Thats exactly what it is. I love boxing for its history, the nostalgia of growing up with it and the occasional great fight/fighter, but MMA fighters are obviously better overall fighters, MMA is generally more entertaining, and the scales of popularity have tipped more and more in MMAs favour over the years. Deep down the pro boxing/anti MMA crowd know this too, and they hate it, so they cling to sensationalist **** like "haha they cant punch" "no chins" "white guys" "bar room brawlers" "fad" "nobody cares outside of America" etc etc as justifications for why their less entertaining, declining sport with more limited fighters is still better.
Female BOXERS Hit Harder Than Male UFC Fighters Confirmed
Collapse
-
MMA rules favour the wrestling etc. A guy shoots to take you down and you can't punch him in the back? GTFOH.Comment
-
Lol wtf is that gonna do?
All rules are going to favour wrestling because its simply easier for someone to close distance and grab you than it is for you to force them to stand and strike. And if you DO force them to stand its either because of your own defensive wrestling or because your ground game makes them not want to go there with you.Comment
-
What do you mean what's that going to do? Take a punch to the spine and you'll find out.
Lol wtf is that gonna do?
All rules are going to favour wrestling because its simply easier for someone to close distance and grab you than it is for you to force them to stand and strike. And if you DO force them to stand its either because of your own defensive wrestling or because your ground game makes them not want to go there with you.
Comment
-
Comment
-
You realize all of that **** was allowed across various organisations in the 90s right? why didnt Art Jimmerson do it to Royce?
Also landing a spine punch in the middle of a takedown attempt would be ridiculously hard to do mechanically, and wouldnt do **** most of the time you landed it either.Comment
-
Its NOT UFC fighters FOCUS. They R well rounded fighters. The HIT ISNT significant. U dont believe me? Get in the ring with them.Comment
-
It's banned for a reason. When an opponent is trying to hook a leg etc a being able to strike them in the back would be very helpful. If it wasn't effective it wouldn't be banned would it? They don't ban things that don't do damage.
You realize all of that **** was allowed across various organisations in the 90s right? why didnt Art Jimmerson do it to Royce?
Also landing a spine punch in the middle of a takedown attempt would be ridiculously hard to do mechanically, and wouldnt do **** most of the time you landed it either.Comment
-
Yes, hitting somebody in the spine can do serious damage, it doesnt mean its some kind of secret kryptonite for takedowns. Eye poking and punching someone in the balls can cause serious damage too, doesnt mean you're going to magically negate Canelos boxing if only you're allowed to do it.
Takedowns are usually extremely quick and your balance is compromised immediately once they've got hold of you, the opponent isnt just there stationery to be hit and you probably wont be in a position to throw punch.
Most of these theoretical anti-MMA/wrestling kryptonite techniques would actually favour the wrestler anyway. Imagine a grappler having top control and being able to headbutt, bite, eye gouge, knee to the head etc (in the case of headbutts and knees we've already seen it in the 90s), or taking the back and being able to just hit someone in the back of the head.Comment
Comment