The thing the MMA fanboys always get wrong about boxing

Or we could just link to this as regards the origins of boxing:

"An early article on boxing was published in Nottingham, 1713, by

This content is protected

 

UFC was watered down to due to Senator John McCain, boxing interests and also broadening the appeal.

MMA roots - see Muay Boran>Thai, Bando, Leita Lei, Pancrase, Japanese JJ striking and its removal from BJJ, etc. Contributing stand alone grappling/ striking martial arts in the UFC.

The MOQ rules that your refer to as boxing had little to do with gentleman - unless of course you are referring to the upper class who sponsored or bet on the fights.

You are also too Victorian England in your description of duelling - if an actual duel happened it appears by the varying accounts I have read that a referee and a second was desired as well as examination of weapons to ensure compliance and the opportunity to retract. Every culture has its form of duelling and not all adhere to this notion of "fairness" and "honour" you describe.

 

The funny thing is most fights these days in UFC is all fists with TDD, flashy kicks which mostly miss or get checked.

Fighters are getting better at TDD and it remains stand up more often now than ever.

 

Yep - I don't know how any serious boxing fan doesn't look at this easily available information or even invest in some of the fine books that are available. Wilful ignorance is easier than learning.

 

Japanese JJ features atemi which is all forms of striking. A sub-component of this is koppo-jitsu. BJJ is derived from JJJ and focused on ne-waza and excluded the former.

 

Once the opponent is defenceless, the bout is over. The referee or the corner stops the fight.

The fact that you think hitting a downed opponent is straight up cowardly shows that you don't understand MMA. I'm not trying to be snotty, just stating facts. There are a lot of things that an opponent on the ground can do to counterattack a guy trying to punch him.

For example Fedor shows how it's done against a great GnP artist in Coleman in 2004:

This content is protected

And Werdum shows not even Fedor's GnP is invincible:

This content is protected

 

KO bonuses help slight it a bit as well IMO.

 

UFC was designed to show the supremacy of BJJ. Nothing else you say changes that.

 

This was a good thread before it was moved to the mma section. And I don't post there and won't watch mma clips, because I'm not interested in mma and they might traumatise me, so sadly can't continue on the topic. If you believe punching someone in the head while it's on the floor is fair, ok.

As far as boxing history, I am a big fan of the decisive importance the MOQ rules had. Before fist fighting was codified with the MOQ rules and began to evolve and became more refined as the discipline of boxing, no I wouldn't call it honourable. But if we assume that boxing began with the MOQ rules: yes, they established that boxing is inherently more honourable that today's mma. I'm very aware that boxing actually originated in the lower classes, and that the purpose of the MOQ rules was to make boxing more publicly palatable for gentlemen to watch, not participate in. And additionally I would say to prescribe to boxers how they might be more honourable gentlemen, to 'tell the brutes what was best for them'.

About duelling, no you're wrong, it was all about 'honour' or it wasn't duelling. It was focused on personal morality, not violence, unlike boxing and most martial arts. It was an aristocratic tradition that evolved from chivalry. If we talk about easily available information, check out the Wikipedia article on duelling. It was about standing up to an offense to demonstrate your honour, honour that couldn't be deferred to the decision of a 'referee'. The role of the 'second' was important, but that role was to make sure the honour of the dueller he represented wasn't compromised.

Comparing duelling to boxing was hyperbolic, but it's fair enough because initially the MOQ rules attempted to give a gentlemanly code to at that point far from honourable fist fighting culture, then with industrialisation and the growth of leisure pursuits in the 19th and early 20th centuries the working and middle classes were able to coopt those 'noble values' into boxing. Without the MOQ rules refined boxers like Tunney and Benny Leonard wouldn't have existed and been able to find honour in boxing in the 1920s.

 

I will totally diagree with you about the quality of the thread - we have managed to polish a turd.

I am not wrong about duelling, you are missing my point about duelling - you have simplified your definition of it to fit the Victorian English / Prussian / French notions of duelling - I am simply stating historical fact that "duelling" has been present in just about all cultures throughout history in different manners and some not required to be honourable at all nor intended to be.

Wikipedia is excellent for the reference books for serious martial arts historical investigation.

 

Loses argument therefore does not want to respond again. You're wrong get over it.

 

Arranged contests with weapons, sure, have existed outside of duelling. But 'duelling' has a specific meaning and tradition. Its existence is based on honour and personal morality. And yes, duelling is European, with colonial expansion apparently in the Americas. I don't know that much about Samurai or Asian traditions of contests with weapons. I do understand they are different in concept than duelling, and aren't about personal morality at all. But to call them a form of duelling universalises and conflates what shouldn't be, and downplays the meaning of duelling and the reason I brought it up.

If I compared boxing and mma to duelling to bring to light its honour or lack thereof, what point are you making in saying that there are other traditions of contests with weapons beside duelling? Are we supposed to believe a competitive sport with a declared individual winner should be less to do with personal honour and more to do with Samurai qualities of selfless devotion to master, or caste or society or whatever? Rather, as long as an individual is declared winner or loser I'm going to say he should act 'honourably', and consider comparing such honour to the European pre-modern noble tradition of duelling valid.

Why am I elaborating about what was only an analogy, ugh.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/duel
"1. A prearranged, formal combat between two persons, usually fought to settle a point of honor."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel
"A duel is an arranged engagement in combat between two individuals, with matched weapons, in accordance with agreed-upon rules. Duels in this form were chiefly practiced in early modern Europe with precedents in the medieval code of chivalry"

"The duel was based on a code of honor. Duels were fought not so much to kill the opponent as to gain "satisfaction", that is, to restore one's honor by demonstrating a willingness to risk one's life for it"

 

Your quotes solely from western sources highlight what I stated - USUALLY and CHIEFLY are qualifications and does not mean always.

You then arbitrarily decide what duelling is in your mind, which is incorrect as you are uninformed, and thus try and set the matter. Not having it.

If you know little of Asian practices yet go to airily dismiss the information nor appear to know nothing of indigenous methods of "duelling" you should learn a lot more than just European traditions and quoting western sources before calling someone wrong to cover your scholastic laziness.

 

Dammmnnnn get that qwerty kid some aloe vera

 

Oh, come on.

I liked the rest of your post, you've clearly got a passion for boxing, but you need to broaden your horizons a bit. Again, I'm not being mean, just pointing out that there are many ways of duelling for honour and that MMA is also an ancient and noble sport.

Here's just one question for you: What does "Plato" mean, and why did this individual have this nickname?

We're talking about one of the fathers of western philosophy, here.