In MMA a Loss Doesn't Mean as Much as Boxing

Get that man an aspirin! Still, you do have an agenda against MMA. It's clear as day to see.

Think about how demanding the physical toll of it is...

You train MULTIPLE disciplines EVERY DAY and on top of that you do your S&C. What do you do in Boxing? Pads/Spar/Cardio/Fight.

So not only is the physical toll much great than Boxing before you get into the ring, you also face someone who can end the fight in multiple ways. In Boxing, if you can't punch me or I punch harder than you, I win. MMA is not that easy.

You talk about round robins - how about the Super 6? A NOBODY in Andre Ward (20/1 outsider when the tournament got made) won the thing! And I'm sure in Boxing anyone can lose of they get hit in the right spot. Are you telling me that you HAVE to go 49-0 for someone to rate you as the best? Have you ever tried MMA?

The whole system of Boxing is absolutely flawed from the training aspect to the fighting aspect of it.

Kid yourself all you want that the best fight the best in Boxing at the right time. But that's all you'll be doing - kidding yourself.

 

I don't have an agenda but I don't prefer it, partially for the reasons I stated. It would be cool instead of just changing the topic and moving the goal posts you acknowledged that your assumptions contradict the point you were trying to make.

S&C is also extremely intense in boxing. Why would you leave it out when describing boxing training?

The focus is on specialization vs. diversification. Both have their strengths and it's unrelated to any of the arguments I was making before.

You haven't established this at all. If anything training in different areas gives certain aspects of your system a break as you rotate.

You make it sound "easy" (and that description of what boxing is was laughable) but what's easier, having to solve someone with a specialized skillset within a much more refined, sharper, more developed system? Or being able to abandon one technique and switch when frustrated?

An undefeated gold medalist with an impressive 115-5 amateur record who hadn't lost since he was 12 and went on to become a pound for pound fighter...

Right, dominance was established. It wasn't just a rotation of people taking L's until the next guy until the next guy until the next guy.

Of course anyone in boxing can lose if they get hit in the right spot. But getting to that point is layered with difficulties. At the top level one shot rarely defines a fight, and when it does it's set up with insane precision and anticipation. No, you don't have to go 49-0, but longer than Silva's 16 win/10 title defense streak would be nice. Again, if anyone can lose to anyone, it defeats the purpose of competition. I have dabbled in training some MMA techniques but I much prefer to master the balance, timing, precision, and power that comes with boxing in the street. Not sure how it's relevant. I'm not saying MMA is easy.

How is it "flawed"? Flawed for what purpose? And how is it any less flawed than having a full camp and losing to a bigger man who didn't even spar for the fight? You'd never see that in boxing.

Or I could just pull up the list I already made that you couldn't refute and instead moved onto different topics I wasn't mentioning.

 

1) No. You clearly have an agenda.

2) Boxers are only just touching on it, and many still don't do it. It's been a staple in MMA for years upon years (no combat art ever has been as forward thing in terms of training like MMA)

3) Have you ever trained striking and then grappling and then S&C? By the time you hit the third session you are completely smoked. You've never trained in your life to make that assumption.

4) The S6 was exactly that: A bunch of guys taking L's. Dirrell/Froch/Abraham?

5) MMA is layered with difficulties. If you're in with an Olympic Wrestler and you're more focused on him taking you down but he throws a punch...

6) Flawed in that guys still go into there 40+ fight career without taking a loss. It's completely flawed.

7) Now let's look at Manny. He could have fought MUCH better opposition than Vargas (weakest belt holder going). Floyd faced a non-conteneder in Berto. Wilder has fought one live body in a 40 odd fight career. BJS just fought a nobody and barley scraped by. These are TOP fighters and they're not fighting live challengers.

 

I posted a single opinion and you turned it into a multi-page debate that inflated the argument into MMA vs. Boxing, bringing in **** that was never discussed in the first place.

Every top level boxer does some form of strength and conditioning apart from boxing specific drills. I can't think of any that don't.

If you think MMA fighters do "more" overall work over the course of a camp you're mistaken. They simply manage their time to be able to rotate their exercises. At a certain point too much exercise becomes detrimental to the body. Top athletes manage their time to get to that limit without crossing it.

I've never trained in my life? I box and regularly do S&C that overlaps with MMA. From the way you talk about fighting you don't do jack ****.

Ward never took an L, he rose to the top. The cream rises to the top in boxing. You know who the best in a division is because they beat the other top contenders and don't just lose to unknown fighters regularly.

I didn't say it was easy, I was countering your idiotic simplification of boxing.

That's simply a symptom of your UFC fan mindset, that a guy can't possibly be good enough to beat 40 progressively better fighters. But as I just showed you with Cotto's first 25 fights-a measure that YOU yourself indicated would betray boxing's "flaws"-the talent pool is deep enough that getting to championship level with 20-40 wins is often necessary.

Don't be an idiot, Manny is semi-retired and Floyd fought Berto after both had careers fighting #1 contenders and champions across multiple divisions. Wilder would have fought Povetkin had he not failed his test. BJS isn't considered the best at Middleweight, nobody expects him to beat Jacobs or GGG or Canelo who just became his mandatory. What **** poor examples. Do yourself a favor, if you want to actually know if the best are fighting the best, look at the list I wrote a few pages back, read it, instead of just ignoring the fact your arguments don't make sense and bringing up other random boxing vs. mma arguments to deflect.

 

So one guy who trains in one disciple (Boxing) does more work than an MMA'er (Boxing/BJJ/Wrestling/Thai etc)? Man, go away.

Ortiz was a No.1 contender? Margarito was a No.1 contender? But BJS IS a top fighter, yet you're saying the best fight the best all the time which is clearly nonsense.

 

Calzaghe used to fight all the time without sparring. He couldn't spar because of his hands. It can happen in boxing as well.


There are so many ways to lose in MMA and you can't be great at all aspects of fighting so MMA fighters are always likely to have more loses on their record compared to boxers.

 

I don't really believe that. He might not have sparred as much but his father saying he never sparred is definitely an exaggeration. He blamed not sparring enough for the poor performance in the Bika fight which means he regularly sparred. And he definitely had a full camp for the fight.

I recognized that, but in my view if anyone can lose to anyone at any time, it defeats the competitive purpose of sport, which is to vie for higher levels of excellence. (Not that it's THAT bad.)

You're equating training in more different things with training harder overall. Focusing on one discipline still involves

Ortiz was a comeback fight and Floyd didn't fight Margarito because he was retired.

Genaro Hernandez was the champ at 130 and Corrales was the other biggest fighter at the weight, Castillo was top guy at lightweight, Baldomir beat Judah when Zab was Undisputed Welterweight Champion (and Floyd beat Judah just prior as well), Mosley was #1 at welterweight after beating Margarito, Oscar was #1 at junior-middleweight, Hatton was the #1 guy at 140, Canelo was #1 at 154.

Nobody considers BJS one of the very top guys at Middleweight or pound for pound. Lee was a solid win but nobody would favor BJS over Golovkin, Jacobs, Canelo, maybe not even Lemieux.

 

Please stop posting. Your bias toward Boxing is clouding your judgement.

 

This is a recent phenomenon but it's true. It's partially the "Mayweather effect" of marketing the 0 so heavily. But the biggest stars of this past generation aside from Mayweather had losses that didn't hurt them. JMM, Pac, Wlad, Cotto, Mosley.

Those 20 fights are necessary for getting to world level. We had that discussion a few pages back. The talent pool is deep, the learning curve is steep.

We know who the best is in almost every single division in boxing. I posted a list.

What is this list supposed to be?

Rigondeaux is a victim of mismanagement. Stevenson and Canelo are good but pretty much the only examples and in reality Stevenson has made himself irrelevant and Canelo is certainly fighting GGG this year. You're ignoring the entire rest of the sport where the best have been fighting the best.

 

Learning fights make a well rounded fighter. The fights are appropriate for their level, but the best of them beat everyone else and pass each test until they reach the top. There's no reason a prospect out of the amateurs should lose a third of his fights before hitting his 20th and ruining his progression.

People sometimes disagree but it's the exception rather than the rule. Most divisions have a clear leader.

That list is far too short.

But that's not true. Most divisions have the best fighting the best most of the time.

 

Why are you ignoring that giant list I gave you where the top guys fought each other to decide divisional supremacy?

Wlad-Joshua is happening next.

Povetkin was going to fight Wilder and failed his drug test. That happens in MMA as well.

There's been no fights between those 5.

And they both happened just recently involving the top 4, and the 5th moved up to Heavyweight. Usyk beat Glowacki and Gassiev beat Lebedev. You can't expect fighters who just get into the rankings to make half a dozen fights with the other contenders

Kovalev-Ward are rematching and Joe Smith hasn't been in the rankings for more than 10 days.

Jack and DeGale are about to fight. Bute should be on that list who fought DeGale also.

Yes there have, wtf? Lemieux fought N'Dam, Golovkin fought Lemieux, Saunders beat Lee when he was ranked in the top 5, and Golovkin is about to fight Jacobs and likely Canelo after.

The UFC makes it easier for those 3-5 number contenders to fight each other more often but the top 2-3 guys in boxing typically fight each other, as I demonstrated in the list I posted which you didn't acknowledge.