The difference between Boxing and MMA

[THe TRiNiTY]

The two sports are just different sets of philosophy.

In boxing, you believe that focusing on one aspect of your game will work the best because focus on only one aspect is the only way to be TULY great at that aspect.

In MMA, you split your focus on a number of different techniques. You believe that this allows you to be a great overall fighter because you have more options.

Both make valid arguments. However, in boxing, if you can't take a punch, you stand no chance so it has it's drawbacks. However, in MMA you have more of a losing because you simply will most likely have too many weak spots and someone will be able to exploit them. It's dangerous in either sport, challenging in some areas and either way you have to be focused. At the end of the day, it's two different sports.

I believe that boxing takes more, but it's strictly my opinion. I get this belief from Chinese proverb, to some extent. That proverb goes a little something like this.

A duck walks up to a horse, and begins talking to the animal.

"You know what, horse? It's fun to walk on land like we are both able to. It's incredible. But unlike you, horse, I'm also able to swim like the dolphins. I'm also able to fly like eagles. It's unfortunate that you can only do one of the three and I can do all of the above."

The horse replied, "Well, you can not run as swiftly as I am able to. You also can not fly as gracefully as the eagle can. And you are incapable of swimming as rapidly as the dolphin. You are good at all three aspects of travel, but great at none of them."

This, to me, describes the difference between the fighters. Of course, their are exceptions to this rule. Some MMA fighters are able to be considered GREAT in this or that aspect of their game. However, that usually leads to their downfall when someone else exploits another aspect of their game that they are weaker in. Whereas a boxer focuses in on one particular portion of fighting and has a better chance at being considered great.

You can say that boxing is a simplistic version of fighting, because of this "one aspect" theory. However, in that one aspect are many different facets and a genius only becomes a genius by focusing his entire life on one thing at a time.

MMA can make certain fans happy that like the idea of anyone being able to lose at any time. Boxing fans tend to like someone who seems unbeatable. The difference is that MMA fans usually will rally behind a guy that seems unbeatable at the end of the day.

I enjoy both sports, nothing wrong with either. Clearly, my lean is toward boxing but MMA is a different sport at the end of the day. Boxing, to me, is simply more challenging in the ways that matter to me.

[Battle Hardened]

Don Frye wasn't even fighting back.. he looked drunk or something and like he didn't even want to fight.

I'm pretty sure I could have beat the **** out of Don Frye that night. But who cares, boxing is great. Boxing is a great PART of fighting. I'm just saying that boxing alone vs. somebody who is just "ok" at boxing but has a lot of other tools will beat a straight up boxer in a street fight.

That's not to say somebody who is ONLY a great boxer can't beat somebody who is more well rounded.

U sure have a lot of excuses. From what I heard they were both drunk. Then 2 hours later, Frye took a shower, started looking for him, and got ko'd again.... Face it. MMA isn't the end all be all solution to a street fight. Frye had no idea who he was and stood with him. That's what any mma guy would against a guy he didnt know, and when that guy is a boxer it's lights out. Thats just one reason why street fights are so much different. Theres no game plan, strategy, scouting. You dont know who the **** you are fighting.

Now get lost.

[BMD]

I actually thought GSP was severely lacking in the punch department when he faced hardy. A cuople of punches a minute isnt real enthralling.

He was purposly trying to finish by submission and wasn't trying to posture up and ground-n-pound.

Look at him in the BJ Penn fight when Penn didn't answer the bell to the 5th round because he didn't know where he was.

[Battle Hardened]

The two sports are just different sets of philosophy.

In boxing, you believe that focusing on one aspect of your game will work the best because focus on only one aspect is the only way to be TULY great at that aspect.

In MMA, you split your focus on a number of different techniques. You believe that this allows you to be a great overall fighter because you have more options.

Both make valid arguments. However, in boxing, if you can't take a punch, you stand no chance so it has it's drawbacks. However, in MMA you have more of a losing because you simply will most likely have too many weak spots and someone will be able to exploit them. It's dangerous in either sport, challenging in some areas and either way you have to be focused. At the end of the day, it's two different sports.

I believe that boxing takes more, but it's strictly my opinion. I get this belief from Chinese proverb, to some extent. That proverb goes a little something like this.

A duck walks up to a horse, and begins talking to the animal.

"You know what, horse? It's fun to walk on land like we are both able to. It's incredible. But unlike you, horse, I'm also able to swim like the dolphins. I'm also able to fly like eagles. It's unfortunate that you can only do one of the three and I can do all of the above."

The horse replied, "Well, you can not run as swiftly as I am able to. You also can not fly as gracefully as the eagle can. And you are incapable of swimming as rapidly as the dolphin. You are good at all three aspects of travel, but great at none of them."

This, to me, describes the difference between the fighters. Of course, their are exceptions to this rule. Some MMA fighters are able to be considered GREAT in this or that aspect of their game. However, that usually leads to their downfall when someone else exploits another aspect of their game that they are weaker in. Whereas a boxer focuses in on one particular portion of fighting and has a better chance at being considered great.

You can say that boxing is a simplistic version of fighting, because of this "one aspect" theory. However, in that one aspect are many different facets and a genius only becomes a genius by focusing his entire life on one thing at a time.

MMA can make certain fans happy that like the idea of anyone being able to lose at any time. Boxing fans tend to like someone who seems unbeatable. The difference is that MMA fans usually will rally behind a guy that seems unbeatable at the end of the day.

I enjoy both sports, nothing wrong with either. Clearly, my lean is toward boxing but MMA is a different sport at the end of the day. Boxing, to me, is simply more challenging in the ways that matter to me.

Great post. Hopefully the shertard trolls will read it.

[AKATheMack]

He was purposly trying to finish by submission and wasn't trying to posture up and ground-n-pound.

Look at him in the BJ Penn fight when Penn didn't answer the bell to the 5th round because he didn't know where he was.

I actually enjoy MMA I just think it needs a rule change sometime in the near future to avoid all the top guys being world class wrestlers with the ability to smother their opponent. Its an exciting sport because of the mixture of fighting styles, but with the current rules in place its turning into a wrestling exhibition.

[BMD]

The two sports are just different sets of philosophy.

In boxing, you believe that focusing on one aspect of your game will work the best because focus on only one aspect is the only way to be TULY great at that aspect.

In MMA, you split your focus on a number of different techniques. You believe that this allows you to be a great overall fighter because you have more options.

Both make valid arguments. However, in boxing, if you can't take a punch, you stand no chance so it has it's drawbacks. However, in MMA you have more of a losing because you simply will most likely have too many weak spots and someone will be able to exploit them. It's dangerous in either sport, challenging in some areas and either way you have to be focused. At the end of the day, it's two different sports.

I believe that boxing takes more, but it's strictly my opinion. I get this belief from Chinese proverb, to some extent. That proverb goes a little something like this.

A duck walks up to a horse, and begins talking to the animal.

"You know what, horse? It's fun to walk on land like we are both able to. It's incredible. But unlike you, horse, I'm also able to swim like the dolphins. I'm also able to fly like eagles. It's unfortunate that you can only do one of the three and I can do all of the above."

The horse replied, "Well, you can not run as swiftly as I am able to. You also can not fly as gracefully as the eagle can. And you are incapable of swimming as rapidly as the dolphin. You are good at all three aspects of travel, but great at none of them."

This, to me, describes the difference between the fighters. Of course, their are exceptions to this rule. Some MMA fighters are able to be considered GREAT in this or that aspect of their game. However, that usually leads to their downfall when someone else exploits another aspect of their game that they are weaker in. Whereas a boxer focuses in on one particular portion of fighting and has a better chance at being considered great.

You can say that boxing is a simplistic version of fighting, because of this "one aspect" theory. However, in that one aspect are many different facets and a genius only becomes a genius by focusing his entire life on one thing at a time.

MMA can make certain fans happy that like the idea of anyone being able to lose at any time. Boxing fans tend to like someone who seems unbeatable. The difference is that MMA fans usually will rally behind a guy that seems unbeatable at the end of the day.

I enjoy both sports, nothing wrong with either. Clearly, my lean is toward boxing but MMA is a different sport at the end of the day. Boxing, to me, is simply more challenging in the ways that matter to me.

You had a good post. I can agree with almost everything. Boxing is great, but in order to be a complete FIGHTER, you have to complete your fight game. Boxers are amazing punchers, but they are severely lacking in other areas of fighting.

I like both sports. But I take issue with people who talk trash about MMA saying that boxers would just walk in and beat mixed martial artists in a fight.

[BMD]

I actually enjoy MMA I just think it needs a rule change sometime in the near future to avoid all the top guys being world class wrestlers with the ability to smother their opponent. Its an exciting sport because of the mixture of fighting styles, but with the current rules in place its turning into a wrestling exhibition.

It doesn't need a rule change. Fightes just need to evolve. The sport is still young. It's like saying if boxers were too good in MMA that they would need to change the rules to give other people a chance.

People just need to step their wrestling game up. And they will.

But in all honesty, wrestlers aren't dominating as much as they seem. The champs are Lesnar, Shogun Rua, Silva, GSP, and Edgar. Only Lesnar and GSP use their wrestling a lot. Edgar *can* wrestle.. but he likes to box. Silva and Shogun are Muay Thai.

[TPhenom01]

Boxing is the sport of PUNCHING. MMA is the sport of FIGHTING.

Boxing is fake fighting.

And try to be civil, and try to debate in a reasonable manner.

I respect boxing the same as MMA. But to say boxers are better FIGHTERS just isn't true.

You have the audacity to say that boxing isn't fighting like other MMA elitist dumb****s from the Underground Forum & Sherdog who are wildly misinterpreting the outcome of last night's freak show bout, and then you ask for boxing fans to be civil while "debating" with you?

There's an MMA subforum at this site. If you want to talk MMA with other MMA fans, I advise you go there. If you're just trying to incite responses from boxing fans, you're not going to get very far.

[wizard king]

No it isn't. Boxing is not more of a fighting sport since it is so centralized that it isn't realistic to how a real fight would go. Some of the techniques wouldn't work very well.

And 99% isn't wrestling.

Are you really that stupid boxing is more realistic in how a real fight would go.you are acting like the adverage person has some knowlege on ground fighting. everbody knows stand up weather they are good at is another story. my boxing training have ended real fights with the quickness and against multiple people having boxing skills vs mma is much more useful. i like to see some mma pro but me in a choke hold and watch me bite chunks out of his arm and see if he dont let go or poke his dam eyes out with my fingers. knowing any type of mix martial arts is only good if you are fighting one on one,so its usless against multiple oppents.

[AKATheMack]

It doesn't need a rule change. Fightes just need to evolve. The sport is still young. It's like saying if boxers were too good in MMA that they would need to change the rules to give other people a chance.

People just need to step their wrestling game up. And they will.

But in all honesty, wrestlers aren't dominating as much as they seem. The champs are Lesnar, Shogun Rua, Silva, GSP, and Edgar. Only Lesnar and GSP use their wrestling a lot. Edgar *can* wrestle.. but he likes to box. Silva and Shogun are Muay Thai.

Only difference is that if your boxing it means their is action laying on top of an opponent for 15mins is not action.