Are boxing historians MMA Fans?

I think perhaps he assumed us Boxing freaks haven't gave UFC the time of day. On the contrary, I still watch it if it's on. But as soon as I switch it off, I don't even think about the event again, the Pacquiao vs Cotto fight is still playing through my head.

 

You caught me pre-edit. :yep

The back-end of that post should be of interest to you. :good

 

I don't mind a bit of it ,if they are of a decent standard ,but I am not a historian ,just a boxing fan, so my opinion doesn't really matter.

 

I'm getting the reputation as a bit of a Barrera fan. I'm fine with that. Incidentally, not to change the subject or anything, but Marco Antonio Barrera was pretty masterful against the aging, blown-up Tapia. A fighter who doesn't get the credit he deserves as a Super Flyweight. Tapia was awesome. Entertaining, very talented, I just think his lack of power stopped him from being a huge star.

 

My sentiments exactly.

I don't dislike it, there's just nothing i like about it.

The Royce Gracie days are fun though.

 

not a huge fan of MMA but i respect the fighters ability in the disciplines they study

 

Addie hit the nail on the head saying he finds it hard to really get into other sports except boxing im the same not a day goes by i dont think about boxing or do something boxing related either goto the gym come on here or watch DVDs and most days i do all 3.

Theres something about boxing that just makes it such a great sport and you either get it or you dont.

 

very true

 

MMA ranks with **** fighting...only without the classic traditions of **** fighting.

 

Ignorent ass. :-(

 

I like the idea of martial practitioners learning from each other and intermixing.

I don't like the sub-culture which has recently overtaken MMA, or the way fans/fighters/promoters treat other martial practitioners, or even their own fighters/eachother. I see the combative aspects being ripped out of the philosophical aspects in principles which regulate proper eastern martial arts, and packaged in an image that tapout can sell. (not that boxing, or even taekwondo is completely innocent of this to their own degrees)

I have respect for the ability of some of the fighters, though I feel the vast majority of the fighters (especially ones who were not formerly from a specific one) would not make it very far in a specific martial art (not that that means they are bad/ineffective/etc... just and observation).

However I feel there are a few common misconceptions about so called 'street fighting' that are perpetuated by popular MMA today (notably UFC). I feel that grappling in UFC has been worshiped to some kind of 'if you don't know it, you are trash' degree. I Know for a fact that dirty fighting puts grapplers at risk more so than it does strikers, and the logistics of grappling someone an unknown scenario is a bit too risky.

Also, striking is hindered by the gloves, and some rules (downward elbow, stomping, groin shot, etc..) Whereas grappling is unhindered with the exception of dirty fighting (small joint manipulation, biting, eye gouging) which non-grapplers can be just as proficient at without any training. In effect, grabbing on to someone who is ruthless and wants to kill you is much more dangerous than keeping distance and striking them.

Now, this is not to say that grappling is ineffective by any means. I feel some of the most dangerous martial arts in the world are judo and jujitsu. But what I do mean is that the 'you gotta know how to fight on the ground' opinion is misinformed.

furthermore, the exhausted statistic that 'most fights go to the ground' is completely misunderstood. There are many things which indicate this is not to be taken in simplest terms.

1. The majority of fights do not involve a skilled martial artist. So the average fight is not representative of what is likely to happen, should you be trained and get in a fight.
2. A vast amount (if not the majority) of physical conflicts involve intoxicated people (hence, falling down easily)
3. How many fights DONT start standing up?
4. Why did it 'go to the ground'? did one guy shoot in for a single, but the other guy got him in a full nelson? or did one guy knock the other on his ass with a punch?

My father grew up in inner city cleveland -collinwood- during desegregation and experience many many streetfights. one on one, thirty on one, thirty on thirty, fullscale riots which got the national guard called in, etc... And he will tell anyone that the person who was on the ground got messed up the worst. You did not want to fall down/get knocked down. You needed to have good standup.

His experiences combined with the vast amounts of common-fights I see on youtube lead me to believe there is little to no actual grappling in the common street fight. I watch the videos of Russians having gang fights and I see more kicking even than I do grappling, and the people who fall get trampled.

Does this mean jujitsu is ineffective/could not e used on the street? hell no. What it does mean is that
1. the 'most fights go to the ground' statistic is complete ****
2. you do not need to know how to fight on the ground in a full scale fight (though it wouldn't hurt, and you could certainly kill someone with it)
3. the grappler is put on a more level playing field (than he would be in a UFC match) when he gets close enough to someone who can bite his neck, poke his eye, etc...
4. This is obviously a very complex discussion which goes far too deep for the average bro watching UFC listening to joe rogans commentary.

 

I'm not a "historian" but for someone who enjoys both, boxing is definitely far superior, and harder to be successful in. That said, MMA fighters would probably be more useful ina real fight. It's chalk and cheese really.

 

Smart ones do, because they are secure in the selves and don't feel the need to seek out the approval of anybody or to define themselves soley as boxing fans.

On the other hand you have stupid people who view the two as "teams" at war and say things like they would rather watch a Ruiz marathon than Fedor vs Lesnsar; they don't say this out of believe, but out of insecurity, looking for a pat on the back from their "teammates;" they feel that they need boxing to define themselves.

Generally, as in the rest of life, the stupid people need approval from others, they need to define themselves, need to be on a team, and need to be negative because they lack the ability to think.

I can tell instantly who the idiots claiming to be boxing historians and hating MMA from the actual historians with brains, even if they say MMA isn't their favorite.

For example Red Cobra is a moron, ******* is smart, and fleaman is complete moron who will never be a guy who "gets it" in anything in life; he probably has been disliked his whole life, and views boxing as a team that needs to defended. He seems to be about 15, has never and will never be taken seriously by people around him in his life, lives in a world of self-delusion, and his intelligence is almost certainly in the bottom 3rd of the population.

 

"Can't we all just get along"?

Where is Rodney King when we need him?