Dana White saying Mayweather would....

[toshmurph]

How can you write off Bruce Lee as not being able to compete in mma?? The guy combined wing chun, boxing and karate to create his own martial art of Jeet Kun Do so his striking would be legit, then he trained with Uncle Gene Lebell in Judo and was apparently a natural at it according to Lebell.. So if he were to compete today where he would be constantly sparring and improving areas of his game he wouldn't be able to compete!?

That's a ridiculous thing to say that a naturally talented athlete and fighter like Bruce Lee couldn't compete when guys like Forrest Griffin and Clay Guida have found success in the UFC with little to no natural talent!!

[BUNGALOWS]

Remember when Kermit Cintron challenged Sean Sherk to a fight, and they didn't even respond?

Dana's such an ass clown.

[BUNGALOWS]

Obviously two different sports, if you have no ground game you will lose in MMA.

But on the same note tell me one UFC fighter who would do well in the ring against a c level pro boxer.

The best pure boxer I can think of is KJ Noons. He got man handled by a top 200 boxer. Not even journeymen level. Below journeymen level.

"The best UFC fighter would get murdered in boxing. Pro boxers only shift to MMA when they are too old or when they fail to make a name for themselves in boxing. That should give you a hint of where the best athletes are.***65279;"

I tend to agree with this, and I have nothing but respect for MMA. I have respect for all combat sports, but to me, the test of who has the better hands is the ultimate test of body control to me.

[way2strong]

Remember when Kermit Cintron challenged Sean Sherk to a fight, and they didn't even respond?

Dana's such an ass clown.

its not fair doe? the boxer needs to be retired and out of shape

[Foreign Soil]

Ive done both. I find technique and accuracy of placing the punch on the before mentioned pointer and middle knuckles suffers with bulky gloves. I also find that punch effectiveness overall is increased when im basically bare handed. As to the broken hand question, people break their hands in combat sports, same goes for boxing. A majority of the time they break their hand when they punch too high on the head or they punch with a deficit in technique. All things considered, arguing that a boxer would be LESS effective without gloves is quite frankly, a little ludicrous.

I dont think there is significant evidence to discount Lee. He certainly looked the part. Passed the eye test as far as form technique and explosiveness goes. Some unknown factors of course, but people saying he would be out of his element in various disciplines are forgetting how quick a study he was. The true definition of a martial prodigy. As to being merely good in several things , its an option. To be truly transcendent you have to master something though. The mind can only manage so much information at once, the most efficient way to become next level as far as skill is concerned is to master something, then branch. Not to try to master 5 things at once. This is a simple concept that seems to elude many. Mostly because they misunderstand how their patron saint Bruce built himself as a martial artist.

My original response was to the assertion that mma guys are in better shape than boxers.. which I feel is erroneous and a sweeping generalization.

Some boxers would be less effective - some more, some would see no change - all of these assertions you make with absolution is nothing more but you following your own narrative. I've seen kickboxers try MMA and lose their punch, most likely for the reasons that I've stated and on the same note, some MMA fighters have tried kickboxing and seem to have gained punching power from it. But go ahead with your theories of absolution..

I won't comment anymore on Lee. Far too many endless speculative arguments on that subject for me to get into.

[Foreign Soil]

People training in the martial arts has been depicted a certain way. Bruce Lee changed the way this training was depicted. In fact people who depended on these skills to survive have always been willing to train in different styles and take what is useful. back in the day when we used to call these people "Gypsies". These were the guys who had the balls to come in and ask to fight. They would usually have some skills, but would leave with a lot more! Special Forces guys routinely would train an art for specific skill sets... Weapon retention skills, grappling, etc.

My point is that what MMA fighters do is train in areas to develop specific skills and while the populat martial arts narrative was more "Kung Fu" the movie series, i.e. learn a discipline from soup to nuts....Bruce Lee's eclectascism was also used in the martial arts community. MMA fighters tend to be smart enough through experience to know whom to seek out (they make great students generally).

your absolutely right about Lee....keep in mind though that Lee was a teacher, not a fighter.

Great post.

[toooooool]

Two totaly different things

Dana was just making a logical remark..it's just that it was worded to make
Floyd look bad..I remember Floyd made a comment that Chuck Liddell was
the 'GREATEST " puncher in UFC at one time but his punching skills wouldn't
be good at all in a boxing match against a real pro.

[Syf]

Some boxers would be less effective - some more, some would see no change - all of these assertions you make with absolution is nothing more but you following your own narrative. I've seen kickboxers try MMA and lose their punch, most likely for the reasons that I've stated and on the same note, some MMA fighters have tried kickboxing and seem to have gained punching power from it. But go ahead with your theories of absolution..

I won't comment anymore on Lee. Far too many endless speculative arguments on that subject for me to get into.

What you say is redundant. We are all just collections of our own experience, realizations, and choices. Doesn't everyone work off of their own narrative? Why do you expect any different from me? I am sure of what I say. You call that absolution? That is no more an absolute than you being sure of what you say.

One thing I notice is you speak of what you've observed in other people and I speak of what I've observed through other people and my own personal experience. In other words.. my foundation seems more sound to make logical leaps from... whereas yours may not be as significant.

perhaps I am wrong?