Boxing vs. UFC

Originally posted by Dr Love


It's much harder to be a great boxer than it is to be a great MMA fighter IMO.

Peace

i couldn't disagree more with this statement.
in mma you have to be a well rounded fighter. you think there are not strikers like the ones you mentioned in mma.?
i mean if vanderlei silva catches you on the button you're going to sleep. remember in mma there are hands and feet along with knees, elbows and submissions.
i think straight boxing is over rated. mma ruined it for me cause i can see real fights now

Originally posted by thing fish
you think there are not strikers like the ones you mentioned in mma.?

If there were, they wouldn't be in MMA, they'd be professional boxers working on a big payday.

Edit to add: In MMA, the whole body is pretty much the attack zone, in boxing it's the waist up and not behind the head, add in the arms used as defense and you're dealing with a very small strike zone, that's why boxing is technically harder IMO.

Peace

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Dr Love]

reply to post by Dr Love


it's not always about the money.
some people do want to test their skills against the toughest competetors. the mma arena is where those competetors are.

reply to post by thing fish


Let me also add, in the heavier weight classes, I'd absolutely give it to MMA, but as the weight classes get lighter, the advantage would shift to boxing just because of the hand speed and accuracy. JMHO.

Peace

reply to post by Dr Love

Let me also add, in the heavier weight classes, I'd absolutely give it to MMA, but as the weight classes get lighter, the advantage would shift to boxing just because of the hand speed and accuracy. JMHO.

I could not disagree more. Fighters like Miguel Angel Torres come to mind. Those smaller mma fighters are fast. Torres uses muay thai as fast as any boxer uses their hands. Torres has also, repeatedly, called out Floyd Mayweather because of Mayweather's moronic critique of mma.

The checkers: chess analogy is, I think, flawed. It is kind of a put down to boxing. I see it more as a speed skating: Ice Hockey relationship. The speed skater can skate faster, but the hockey player has a greater diversity of skills on the ice. The hockey player cannot just focus on skating around the rink as fast as he/she can, but they have to be fast, and the speed skater needs to focus on the speed.

Many of you forget that a lot of this guys coming into MMA are world class kick boxer, maui thai, and other striking combat sports. So to say a boxer would absolutely win at striking is a fallacy.

Mirko 'Cro cop' Filipovic comes to mind. In his prime he was an amazing kick boxer. His head kicks are as fast as a punch. He has many legendary KOs in Pride. Also, his loss to Fedor Emelianenko was one of the most epic matches I have ever seen. For those of you who don't know, Fedor Emelianenko is the top rated heavyweight in the world. Cro Cop puts people to sleep with his legs.

Ultimately, we cannot say which is better even if we can say who could beat who up. It is a preference thing, and I prefer MMA. I watch boxing on occasion, but i don't go out of my way to view a match.

As a side, anyone who is slightly interested in MMA or just wants to see what it is, watch the WEC on Verses (tv channel). The WEC is the little brother of the UFC and it focuses on smaller weight classes. You don't have to buy it, its on all the time, and they are mostly world class fighters.

the fedor/mirko fight was fantastic. there were a few times where mirko actually turned and ran away...bwuahahahaah

fedor also had a broken thumb for that fight and still laid the smack down on mirko.

reply to post by YoungStalin


When it comes to Boxing vs. UFC, it really comes to the boxer.

If we're talking someone like Mike Tyson, he'll probably take out most of those UFC guys.

It really comes down to the opponents. If you put Mike Tyson against someone like Bruce Lee in a boxing match, Mike Tyson wins hands down.. But in an MMA match with those opponents? Bruce Lee would probably win hands down in that case, even though he would be much smaller.

reply to post by Miraj


You toss Tyson in the ring with a skilled counter fighter like Lyoto Machida, and Im not sure Tyson would even hit Machida. Hes that elusive and uses take downs to PERFECTION.

Machida recently said that if he defends 5 titles fights, he would like to go up in class and fight Brock Lesnar

"I respect Brock Lesnar as a fighter, but I know I can fight with him...For me, I like the challenge."

www.bloodyelbow.com...

Conclusion: Its really depends on who is going to fight who, I admit a good boxer can probably beat an average MMA fighter. Strikers tend to dominate until the BJJ and wrestling competition starts to increase, and then said striker needs to learn the ground game to go any further in the MMA world. But, IMHO, I cant see ANY BOXER IN HISTORY ever winning a fight versus a MMA fighter as skilled as these names: Kazushi Sakuraba, Royce Gracie, Fedor Vladimirovich Emelianenko, Anderson Silva, Wanderlei Silva, BJ Pen, GSP, Randy Coture, Bass Ruden, Rampage Jackson..... you get the point.

Seems like no one here gave a sure answer. I will give one. I own an MMA gym. My gym has won the last twelve fights to date in the cage, we have golden glove champs, junior olympic champs, and cage champs . My boys do it all. You cannot have one without the other only the amateurs do - and they lose. I have the fighters spar with professional boxers during the day and grapple/kick at night every day. You must have in my opinion for a winning base - wrestling first, jits second, boxing third. Jits takes a while to learn as does wrestling, but wrestling is more established in the US thus better, as jits defense is easier to learn. Muay thai is not needed as elbows are not allowed in amateur bouts and the basics of Muay thai are easy to pick up.

Comparing a boxer to MMA fighter is dumb really, as the boxer cannot go to the ground he will lose. Vice versa the wrestler will get knocked out in the stand up. I have great wrestlers and I challenge them with boxers I do not allow them to do takedowns when sparring and they get beat up.

A trained boxer who learns wrestling and jits will always be better than one who has no boxing hands down. Learning defense against an art will win the day with a specialized skill and that is the answer.

I box and to me the UFC is just barbaric really, I have seen many UFC fights and I see why it is illegal in many states.

reply to post by SonsOfAnarchy


If you look into it more, it's FAR less barbaric than boxing.

In boxing, a guy can get rocked and keep fighting for 10+ more rounds. They'll keep going and going and going and make it much more likely to endure a serious injury. In MMA, fights are stopped much quicker and much earlier. Injuries are much less prevalent in MMA than boxing.

MMA has some crazy knock-outs that result in the knee-jerk reaction from some people. But give it some time and consider it. Boxing is much more barbaric.

If you took 100 MMA fighters, you may find one that says they want to hurt someone. And they are the moronic fool that won't last the calendar year. The guys who are the real fighters are the ones that respect their opponent more than we see in any other professional sport.

The biggest critics of MMA are usually those that haven't given it a chance, IMO.

reply to post by chissler


If you watch a boxing fight, many times there isn't blood. When you watch a UFC fight most of the time there is blood or atleast most of the fights I saw there was blood. Recently I saw on the ultimate fighter I believe it was the first episode this season, that guys head was split wide open and they let him fight till the end. His head was split wide open in the first round and they allowed him to fight two more rounds. You could have fit a golf ball through that gash. In boxing the gloves are more padded. Elbows are another big problem in the UFC, getting hit in the face with an elbow is almost equavalent to getting with like a bat.

reply to post by SonsOfAnarchy


If the cut was as mad as you said it was, the fight would have been certainly stopped.

Blood and barbaric are not synonymous.

There has never been a death or serious injury from a legislated MMA fight. We can not say the same about boxing. When someone is hurt in MMA, it stops. When someone is hurt in boxing, it continues. That, in my opinion, is barbaric.

reply to post by chissler


In boxing most of the time when they are hurt, the fight is actually stopped because a hurt fighter can't defend himself. Here's the video of the fight I was talking about you can watch from the 4th minute of the video: www.youtube.com...

If you want the other rounds are there too but I think the first round says enough...never have I seen a puddle of blood like that. At the end of the show they actually showed the gash when he was gettin stitches.

I have been cut like the guy in the Ultimate fighter, could open the cut over my eyebrow and see bone. However, no serious damage was done. Got stitches and outpatient. Yes there is alot of blood, thats what you have with a head wound lots of bleeding, but it comes down to the volume coming out.

I disagree with the "less dangerous" of MMA vs boxing. Breaking an ankle or dislodgin the knee cap will have serious consequences - like walking with a cain. Popped elbow joints never heal fully, like a broken hand. Head injuries are dangerous as are small broken bones that require plates and screws.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by vincere1]