Tweet
I engaged in a pretty interesting hour long phone call/interview/debate/conversation last night with www.*********unlimited.com's Rich Bergeron (as the mediator) and MMA legend Ken Shamrock. There was a lot to talk about in an hour and I think at the end of the session we had both made some good points on behalf of our sport but one thing he said that really stands out was when he made note of the fact that our best fighter, Floyd Mayweather Jr., "would get crushed in MMA." I mean, come on, that's not something to be bragging about. The best MMA guys could take down a 147 pound guy that has never wrestled, grappled or competed in martial arts in his life.
I said "Well, that's like saying that Michael Jordan couldn't win in MMA, either, because the two sports are as different as basketball is compared to them." I also had the lingering feeling that he was saying this tome in sort of a challenging way. So an MMA champ could beat Floyd... in MMA?
"And don't forget, you could take both yourself and Tito Ortiz and Floyd would whip both of you within a minute of each other while only using one hand." I knew I was right and, to his credit, Ken agreed with me on that point. We certainly disagreed with each other on several other points but at the end of the day I think two things are clear at this point. First is that the best MMA guy will beat the best boxer... at MMA. And the best boxer would demolish the best MMA guy at boxing. Second is that as well as the MMA is doing and as well as it may do in the future I think boxing has a strong tradition that will persevere. We are still the leading fighting sport in terms of name recognition among the masses and we are certainly the leaders in terms of producing the multi-millionaires.
Will that change? You never know but one thing about the whole debate in my mind is this: The MMA is a particularly violent sport with aspects involved other than just the clean punching that makes boxing so popular and, for me anyway, I think the wrestling and grappling parts of it will eventually turn people off. I know it does for me. It's like baseball to me. I find it hard to sit through more than seventy at bats (complete with numerous walks and fouls balls) when I can turn on the news later at night and see all the doubles and home runs in one quick clip on the local news.
We'll see, I guess, right?
I said "Well, that's like saying that Michael Jordan couldn't win in MMA, either, because the two sports are as different as basketball is compared to them." I also had the lingering feeling that he was saying this tome in sort of a challenging way. So an MMA champ could beat Floyd... in MMA?
"And don't forget, you could take both yourself and Tito Ortiz and Floyd would whip both of you within a minute of each other while only using one hand." I knew I was right and, to his credit, Ken agreed with me on that point. We certainly disagreed with each other on several other points but at the end of the day I think two things are clear at this point. First is that the best MMA guy will beat the best boxer... at MMA. And the best boxer would demolish the best MMA guy at boxing. Second is that as well as the MMA is doing and as well as it may do in the future I think boxing has a strong tradition that will persevere. We are still the leading fighting sport in terms of name recognition among the masses and we are certainly the leaders in terms of producing the multi-millionaires.
Will that change? You never know but one thing about the whole debate in my mind is this: The MMA is a particularly violent sport with aspects involved other than just the clean punching that makes boxing so popular and, for me anyway, I think the wrestling and grappling parts of it will eventually turn people off. I know it does for me. It's like baseball to me. I find it hard to sit through more than seventy at bats (complete with numerous walks and fouls balls) when I can turn on the news later at night and see all the doubles and home runs in one quick clip on the local news.
We'll see, I guess, right?
Comment