

You will see this more and more in MMA as it becomes more mature as an international sport with deep grass roots. The actual form of fighting itself is still going through the growing pains of a relatively new sport in the public conciousness, and we are only just beginning to emerge from the early stages where certain types of fighters dominated for a period of time due to a lack of broad technical ability amongst the general MMA community.

As time passes, and techniques are honed to defend against the prevalent styles, we will see fewer 'punchers chance' moments, and more 'inflection points. This has already happened quite a bit in the ground game, but not so much with the stand up, at least to the extent of my knowledge.

The ability to spot these adjustments on the fly will start to become the factor that separates a great fighter from a good fighter, in the mean time there are still too many technical flaws that often allows the great fighters to win by much more simplistic means.

Each generation will get better. Even kids training in MMA now will still be getting tuition from guys who competed in the earlier stages of MMA, hence won't quite have developed the appreciation for the subtleties that will start to become important. When this generation of fighters move on and some become trainers, then we will have kids being trained from the start with broader sense of MMA. Repeat this a few times and we can start to compare boxing and MMA. Right now, it's not even like comparing apples and oranges, it's more like comparing grapes and wine.

Basically agree with this, except the bit about as the sport develops you'll see "fewer 'punchers chance' moments". I think MMA is always gonna throw up unpredictable results just due to the amount of varied weapons, differing scenarios and variables that come into play. Depth of fighter pool or lack of is also an issue as this can lead to on paper mismatches.

Originally Posted by herwil10

Boxers are specialists. They refine their skills within a very limited rule set, and therefore have fewer techniques they have to learn. All they have to worry about is how to land punches and avoid having punches landed on them. MMA fighters are generalists. They need to be good at a wide range of skills. Punching is only a small part of what they do. Since they have to learn so many techniques, they can't devote nearly as much time to developing their punching skills. They need to split up their time between punching, kicking, clinch work, takedowns, mat grappling, mat striking and transitions between all those various techniques.

In track and field terms, boxers are the guys who specialize and dominate in one event, while MMA fighters are the decathletes. Decathletes might not be the greatest in any one event, but they are good at all of the events. Contrast that with a champion shot putter trying to compete in the 110 meter hurdles or a champion at the 1500 meters trying to compete in the pole vault. They would fail .... much like most boxers would not succeed trying to wrestle, submission grapple, or event compete in striking under full Muay Thai rules. At the same time no decathlete ever usually wins an individual event, no MMA fighter is likely to ever be a champion in boxing as the skills needed are too specific.

Good analogy

[Johnstown]

Originally Posted by herwil10

Boxers are specialists. They refine their skills within a very limited rule set, and therefore have fewer techniques they have to learn. All they have to worry about is how to land punches and avoid having punches landed on them. MMA fighters are generalists. They need to be good at a wide range of skills. Punching is only a small part of what they do. Since they have to learn so many techniques, they can't devote nearly as much time to developing their punching skills. They need to split up their time between punching, kicking, clinch work, takedowns, mat grappling, mat striking and transitions between all those various techniques.

In track and field terms, boxers are the guys who specialize and dominate in one event, while MMA fighters are the decathletes. Decathletes might not be the greatest in any one event, but they are good at all of the events. Contrast that with a champion shot putter trying to compete in the 110 meter hurdles or a champion at the 1500 meters trying to compete in the pole vault. They would fail .... much like most boxers would not succeed trying to wrestle, submission grapple, or event compete in striking under full Muay Thai rules. At the same time no decathlete ever usually wins an individual event, no MMA fighter is likely to ever be a champion in boxing as the skills needed are too specific.

maybe the mma guys would be better if they spent more time being sports specific and less doing..say...combot ropes.

[MattMattMatt]

Originally Posted by boranbkk

Basically agree with this, except the bit about as the sport develops you'll see "fewer 'punchers chance' moments". I think MMA is always gonna throw up unpredictable results just due to the amount of varied weapons, differing scenarios and variables that come into play. Depth of fighter pool or lack of is also an issue as this can lead to on paper mismatches.

I think it has already happened. The ground game has already become something of a dead-end for a lot of fights where adequate time isn't given for someone to work a better position. We used to see almost endless locks and chokes, and then with GnP a few years later, but now a better all round skill-set is nullifying a lot of that (along with a few rule changes).

The stand-up game will develop many of the subtleties that already exist in the more focussed stand up sports. It's just a matter of time, they just won't be as refined. I do however agree that there will likely always be a few more 'punchers chance' moments than in a focussed sport such as boxing, that's simply because it's impossible to be as equally good at everything than you could be if you trained in only one discipline....but the sport will still develop and we'll see more fights going the distance.

[Flea Man]

4oz gloves means bangers will always have a punchers chance.

[JohnJohn]

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.

Just like anybody can be a boxer, it's just can that person be considered successful at it?

[SRCP]

What I've learned from MMA is that while they are wilder in their striking and their traditional boxing defense is worse than boxers, because of the freedom of MMA they can throw wild shit and get away with it more by grabbing or doing other things that are MMA only.

[James23]

Originally Posted by SRCP

What I've learned from MMA is that while they are wilder in their striking and their traditional boxing defense is worse than boxers, because of the freedom of MMA they can throw wild shit and get away with it more by grabbing or doing other things that are MMA only.

[IMG]********s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2009/2/23/15/captain-obvious-1467-1235422671-15.jpg[/IMG]

[Bill Butcher]

I like both sports & I like both the stand up & the ground game of MMA.

[davidwatts]

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

well isn't it funny that wankers like you keep popping up on mma forums even though they hate the sport?

most UFC fans don't like boxing.
mein gott, i'm shocked to hear this news!