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

[Steak]

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.

[Benny Leonard]

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 **** wants to watch 2 guys dry humping each other on the ground!

seriously just stop this bull****. take this **** 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.

[Benny Leonard]

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.

[FLYBOY]

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.

[bsrizpac]

Just added it: We can go old school UFC rules when Gracie owned it which is almost no rules. Just no testicle shots and poking of the eyes. The rest is allowed.

Boxers would probsbly lose. Who cares?

[Steak]

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.

[Benny Leonard]

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.

[Benny Leonard]

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.

[Steak]

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 ****s 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.

[Naz Fan]

Boxing would lose

Boxers have no ability to defend takedowns at all.