Before the late 90s - early 00s, where MMA really took off with the help of UFC, HW boxers were considered the top of the mountain when it comes to combat athletes. If you were the world HW champion, you were considered the baddest man on the planet. It was pretty much universally agreed that you could take on any other human being in the world in a fist fight and walk out as the victor. But once UFC popularized MMA and introduced it to the masses, the narrative changed. Apex of combat athletes went from HW boxers to HW MMA fighters. I think this played a big role in causing the HWs of today to be more unpopular and taken less serious than before. After all Mike's popularity came from the fact that pretty much the entire world agreed he could beat any other human. But today? Usyk wouldn't even beat Islam Makhachev let alone Tom Aspinall. What do you think?
Boxing is hell-bent on destroying itself. So no. And yet boxing will always capture imagination more than the MMA, because it has an over century of rich history intertwined with the cultural reality of yesteryear. The structure of it further cements the allure—the numerous rounds, the knockdowns, the restriction of using only the gentleman weapon, that being the hands. There is a good reason boxing gave birth to countless fantastic pieces of literature, movies, essays etc. It has qualities unlike any other fighting game, though they are not without merit.
Also lol at Islam beating Usyk. Usyk already knows his stuff when it comes to grappling. Give him tune ups and some world level kickboxing coach and see what happens.
Boxing's been around longer than any other combat sport at a global level. That's literally the only reason why its romanticized so much, it had far more exposure to public compared to other combat sports to the point where it outgrew its position as a sport and became a symbol strength and resilience among men. This is precisely why I think HW boxers are starting to lose their popularity, they no longer have the same invincibility aura they once had. More people are aware of other combat sports today, and boxing is no longer considered the peak of fighting globally like it was in the old days. PS: Usyk can train MMA for the rest of his life and he wouldn't even finish the fight on his feet against Islam let alone beat him.
Usyk has clearly done a lot of training learning to defend against being clinched in a boxing ring. Grabbing him appears to be about as successful as grabbing a snake covered in grease. But does that actually translate to anything useful under MMA rules? The boxers I'd think would have success under MMA rules would be the big hitters. Throw Dubois in an octagon tomorrow and there's a non-zero chance he ices his opponent before the guy so much as touches him. Usyk doesn't have that kind of power.
Boxing's problems are self-inflicted. I think if anything, UFC has given boxing a lifeline by keeping people interested in combat sports. It is possible to be hardcore boxing fan, and casual UFC, or vice versa, so I think they support each other a bit, and of course, there are the crossover athletes and fights between boxing, UFC, kick-boxing, etc, although there are not as many as I would have thought.
No. Have you watched the UFC HW division? Its awful I don't think there is a single HW in UFC history on the level of Usyk in terms of skill.
Not at all. I know a lot of the blame falls on the idea that, "Top American boxers play other pro sports", has been tossed around. And there's probably a little truth to that. But reality is, American boxing has been falling for decades now. The days of a stacked US Olympic squad are probably over. But another thing I see is what has become of boxing today. Way too much put in to the 'Risk vs Reward' idea, and when you have 4-5 belts per division, why fight the toughest guy when a weak belt holder will fit the bill. Non-PPV fighters requesting PPV-type money, the loss of boxing on SHO/HBO, poor streaming services, inactivity....this affected all of boxing, and not just the HW division. Just my 2 cents
Tom Aspinall isn’t that popular though. So doesn’t that kind of disprove the whole premise? Aspinall is from the UK, but his popularity there is laughable compared to AJ or Fury. In fact I don’t think the UFC has ever had a true heavyweight superstar, it has always been one of their weaker divisions. I guess the closest would be Jon Jones, but he built his legacy at LHW and has pretty much disgraced himself at HW by refusing to fight the best competition.
It's not about exposure, but it is about how long it's been around—it's been here at the times of Mendoza, Sullivan, and the eugenics. It's been here during the extreme racism, with all its stories of fearless opposition and defiance like Johnson, Louis, Moore and the Murderer's Row. It's been here during the glamour of the Roaring 20's, during the daunting terror of the WWII and the crippling poverty of the great depression which produces man like Jersey Joe Walcott who chased their dream through extreme conditions incomparable to modern first world countries. It's been here during the civil rights movements, it's been here when the heavyweight champion of the world was invited to the White House, it's been here when boxers like Ali symbolized far more than pugilism, transcending as universal symbols of human rights, and it's been here when Mike Tyson became so ridiculously popular that he is literally a character in major fighting game franchise and a pop culture staple with ridiculous amount of Google searches, featuring across so many media (games, movies, cartoons like the Simpsons) that it's almost ridiculous. And it's not about him being the baddest man on the planet, though granted it did capture the imagination. It's about his personality, background (D'Amato et al.), his philosophy, his style, his knockouts. Boxing had time and form to produce countless larger than life stories than UFC, during times which bred that sort of man as ignominious and harsh as they might have been. Books like Gods of War and countless biographies and essays are straight literature, because boxing has been a topic that demanded such high a form of literary description. Won't even go into the darker side of the obsession boxing sparks which is birthed by the unapologetic, exploitative, corrupt part of it—all the men that profit from the fighting game, 80's being arguably the peak of the abyss for the fighters with Don King at the top. PS. Usyk kills the lightweight. That part is pure bait on your part.
And all of that was because boxers were a symbol of strength and resilience, because boxers were regarded as the toughest people around. That’s why I think UFC has a negative effect, its breaking that aura, most of the appeal HW boxers had were because they were the baddest people on the planet, especially for casual fans. No man, Islam’s been training for MMA since he was a kid, there are footages of him wrestling with and getting heavy praise from Luke Rockhold and Daniel Cormier, Usyk didn’t even start grappling until he was in his 20s, Islam would literally toy with him.
I reckon most MMA fighters agree boxing is more brutal sports boxing for 12 and beforehand 15 rounds. Knockdowns alone are a brutal rule which essentially drags you to your feet for more punishment if you are able to, and most fighters are expected to. Boxers are the symbol of strength and resilience because wars like Holyfield-Qawi, Duran-Leonard, Ali-Frazier I and III, Foreman-Moorer, Lyle-Foreman, Norton-Holmes, Graziano-Zale and the likes are and always will triumph most fighters can pull off under the ruleset of their own game. Any pretense of being the baddest man of the planet by a fighter quickly pales before the cold reality of knife and gun anyway, so finding on sport more appealing because of the human spectacle if produces is understandable in my book.