Anthony Joshua vs. Francis Ngannou •

Doesn't hurt to admit anything. I have seen MMA fighters dozens of times in various UFC events and very few of them look impressive. It's a sport that most probably favors wrestling and grappling (the most boring martial arts known to man I might add) and favors people who want to prevent striking (prevent fighting).

In 6 months to a year when Jon Jones gets knocked out and then when he goes into boxing and gets knocked out (which will inevitably happen) thankfully we won't have to hear about him anymore and his supposedly mythical Marvel comics level skills. Then you guys will move on to the next wrestler. hE wOuLd bEaT gOdZilLa aNd kIng kOng iN oNe rOunD!"

 

So, what you're saying is, boxing rules lead to excitement more often than MMA rules. And boxing is more "fighting" than MMA is?

Do you really believe that? how many impartial people do you think would agree with you lets say if they were shown a typical card from each sport?

It sounds to me like you're salty over the UFCs promotional power and how they're able to make stars tbh. Also over how the cats out of the bag to the general public nowadays that MMA fighters are better fighters than boxers.

 

Kiyoshi Tamura vs Matthew Saad Muhammad. UWFi Pro-Wrestler vs Boxer

This content is protected

 

Strange fight, the rules were drawn up in favor of the wrestler.

 

Any fight that allows wrestling is going to be in favour of the wrestler if the other guy cant wrestle for ****.

 

In this case, a boxer with boxing gloves on his hands, even if he knew how to wrestle, still had no chance in the fight.

 

But you said it's bad for boxing if Ngannou can beat these guys and no real boxing fan would want him to win? Lol definitely a hypocrite

Oh well he's going to be around for a while yet and he's beating usyk soon

 

Yeah the Aim was to get Tamura over and gain more credibility as legit challenger in his Pro-Wrestling career. UWFi was never gonna take the huge risk of more even rule set when there bigger chance he would have lost.

Credit to Saad Muhammad for taking the fight with the rules in place as he was on a hiding to nothing.

What we saw would have been the same result for with Muhammad Ali when he fought Inoki if Ali and his team never had the rules changed. They wouldn't allow any takedowns so Inoki couldn't do anything.

 

In boxing or even kickboxing You must strike. You must fight. You can't win a fight by preventing all the fighting. It seems that people are usually most excited about the MMA matches where they trade blows of some sort. Most people are not terribly interested in round after round of two guys vying for position doing anything but trade blows. I know some people are into wrestling and that type of thing and I don't think wrestling is a bad skill, I think it's an awesome thing, and for the record I've been choked out and I've been submitted before. It's an awesome skill but it is pretty boring to watch.
The UFC is good at promoting to the masses. Sure okay Doesn't prove anything. Pop music is more popular than opera. Doesn't prove anything. MMA is probably more popular at the moment in America but not more popular worldwide by any stretch of the imagination. But in America most people want to be part of an event. They want to hang out with their friends or family and watch the exciting new hyped up event. This happens with the super bowl too but most of those people watching aren't die hard NFL fans. It's people wanting to be part of an event and a moment. MMA fighters are awesome athletes but MMA is skewed in favor of fighters who are not strikers by its very nature. A wrestler beating a striker doesn't mean wrestling as a discipline is superior and it doesn't even necessarily mean that the wrestler is a better fighter than the striker. It proves that on one night in one match, that particular wrestler was able to use his skills to overcome the striker.

In MMA, the matches essentially favor the grappler the ground fighter the submission expert and the wrestler. Although grapplers and wrestlers get knocked out with punches all the time even within MMA rules. We have seen fighters use boxing as a main martial art and crossover into MMA and have success. We have seen a few cases of pure boxers having limited success in MMA as well. We have seen some MMA fighters do fairly well in boxing and we have seen quite a few of them get destroyed in boxing. This is also true. When people start bringing up street fights (as if trained martial artists regularly meet up for street fights like in the movies) It gets to be very delusional.

In street fights it's generally the person who lands first. Every martial arts expert will tell you it's a bad idea to intentionally go to the ground in a street fight. Kicks are generally limited in a street fight. So basically it becomes two people punching. And anything can happen. A street fight is not simply an MMA fight without a ref.

 

5 minute rounds, ref discretion stand ups, no headbutts, no wrestling shoes, gi etc allowed. None of those things favour wrestlers/grapplers. The UFC also clearly has, and always has had, a preference towards striking because as you say its more what the fans want to see. Its not a case of rules favouring grappling, its that in a rock paper scissors situation if you have a striker with little or no grappling ability vs a grappler, the chances of the grappler closing distance and taking the fight to the ground are a lot higher than the chances of the striker landing something significant enough to end the fight before it happens.


Why are we even acting like MMA is all grappling anyway? MMA in the UFC these days is probably like 75% stand up because, unlike boxers, they're pretty much all good enough at defensive wrestling/grappling that its often not worth exerting energy trying to take someone down.

Not sure what your point is about street fights. Dont MMA fighters punch too? wouldnt that be more than enough for them in most street instances? and if we are gonna start bringing in weapons, sucker punches, multiple attackers etc it becomes a pointless argument, anyone can "beat" anyone in that situation. What it really comes down to though is in an unarmed 1 v 1 situation MMA fighters are more well equipped to win than boxers, and would win the vast majority of the time.

So is boxing opera in this analogy then?

You're implying that MMA is actually the inferior product but appeals to the lowest common denominator or something. Is that really the case though? do you think boxing fans actually have it better for the most part?

This gets clung to a lot by boxing fans but I dont buy it honestly. Not saying MMA is more popular globally but I dont think its anywhere near as black or white or as big of a disparity as some would like it to be. I'm not American either.

 

What time is the main event ring walk supposed to be? UK time

 

Around 10pm I think.

 

Of course MMA fighters punch too and in a street fight would no doubt be dangerous guys. I'm just saying I think street fights are generally mostly punching and perhaps some stand-up grappling. I don't think most people are intentionally wanting to go to the ground as it only complicates matters.

Unarmed and 1 vs 1 It would be whoever landed first and in a good amount of the cases I would put my money on the professional fist fighter rather than the person who sometimes works on fist fighting but also maybe is a little less used to getting tagged and continuing on in the fight or somebody who is used to having many other options for fighting. That's my take.

For example in a gun battle, maybe there is somebody who has an assault rifle and a shotgun on his person and a gun in the ankle holster and a gun on his hip and is going against a sharpshooter with a sniper rifle. Who's going to win? Probably the person who places one bullet in the correct spot.

Yes boxing would be opera in this case. I do believe MMA appeals to the lowest common denominator. I think it's got a lot of hype and a lot of propaganda and I think the fan base is made of many ignorant frat boys and Reddit tier fad-followers. Now I'm not saying that MMA is a fad itself (I'm a fan of martial arts in general -Kenpo, Judo, Aikido, Savate, Sambo etc) But I'm saying a large portion of the fan base seems to be the type of people who follow fads or trends perhaps would be the better word.

Not all, but I think that's a big bulk of the audience and I think most of them are extremely ignorant and they just repeat whatever they heard on the latest Joe Rogan. I think these are the people who are easily taken by hype and flashing lights and smoke on this type of thing.

 

They dont "sometimes" work on fist fighting though. These days MMA fighters are training boxing daily, with boxing coaches and often actual boxers as sparring partners.

And their takedowns are being trained in the context of their opponent being able to hit them while they do it.

How does this make sense when MMA is the one where fights continue after you get rocked instead of the hurt fighter being given a count?

Which sport has more ducking, cherry picking and record inflation?

And what exactly makes boxing "opera" to you?

I think you're massively overgeneralizing and also using stereotypes (the frat boy thing) that havent really been applicable since the 00s. MMA is a legitimate international sport now both in terms of the participants and the fanbase.

I'm not sure it can really be called a "fad" when it started blowing up in like 2005 and is still here nearly 20 years later at this point fully entrenched into the sporting landscape.

Yes, flashing lights, smoke, exciting fights, deep cards, the best fighting the best etc. That kind of sh1t.

 

He was 9-2-1