Here's the proof in the pudding. The first boxing match was recorded in 1681. It took roughly 220 years to reach a form that would be recognized today as modern boxing. MMA originated as Vale Tudo in the 1920s. It took a little less than 100 years to reach its modern form that very well could still polish up a little bit. Over that time it experienced the same sorts of rule and stylistic changes that boxing did to reach that modern form, albeit about one hundred years quicker. That's a simple comparison that I and many respected MMA sports writers have pontificated on and can agree on but for whatever reason you disagree (probably because it lessens the "greatness" status of your favorite ancient idols) and you refuse to see reason or concede defeat. You're a fool, a joke, and a disgrace to MMA fans. You'd do well to go to Sherdog, there are plenty of hardheaded idiots living in the '90s there, as well.
Another drooling chinchecking cretin. Just what this forum needs. I, and many other MMA posters, yearn for the days before mongtards like MetalMandible came along. "MMA and boxing both involve punching, both started, and both got better." Fantastic. You are one of the foremost minds regarding combat sports of your generation. Thank you for enlightening us, now tell us more about how fragile James Kirkland's 'Glass Mandible' is again. atsch:rofl:smoke
Still on the "fluke" thing, dummy? How come you still haven't proven how I was wrong while I have proven that I was right? AGAIN FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME. Fluke is defined as a "an unlikely chance occurence or a stroke of luck". I clearly illustrated why Serra hitting GSP with that punch was a stroke of luck AND a chance occurence and yet you continue to say, "I OWNED YOU LOLOLOLOLOL" without any facts to back you up. Your arrogant pseudointellectual tone is without merit and annoying because all you manage to do is make circular arguments without the slightest regard towards truth or producing facts to back up your stance. Then you prattle on about how you "own" people when all I've ever seen out of any of your arguments is you blowing yourself over your own "achievements". Get this through your thick, prepubescent skull ****boy. I clearly said that boxing hasn't improved exponentially since the '30s and '40s which would CLEARLY indicate that I realize that Robinson and Pep are equal or, as I believe, SUPERIOR to the fighters of today. Boxing had reached it's modern form by the '30s, MMA had not reached it's modern form by the '90s. Those guys that you idolize like Coleman and Severn are just as archaic to modern MMA as Sullivan standing in his "put your dukes" stance would be against Ali. There is no entirely new and different art form, people just figured out what worked and didn't. The sport was always about who could beat the other guy in a fight with little-to-no boundaries and it took about one hundred years to figure that out just like it took boxing about two hundred years to figure out what the best method of punching someone else in the face was. Not rocket science, you're just a wannabe fight professor with a knowledge base that's best limited to droning on about fantasy match-ups involving fighters from several generations ago. Grow up and learn to read, you dumb **** sucking ****. Oh, and when you come back with more irrelevant bull**** pulled from your festering ******* at least try not to toss out the backtracking accusations because I haven't backtracked once. You've just completely misunderstood every point that was delivered to you in plain English.
:happy:happy Yet again you have been guilty of appalling self-ownage here, yet still lack the intelligence to recognize this: "an unlikely This content is protected occurence or a stroke of This content is protected " Keep thinking this over. Eventually, at one point, it'll click that you're simply dead-wrong. Even a ****ing mongtard like you will grasp this someday, I'm sure of it. Hang in there. :rofl Yet again, you are horribly reduced to complete falsification, floundering like a beached whale in yet another argument with me that you're losing. Much like your failed attempt to portray me as a Dana White hater, you are now calling me an idolizer of Coleman and Severn, two fighters I have never in my entire posting history on this forum ever expressed the slightest adulation for in any way. The sign of a desperate, desperate man. :smoke And yet, your point is still nonsense. :nut They are two different sports, they have evolved in completely different ways, and both should be evaluated without reference to the other. There is absolutely no point in your analogy, it was **** and has no value. This is indisputable to anyone who understands both sports. :smoke
In anticipation of your next lengthy, ill-informed, tedious reply dead), I'll take this debate in a less long-winded direction - who, MetalMongtardible, would win between prime Crocop (circa 2004-2006) and the current version of, say, Frank Mir?
If you don't think that Serra landing a shitty, unaimed, flailing hook on the back of a ducking GSP's head was NOT a chance occurence after having seen Serra completely unable to land anything standing in the rematch and seeing Serra never achieve that level of success against a live opponent standing in any of his other matches, then it is you who is the "mongtard" and there's no point in further discussion. To .think that it wasn't a chance occurence would imply that you think Serra could do it again if they were to fight. If not, then it was luck, and that's a simple concept. Maybe I've mistaken you with scurlarcuntings who is also a PRIDE obcessed fool living in the Dark Ages. Either way, if you would even begin to imply that the fighters of '97-'01 are in any way comparable to those now competing, you're a delusional ass. As my original comparison stated, comparing the HWs pre-Fedor to those that exist now is an exercise in futility because they were as clearly inferior as Sullivan was to Joe Louis. They had an archaic style that wouldn't work today. No, you're just a ****ing ****** that can't follow simple comparisons. It can't be broken down any more, it can't be explained any more, and if the best you can do is "it's different" without explaining HOW it's different, something that a grammar school debate club member would at least attempt, then it is you that is impossible and a detriment to conversation on this board. Eat a dick, dummy.
atsch Much like you don't know what the word "fluke" means, you really don't know what the word "chance" means. You seriously, seriously need to invest in a dictionary... ...and a tutor to explain to you what the definitions in the dictionary actually mean. :rofl You have mistaken me with someone else whoever it is, but I'm used to your mistakes, you make them all the time, you're as dumb a **** as I've ever encountered on this forum. At least you admitted this one, you usually compound your stupidity by point-blank refusing to do so even when everyone can plainly see you're talking utter ****. Still, well done. You're growing. :smoke :yikes Yet again this ****ing cretin is desperately trying to superimpose opinions onto me which I do not nor have ever held in order to have an argument in front of him he can win. I don't recall ever seeing more desperate, bizarre, and pathetic tactics on here!!! :rofl:rofl And so ends your diabolically stupid, overmatched and all-round shite performance on this issue. "They started, they got better" - wonderful analogy, this can be put to great use by all MMA/boxing fans. As well as tennis, snooker, and pretty much anything that has ever started... and got better. :rofl "Boxing 1860s-2010s = MMA 1990s and 2000s", the new book coming this fall from Professor Chinchecking ****head Mandible. Can't wait. :smoke
No, you need the dictionary because chance means, at least in this sense, "fortuitous or accidental". It wasn't accidental because he meant to hit him with something but it was quite fortuitous that a punch he blindly threw happened to hit the back of GSP's head as he ducked. Had he nailed him with an uppercut as he ducked to avoid a hook that would have been a great counter, not a fluke. But the fact that he hit the back of his head with a punch that wasn't meant to land like that and it had THAT sort of extreme effect means that it was a FLUKE, LUCK, CHANCE, whatever you prefer to call it. It wouldn't happen again and that is all you need to know to determine that it was a fluke. When so many of the posters here are lemmings that parrot one another's opinions it's not hard to do. Then why are you arguing that Mirko is an ATG when there haven't been many good HWs yet, the sport is too young to even consider rankings lists like this, and on top of that he notched most of his signature wins over guys who would be considered bums if they started today? I KNEW IT. You really can't read well. I clearly said several times that boxing from 1681-1930 followed the same sort of development path that MMA did from 1920-2010. I told you that you were going to make an ass out of yourself and lo and behold, here you go. Anyone can go back and read this ******ed waste of a debate and see that I made that point clearly all along and you still couldn't grasp it and were arguing about a view I didn't even hold. Goddamn, you are indeed a fool.
A guy aims a punch with the intention of hitting and hurting his opponent. He throws that punch, and it succeeds in doing exactly what he wanted. There is no intervention of 'chance' here. But you don't know what 'chance' means in this context, so write another 1000 words exposing your low level of intelligence, please do! You were wrong. Get over it. :smoke :deal This is your problem. It rears its head again. A sport can never be too young for fans to consider who the greatest fighters have been, unless it has only just started and none of the participants have passed their prime periods yet. Right now, guys like Fedor and Anderson Silva are all-time greats of MMA, because it is inconceivable that in 50 years time or whatever, that their achievements will be forgotten/overlooked, because they have been too good and too important. A sport can only be "too young" in comparison to another sport; you're comparing it to boxing again, when there is no point in doing so. MMA has evolved very rapidly in its lifespan, a generation of great fighters has been and gone, or almost gone. It is natural and healthy to erect rankings and so on, otherwise we would be neglecting the careers, achievements and greatness of those who have already produced the peaks of their fighting careers. Stop comparing this to boxing. You may as well compare it to pure BJJ or pure wrestling. MMA is MMA. Accept it. It's much younger than boxing, but it still has greats, and it is totally different from boxing, its evolution has been completely different. Accept that too. :deal Except it didn't. You still fail, and I'll continue to point this out.
You still don't get it because you're too overprotective of delegitimizing a fighter's win. If I was to fight Anderson Silva I would never be expected to win because I'm nowhere near the caliber of fighter or athlete he is. If I threw a punch and managed to hit him and KO him it would be a fluke because I didn't time him and counter something he did or see an opening in his defense, I just wanted to hit him and it happened to happen. Serra didn't plan that punch anymore than I would have if I hit Silva, he wanted to hit him and it happened, but it wasn't his skill that decided the issue. His luck in hitting a target where he didn't intend to and his luck that GSP was completely unable to recover from a shot that doesn't often have that sort of effect is what decided it. Intention isn't everything and you can't manage to figure that out no matter how many simple analogies I throw at you.atsch There's no point in ranking them because in ten years' time people like Igor Vovchanchyn, Mark Kerr, Dan Severn, Don Frye, and more will be as relevant as Sullivan's top contenders Paddy Ryan, Enos Phillips, and Dom McCaffery are to boxing's ATGs. Yet, because of the lack of time to give us more people who will be deserving of ATG status we have people that label these guys ATGs when there is little justification. It's just pointless. Yes, just keep proving my point that you're incapable of forming a convincing argument by refusing to explain how and reiterating that "it's just different". Your debating skills suck ****ing balls and THAT is irrefutable. I've told you time and time again why they followed VERY similar paths of evolution and you haven't followed up with anything other than what I quoted above. Either explain or shut the **** up. **** or get off the pot. Again, wow me with your verbal jousting skills rather than showing me your lack of original thought, gratuitous use of emoticons, and general self-suckage of yourself.:hi:
Hell Yeah If you watch him before he came to the ufc then you won't even need to ask this question:deal Clearly a top 3 atg behind fedor and big nog
