MMA vs. Boxing could easily be made, but why not so far?

Its really this simple. With MMA rules, most MMA fighters would win. With boxing rules, all boxers would win.

Chuck Lidell is the greatest striker of all-time and he's painfully slow and has no technique. Which means nothing when he shoots in for a double leg takedown and transfers into an immediate ankle lock on the boxer who has no idea how to defend it. I'm a fan of both sports. Apples and oranges. And Chuck Liddell being the greatest MMA striker of all time = lol. He's got a ton of pop and decent timing, that's about it.

Chuck Lidell is the greatest striker of all-time and he's painfully slow and has no technique. He also has a wrestling background, and has one of the best take down defenses.

And what happens when boxing loses and is made to look like a joke? Seriously, if you are a boxing fan, you DONT want this to happen.

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/notagain.jpg

**** MMA. :boxing: They've got their fans and boxing has its fans. Some people like both. Cool, but no point to mixin the 2 together. Boxers likely can't wrestle very well.

Chuck Lidell is the greatest striker of all-time and he's painfully slow and has no technique.

Because boxing would whip their asses.

As entertaining as this? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=29qI1Gyh lol?

call me crazy, but all of that seems ridiculous. and it reminds me of all the experiments Nazis used to do on prisoners. that whole 'what if?'. 'What if we increased the pressure in a room with a human inside?' and all those messed up experiments. Id be lying if I said I wasnt interested in the end result, but I would not be at all interested in seeing any of the above, especially not more than once. I mean, these are sports. not fight to the death competitions. theres only so far you can go. I know I know...but I am too interested in the results, but I'm not sure I would be willing to have follow through; not in this lifetime anyway. I've read many things did come out of the Nazi experiments. I wouldn't have done it, but people would be surprised what they achieved by using such cruel means...although many may ignore it like some do with the animals we "may" still test So once would be good for you? Not sure that would hold up. Usually you need more than one trial

As entertaining as this? http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aCWHcuXCLRo lol?

Yeh unless they can catch the mma fighter while his on his toes or when he comes looking for the takedown they have very little chance

That would be interesting though and very exciting. I'm sure the Romans thought of it and did it. That's something I admire about the Romans: They thought of the idea and put it into play. For instance: they had fights between a Lion and a Tiger. Lion and a giraffe, a bear, human, etc. If we crucify Christians, will there God save them? They even were said to have flooded the Coliseum to stage a Navy battle. I remember when the the Vet Stadium was about to be torn down and I had an idea of "what if": What if I took Vet Stadium and made it into a modern day Roman Coliseum...how exciting. But would it be accepted? call me crazy, but all of that seems ridiculous. and it reminds me of all the experiments Nazis used to do on prisoners. that whole 'what if?'. 'What if we increased the pressure in a room with a human inside?' and all those messed up experiments. Id be lying if I said I wasnt interested in the end result, but I would not be at all interested in seeing any of the above, especially not more than once. I mean, these are sports. not fight to the death competitions. theres only so far you can go.

who knows who would win. its like saying taht you lock two people in a room with one knife lying in the center of the room. do you have any idea who would win? nope, because we dont really have any idea or way to measure how that fighter would do with a certain weapon(or who would get to use it first). in my case, it was the knife. in your case, it was cheap shots. both change the dynamics of the fight completely, because theyre pretty easy to use and at the same time do a ton of damage. at the end of the day, there is no 'best' fighter, because different people would win with different conditions. what it boils down to is entertainment. different people have different ideas of what is entertaining, and so we end up with the different rule sets. That would be interesting though and very exciting. I'm sure the Romans thought of it and did it. That's something I admire about the Romans: They thought of the idea and put it into play. For instance: they had fights between a Lion and a Tiger. Lion and a giraffe, a bear, human, etc. If we crucify Christians, will there God save them? They even were said to have flooded the Coliseum to stage a Navy battle. I remember when the the Vet Stadium was about to be torn down and I had an idea of "what if": What if I took Vet Stadium and made it into a modern day Roman Coliseum...how exciting. But would it be accepted? Athletes change it as well. Of course. I would still like to see something be made.

mma without the grappling is basically kickboxing. and kickboxing's been around for a long time. it's never been able to surpass boxing. Kickboxing with 4 oz gloves ;) The whole point was to see who had the advantage in a fight. And yes, before you say it, it can matter which athlete we are talking about because I think it is a bit of nonsense thinking what Tito thought that he would have chocked out Tyson in a matter of seconds.

Even with my putting a MMA fighter and a Boxer in a empty room and locking them in? Let them fight. If we add rules like no testicle shots and not poking the eyes...would that be considered MMA rules or just saftey rules? I wonder if the MMA fighter could get the boxer down in time before he gets KTFO...say someone like a young Tyson instead of say Whitaker.who knows who would win. its like saying taht you lock two people in a room with one knife lying in the center of the room. do you have any idea who would win? nope, because we dont really have any idea or way to measure how that fighter would do with a certain weapon(or who would get to use it first). in my case, it was the knife. in your case, it was cheap shots. both change the dynamics of the fight completely, because theyre pretty easy to use and at the same time do a ton of damage. at the end of the day, there is no 'best' fighter, because different people would win with different conditions. what it boils down to is entertainment. different people have different ideas of what is entertaining, and so we end up with the different rule sets.

Ah, ok...I understand. I prefer boxing as well. If they took out the grappling, I would enjoy MMA more. mma without the grappling is basically kickboxing. and kickboxing's been around for a long time. it's never been able to surpass boxing.

ok...so you pretty described a fight with mma rules. mma does not = a real fight. thats real fair. the only fair thing to do would be to have the guys fight each other twice, once in boxing and once in mma rules. and we all know how that would turn out. out of 100 total matches, boxers would win about 53 of them, mma would win about 47 or them, with the boxers winning 100% of the boxing matches and the mma fighters winning almost all of the mma matches. Even with my putting a MMA fighter and a Boxer in a empty room and locking them in? Let them fight. If we add rules like no testicle shots and not poking the eyes...would that be considered MMA rules or just saftey rules? I wonder if the MMA fighter could get the boxer down in time before he gets KTFO...say someone like a young Tyson instead of say Whitaker.

i never said that mma as a defence strategy is silly.... it's good no doubt. BUT mma as a sport LOL don't even get me started. who the fu*k wants to watch 2 guys dry humping each other on the ground! seriously just stop this bullshit. take this shit to the mma section. lol comparing boxing to mma Ah, ok...I understand. I prefer boxing as well. If they took out the grappling, I would enjoy MMA more.

Even when that MMA fighter started as a Kickboxing Champion? So if I locked these two guys in an empty room...who is favored?kickboxing is actually not as good as some people try to make it out to be. sure, you have more weapons...that can be an advantage. but kicking and kneeing leaves you wide open. its like in boxing, if you have bad footwork/bad balance youre going to be open to getting hit, and when you kick/knee you only have one foot on the ground. old shot fighters have actually done comparably good in kickboxing anyway. Frans Botha gained about 20lbs and was old when he got into kickboxing, and though he does have a lot of losses he doesnt do too bad and has wins over Peter Aerts and Jerome LeBanner, two of kickboxing's top guys. and keep in mind that Botha wasnt exactly amazing even at his best either. hell, even Julius Long put up a pretty good fight against a high level kickboxing guy and cut him, and Julius Long totally sucks in boxing. I mean, he got knocked out by Tye Fields. hell, look at someone like Hong Man Choi. all he is is big. look at his punching technique, its terrible. he makes Valuev look like a boxing master. yet he has a win over Semmy Schilt, who was the best kickboxer at the time. not to mention Bob Sapp. he was two wins over arguably the best kickboxer of all time, Ernesto Hoost, and if youve ever seen Sapp you know that hes pretty much a football linebacker with gloves on. a poor version of Sam Peter who looks more muscly. and with no gloves on, punches are much more dangerous than in kickboxing. so the boxer should do much better than he would in kickboxing.