Tweet
I've been meaning to write this for quite some time and I've given this argument a lot of thought from an objective standpoint. I know most of you don't know me and I might not have much "street cred" on Boxingscene but hear me out and I might bring some good things to the table. If you don't like what I have to say, feel free to bash on it.
First off I'll start by saying that I like both sports. I favor boxing, though, because its funner to watch for me and there is a wider pool of competition.
The biggest argument people have for MMA against boxing is that MMA is a more complete sport. You'll often hear people say "MMA is boxing PLUS jiu jitsu, kickboxing, this and that, etc." So basically they're saying "Oh boxing? Thats a tiny slice of the MMA pie. MMA offers its fans boxing AND THEN some." This argument doesn't really hold weight. You're not really seeing any of these different styles in complete depth in an MMA bout. The reason why? You're not fighting one round of jiu jitsu, then one round of boxing, etc. You're assimilating all those fight styles at once. In a way MMA ITSELF is a style on its own. It may have a little boxing, jiu jitsu, etc. training involved, but by no means are you seeing each form in its true depth. And really you can't. You can't be using an orthodox boxing stance when you've also gotta be ready to sprawl in case of a takedown or defend a kick to the leg. You can't really use any sort of inside boxing technique because there will most likely be a clinch/thai clinch. You're seeing all those styles rehashed together into a totally new form of fighting independent of whatever it was derived from.
MMA fans tend to also say that boxing is limited. "Using only your hands without any regard for kicks, elbows, knees, and groundgame just isn't fighting. That's true. Fighting by definition isn't "hitting with only the fists." But does that mean it's necessarily less SKILL? I think fighting with the restrictions of only being able to punch requires so much skill on a micro level. Boxers train for years in front of a mirror to get down the perfect jab so the elbow doesn't stick out and telegraph the punch. Learning the technique on how to adjust weight to perfectly transition power from the ankles to the hips to the shoulders. Countering over the top of a jab. Whens the last time you saw an MMA fighter slip a punch or throw short compact punches? I guess the average MMA fan will never understand the intricacies behind the sweet science or any sort of fighting if it doesn't involve body slams or ground and pound. I'm not even going into the deep ring generalship aspects that goes into 12 rounds of boxing.
I'd also say that MMA has a wider margin for error than boxing simply because to its format. Yeah its exciting because anything goes, but it also leaves a lot of room for luck. There are a lot more variables because theres so many different things going on. One minute you're getting ready to shoot for the double leg takedown, the next minute you're KTFO from a kick to the head. Just look at the MMA p4p list on Sherdog if you don't believe me. Anderson Silva is number one with a record of 21-4. Quinton Jackson number two at 28-6. In boxing thats what you would call a journeyman's record. If you lose 20 percent of your fights, you're really not that good. You rarely see undefeated records in MMA because chances are you've lost to some bull**** at some point in your career. I guess thats the nature of "anything goes". You can say it makes things exciting, I call it a flaw. It's closer to real fighting since it's not restricted to punching, I'll give em that. But does that make MMA more skill than boxing? No way.
The biggest knock I have against boxing, every boxing fan agrees with. Too many alphabet titles. After a while though, in a weird way I think it's not as bad as it seems. It makes for good argument and everyone knows the real champ compared to the paper champ anyway. Plus it gives more boxers a shot at becoming a world champ. The alphabet titles I can live with. At least in MMA, the best end up fighting the best before long. In boxing, if there's a fight everyone wants to see it takes forever. Sometimes it can take so long for the politics to work out, both fighters are out of their primes by then. Sometimes the fight doesn't even happen. Too many different promotions and too much greed governs and controls the power in boxing. Which is also why it's just not as accessible to casual fans. Not everyone can shell out 60 bucks for every ppv. If you miss a fight, you won't be seeing any replays on spike TV. It makes a boxing fan jealous to see that MMA is consolidated (largely) by one company, the UFC, and they market and promote all their own fights. Boxing could learn a thing or two from MMA in that regard.
Overambitious post, I know.
First off I'll start by saying that I like both sports. I favor boxing, though, because its funner to watch for me and there is a wider pool of competition.
The biggest argument people have for MMA against boxing is that MMA is a more complete sport. You'll often hear people say "MMA is boxing PLUS jiu jitsu, kickboxing, this and that, etc." So basically they're saying "Oh boxing? Thats a tiny slice of the MMA pie. MMA offers its fans boxing AND THEN some." This argument doesn't really hold weight. You're not really seeing any of these different styles in complete depth in an MMA bout. The reason why? You're not fighting one round of jiu jitsu, then one round of boxing, etc. You're assimilating all those fight styles at once. In a way MMA ITSELF is a style on its own. It may have a little boxing, jiu jitsu, etc. training involved, but by no means are you seeing each form in its true depth. And really you can't. You can't be using an orthodox boxing stance when you've also gotta be ready to sprawl in case of a takedown or defend a kick to the leg. You can't really use any sort of inside boxing technique because there will most likely be a clinch/thai clinch. You're seeing all those styles rehashed together into a totally new form of fighting independent of whatever it was derived from.
MMA fans tend to also say that boxing is limited. "Using only your hands without any regard for kicks, elbows, knees, and groundgame just isn't fighting. That's true. Fighting by definition isn't "hitting with only the fists." But does that mean it's necessarily less SKILL? I think fighting with the restrictions of only being able to punch requires so much skill on a micro level. Boxers train for years in front of a mirror to get down the perfect jab so the elbow doesn't stick out and telegraph the punch. Learning the technique on how to adjust weight to perfectly transition power from the ankles to the hips to the shoulders. Countering over the top of a jab. Whens the last time you saw an MMA fighter slip a punch or throw short compact punches? I guess the average MMA fan will never understand the intricacies behind the sweet science or any sort of fighting if it doesn't involve body slams or ground and pound. I'm not even going into the deep ring generalship aspects that goes into 12 rounds of boxing.
I'd also say that MMA has a wider margin for error than boxing simply because to its format. Yeah its exciting because anything goes, but it also leaves a lot of room for luck. There are a lot more variables because theres so many different things going on. One minute you're getting ready to shoot for the double leg takedown, the next minute you're KTFO from a kick to the head. Just look at the MMA p4p list on Sherdog if you don't believe me. Anderson Silva is number one with a record of 21-4. Quinton Jackson number two at 28-6. In boxing thats what you would call a journeyman's record. If you lose 20 percent of your fights, you're really not that good. You rarely see undefeated records in MMA because chances are you've lost to some bull**** at some point in your career. I guess thats the nature of "anything goes". You can say it makes things exciting, I call it a flaw. It's closer to real fighting since it's not restricted to punching, I'll give em that. But does that make MMA more skill than boxing? No way.
The biggest knock I have against boxing, every boxing fan agrees with. Too many alphabet titles. After a while though, in a weird way I think it's not as bad as it seems. It makes for good argument and everyone knows the real champ compared to the paper champ anyway. Plus it gives more boxers a shot at becoming a world champ. The alphabet titles I can live with. At least in MMA, the best end up fighting the best before long. In boxing, if there's a fight everyone wants to see it takes forever. Sometimes it can take so long for the politics to work out, both fighters are out of their primes by then. Sometimes the fight doesn't even happen. Too many different promotions and too much greed governs and controls the power in boxing. Which is also why it's just not as accessible to casual fans. Not everyone can shell out 60 bucks for every ppv. If you miss a fight, you won't be seeing any replays on spike TV. It makes a boxing fan jealous to see that MMA is consolidated (largely) by one company, the UFC, and they market and promote all their own fights. Boxing could learn a thing or two from MMA in that regard.
Overambitious post, I know.
Comment