Hate on me MMA fans! Boxing vs. MMA

That wasn't written to you genius. Try to keep up. It was a pointless reply to a pointless statement made by PR P4P #1. Most have made the effort (don't know why) to give you their reasons for liking MMA. You obviously don't..that's great. Is there anything else you'd like to share in the MMA forum :roll:

And again please understand that your opinion is just that- an opinion. It does in no way count for anything significant and therefore will not be treated as such. You feel as though people owe you an explanation- they don't. Hope this helps:hi:

 

great post

 

"Money" doesn't answer my questions at all.

Well, you are a better person for being a Cowboys fan. However, you logic of "MONEY" is just silly. You fail to realize a simple concept like one guy is a wrestler.... exactly why at an advanced age after a career in wrestling would he enter into a career in boxing?:huh Why wouldn't he enter into MMA for "MONEY"? Doesn't MMA fit his experience and skillset much more than boxing?

Besides, only the very top .000000000001% of Boxers make more money than top UFC guys. Not only would you have to be a great boxer, but you would have to have a great promoter, perfect timing, and a huge PPV following to make that sort of money. Where in MMA an Olympic Gold Medalist in Wrestling is a hot item and instantly begins making big bucks right out of the gate. Sort of like an American Gold Medalist in boxing would... in boxing.

I can't believe that you aren't grasping that simple concept. Not everyone wants to be a boxer in the first place... let alone the fact that someone who has been grappling for 20 years obviously hasn't exactly be preparing himself for a career as a boxer. Claiming that boxers are better athletes because they chose boxing is just a ******ed statement to be honest. Absolutely no logic behind it. This is coming from someone who is a HUGE boxing fan. I am just tired of some boxing fans making the rest of us boxing fans look like ****ing morons with statements like that.:good

 

i agree with the TS about boxers being "generally" more athletic compared to mma fighters. but my logic about this is that one of the main reasons is that MMA is still considered as a relatively "young" compared to other combat-sports. so the fighters are not yet that complete in terms of combining their skill set ( bjj, boxing, kickboxing, muai thai, amateur wrestling, submission wrestling, grapling, ground-and-pound, greco-roman wrestling, judo, sambo, karate, etc. ) with combat-effective physique...

guys like gsp, silva, penn, lesnar ( w/ IMO is more athletic than any heavyweight boxer today, except rjj if he'll still fight @ hw ) are physically gifted fighters w/c at the same time are very athletic and has superior skills compared to their competition and now are emerging as top fighters. gone were the days where you can only rely on being muscular, good striker, or only good at one "martial art" form, everybody has to be well rounded and be athletic to some extent.

its like comparing a 5 year old to a full-grown man... give the sport a couple more decades and it will produce athletes which can match toe-to-toe with boxer's athleticsm.

 

Ironic coming from the thousandth ****ing post on the same basic topic, each one thinking themselves clever and original while being neither.

Boxers are the athletes best suited to being boxers, not MMA fighters, not soccer players, not weightlifters, not gymnasts, boxers.