Bobby Green says boxers are 'insecure' around MMA fighters

Precisely. It´s not "real fighting", it´s a sport. 12-6 is just a silly rule, but it´s among many.
So it always tickles me when MMA guys act as if the sport is in any way superior. It´s just a combat sport, among many. Albeit a bit more nuanced, or broad. I don´t know what the right word would be.

 

It has rules but there is an absolute night and day difference between boxing and MMA in that regard. Boxing has one of the most stringent rulesets and is among the most restricted (not that theres anything inherently wrong with that) combat sports in terms of of being laser focused on one particular area of fighting, whereas MMA is easily the most "open" ruleset and allows by far the most stuff, has the most possible scenarios, approaches etc etc. And because of that, the fighters train to be the most versatile, which generally is going to translate to them being the most well equipped for "the street" too.

Not saying a boxer every now and then couldnt land a quick KO shot, or poke the MMA guy in the eye, or kick him in the balls (remember the MMA can use these "dirty" techniques too though, and will often be in a better position to use them) but more often than not the MMA fighter will win. Its not a slight on boxers, they just dont train for all that other stuff.

 

Yes, all fine and dandy but that´s not what I am arguing. I am saying that at the end of the day, mixed martial arts is just a combat sport. All the talk about "real fighting" is just gibberish to me.

 

Its the closest thing by a wide margin. Dunno why that seems to bother some people. Do you agree or not agree that MMA fighters are the most well equipped for "street" situations? and if yes, why would that be?

 

Again, that is not the point I am arguing.
Like you said "most equipped", meaning at the end of the day it´s a sport, not actual street fighting. Real life physical conflicts and not martial arts, hence I always find it funny when MMA guy act superior and preach about "real fighting".
12-6

 

BJJ can be very effective in a street fight but there are a lot of intangibles to a real fight too, who cares?

 

But its completely logical for them to brag about that, because in an unarmed 1v1 no rules fight to the death they would be favoured over any other combat sports athletes, wouldnt they? It literally means they are the best fighters on the planet. Isnt that the main reason people watch combat sports? to see who the best fighters are? so that "real fight" claim lends extra weight and prestige to being a top MMA guy.

Also 12-6 elbows are legal again now.

 

Yet at the end of the day, it´s a sport. That my point. It´s not "real fighting" because real fighting happens spontaneously and doesn't have referees or any rules.

Yea, now.
How about head stomps and soccer kicks? Those happen in "real fighting" but are parred from MMA.

 

The only things that would change the boxer being the clear underdog to an MMA guy in a "real fight" is stuff like having a weapon, sucker punching, multiple opponents vs 1 etc etc. Stuff that has nothing to do with being a good fighter, so it doesnt matter.

Like, you dont really think **** like 12-6 elbows, soccer kicks, headbutts, biting, hair pulling, eye gouging etc is suddenly going to allow the boxer to negate the MMA guys advantages surely? they're more likely to be used by the MMA guy lol.

From the UFC yes, not all MMA orgs ban it.

 

My point isn´t effectiveness of any combat sport in a "real fight". It´s that when MMA guys call MMA "real fighting", I laugh. Because it´s still a combat SPORT. Sure, they might have extra tools in a real life fight, but at the end of the day it´s just another combat sport.
You are not fighting "for real". You are fighting under a certain rule set like 12-6. Well, until recently.

 

Yeah, but if they were fighting "for real" the MMA guys would have the clear advantage, which is the whole point of why they say it. Its just a roundabout way of saying they are better fighters than boxers, and that boxers need to limit the ruleset to win against them.

There are plenty of things I prefer about other combat sports, but MMA is unquestionably the ultimate arena for proving who the best unarmed combatants in the world are, and obviously that is a selling point for a lot of people. Its hard to market someone as "the baddest man on the planet" when you know that skillset vs skillset they would get their ass beat pretty easily by multiple guys from other combat sports.

 

And at the end of the day, it´s a sport. So when they proclaim it´s real fighting as a means to flex some sort of superiority over boxers, I laugh.
No one does "real fighting". If they were to argue that MMA is more nuanced and layered, then sure, I wouldn´t say anything against it.
But: "We are better because MMA is real fighting." is just stupid on several levels.

 

So who would you favour over MMA fighters in a "real fight"

If we are involving "real fight" **** like weapons, sucker punches, people being drunk, outnumbered, huge size disparities etc etc its meaningless because that says nothing about who the better fighter is, which is the whole point of the discussion.

 

The point of Bobby bringing up real fighting is to show some sort of superiority. But at the end of the day, no one does "real fighting" and MMA is just another sport.
Sure, if an MMA guy and a boxer fought on the street, the MMA guy would have the likely advantage. But this doesn´t change the fact that he is still an MMA fighter.

It´s like a football player trying to claim that his sport is superior because he might be able to sprint faster than a marathon runner. It´s silly.

 

Yeah MMA isnt exactly a "real fight", but arguing so vehemently against it implies thinking there are "real fighters" out there who would beat the **** out of those MMA guys in a no rules situation, or that there are some deadly banned techniques that can reliably be used to neutralise an MMA skillset. Otherwise what does it matter that its not 100% a "real fight" and has a few rules? the whole point is those MMA fighters are saying they would be favoured to win against boxers or anyone else in an actual real fight, which you yourself seem to agree with. WHY would they be favoured to win a real fight? because MMA is by far the closest thing to a real fight, right?

Its more like one group of fighters claiming they'd beat another group of fighters in a no rules situation or under most combat sports rulesets. Combat sports are literally based around "i'm a better fighter than you" I kicked your ass in a fight". So for MMA guys to be able to stake that claim, and have a solid argument behind it, holds a fair degree of weight imo.