What counts as "good enough"? This is always my question with the "that boxer lost in that instance because..." arguments. If it's a boxer with 20 amateur wins against a kickboxer with the same, is that relevant? Does the boxer need to be a pro? How good of a pro does he need to be? Botha was 47-4 and fought some really top guys. Arthur Williams was never top PFP or anything like that, but he's a solid and experienced proffesional boxer, and he got CRUSHED in that fight. How good does a boxer have to be before the discrepancy goes away? If boxing is somehow inherently "superior" to kickboxing, then why does it take (in your argument) the best of the best in their primes to beat a kickboxer?
If a boxer can time a kick and counter with a punch, he can win. If a muay thai guy can time a punch and counter with a kick, elbow, or a knee, he can win. PLENTY of guys have been successful at both. Guys like Botha & Skelton make me think Boxing trained fighters can do well in kickboxing. Guys like the Thais (Samart Payakaroon, Khaosai Galaxy, etc); because there are very few strictly boxing gyms in Thailand, make me think that muay thai trained fighters can do well in boxing. Guys like Mighty Mo (getting jabbed to death in his boxing debut eventhough known as a knockout artist in K1 with his fists) and Ray Mercer (who quit after the first kick in a fight with Remy) make me think that you can get beat if you have a bad gameplan, regardless of your background. You have to know some boxing to survive in muay thai. You don't have to know any muay thai to survive in boxing. I think that's the major factor that; for me, puts muay thai ahead. Wouldn't mind having a friendly exchange with folks to show the tactical responses a muay thai guy's gonna do against a strict boxer; especially considering i'm going back to boxing for a stab at Golden Gloves next year & could use some help. BTW- Jerome Le Banner has a pretty decent pro boxing record & probably wanted to test his hands against Botha instead of just going for the W.
QFT. As far as I can tell this is the conclusion any reasonable person comes to when they actually try both sports.
Yes, I get the impression that boxing is not worth training and cannot be stand up against any other fighter unless you are able to train as an elite pro boxer in your prime. In other words, if you're not an elite pro boxer in your prime, you will get your ass kicked (literally) by anyone else with half the training in muay thai or mma.
Arthur Williams was 40 years old when he fought Ignashov. And Arthur Williams was far from a solid boxer, he was a journeyman who lost 15 fights against mediocre competition. And Ignashov is actually very good, well above anything Williams accomplished in their respective sports. Botha went into K-1 and fought their best guys when he was past his prime. He even competed with the best and notched a couple victories against some great K-1 fighters. Meanwhile, in boxing, Botha was just a durable, tough fighter who never beat a top 10 fighter or for that matter a top 15 fighter in his PRIME. Not to mention, all these fights took place in a criminal organization like K-1. K-1 is not going to make the same mistake they did when they brought in a fat joke like Butterbean and he ended up beating Fujimoto. The boxers they brought in, they made sure were beatable, past their prime, old, or just not that good.
Okay...so Williams and Botha don't count. Even though they're successful pro boxer with tons of experience, they don't tell us anything. So who would? Lets say Jermaine Taylor fought a top 175lb MT or kickboxer. Would that fight say anything? There are tons of haters who think Taylor is overrated and has a glass jaw and (gasp!) lost and all, but he beat an ATG and was a top amateur and the lineal champ. Would that fight count? All the particulars aside of what has happened already, what is it that you see makes someone worse off IN PRINCIPAL when they train to include kicks? What if you took two twins and let one train MT and one train boxing with top trainers at top gyms for five years. Which of the two would you pick to win a ten round match and why?
Well the problem is that K1 really doesn't even have the top guys. K1-max has some really good guys, but the top guys are all Thais and they're all in the lower weights - Thais don't fight at over 165 usually so those higher weight classes aren't really taken that seriously. The Dutch reigned supreme in the upper weights in the past but I think if anything mma has diluted the talent pool. Badr Hari's probably the best of the current crop of heavyweights - I think he'd take Allistair in a rematch, but good gawd his form is terrible sometimes. Yes, I'd be intrigued to see what Namsaknoi or Saenchai would do with Pacquiao, heck even Buakaw's natural weight class is in the low 140s - could you imagine that fight? Yodsanklai versus Floyd Mayweather Jr would be brutal. Botha does have some big names on his 3-10 record; Aerts, Kaoklai, LeBanner. Aerts broke his leg in that fight, which is more of a sign of how many miles Aerts has - plus, Botha threw kicks in that fight so how many kicks & k1 fights until a boxer becomes a kickboxer? Kaoklai should be fighting in the 160s or 170s and that fight looked more like a sparring match than a real fight, went to a decision btw. LeBanner suffered an injury as well.
Since this is being bumped, I'll jump in. Before we discuss this I want to make sure we hear what the question is asking. It is not 'who would win, a guy who is good at punching, or a guy who is good at kicking and punching'? That is an obvious question because one fighter has more weapons available than the other. I see the question as 'who would win, someone who has trained extensively in boxing, or someone who has trained the same amount in muay thai?' And in my opinion the boxer would win. Not definitely, not every time, and not by a mile, but I see boxing as a more effective fighting style (keeping in mind that a muay thai fighters skill is more spread out, and a boxers more focused; assuming the same level of skill). The main reason being Movement. In any high-level muay thai match Ive seen defense is almost completely based on blocking with the guard, checking with the shin. A stationary defense which involves attempting to cover a body which cannot be fully covered, and being hit. The fight we are talking about has no gloves, and takes away the exaggerated effectiveness of a guard that we see in MT and boxing. The boxer will use his superior head movement to avoid dammaging blows, and vastly superior footwork to avoid damaging kicks. A skilled boxer will eat up anyone who decides to hide in a guard and be stationary. And if the MT throws a counter punch, he is now playing the boxers game. When the muay thai fighter throws leg-kicks he is guarenteeing being stationary for the duration of the kick. Now the boxer could easily mess up by staying inside too long and catching an elbow (although they would be easier to dodge than the avarage boxers punch). Imo the biggest threat to him is getting his knee blown out by a leg kick, or getting his head pulled down into a knee. But as they move around the boxers' superior handspeed, punch power, footwork and movement = him getting hit less and landing the cleaner shots. Again its not a clear thing. I have no doubt top level muay thai fighters could beat top level boxers and visa versa. Obviously someone who had mastered boxing and muay thai would win over someone who had mastered boxing only, however that level of skill is reserved for the purists, and I highly doubt anyone in muay thai, or mma for that matter could become a contender in boxing without shifiting the vast majority of their training to boxing for a long period of time.
A MT fighter will also have a legitimate shot against an elite boxer, he still has hands to punch with no?
Not saying Mighty Mo is the greatest boxer but he was one anyway a big guy with a good chin and a huge punch, he outweighed Thaifighter Kaoklai by close to 100lbs and was expected to knock his head off... [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TelQntPJUA0[/ame]
