Your opinion on UFC?

Conall Cernach

Chairman Meow wrote: »

Go watch a highlight reel of Junior Dos Santos to see some expert level striking, and one of Anderson Silva if you want to see people getting kicked above thigh level.

I should clarify that I meant when you see it at local amateur level. It's just a bit crap looking to be honest compared to either amateur boxing or a "pure" martial art at the same level.

Logical Fallacy

Conall Cernach wrote: »

I used to be a practitioner of martial arts myself (Karate) and was quite proficient but I don't get UFC or MMA. It always seems to end up with two guys wrestling on the ground before one submits. There seems to be very little striking involved and no kicking above thigh level.

I would have noticed the opposite, you often see two highly skilled grapplers trying to strike with each other in some kind of effort to win over the crowd, which is a shame.

The reason fights can end up on the ground is because that is normally where a fight tends to end up I reckon. As for the kicking, there are better people here than me to explain why head kicks can be a bad idea but there is always a risk of the takedown when you go high. A nice stiff kick to the thigh builds up over time reducing power, mobility and also drive in the takedown. I think the majority of people who watch MMA will appreciate how deft leg kicks can end a fight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4MpAGgBQFI

Internet Hero

norrie rugger wrote: »

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Well I did Jiu Jitsu for years, which involves just the type of groundwork displayed in UFC; guards, mounts, sleeper holds, arm bars, triangle chokes -very skilled and technical work

And painfully slow, to watch

In fairness that'd bollocks. I've never trained BJJ but it 's pretty obvious that it's no slower than MMA or boxing in terms if quickness of changing position or dominance. It's not something that makes inate sense but if you know what's up it I'd just as fast as boxing.

--Kaiser--

Internet Hero wrote: »

In fairness that'd bollocks. I've never trained BJJ but it 's pretty obvious that it's no slower than MMA or boxing in terms if quickness of changing position or dominance. It's not something that makes inate sense but if you know what's up it I'd just as fast as boxing.

Wut

mackg

Conall Cernach wrote: »

I should clarify that I meant when you see it at local amateur level. It's just a bit crap looking to be honest compared to either amateur boxing or a "pure" martial art at the same level.

I've been to a couple of amateur MMA events in Cork and really enjoyed it. No doubt in my mind I'll be going to the next one.

norrie rugger

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Only if you don't know what you're looking at

Stop acting all superiour lad, that is not the first time you have said that on this page and it is a bit condecending.
Not having a pop or anything but you are making big assumptions about people and their experience here.

I know exactly what I am looking at and still find it as exciting as watching paint dry.

UFC has a major problem in that when you do get to the ground but no one has an advantage, or opening, then the fighter on the receiving end will nearly always try to run out the round rather than risk getting exposed trying to break free. It might mean that there are some good locks/counter locks but when a fighter knows that he can wait out the clock, it takes the excitement out of it for me.

If a round could not end untill both fighters were "free" of each other then maybe you would see people trying to get off the ground faster, as being held is extremely tiring

theboxingclinic

Thanks, Feb for the next one, the standard of ammie in Ireland is getting very high.

mackg wrote: »

I've been to a couple of amateur MMA events in Cork and really enjoyed it. No doubt in my mind I'll be going to the next one.

The Clown Man

It's all about variety, and MMA had just so much more that any other sport really. More ways to win = more things to think about and therefore the more impressive and exciting the use of options. Very few sports can compete with MMA in terms of clever and exciting ways to win. All that rolls out in the most extreme of environments.

I like boxing for what it is but I never, never find myself jumping off my seat watching it.

I've played almost all of the "regular" sports competitively and am sick that I'm now pretty much too old to learn and compete in MMA.

Also, regarding the negativity towards the grounded fights or the "lay and pray" fights that people maybe once saw and remembered:

There was a time when the ground game tended to overrule many other aspects of the sport, when athletes really only specialised in one martial art and wrestling dominated as soon as people became somewhat proficient in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, which dominated before that. This is not the case any more as all fighters make sure to excel in all areas. Watch any of the recent events to see that there is very rarely a slow ground fight any more, they are mainly very active even on the ground.

Also, knowing the ground game very well makes all the difference in appreciation of the sport. If you have only watched it a few times then the intricacies of it will surely be missed. I actually spend more time yelping at the TV after one decent transition or sweep than I would during an entire football match. And I watch all the football. (In the top 150 in Boards Fantasy League too! )

One way or other, you do need to understand not the general point, but the execution of the ground game to really appreciate the art. And when you do it's like watching the most extreme game of chess you will find.

And it's awesome!

Peetrik

Actually, just on the whole 'Boxer vs MMA/K1' discussion... there is a fight possibly happening in December that might settle the debate.

Two time K1 max world champ Buakaw Banchamek vs Manny Pacquaio. Will be one to watch at any rate.


http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/sports/315010/buakaw-vs-manny-mooted

ScumLord

norrie rugger wrote: »

UFC has a major problem in that when you do get to the ground but no one has an advantage, or opening, then the fighter on the receiving end will nearly always try to run out the round rather than risk getting exposed trying to break free.

I don't think that's true at all, you can't just wait with some guy trying to get you into a submission, if they just try and hold on they're at a distinct disadvantage and losing points. The ref always has the option of standing them up if he thinks there's no progress being made, Herb Dean is good at seeing when the fighters have stopped working and he will separate them if they're not working. The other problem for a fighter that just tries to stalemate a fight is he won't be given another fight by Dana to quickly.

BlackRoom

Peetrik wrote: »

Actually, just on the whole 'Boxer vs MMA/K1' discussion... there is a fight possibly happening in December that might settle the debate.

Two time K1 max world champ Buakaw Banchamek vs Manny Pacquaio. Will be one to watch at any rate.


http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/sports/315010/buakaw-vs-manny-mooted

Settle what debate, exactly?

In any case, you're in dreamland if you think that fight has any chance of happening.

Peetrik

BlackRoom wrote: »

Settle what debate, exactly?

In any case, you're in dreamland if you think that fight has any chance of happening.

The debate started by the OP that has cropped up repeatedly throughout the thread of how a boxer would fare against an MMA fighter.

Might be unlikely but there is precedent for Thai boxers turning pro boxing just for the money and doing well. Poonsawat Kratingdaenggym was a Thai boxer before he beat Bernard Dunne for his world title.

BlackRoom

Peetrik wrote: »

The debate started by the OP that has cropped up repeatedly throughout the thread of how a boxer would fare against an MMA fighter.

Might be unlikely but there is precedent for Thai boxers turning pro boxing just for the money and doing well. Poonsawat Kratingdaenggym was a Thai boxer before he beat Bernard Dunne for his world title.

There may be precedent for fighters from other disciplines turning pro but there is no precedent for them walking straight into a fight with an elite boxer such as MP.

Boxer v MMA guy would largely depend on whose terms the fight is fought, it's a pointless argument really. Boxing v MMA, however... boxing is the far superior sport.

ScumLord

BlackRoom wrote: »

boxing is the far superior sport.

It's too restricted, if you're basing superiority on which requires the most skill, it's MMA.

Peetrik

Baukaw is an elite fighter in his own right, very well know name to anyone who follow K1/MMA/Thai etc. He's not just some random kickboxer.

I'd assume it would be pro boxing rules if it went ahead, I'd give give him a fair chance against Manny personally.

I can't think of any criteria where boxing would be a superior sport over MMA tbh but there you go... this was the debate I was talking about.

Khannie

BlackRoom wrote: »

Boxing v MMA, however... boxing is the far superior sport.

By what measure? Your preference for watching boxing?

I don't like MMA myself. I find the ground game super boring. Just a total snooze fest. I think that's because I don't understand it fully (just like I find cricket boring because I don't understand it). Boxing is easier to understand. Hit guy. Guy gets hit. Winning.

There are some incredibly skilled boxers out there. That doesn't make boxing a superior sport. The top MMA guys train incredibly hard. They have to spread their training time across several disciplines - For MMA striking there is hands, kicks, knees, elbows and the ground game on top of that of course which is incredibly technical.

The big difference between the two is that MMA guys have to spread their time over more disciplines than boxers. I can't understand how people can say that MMA is savagery and that boxing isn't though. You need only look at Tyson to see boxing savagery at its finest. They're both sports that you can easily point the "savage" finger at.

BlackRoom

ScumLord wrote: »

It's too restricted, if you're basing superiority on which requires the most skill, it's MMA.

It's a bit like saying rugby requires more skill than football because you can use your feet and your hands. While you might have to learn a wider range of 'skills' the skill required to master them is less. Purely on the basis of skill, if you tried to tell me any UFC fighter was as defensively skilled as Floyd Mayweather i would laugh in your face.

BlackRoom

Khannie wrote: »

By what measure? Your preference for watching boxing?

I don't like MMA myself. I find the ground game super boring. Just a total snooze fest. I think that's because I don't understand it fully (just like I find cricket boring because I don't understand it). Boxing is easier to understand. Hit guy. Guy gets hit. Winning.

There are some incredibly skilled boxers out there. That doesn't make boxing a superior sport. The top MMA guys train incredibly hard. They have to spread their training time across several disciplines - For MMA striking there is hands, kicks, knees, elbows and the ground game on top of that of course which is incredibly technical.

The big difference between the two is that MMA guys have to spread their time over more disciplines than boxers. I can't understand how people can say that MMA is savagery and that boxing isn't though. You need only look at Tyson to see boxing savagery at its finest. They're both sports that you can easily point the "savage" finger at.

By what measure? At its best, it's a far more entertaining spectacle. No MMA fight has ever come close to fights such as Barrera v Morales, Ali v Frasier, Vasquez v Marquez, Ward v Gatti and any other great fight you care to mention. I am aware that MMA is relatively young, but i just don't believe it lends itself to classics in the same way boxing does.

The mixed aspect is overblown. Spreading their time over more disciplines doesn't really hold true. MMA is practically a discipline in itself, albeit it one that has taken influences from a range of different disciplines.

ScumLord

BlackRoom wrote: »

It's a bit like saying rugby requires more skill than football because you can use your feet and your hands.

It's not the same thing at all. A better example would be if you were comparing a soccer player to someone playing soccer, rugby, football, hurling and baseball.

BlackRoom wrote: »

By what measure? At its best, it's a far more entertaining spectacle. No MMA fight has ever come close to fights such as Barrera v Morales, Ali v Frasier, Vasquez v Marquez, Ward v Gatti and any other great fight you care to mention.

How would you know, have you seen every MMA fight? Or even more than one?

Richard Hillman

I like MMA. I find boxing a bit dull though. My major gripe with boxing is that apart from a young up and coming boxers, nobody gives a toss about the titles. Its more about the spectacle and the cash incomes than the sport of it. Ive nothing again the boxing lads being more about the money, good on them but as a sports fan i want to see people compete to be the best, not the richest.

The difference between boxing and MMA for me is that in MMA, the fighters no matter what promotion they are affiliated with, want to be UFC champion. The belt and the sport means something. The promotion and grudge before matches is just a build up to the contest. Plus MMA is far more entertaining and skillful IMO.

BlackRoom

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not the same thing at all. A better example would be if you were comparing a soccer player to someone playing soccer, rugby, football, hurling and baseball.

How would you know, have you seen every MMA fight? Or even more than one?

I have seen lots of MMA fights, but every MMA fight? No. Please point me in the direction of an MMA fight that stands up to those fights i mentioned.

BlackRoom

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I like MMA. I find boxing a bit dull though. My major gripe with boxing is that apart from a young up and coming boxers, nobody gives a toss about the titles. Its more about the spectacle and the cash incomes than the sport of it. Ive nothing again the boxing lads being more about the money, good on them but as a sports fan i want to see people compete to be the best, not the richest.

The difference between boxing and MMA for me is that in MMA, the fighters no matter what promotion they are affiliated with, want to be UFC champion. The belt and the sport means something. The promotion and grudge before matches is just a build up to the contest. Plus MMA is far more entertaining and skillful IMO.

I definitely agree that boxing has major issues with how it is governed and MMA, well UFC run a tight ship. Their model is just about spot on. However to say it's more skilled is ridiculous. Take Brock Lesnar as an example. Within a few fights he was top of the pile in his weight division with what, a good background in amateur wrestling and a couple of years MMA training. That would never happen in boxing. That's like an olympic gold medalist fighting for a world title after 3 or 4 professional bouts. He'd get destroyed!

RainMaker

RainMaker wrote: »

"Human cock fighting" - a phrase that dates back to the John McCain crusade against the UFC, back before the unified rules of MMA were implemented, and also from the time his wife's family was the owner of one of the largest distributors of Budweiser in the US, which was also the main sponsor of boxing which was losing interest to the emerging sport of MMA.

So the phrase was coined by a politician with a clear conflict of interest, plus the sport now is completely different now that it was then, so for somebody to still use that phrase would seem to indicate their entire knowledge of MMA comes from sensationalist tabloids or even worse, as somebody else posted... Joe Duffy*!

As to Mayweather, as others have pointed out - he would win at boxing, but lose at MMA, quite simple really.

Funny I reckon most of the Joe Duffy brigade that would be against MMA would probably happily sit down and watch a hurling match and end up screaming for blood, but somehow that's all good decent "tough" sports??


*Seriously do people just ring Joe Duffy and make up whatever crap they want, and he just goes along with it???

It was a little different back then to be honest.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Only if you don't know what you're looking at

I defended the skill and that of MMA earlier in the thread but I don't see why people should be attacked for saying they find a lot of MMA boring because I can see where they're coming from. Yeah part of it may be because they don't "understand" what they're watching but the advantage of watching boxing is that it's pretty easy to understand without any preparation.

BlackRoom

BlackRoom wrote: »

I definitely agree that boxing has major issues with how it is governed and MMA, well UFC run a tight ship. Their model is just about spot on. However to say it's more skilled is ridiculous. Take Brock Lesnar as an example. Within a few fights he was top of the pile in his weight division with what, a good background in amateur wrestling and a couple of years MMA training. That would never happen in boxing. That's like an olympic gold medalist fighting for a world title after 3 or 4 professional bouts. He'd get destroyed!

Both are crooked and rigged by different people and in different ways. Money talks unfortunately.

Pace2008

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not the same thing at all. A better example would be if you were comparing a soccer player to someone playing soccer, rugby, football, hurling and baseball.

What, and if they were a dab hand in all of them would you find them more impressive than Lionel Messi?

Richard Hillman

BlackRoom wrote: »

I definitely agree that boxing has major issues with how it is governed and MMA, well UFC run a tight ship. Their model is just about spot on. However to say it's more skilled is ridiculous. Take Brock Lesnar as an example. Within a few fights he was top of the pile in his weight division with what, a good background in amateur wrestling and a couple of years MMA training. That would never happen in boxing. That's like an olympic gold medalist fighting for a world title after 3 or 4 professional bouts. He'd get destroyed!

In fairness Brock Lesnar was a great amateur wrestler. His record (from wiki) was 106–5 in college. He well could have been an Olympic Champion. Boxing is a specific martial art. It would be the same for any of the martial arts to just take up and win at a high level fairly quick.

T-K-O

Once the kiltscho's retire that could happen in hw boxing. It's also worth rememebing that Lesnar was found out and is back in the wwf

BlackRoom

Richard Hillman wrote: »

In fairness Brock Lesnar was a great amateur wrestler. His record (from wiki) was 106–5 in college. He well could have been an Olympic Champion. Boxing is a specific martial art. It would be the same for any of the martial arts to just take up and win at a high level fairly quick.

That's my point. An amateur wrestler trains for a few years and within a few fights is holding the most prestigious belt in MMA.

Mr Blobby

BlackRoom wrote: »

It's a bit like saying rugby requires more skill than football because you can use your feet and your hands. While you might have to learn a wider range of 'skills' the skill required to master them is less. Purely on the basis of skill, if you tried to tell me any UFC fighter was as defensively skilled as Floyd Mayweather i would laugh in your face.

That's really a pointless statement.
A boxer only ever has to defend against punches.

Unlike a MMA fighter Mayweather doesn't have to worry about Kicks,Knees,Elbows,Takedowns,Submissions

BlackRoom

blobby360 wrote: »

[/B]


That's really a pointless statement.
A boxer only ever has to defend against punches.

Unlike a MMA fighter Mayweather doesn't have to worry about Kicks,Knees,Elbows,Takedowns,Submissions

If you followed the thread of the conversation you would see it's not a pointless statement at all. The skill he displays in doing so is beyond any defensive display yet seen in MMA. A boxer defends against more punches than all strikes combined in MMA. It's so much more instinctive than UFC which is very cat and mouse and sporadic in its exchanges.

T-K-O

My da would batter your da.


This thread is a disaster.

GavRedKing

I like MMA, I hate people, other then fighters when walking to the octagon, wearing Tapout clothes though.

leggo

So many stupid, stupid posts...so little time.

The Clown Man

BlackRoom wrote: »

I have seen lots of MMA fights, but every MMA fight? No. Please point me in the direction of an MMA fight that stands up to those fights i mentioned.

Watch UFC 139. Not the absolute best headline fight but one that is easy to appreciate.

Let us know what you think.

ScumLord

BlackRoom wrote: »

It's so much more instinctive than UFC which is very cat and mouse and sporadic in its exchanges.

Having done some boxing training it's not really instinctive at all. Throwing a punch is instinctive but throwing a boxing punch effectively takes lots of training. Learning how to effectively defend in MMA is even less instinctive, peoples instincts are very counter productive in a professional fight.

BlackRoom

The Clown Man wrote: »

Watch UFC 139. Not the absolute best headline fight but one that is easy to appreciate.

Let us know what you think.

I do appreciate MMA. Don't get it twisted playa.

BlackRoom

ScumLord wrote: »

Having done some boxing training it's not really instinctive at all. Throwing a punch is instinctive but throwing a boxing punch effectively takes lots of training. Learning how to effectively defend in MMA is even less instinctive, peoples instincts are very counter productive in a professional fight.

You completely missed the point. Instinctive as in calling upon all you have learned, on your feet, no thinking, just reacting, muscle memory. Instinctive in the sporting sense. You know, the stuff athletes train over and over again until it's second nature. That's what i'm talking about.

The Clown Man

BlackRoom wrote: »

I do appreciate MMA. Don't get it twisted playa.

Well if you want to see a fight (actually several of them in that card) that lives up to the fights you mentioned, just check it out.

Peetrik

BlackRoom wrote: »

You completely missed the point. Instinctive as in calling upon all you have learned, on your feet, no thinking, just reacting, muscle memory. Instinctive in the sporting sense. You know, the stuff athletes train over and over again until it's second nature. That's what i'm talking about.

So... the exact opposite of instinctive then?

ScumLord

BlackRoom wrote: »

You completely missed the point. Instinctive as in calling upon all you have learned, on your feet, no thinking, just reacting, muscle memory. Instinctive in the sporting sense. You know, the stuff athletes train over and over again until it's second nature. That's what i'm talking about.

How is that any different than MMA training then?

BlackRoom

Peetrik wrote: »

So... the exact opposite of instinctive then?

Was it too much to expect that when using the word instinct in a sporting context people would understand it in the sporting sense rather than say the same sense as a swallow pissing off home for the winter?

If you're still struggling with the concept let me know and i'll explain it for you in simpler terms.

BlackRoom

ScumLord wrote: »

How is that any different than MMA training then?

It's more intense in boxing, more punches or 'strikes' to contend with. Less standing off or laying down in a clinch wondering what to do next. Less time for conscious thought, basically.

Logical Fallacy

BlackRoom wrote: »

It's more intense in boxing, more punches or 'strikes' to contend with. Less standing off or laying down in a clinch wondering what to do next. Less time for conscious thought, basically.

How long have you trained in each sport?

leggo

BlackRoom wrote: »

It's more intense in boxing, more punches or 'strikes' to contend with. Less standing off or laying down in a clinch wondering what to do next. Less time for conscious thought, basically.

I find that, if you have to resort to such bollocks as this to make your point, the argument is generally getting stale. See also: darts is/isn't a sport because you use handy eye movement/it doesn't require a person to be slim etc.

So now the ultimate judgement of whether something is a good sport or not is..."the amount of conscious thought that goes into it?" Yeeeeaahh...:rolleyes:

Hint: if you don't enjoy something, you probably don't watch/participate in a lot of it, so you probably don't know a lot about it when discussing it with people who do. So it's sometimes best to say, "I just don't enjoy it. Some people might, but I don't get it," and be done with it.

Peetrik

BlackRoom wrote: »

Was it too much to expect that when using the word instinct in a sporting context people would understand it in the sporting sense rather than say the same sense as a swallow pissing off home for the winter?

If you're still struggling with the concept let me know and i'll explain it for you in simpler terms.

Instinct is instinct regardless of context, sporting or otherwise. Save the sarky comments for when you're actually right.

ScumLord

BlackRoom wrote: »

It's more intense in boxing, more punches or 'strikes' to contend with. Less standing off or laying down in a clinch wondering what to do next. Less time for conscious thought, basically.

That's such nonsense, being in a clinch isn't having a rest, they're constantly moving and defending, carrying the weight of the other guy, trying to knock him off balance while maintaining their own balance, it's exhausting.

Submission attempts wear the fighters out a lot quicker than punching does too, it happens time and time again where a fighter tries to submit his opponent with a head lock and ends up unable to throw a punch because he's "gassed" out his arms.

You seem to have a complete lack of understanding on how muscles work and what wears them out.

BlackRoom

leggo wrote: »

I find that, if you have to resort to such bollocks as this to make your point, the argument is generally getting stale. See also: darts is/isn't a sport because you use handy eye movement/it doesn't require a person to be slim etc.

So now the ultimate judgement of whether something is a good sport or not is..."the amount of conscious thought that goes into it?" Yeeeeaahh...:rolleyes:

Hint: if you don't enjoy something, you probably don't watch/participate in a lot of it, so you probably don't know a lot about it when discussing it with people who do. So it's sometimes best to say, "I just don't enjoy it. Some people might, but I don't get it," and be done with it.

I never said i don't enjoy MMA. I do enjoy MMA. Thanks for your contribution, nonetheless.

BlackRoom

Peetrik wrote: »

Instinct is instinct regardless of context, sporting or otherwise. Save the sarky comments for when you're actually right.

Instinct is insctinct regardless of context, sporting or otherwise? So you do or you don't recognise learned 'instinct' in sport? No need to get too hung up on semantics, we can call it implicit memory if you're feeling too literal today.

BlackRoom

ScumLord wrote: »

That's such nonsense, being in a clinch isn't having a rest, they're constantly moving and defending, carrying the weight of the other guy, trying to knock him off balance while maintaining their own balance, it's exhausting.

Submission attempts wear the fighters out a lot quicker than punching does too, it happens time and time again where a fighter tries to submit his opponent with a head lock and ends up unable to throw a punch because he's "gassed" out his arms.

You seem to have a complete lack of understanding on how muscles work and what wears them out.

Never said anything about a rest. Your consistency in failing to understand just about every one of my posts you have directly replied to leads me to believe you're on the wind up.

ScumLord

BlackRoom wrote: »

Never said anything about a rest. Your consistency in failing to understand just about every one of my posts you have directly replied to leads me to believe you're on the wind up.

No your just not making any sense. MMA is as labour intensive if not more labour intensive than boxing.

You might be comparing heavyweight MMA fighters to lightweight boxers though. A lightweight MMA fight is non stop action.