What would it take for a boxer to beat an MMA fighter

The size of the talent pool in MMA is miles behind boxing, it's not remotley even close. This is isn't bashing MMA, it's just a fact. So it's not too far fetched to think that superior athletes from a vastly superior combat sport could be successful in MMA.

It's one of those great anti-boxing MMA myths. Plenty of people trained in just one discipline (wrestling, BJJ, judo etc) have cross trained and become top level MMA fighters, in some cases even when they are not particularly great athletes and/or are getting on years. Yet boxers, despite generally being much more talented athletes, are some how incapable of doing the same.

But we will never see top level boxers in their primes going over to MMA because MMA (including the UFC) is still the little leagues compared to boxing.

 

Which talent pool? Whast superior combat sport? Since 1993, grappling has proven itself to be the superior form of combat. If you don't know what to do once someone grabs hold of you, you're done. MMA's talent pool is drawn from freestyle wrestling, GrecoRoman Wrestling and BJJ. You can add catch wrestling to that. That is essentially what Bas Rutten, Frank Shamrock, Ken Shamrock and Josh Barnett come from. Then there is Judo. After the grappling arts you have Karate/Kick Boxing, Muay Thai and boxing. Strikers can find success once they learn how to grapple.

No, the myth is that boxers are superior athletes. Boxing takes place in one range...punching range. You can argue there is an inside/outside range, but it is still punching range. This makes for a very specific skill set. A tool box that consists of 6 or 7 punches that are effective at one range makes for a very refined set. It also makes for a limited set. Boxers aren't superior athletes to grapplers. Boxers are better in one range of combat. Once kicking range, clinch range, ground range, knees, elbows and transitioning from one range to the other are included someone that only knows how to box gets lost.

You won't see it now. Risk vs reward. MMA pay is rising. The first UFCs paid $60,000 to one fighter who would've faced 3 fighters in one night. GSP was making 2+ million per fight less than 20 years later.

 

The reason why grapplers have historically done better in MMA is that some of the best grapplers in the World will go into the sport, whereas the best boxers will stick with boxing. Good boxers don't need MMA to make money, but good grapplers do.

Lets look at it like this; Imagine if wrestling or BJJ were long established pro sports in their own right, with people all over the World competing and the top competitors capable of becoming mega rich superstars. While boxing was a fringe sport and/or only contested at amateur/olympic level with no real pro ranks and no real money making potential. If this was the case then MMA would be filled with top level boxers and medicore grapplers and people would be saying that boxing is the best base for MMA.

Plus the idea that boxing is a less effective form of fighting for MMA is yet another myth as over 60% of stoppages in MMA come from punches rather than submissions. And this plays it in how MMA fights tend to go these days with fighters generally favouring the stand up, which means the fights are little more than poor quality boxing supplemented with the occasional bit of grappling. So MMA fighers are electing to go with throwing their hands as the primary form of attack. Jeez, I wonder why?:roll:

As for boxers being better athletes, again, this is just a fact. Ali, Tyson, Leonard, Mayweather, Duran etc, MMA has never seen athletic talent like that, not even close to it.

 

Another cool story bro - I'll take your word for it.

Staying tuned for more of your amazing insights into MMA.

 

There's some validity to some of this and it's way better than anything else you've said. Still, there is so much you are off on.

Bad boxing/kickboxing matches break out in MMA but it is usually because grappling skills have been nullified. Then you have some fighters that prefer stand-up but all of these guys can grapple. Few of these guys would try to turn an MMA fight into a boxing match if pitted against a world class boxer. If you can't survive in the clinch, prevent takedowns and survive on the ground; you are going to lose way more often than win in MMA.

You can make the argument that the best overall strikers on the planet are Muay Thai fighters. You're talking 40-60,000 kids forced into the sport, some only 6-8 years old, every year. They are forced to hone there skills against the best available opponent as children until they become adults. The most prestigious title in the sport is the Lumpinee Stadium title. Lumpinee Stadium has been open for 59 years and only 3 foreigners have every won its title. While there are no submissions or ground fighting, there are take downs and a violent clinch game. Punches, kicks, knees, elbows and holding while hitting are all allowed. Not even these fighters are capable of making the jump to MMA without learning how to grapple.

As far as boxers being better athletes, that's ridiculous. Athleticism is too broad a gift to believe that boxers, that are only proven to be world class at punching people, are better athletes because of this. Olympic lifters are some of the best athletes in the world. I'm sure there are plenty of Olympic lifters that suck at boxing. Usain Bolt is one of the best track athletes in the world. I don't know how Bolt's boxing is. Even if Bolt's boxing is great, I bet he can't out lift the Olympic lifters, who in turn can't out sprint him. There isn't a boxer on the planet that can out sprint Usain Bolt etc...................

Daniel Cormier was an Olympic wrestler. He can out wrestle any boxer in the world. It doesn't make him a better athlete and it damn sure doesn't make him any less of one. Cormier still couldn't beat Jon Jones in MMA. Jones is every bit as much athlete as Cormier, Bolt, Stephen Curry, Ali, Tyson, Leonard, Mayweather, Duran.....

 

:thumbsup

These are the elite strikers - love to see any boxer go to Thailand, Burma or Cambodia and spout this boxers are the best strikers nonsense. They would have their **** handed to them. :deal

 

:yep

 

Nobody ever said that boxing isn't an effective form of fighting for MMA. It is.

What people do say, is that a pure boxer is at a BIG disadvantage against a well rounded MMA fighter.

Not to say the boxer can't win a fight in such a situation either - but the sheer range of options available to the MMA fighter that are difficult for a boxer to counter, mean that the boxer is at a severe disadvantage.

That's what we are saying.

 

Holm laid the bluebrint to be honest. Yeah she was well rounded due to cross-training, but a harder punching better skilled male could likely emulate the gameplan better with less of it. Rousey wasn't known for wrestling shoots but still, that kind of movement, straight shots against a stiff posture, the defensive slips, all of that is applicable. Leg kicks and takedowns are the biggest obstacles, obviously. But lateral movement and control of distance, and feints, a big punch might be enough. Not to mention expert clinch fighting. We'll never know until we see a prime P4P boxer try it.

Mercer and Toney, while they each had different results, aren't representative. They were so old, and fairly stationary fighters. Not the route to go.

 

@ Bogotazo - A boxer could, imho, definitely transition to MMA and have success. In fact, it has already happened. Cro Cop was originally a boxer for example. But cross training is needed, and at that point the boxer is becoming an MMA fighter.

 

MMA fans still grasping at straws, eh?

An aging Holm crossed over and dominated the most legendary UFC fighter that ever lived. Get over it.

 

You're an idiot and no one gives a $hit what you think. Holly Holm has been kickboxing since 2001 and has been a Mixed Martial Artist for 5 years. She was also lucky to get a decision against Raquel Pennington, who has never boxed, in fight took place standing for the most part.

 

:huh

Yep - champion kickboxer and experienced MMA fighter as evidence. Completely logical. :nut

 

The question is what would it take for a boxer to beat an MMA fighter? And the answer is, probably not as much as people think.

But MMA fans will often believe anything they are told, it is a marketed more like WWE than other sports. I mean we had to suffer 2 years of hearing the absurd drivel about how Ronda Rousey would destroy Floyd Mayweather in a fight and loads of MMA fans were adamant this was true based solely on the fact that Dana White and Joe Rogan had told them so. BTW, If you are one the people who believed this then you should think before you comment on anything fight related as you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

Wow, it's not hard to answer. Keep the fight in punching range long enough to land enough punches to win. Don't bob or slip too far out or risk getting kicked in the head. Stay close because leg kicks are hard to check with so much weight on the front foot. Don't get too close or a clinch/takedown will happen. Stay off the ground. So, yeah, punching range only or it's over.

Floyd beat Ronda Rousey... He probably can't even beat Holly Holm.