It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

boxing vs mma.....lets go

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
starting this thread so we can hash out the questions which is better? which is more effective?

i have always felt that while boxing is amazing, it really is only half of the game.
if youre an effective boxer than your tool box is only half full. know what i mean?

im not going to make this OP long winded...just touching off with how i feel...

i guess it just comes down to the fact that i dont understand why people say boxing is better.(i prefer the the term more effective)

someone mentioned in another thread how if Vitali Klitschko fought a heavyweight mma guy, he would score the knockout within a couple minutes.
i see it as going the exact opposite.

assuming we are not talking boxing rules, cause if we are then what is the point, i say if vitali klitschko fought another heavyweight, say fedor emelianenko, fedor would have the tap in the 1st round.

while the boxers are surgical with their strikes, they have to end the fight on their feet for the win. that is a serious limitation in my opinion.

you cant really throw effective strikes from your back. if a boxer only trains in the sweet science, when it hits the ground they are going to be totally lost.
it has been proven time and again over the years that the majority of fights go to the ground at some point.

just knowing that tells me that boxing is not the most effective...how can it be?
i dont think the arguments of "well klitschko wouldnt have to go to the ground. he would just throw this or that when the shoot was coming and the fight would be over" are valid.

quite simply it does not work that way.

i say fedor beats klitschko 9 out of 10 times....
-------------------

another argument is mma is more barbaric....i dont argue.

i think it may look more barbaric to people that dont really understand what they are looking at..just an opinion.

i think mma is harder on the knees and hips than boxing, but boxers absorb far more head shots over time and that is the real danger.

i think for the most part mma fights are shorter and the fighters absorb punishment over more of their body vs 75% of all strikes coming in and hitting the head.

i think to be as effective as you can be, you have to have a ground game.

in the end, for me, its mma for the win




posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
MMA no doubt....

Here's where Couture took out Toney

www.dailymotion.com...


Boxers are great at stand up fighting for sure, but they don't have any ground game.
Sure Toney only had 9 months training but in a MMA style fight, where ground work is vital, no boxer stands a chance.
In a street fight against your average Joe, Boxing is probably preferable because one or two well placed, powerful shots and the fight could well be over.

If you mix Boxing and Wrestling, you'd have a pretty bad ass fighter who most people would have trouble with.

But in an MMA bout? A mixed style is vital.... all the boxers, TKD and other more rigid forms have all pretty much tried and failed in MMA. Mixed and combination is definitely the way to go.
edit on 30/11/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: blupblup



In a street fight against your average Joe, Boxing is probably preferable because one or two well places, powerful shots and the fight could well be over.


If you mix Boxing and Wrestling, you'd have a pretty bad ass fighter who most people would have trouble with.

But in an MMA bout? A mixed style is vital.... all the boxers, TKD and other more rigid forms have all pretty much tried and failed in MMA. Mixed and combination is definitely the way to go.


boxing has been proven ineffective in mma multiple times over the last 20 years.

i dont see why if someone wants to be a fighter they would limit themselves...

even street fights between 2 guys that cant fight for # usually wind up hitting the ground.

most fights hit the ground. if you have no base on the ground, you will be lost.

a boxer can not throw effective strikes from most positions on the ground...without a grappling base they will land in those positions where they will be dominated

hell of a job by toney..hahahahahaha

lasted 3:16 and landed zero shots

i dont think these boxers understand how tiring it can be just carrying someones weight...

edit on 30-11-2014 by Grovit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
MMA, no comparison imo.
I have trained wrestling, boxing, kick boxing and jits.
Boxers don't have a chance with kicks involved, and boxing feels like fighting with big pillows on to me, you can't get in through blocks as well. It feels allot more technical.
I entered jits class as a wrestler and had my a$$ handed to me by a 15 yr old small guy. This was when I had a whole new respect for the art. The wrestler is trying to get they guy to his back, while the jitsu guy is very comfortable there. Its a bad combination. I describe it as fighting with a giant wet blanket that drains your energy. Muscle just doesn't do much good. A technical jits fighter will win every time. The disadvantage is in self defense situation with more than 1 opponent. You are left exposed to other attacks. In this situation, the muay thai is best. I would like to check out Aikido. It is very smooth and deals with redirecting vs stopping energy.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

of course strength plays a part but jitsu is more about leverage.

i started this thread for a certain member here..we started to go back and forth in another thread and they said if there was a thread like this they would debate it.
i hope he shows up....

i think most boxing fans and even boxers themselves really dont understand how easily they will get tooled if they go up against jitsu or wrestling.

do people really think that klitschko would stand a chance against someone like alexander karelin?



i think hell no



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Depends really...


On his day, Nick Diaz is probably the most dangerous Boxer in MMA...
But his background in JuiJitsu backs up anything that wrestlers may throw at him...

Then you have the likes of GSP...
Possibly the best fighter the UFC have ever had...
Some may say Anderson Silva, but he fought a lot of bums IMO...


Wanderlei Silva & Fedor are no doubt my favourite fighters in MMA history, considering entertainment value barring one exception...


The greatest fighter the World has ever seen... Bruce Lee...



It all depends on weight as well...
In the ring/octagon MMA wins...


In a street brawl...

Mike Tyson or Muhammad Ali would probably have killed any MMA fighter with one punch...




Overall I'd say MMA is more effective...
Boxing is better to watch as it rules out Lay & Pray fights...



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Grovit

I have to agree. If your are talking strictly wrestling vs. a major striker, anything could happen and it would make an interesting fight and wouldn't last long. There could be a knockout blow before the wrestler could get in and down on the guy. Id counter a leg shot with a knee or kick that a wrestler really isn't trained for, but with a wrestler background, I am expecting them to shoot in low and fast. Another huge disadvantage I see for a boxer, is the lack of other strike/block training. Sticking to two " weapons", the two fists only. A squared up kick boxer can throw multiple strikes and is trained to block them as well. 2 fists, 2elbows, 2 knees, 2 shins& 2 feet. So it's like 2 against 10 in the ring. Plus the leg reach will stop a boxer before they can get in strike range with their arms. I don't like boxing for this reason personally, but have huge respect for the sport, it is brutal.
MMA with striking and grappling would be a slaughter. That guy in the video is a beast.
Cool post



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   
As the saying goes, it always comes down to the practitioner.

No one can really judge whether one art is more effective than the other, as it all comes down to variables. How many years has one practitioner trained over the other? How good is their technique? What conditions are they competing in? Etc.

Yes, boxers only have two weapons, and MMA fighters have many more, but it eventually comes down to the individual practitioner and their experience. How well is the average MMA fighter's standup game? Not great i'd say. You could have a Muay Thai Nak Muay destroy them with knees, elbows and kicks. You could have a boxer out-box them. When it comes to the ground game though, both the Nak Muay and boxer are screwed. MMA fighters tend to be better at the ground game than what they are at their stand up.

So, here are my conclusions:

It is impossible to accurately judge which style is better. BUT, through generalisations, i believe that boxers and Nak Muays would dominate MMA fighters in the stand up game, but would find themselves defeated in the groundwork.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I think it is almost apples and oranges. In a no holds barred fight the MMA guy will beat the boxer, just as a swordsman would beat the MMA guy and a gunfighter would have the advantage on the swordsman.

Look at the Ali fight against the Japanese wrestler...



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs




The greatest fighter the World has ever seen... Bruce Lee...




Mike Tyson or Muhammad Ali would probably have killed any MMA fighter with one punch...




Overall I'd say MMA is more effective...
Boxing is better to watch as it rules out Lay & Pray fights...



i just want to mention that i think you are 100% wrong about bruce lee.
i cant stand when people call him a great fighter..he wasnt a fighter at all
i supose that is for a different thread though

i dont agree with the tyson or ali street fight scenario either, unless they were up against some bum that didnt know #.
i say fedor takes out tyson in the ring, cage, street, plane, boat...9 times out of 10

glad we agree that mma is more effective but i prefer to watch an mma fight over boxing as well.

another thing that a lot of people dont seem to get(not anyone in here so far) is that mma is much larger than the ufc.

ive debated others in different places and there are so many people that never even mention fighters from other organizations...
there are/were some killers out there..

i love the fighters from the old shooto, rings, k-1, k-1 heros, and zst orgs.
those guys were monsters...not in size either

some of them have traveled to the states but the majority of their careers were spent in japan...a lot of bad mofo's out of brazil that never really made it to the states
rumina sato
genki sudo
takanori gomi
kazushi sakuraba
gilbert yvel
ernesto hoost
andy hug
jose landi jons

i think Remigijus Morkevičius from lithuania is one of the best strikers of all time and most people dont know who he is

he is 5 foot 6 and like 145 lbs

his strikes are brutal




posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Boxing is one "martial art".

Mixed martial arts include boxing, among several other martial arts.

There's no reasonable comparison between the two.

However, comparing something like karate or taekwondo to boxing is better, IMHO.

In fact, some kung fu forms in China are called 'chinese boxing'.


edit on 11/30/2014 by r0xor because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital






It is impossible to accurately judge which style is better. BUT, through generalisations, i believe that boxers and Nak Muays would dominate MMA fighters in the stand up game, but would find themselves defeated in the groundwork.


thats kind of a given isnt it?



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: r0xor

However, comparing something like karate or taekwondo to boxing is better, IMHO.

In fact, some kung fu forms in China are called 'chinese boxing'.



i agree.
again, i started this thread because myself and one specific member started going around about it.
this person took the boxing road and said that mma is just a bloodsport.
they said if a thread was started they would get involved...
so, here is the thread



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
As a spectator, Boxing wins hands down.

There is no class in pummeling someone when they are down, and I honestly get extremely bored watching MMA, because of all the grappling and ground work. Yawn.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psychonautics
As a spectator, Boxing wins hands down.

There is no class in pummeling someone when they are down, and I honestly get extremely bored watching MMA, because of all the grappling and ground work. Yawn.


i never understood that logic.
why are strikes when someone is down any different than strikes when theyre standing?

the rules are agreed upon and gone over before the matches.

i would think no class would be more like a cheap shot. low blow, after the bell type a deal which happens in boxing fairly often.

as to the yawn aspect. i think a lot of people that feel this way about ground fighting do not know exactly what they are looking at so they cant appreciate what is happening.
the transitions and positions....

thats cool though...

rock on



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
As soon as an MMA fighter gets inside it's game over basically.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Isn't this extremely biased?..

"MMA is better because as soon as a boxer is down he will lose." Well, yeah... because that's an MMA fight. If an MMA fighter has to play by boxing rules, he will probably lose very quickly.

As fighting style vs. fighting style, MMA wins in an all out fight, yes.

But as sport vs. sport, in an actual match with rules, the boxer wins at boxing and the MMA fighter wins at MMA



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Boxers can't fight an MMA fight, and an MMA fighter wouldn't be stupid enough to stand toe to toe with a boxer...

Well at least I would hope... anyways

I would have loved to see Dennis Alexio in MMA




posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AKindChap

i dont think it is biased.
i assume when i debate these threads that the fight is mma rules because that is how real fights go.
they hit the ground most of the time.

if its going to be in mma the boxer will lose and in boxing the mma guy loses, i dont even want to discuss that because its no fun.

boxing, karate, kung fu, etc....theyre half of a fighting stle.
sambo, jitsu, wrestling....theyre half a fighting style.

no rules in a real fight and mma gets as close to that without turning it into a bloodsport with small joint manipulations, eye gouges, fish hooking, biting, etc....

so i always look at the debate from that angle.


lets look at it this way then.
fedor and tyson are going to fight in a park or something....
take out the #ty moves that none of these styles or sports allow, like bites and fish hooks....
who wins?

i go fedor 9 out of 10



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

i dont think he would have did very well.
he had a serious streak but k-1 were where the elite kick boxers were at the time...

he turned down a chance to fight in ufc1....i think has he fought royce that night he would have tapped as fast as everyone else.

plus, didnt tong po break his back? hahahaha


i dont think there are any boxers that would do well in mma, i think there are some mma guys that could do well boxing. mma has some serious strikers.
they may not be the champs but it think they would do fairly well.

some of them

for kick boxers i have to go with my boy ernesto hoost



ray sefo



peter aerts




new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join