MMA: Boxing is dead to me [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Cardinal

10-20-2010, 02:20 AM

I watched Ali-Spinks II live. Even my engineer-nerd dad was interested in this fight. I watched some Ray Leonard and Tommy Hearns, maybe even some Marvin Hagler.

I couldn't name you a boxing champion at this point, and I never hear it mentioned. I do know students of mine who know the UFC champions, and I plan to watch the Lesnar-Velasquez fight this weekend. I know all the names and most of the histories of the UFC champs. I know why Matt Hughes carries a fan base after all this time. I know why Tito Ortiz is hated, along with Koscheck. I have a custom bumper sticker: "WWFD: What Would Fedor Do? That's a joke, Christians. I'm one, too.

He'd go for the choke. And then thank God for the win.

I don't know anyone who follows boxing. Literally. I know multiple people who can tell me who Lesnar is.

Is boxing closing in on being dead? I kind of hope so. It's a limiting set of rules for no good reason. It's even more brutal than current MMA rules. If you disagree, I suggest you read the current round times and fight stoppage rules for each sport. Plus, much of many MMA fights is spend in grappling, anyway.

Who_me?

10-20-2010, 10:13 AM

I don't watch boxing any more, but MMA is about as boring as watching golf.

StusBlues

10-20-2010, 01:13 PM

I don't watch boxing any more, but MMA is about as boring as watching golf.

Then you may be doing it wrong.

MMA has indeed supplanted boxing in my heart of hearts. In boxing, fighters will clinch to give themselves an effective "time out". No such thing in MMA: clinch and the REAL fun starts. (Pundits might bring up the "lay and pray" at this point, but it takes a heck of a lot more talent to take a fighter down and hold him in a dominating positition than it does to grab a guy who can't counter because of the rules.) MMA is a multifaceted sport: good striking and takedown defense will counter wrestling, good jiujitsu will counter striking, good wrestling will counter jiujitsu. Conditioning AND explosiveness are huge physical factors, and the mental aspect of the game will often counter pure athleticism. It's a great sport, and I'm only sorry that I'll be missing UFC 121 Saturday whilst having dinner with my editor. Drat.

pravnik

10-20-2010, 04:40 PM

I still love boxing and always will, but corruption and poor management has hurt the sport greatly, and a lack of big name draws is causing the fan base to shrink. People slam Dana White a lot, but he's done a great job at keeping the fights honest and interesting. Oh, and I hope Velasquez knocks out Lesnar in the first.

Busy Scissors

10-20-2010, 04:54 PM

I'm more of a boxing fan, and probably always will be. I follow MMA from a distance and have a huge amount of respect for the athletes that practice it, but I prefer to see the total mastery of one discipline than the jack of all trades approach. At its best, boxing has a beauty and fluency that stands alone IMHO.

Boxing also has the phenomenon of chin. To witness the chin of an all time great like Hagler is something you just won't, indeed can't, ever see in MMA.

Whist the elite performers of MMA have made a big impact on the (American) public in recent years, Boxing is a much stronger sport overall. I don't really see much quality in MMA once you penetrate a couple of levels down - you quickly arrive at the level of door men and local tough guys having a tear up.

Boxing is much more stratified, look past the elite level to international, then national and you're still looking at accomplished athletes. I watched a fair bit of the commonwealth games boxing a few weeks back and even at the amateur level you can see great conditioned, skilled fighters.

Of course, boxing has a 100 year head start so it's natural that this depth of ability is not there yet for MMA - and it may well develop. I'm just making the observation because there's a lot more to any sport than what's happening at the elite level.

Is boxing closing in on being dead? I kind of hope so. It's a limiting set of rules for no good reason. It's even more brutal than current MMA rules. If you disagree, I suggest you read the current round times and fight stoppage rules for each sport. Plus, much of many MMA fights is spend in grappling, anyway.C'mon man - I don't mean to be antagonistic but that's a completely fatuous observation.

gonzomax

10-21-2010, 12:50 PM

Jack Batty

10-21-2010, 01:38 PM

... I prefer to see the total mastery of one discipline than the jack of all trades approach.

I’m just the opposite. In fact, I was considering it last night as I was watching the Lessner v I Forget The Name of the Guy He Beat replay on Spike last night. I can’t watch boxing, because I keep thinking, “he’s wide open for a take down,” or “he should have popped him with an elbow.” And I can’t watch wrestling because I keep thinking, “chrissakes just punch him, dude.”

When one must be ready for anything (outside of the rules changes prohibiting the really nasty shit they used to do (hair pulling, groin pounding, etc) it makes for a much more exciting bout to watch.

gonzomax

10-21-2010, 02:01 PM

I’m just the opposite. In fact, I was considering it last night as I was watching the Lessner v I Forget The Name of the Guy He Beat replay on Spike last night. I can’t watch boxing, because I keep thinking, “he’s wide open for a take down,” or “he should have popped him with an elbow.” And I can’t watch wrestling because I keep thinking, “chrissakes just punch him, dude.”

When one must be ready for anything (outside of the rules changes prohibiting the really nasty shit they used to do (hair pulling, groin pounding, etc) it makes for a much more exciting bout to watch.

Go hang around a country and western tough bar. You can see it for free.

Jack Batty

10-21-2010, 02:03 PM

I do like to see a little skill in the fighters, as opposed to a belly full of Jack and a bone of contention over the best time on the mechanical bull.

Oredigger77

10-21-2010, 02:11 PM

I follow MMA from a distance and have a huge amount of respect for the athletes that practice it, but I prefer to see the total mastery of one discipline than the jack of all trades approach.

This isn't true for the top tier of MMA athletes George St. Piere has been invited to try out for the Canadian wrestling team despite his only wrestling training coming from MMA. Most of the top fighters were All Americans in wrestling in College. It is much more likely to see a guy who is a total master at one aspect of the sport and then journeyman level at the others then it is to see a guy who's just pretty good across the board.

RealityChuck

10-21-2010, 02:23 PM

Boxing has been dying out as a popular sport in the US for decades (and MMA isn't taking its place -- it's nowhere near as big as boxing was in the 40s and 50s and will never get that way).

Lots of reasons: too many conflicting champions and sanctioning bodies, too many weight classes (prior to 1959, there were seven weight classes and never more than eight or nine champs (if there was some dispute); now there are 17, and probably about 25 champs minimum -- harder to keep track of), few bouts on free TV/basic cable (in the 50s, it was on every Friday night; without the sport on TV, you don't develop younger fans), no particularly interesting champions (the last was Mike Tyson), competition for fans from other sports, the etc.

Boxing is still successful as an international sport, but in the US, it's dying a long, lingering death.

Omniscient

10-21-2010, 02:37 PM

Boxing's only hope is to centralize with a single all-powerful controlling body. They need a single commissioner and a single pathway to the top. One title belt and a pairing of all the redundancy. Eliminate the promoter in his current form and sign a series of TV contracts to move away from pay-per-view as a primary distribution avenue.

gonzomax

10-23-2010, 10:24 AM

Part of boxings problem is it has been run by crooks for decades. The promoters have bought judges and set up mismatches to make money. I have seen Don King fighters win decisions that were absurd. His fighter got whipped all over the ring and won the decision, time after time.

Yorikke

10-23-2010, 10:15 PM

I don't watch boxing any more, but MMA is about as boring as watching golf.

I haven't seen much MMA - maybe 4 fights - but I agree. I used to be a major boxing fan, when Tyson was on HBO every few months killing guys. Now, I only follow Pacquiao, because I work with a LOT of Philippinos.

Joe

Cisco

10-24-2010, 07:30 AM

Do Not Taunt

10-24-2010, 03:39 PM

Boxing is still successful as an international sport, but in the US, it's dying a long, lingering death.Movies about boxing, on the other hand, have been enjoying a Renaissance for a while.

Huerta88

10-25-2010, 01:23 PM

I like both.

Boxing is its own worst enemy. Corruption and splintered title sanctioning organizations were mentioned already. I'd argue that the weight classes work against American participation on a broad level. Light flyweight begins at 108 pounds. With American nutrition (or obesity) and athletic training standards being very different than they were 100 years ago when the classes started being defined, most American athletes aren't even going to qualify for the first five or six divisions (which seem to be dominated by countries where people are either genetically or through malnutrition smaller, e.g. Mexico, Philippines). Then the highest class, heavyweight, is 200 lbs., when both Klitschkos are around 240.

Then, boxing antagonizes fans by stringing them out with matches no one really wants to see instead of making the handful of good matches happen. Maywether Pacquiao may never happen now because both camps wanted to milk a few more paydays out of mediocre lead-up fights.

Lack of depth in most divisions is another problem (and probably explains why so many over the hill fighters can keep getting matches -- they're bad, but not appreciably worse than the no-name younger guys).

Finally -- MMA does have a potentially-deeper source of talent, in that many middle class parents who would not consider letting their kid box will be fine with letting him take up wrestling, Brazilian jiu jitsu, other martial arts. Even for poor black American kids, who historically often found boxing a potential way out of poverty, I'd say the focus is much more likely to be on basketball or football (which in any event are more accessible as your school will have teams, whereas you'd have to go out and find a gym or get recruited by Cus or the like to be a boxer).

A Monkey With a Gun

10-25-2010, 04:48 PM

With MMA, though . . . I was hooked the first time I saw a modern MMA bout. It's kinetic chess.Chess? I want to you to check out Gary Goodrow vs. Pedro Otavio- Cesar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8icoCU2AGs&feature=player_embedded#!)

The video begins with Goodrow complaining that he is not allowed to use his master strategy of biting and eye gouging. So the two fighters grab each other, fall to the ground, and hold each other in a loving embrace for 13 minutes. At that point, Goodrow employs his other master strategy: the ancient style of shove-my-foot-down-your-pants-and-strangle-your-junk-with-my-toes. I think it was originally developed by budhist monks.

I'm not sure which board game is homoerotic foot fetish crotch punishment (shoots and ladders maybe?), but I'm reasonably certain it ain't chess.

Cisco

10-25-2010, 05:14 PM

Chess? I want to you to check out Gary Goodrow vs. Pedro Otavio- Cesar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8icoCU2AGs&feature=player_embedded#!)

The video begins with Goodrow complaining that he is not allowed to use his master strategy of biting and eye gouging. So the two fighters grab each other, fall to the ground, and hold each other in a loving embrace for 13 minutes. At that point, Goodrow employs his other master strategy: the ancient style of shove-my-foot-down-your-pants-and-strangle-your-junk-with-my-toes. I think it was originally developed by budhist monks.

I'm not sure which board game is homoerotic foot fetish crotch punishment (shoots and ladders maybe?), but I'm reasonably certain it ain't chess.

I commented on modern MMA, which really came into existence sometime between 2000 - 2005 in the United States and Japan, and you reply with a Vale Tudo fight that took place in Brazil in 1997.

Even if I gave you a point for that under Calvinball rules, I could provide about 10 gajillion ripostes, so . . . what's your point? Disgruntled boxing fan?

misterW

10-25-2010, 06:21 PM

I have always been a boxing fan . The heavyweights used to be interesting, but mismatches abound nowadays. But lighter divisions are still very good.
MMA does not compare. One grab of a leg and it is a slow and boring end. The fights are often big mismatches and a guy who brags like a professional wrestler gets his horn honked in 2 minutes or less. Hold a guy down defenseless and pound him in the face until the ref decides he has had enough. It is ugly. It is bottom basement sport.

This is a prime example of why MMA will never reach the heights of popularity that were initially predicted by its meteoric rise -- the ignorance of the casual fan (see above) is a HUGE obstacle. The casual fan likes haymakers, knockouts, and blood; fighters being blasted by head kicks; and occasionally (so long as it takes no longer than 30 seconds of grappling to execute) an exciting submission. The problem is that as fighters become more and more skilled and evenly matched, these sort of things do not happen often enough to hold the the short attention span of this type of fan.

If you are knowledgeable about jiu-jitsu and wrestling, a tactical ground battle is intensely interesting, even if there is no culminating submission. If you are knowledgeable about kickboxing or Muy Thai, watching how the fighters manage distance and choose their angles is fascinating, even without a knockout. But how many fans are this knowledgeable? Most fans are ignorant of the technical aspects of fighting -- they just want to see wild bloody brawls.

As a result, there is a constant pressure on fighters to be exciting, even if it jeopardizes there chances of winning the fight. Talented and successful fighters with a reputation for being boring are less likely to receive title shots or see action on the main card. Georges St. Pierre, arguably the best pound for pound fighter in the sport, has been criticized for his cerebral game plans and reluctance to engage in slugfests. Even the rules of the sport are bent as referees are encouraged to stand fighters back up if the grappling action is lasting too long for the attention span of the drunken buffoons in the audience.

I think MMA is reaching the end of its initial explosion in popularity. Now that the fad is wearing off, casual fans are realizing that most fights do not end in highlight reel knockouts and are losing interest. While as a result of the spread of MMA based gyms and clubs, MMA has enough knowledgeable fans to sustain its existence, I cannot see MMA's popularity ever eclipsing that of the traditional sports -- football, basketball, etc.

A Monkey With a Gun

10-25-2010, 06:37 PM

I commented on modern MMA, which really came into existence sometime between 2000 - 2005 in the United States and Japan, and you reply with a Vale Tudo fight that took place in Brazil in 1997. OK fine. If a mere 13 years ago is ancient history to you*, I'll link to Nobuhika Takada VS Mike Bernardo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22wYrVmj4Tk&feature=player_embedded#!) from 2005. That's in your time frame.

This fight should perfectly illustrate why your beloved sport is boring as hell. It was the most pathetic display of fighting "strategy" I have ever seen. Strategy and skill, my ass. My four year old nieces have better dust - ups.

To further bring home how lame your sport is, I want you to listen to the music the arena is playing during the fight. It's pretty standard stuff up until the eight minute mark when they play... wait for it... Barbie Girl. I can't make that shit up.

I'm a Barbie girl in the Barbie world
Life in plastic, it's fantastic
You can brush my hair, undress me everywhere
Imagination, life is your creation

*Ah, I remember the dark and ancient times that were the late nineties. Thank God change would be just around with updated MMA rules and the historic creation of the XFL. I ask you, where would modern sports be without those?

misterW

10-25-2010, 06:45 PM

I never even considered watching another boxing match after Tyson/Holyfield in '97. It's ambien to me.

With MMA, though . . . I was hooked the first time I saw a modern MMA bout. It's kinetic chess. Boxing is checkers at best.

I enjoy MMA more, but I like watching the individual sports that comprise it as well. Its interesting to see how different rule sets allow a whole range of additional techniques to develop, and it is especially interesting to see how many of these techniques that could only be developed in a sport situation (such as western boxing, or sport jiu-jitsu) with these rules eventually make their way to MMA. For example, spinning kicks and front kicks are becoming more common in MMA after never being thought practical in the early days of MMA.

Cisco

10-25-2010, 06:55 PM

OK fine. If a mere 13 years ago is ancient history to you*, I'll link to Nobuhika Takada VS Mike Bernardo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22wYrVmj4Tk&feature=player_embedded#!) from 2005. That's in your time frame.

This fight should perfectly illustrate why your beloved sport is boring as hell. It was the most pathetic display of fighting "strategy" I have ever seen. Strategy and skill, my ass. My four year old nieces have better dust - ups.

To further bring home how lame your sport is, I want you to listen to the music the arena is playing during the fight. It's pretty standard stuff up until the eight minute mark when they play... wait for it... Barbie Girl. I can't make that shit up.

I'm a Barbie girl in the Barbie world
Life in plastic, it's fantastic
You can brush my hair, undress me everywhere
Imagination, life is your creation

*Ah, I remember the dark and ancient times that were the late nineties. Thank God change would be just around with updated MMA rules and the historic creation of the XFL. I ask you, where would modern sports be without those?

Ah, so disgruntled boxing fan it is. MMA sucks because you can dig up a couple of crappy old fights that . . . feature . . . shitty . . . music . . .

Yeah, I can't see much future in our discussion of the topic.

misterW

10-25-2010, 06:58 PM

Snowboarder Bo

10-25-2010, 07:02 PM

kevja

10-25-2010, 07:26 PM

MMA=WWE

Boxing just needs a real star. To paraphrase the late great Jim Murray -- All boxing needs is someone with half the talent and one fourth the flair of Muhammad Ali and it will be back! In a big way.

misterW

10-25-2010, 07:56 PM

MMA=WWE

Why? Can you elaborate?

Miltonyz

10-25-2010, 08:09 PM

This fight should perfectly illustrate why your beloved sport is boring as hell. It was the most pathetic display of fighting "strategy" I have ever seen. Strategy and skill, my ass. My four year old nieces have better dust - ups.

You can youtube some bad MMA fights. Boxing also has boring fights and lots of them.

As for the lack of strategy, simply because you don't understand the strategy doesn't mean it is not there. Modern MMA is filled with elite college wrestlers, and some who have wrestled at the Olympic level. There are also World jujitsu champs and world class Judo practitioners.

A Monkey With a Gun

10-25-2010, 08:58 PM

As for the lack of strategy, simply because you don't understand the strategy doesn't mean it is not there. Oh, I understand the strategy. It's been years, but I wrestled in High School and made third in state. I know exactly what Ortiz is doing when he lays and prays. I thought it amusing when StusBlus claimed that only boxers clinch. What the hell is a lay and pray, then? It's trying to keep anything from happening until time expires.

But the strategy I find the most ridiculous is what I like to call "the kitten". You see this when a fighter has nothing but a ground game. He flops over on his back with his limbs in the air like a stranded turtle. He'll throw ineffective kicks from this position, but really he's just refusing to get up and hoping the other fighter will come down to him. He knows if he does get up he'll get his ass kicked so he stays on the ground. What kind of lame fighting sport do you have when laying on your back is a valid strategy? Boring as hell. That ain't chess no matter how much y'all want it to be.

Here's the kitten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bmhjf0rKe8), and here is Frank Shamrock teaching the kitten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdj3Zo9H8qw). He doesn't call it the kitten though.

Cisco

10-25-2010, 10:00 PM

Here's the kitten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bmhjf0rKe8), and here is Frank Shamrock teaching the kitten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdj3Zo9H8qw). He doesn't call it the kitten though.
Wow. A guy who has been irrelevant for a decade teaching a technique that will get you a point deducted. That's your evidence that MMA sucks. I've always liked your hair, Mr. King.

Cyberhwk

10-26-2010, 12:37 AM

This is a prime example of why MMA will never reach the heights of popularity that were initially predicted by its meteoric rise -- the ignorance of the casual fan (see above) is a HUGE obstacle. The casual fan likes haymakers, knockouts, and blood; fighters being blasted by head kicks; and occasionally (so long as it takes no longer than 30 seconds of grappling to execute) an exciting submission. The problem is that as fighters become more and more skilled and evenly matched, these sort of things do not happen often enough to hold the the short attention span of this type of fan.

If you are knowledgeable about jiu-jitsu and wrestling, a tactical ground battle is intensely interesting, even if there is no culminating submission. If you are knowledgeable about kickboxing or Muy Thai, watching how the fighters manage distance and choose their angles is fascinating, even without a knockout. But how many fans are this knowledgeable? Most fans are ignorant of the technical aspects of fighting -- they just want to see wild bloody brawls.

As a result, there is a constant pressure on fighters to be exciting, even if it jeopardizes there chances of winning the fight. Talented and successful fighters with a reputation for being boring are less likely to receive title shots or see action on the main card. Georges St. Pierre, arguably the best pound for pound fighter in the sport, has been criticized for his cerebral game plans and reluctance to engage in slugfests. Even the rules of the sport are bent as referees are encouraged to stand fighters back up if the grappling action is lasting too long for the attention span of the drunken buffoons in the audience.

I think MMA is reaching the end of its initial explosion in popularity. Now that the fad is wearing off, casual fans are realizing that most fights do not end in highlight reel knockouts and are losing interest. While as a result of the spread of MMA based gyms and clubs, MMA has enough knowledgeable fans to sustain its existence, I cannot see MMA's popularity ever eclipsing that of the traditional sports -- football, basketball, etc.Quoted in it's entirety for it's complete truth.

Just last night I was watching a re-run of Penn-St. Pierre II and on one of the under cards Joe Rogan commented that, "This sport has come a long way. The crowd just cheered when he got back to guard." In fact, Joe had just completely missed a right hand that connected. Fans don't give a shit about the guard. They were just happy a punch was thrown. :rolleyes:

It never ceases to amaze me how some fans consider the ground game boring, but fighters circling endlessly throwing half-hearted punches that wouldn't have a chance in hell of ever delivering a KO completely awesome. You don't see brawlers like Cabbage anymore because they got so completely destroyed by better all-around fighters. And I don' think that trend is going to stop and we're going to see pure strikers even less. Fortunately, I'll take an opening second clinch/takedown any day.

A Monkey With a Gun

10-26-2010, 01:29 AM

It never ceases to amaze me how some fans consider the ground game boring, but fighters circling endlessly throwing half-hearted punches that wouldn't have a chance in hell of ever delivering a KO completely awesome. As I said in my last post, I used to wrestle. And I find the ground game boring. There is still too little movement. Fighters still use variations of the kitten and the lay and pray. I'd rather watch the olympic wrestling, or at least a college judo match. Those are good, but if the mma thing is ever going to work it's got a long way to go.

To my knowledge, I am the only one that has called that particular tactic "the kitten", but I want all MMA fans in this thread to think "Oh, crap. That's "the kitten" next time you see it in a match.

Snowboarder Bo

10-26-2010, 01:30 AM

Here's the kitten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bmhjf0rKe8), and here is Frank Shamrock teaching the kitten (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdj3Zo9H8qw). He doesn't call it the kitten though.

Good, because I have it on some authority that that move is actually known as the Quad Mitten Defense (http://giveupinternet.com/2010/02/24/the-many-standard-linney-formations-cats-comic/).

misterW

10-26-2010, 09:17 AM

As I said in my last post, I used to wrestle. And I find the ground game boring.

You keep bringing up the fact that you wrestled in high school, as if it demonstrates that you have some kind of technical understanding of modern MMA grappling. In fact it is mostly irrelevant once both fighters are on the mat. At this point, the fighters enter the world of jiu-jitsu. Positions here are very different from what you encounter in wrestling, as the man on the bottom seeks to face his opponent (in most cases), rather than regain his base on all fours and return to his feet as in wrestling.

Now, I would expect that your wrestling experience WOULD make you appreciate the various takedowns that are utilized in MMA, and this seems consistent with your posts, as you stated that you also enjoy watching olympic wrestling (takedown based) or judo (almost entirely takedowns).

Again, what we have here (as described in post #20) is an example of what prevents MMA from being more popular -- the ignorance (and unwillingness to learn) of the casual fan of the techniques involved in modern MMA. I'm not sure how knowledgeable you are of the technical aspects of striking, but you no doubt (as most people do) appreciate a good slugfest. You are knowledgeable about wrestling, so you appreciate takedowns. But you do not understand what is going on on the ground, so when the fight enters this phase, you quickly grow bored.

Like you, I wrestled, so I always had an appreciation for MMA takedowns. Although I was not as turned off as you seem to be by the grappling aspect of the sport, I will say that when I began doing jiu-jitsu, my enjoyment of watching MMA increased 10-fold. I realized that the sometimes long intervals between takedowns and submissions were filled with techniques -- hundreds of battles over minor positional advantages that would end up being crucial to the outcome. It really is a chess match.

The thing is, you don't have to have actual experience in Muy Thai, Boxing, Wrestling, and Jiu-Jitsu to enjoy MMA. But you do have to have an open mind. You have to realize that your idea of what a fight should look like -- two tough guys slugging it out old west style -- is not necessarily what a fight will look like when the two fighters have attained a high level of skill.

To illustrate, check out one of my favorite fights: Shinya Aoki vs. Eddie Alvarez (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awh8P4HW3Kk). Here we have a slightly built Japanese fighter who might be mistaken for an accountant (were it not for his cauliflower ears) who ends up at one point pursuing Alvarez (a wrestler/boxer with a reputation for engaging in slugfests) around the ring ON HIS BUTT. Aoki is simply that good on the ground that Alvarez thought it best not engage on his terms. It is funny, but it is also awesome -- it completely destroys one's model of what a fight should look like, and it is a very exciting fight between two skilled fighters. Check it out.

misterW

10-26-2010, 09:23 AM

Quoted in it's entirety for it's complete truth.

Just last night I was watching a re-run of Penn-St. Pierre II and on one of the under cards Joe Rogan commented that, "This sport has come a long way. The crowd just cheered when he got back to guard." In fact, Joe had just completely missed a right hand that connected. Fans don't give a shit about the guard. They were just happy a punch was thrown. :rolleyes:

It never ceases to amaze me how some fans consider the ground game boring, but fighters circling endlessly throwing half-hearted punches that wouldn't have a chance in hell of ever delivering a KO completely awesome. You don't see brawlers like Cabbage anymore because they got so completely destroyed by better all-around fighters. And I don' think that trend is going to stop and we're going to see pure strikers even less. Fortunately, I'll take an opening second clinch/takedown any day.

And the worst thing is when you actually see fighters cave in. Nothing annoys me more than seeing a jiu-jitsu black belt (ie Jorge Gurgel or most recently and sadly, Matt Serra) forsake his years of training and engage in some half-assed kickboxing match in an effort to please the fans and retain his appeal to the UFC.

A Monkey With a Gun

10-26-2010, 10:13 AM

But you do not understand what is going on on the ground.Will you people just quit it. The "but you don't understand! It's chess!" defense is what dragged me into this thing to begin with. I am not a big fan of boxing, and I don't really have a bug up my ass about the MMA, but the pretension of most MMA fans who continuosly claim that they are the only ones who understand it is annoying. Y'all are not the keepers of some arcane combat knowledge. It takes a shit load of training for a fighter to be good, and it uses far more technique than a bar brawl, but come on. The sport is not that complicated. Get over yourselves.

I do understand it. I do find it boring.

pravnik

10-26-2010, 11:00 AM

Besides, I've played chess! It's not all that complicated either!

StusBlues

10-26-2010, 11:33 AM

Oh, I understand the strategy. It's been years, but I wrestled in High School and made third in state. I know exactly what Ortiz is doing when he lays and prays. I thought it amusing when StusBlus claimed that only boxers clinch. What the hell is a lay and pray, then? It's trying to keep anything from happening until time expires.

It's a stall, sure, but it's a stall dependent on the top guy's ability to take his opponent down and keep him there. Comparing it to the clinch James Smith used in his fight with Tyson isn't honest--by the rules of boxing, there wasn't much Tyson could do about it. If you've got good jiujitsu, you can effectively counter the lay and pray.

Telemark

10-26-2010, 11:42 AM

It's time for some real Chess Boxing (http://www.chessboxing.com/)

misterW

10-26-2010, 01:19 PM

Will you people just quit it. The "but you don't understand! It's chess!" defense is what dragged me into this thing to begin with.

I do understand it. I do find it boring.

I just don't understand how you are in a position to say that you understand it. It is like someone saying, "Wrestling is just two guys trying to throw one another to the ground and whoever is stronger is the one that wins. See, I understand it; it's just boring." I'm assuming you would disagree with this person's assessment of their knowledge of wrestling. Perhaps if they understood some of the techniques involved they might find it more interesting?

I will say that after a number of years of wrestling, in high school and college, I was blown away by the complexity of jiu-jitsu. I knew there was a huge amount of technique in wrestling, but it pales in comparison to jiu-jitsu. There are simply many more positions to master. And jiu-jitsu is but one part of MMA.

I also have had the experience of seeing things from your perspective. I tend to find uneventful striking focused fights to be somewhat boring. Why? Because I don't have the experience and knowledge to see what is going on. I remember commenting on how I found one such fight to be boring to my brother. My brother, who had been recently been taking some classes in boxing and Muy Thai was confused. "Didn't you notice how fighter A was always at the perfect distance -- either out of reach or inside the range of fighter B's power shots? Didn't you see the angles he was taking that prevented B from unloading on him? That's why there were no significant punches landing. It was amazing how he was doing that." Well, no, I hadn't noticed those things. Clearly, I had found it to be boring because I didn't have a clue what was going on.

This is not unique to combat sports. I'm sure I would be a hell of a lot more interested in football or soccer if I understood the intricacies of the offensive and defensive strategies involved.

it uses far more technique than a bar brawl, but come on. The sport is not that complicated.

Huge understatement. It IS that complicated. There is a reason why MMA tends to have older fighters that stick around at a high level for longer than other combat sports. Technique is very important and it takes a long time to bring one's skills to a high level in all the various disciplines.

Jack Batty

10-26-2010, 01:44 PM

Just go back to any thread from July regarding soccer. Substitute MMA. Same friggin' arguments.

StusBlues

10-26-2010, 02:04 PM

Just go back to any thread from July regarding soccer. Substitute MMA. Same friggin' arguments.

There's a point to be made there. I don't like English football, and there are a lot of World Cup fans who don't like baseball. It's a matter of taste. Affinity for sports is ultimately an aesthetic concern. For me, going back to watching boxing regularly would be like turning my nose up as a gourmet meal in favor of Burger King. MMA has such a rich depth of technique and variation that it's always challenging and mentally stimulating in addition to its visceral appeal. A fighter can grind out a decision with dominating wresting, knock a guy out with a punch after softening him up with low kicks, or end the fight by pulling out a submission--and this is just getting started. Boxing, to me, lacks the variety that we've come to love in the UFC.

A Monkey With a Gun

10-26-2010, 02:37 PM

Perhaps if they understood some of the techniques involved they might find it more interesting?Oh please. This broken record is beginning to make y'all sound like a bunch of Twilight fans who assume that just because someone doesn't like the books then they must not understand the inherent beauty and depth. It's a neat way to completely ignore criticisms by putting yourselves in an elitist group who sniff nobody understands!

Look, just as it is possible to understand the difference between Edward and whatever the werewolf guy's name is and still not like Twilight it is possible to understand the difference between Judo and Jiu-Jitso and not like MMA. Now quit whining like twelve year old girls and just accept the fact that not everybody finds the object of your affection as deep and awe inspiring as you do.

misterW

10-26-2010, 03:06 PM

Oh please. This broken record is beginning to make y'all sound like a bunch of Twilight fans who assume that just because someone doesn't like the books then they must not understand the inherent beauty and depth. It's a neat way to completely ignore criticisms by putting yourselves in an elitist group who sniff nobody understands!

I have addressed the criticisms you have brought up, but you're not giving me much to work with. Repeated complaints no more specific than "it is boring", supporting examples that are completely irrelevant to what one sees in modern MMA, complaints about the music that was playing at some event in Japan, making silly names for techniques.... these are the sort of criticisms that I tend to see in people who don't have a clue as to what is going on in the fight. The only thing missing is the suggestion that two men rolling around on the ground must be gay. I could be wrong....maybe you are just not expressing your criticisms well? Did you have any specific ones?

Look, just as it is possible to understand the difference between Edward and whatever the werewolf guy's name is and still not like Twilight it is possible to understand the difference between Judo and Jiu-Jitso and not like MMA.

Of course, there are all sorts of valid reasons to dislike MMA. It can be brutal. There are certainly some problems with rules and scoring that need to be addressed. One may simply not like combat sports. I have just found -- with any activity -- a high correlation between vague accusations of "boring" and a low level of understanding in the accuser.

misterW

10-26-2010, 03:46 PM

There's a point to be made there. I don't like English football, and there are a lot of World Cup fans who don't like baseball. It's a matter of taste. Affinity for sports is ultimately an aesthetic concern. For me, going back to watching boxing regularly would be like turning my nose up as a gourmet meal in favor of Burger King. MMA has such a rich depth of technique and variation that it's always challenging and mentally stimulating in addition to its visceral appeal. A fighter can grind out a decision with dominating wresting, knock a guy out with a punch after softening him up with low kicks, or end the fight by pulling out a submission--and this is just getting started. Boxing, to me, lacks the variety that we've come to love in the UFC.

This is how I feel as well. To me the best fights are ones that are back and forth between the feet and the ground. This is why I like watching George St. Pierre fight; his fights seem to have a good mix of the two.

Regarding your comment on the depth of technique and variation -- I wonder.... I am sure there is much more in MMA simply due to the variety of positions that will be encountered. On the other hand, each of the sub disciplines that make up MMA -- kickboxing, boxing, wrestling, jiu-jitsu, etc. -- have a range of techniques that aren't utilized in MMA. For example, sport jiu-jitsu has many positions that, while they may be useful in a jiu-jitsu tournament, would be very risky in an MMA match. Similarly, I remember a quote from a kickboxing coach that only 25% of the techniques in kickboxing are suitable for MMA. So I wonder if the disparity in variety of techniques is truly as much as one might initially think.

Cisco

10-26-2010, 04:02 PM

The only thing missing is the suggestion that two men rolling around on the ground must be gay.
What's all this then?
So the two fighters grab each other, fall to the ground, and hold each other in a loving embrace for 13 minutes.

I'm not sure which board game is homoerotic foot fetish crotch punishment (shoots and ladders maybe?), but I'm reasonably certain it ain't chess.

kevja

10-26-2010, 05:32 PM

Why? Can you elaborate?

I enjoy MMA and WWE. So it's not a knock. But I've heard that the MMA, while not scripting the outcome of the match, somestimes what you see in MMA is sometimes fought in a way that looks more violent that it is. Maybe some punch pulling, etc.

Yeah, I know, tell that to Brock Lesnar. But the blood in the WWE is real too.

As I said in my previous post, boxing just needs a big star. I mentioned Ali, but a Mike Tyson or a Sugar Ray Leonard would put boxing back on the sports map.

Cisco

10-26-2010, 06:22 PM

I enjoy MMA and WWE. So it's not a knock. But I've heard that the MMA, while not scripting the outcome of the match, somestimes what you see in MMA is sometimes fought in a way that looks more violent that it is. Maybe some punch pulling, etc.
Vegas takes bets on MMA fights, and I assure you that their lawyers would be all over something like that before the fat/drunk redneck who told you that would.

misterW

10-26-2010, 06:23 PM

What's all this then?

Ha, that is funny. Ah well, I don't suppose that was really going anywhere anyway; I can see why you bowed out a few posts ago.

Anyway, Cisco.... excited for Penn/Hughes III? I think that will be a great fight. Very strange situation with Penn in the lightweight division -- so completely dominant, and then there is just one guy (Edgar) that matches up in some strange way with him that gives him trouble. I think he may still be just as dominant over every one else in the division, and I'm not even convinced that he shouldn't be able to beat Edgar as well, if he would stick to a good game plan.

Snowboarder Bo

10-26-2010, 06:39 PM

Cisco

10-26-2010, 06:58 PM

Anyway, Cisco.... excited for Penn/Hughes III? I think that will be a great fight. Very strange situation with Penn in the lightweight division -- so completely dominant, and then there is just one guy (Edgar) that matches up in some strange way with him that gives him trouble. I think he may still be just as dominant over every one else in the division, and I'm not even convinced that he shouldn't be able to beat Edgar as well, if he would stick to a good game plan.

Actually, no.

Penn is a real conundrum. I was just telling a friend the other day that if nobody trained, Penn could probably kick anyone's ass on the planet. Unfortunately for him, everyone else trains.

The Edgar thing is weird. I think Penn's best performance ever, probably, was against Sanchez. I don't think this is any coincidence. He was his biggest threat at lightweight. By the time he fought Edgar, both the press and the fans were coming back around to calling him the best lightweight ever, top 3 pound for pound, and invincible in his own weightclass. He thought he had absolutely nothing to fear from Edgar, and probably didn't train much at all. I think he would've done much better against someone like Maynard (who will smash Edgar), whom he would've seen as at least somewhat of a threat.

The thing with Hughes, for me, is that it really has no implications. If BJ wins, people are just going to say he beat an over-the-hill wrestler who he should've beat in their second fight anyway. If Hughes pulls off another miracle, people are just going to say he beat the smaller guy. It's lose/lose.

I'd rather see Penn move his training camp to the mainland, get away from the yes-men, and rededicate himself to the lightweight division. He has no gastank above 155lbs.

misterW

10-26-2010, 07:03 PM

I have no dog in this fight.

I enjoy watching boxing about equally with watching MMA, and really only ever do watch them online, well after the fact. As such, I'm grateful for the links to fights in this thread, as it exposes me to more and more fights and fighters.

But I gotta tell ya, IMO, the pro-MMA side is way up on it's high horse. For example:

I watched that fight, and the most "exciting" thing about it was Shinya's ridiculous pants. :eek::confused:

I can explain what makes it exciting for me; if that doesn't help, well, to each his own.

Eddie Alvarez is arguably the #1 lightweight in the world right now. He is a bad ass.

Shinya Aoki is and has always been somewhat of a throwback in that he is a very one dimensional fighter. All he has is jiu-jitsu -- but what a wizard he is on the ground! His opponents all know this, and one would think this would make it very difficult for him to pull off submissions (how else is he going to win), but time and time again he finds a way, over top competition.

So there is always the thrill of "can Aoki pull off another one?" And here he did it again, after being thrown on his head and mounted, against Eddie Alvarez, no less. Seems exciting to me. And a very nice footlock he pulled off.

I also find it fascinating that you actually have a situation where one of the top professional fighters turns and runs from a man scooting towards him on his butt. He was not trying to be funny, and the reaction was appropriate -- such is the strength of Aoki's ground game. But who ever could have imagined that a fight between two elites would look like that?

misterW

10-26-2010, 07:12 PM

Actually, no.

Penn is a real conundrum. I was just telling a friend the other day that if nobody trained, Penn could probably kick anyone's ass on the planet. Unfortunately for him, everyone else trains.

Ha, that is probably true.

The Edgar thing is weird. I think Penn's best performance ever, probably, was against Sanchez. I don't think this is any coincidence. He was his biggest threat at lightweight. By the time he fought Edgar, both the press and the fans were coming back around to calling him the best lightweight ever, top 3 pound for pound, and invincible in his own weightclass. He thought he had absolutely nothing to fear from Edgar, and probably didn't train much at all. I think he would've done much better against someone like Maynard (who will smash Edgar), whom he would've seen as at least somewhat of a threat.

He definitely seemed unmotivated for the first Edgar fight. You would have thought for the second one, he would take him seriously, though.

I really hope Maynard does not beat Edgar. It does seem to be a bad matchup for Edgar, and Maynard has beaten him before, but I wouldn't count Edgar out. I think his boxing is superior and if he can just stay off the fence...who knows?

The thing with Hughes, for me, is that it really has no implications. If BJ wins, people are just going to say he beat an over-the-hill wrestler who he should've beat in their second fight anyway. If Hughes pulls off another miracle, people are just going to say he beat the smaller guy. It's lose/lose.

I don't know, I think BJ beating Hughes would still be impressive. People were quick to dismiss hughes, but he has looked good lately, and had a very impressive win over Almeida. That aside, I just think it will be an exciting fight -- the first two were exciting and I think the history will bring the best out of both.

Cisco

10-26-2010, 07:28 PM

He definitely seemed unmotivated for the first Edgar fight. You would have thought for the second one, he would take him seriously, though.I think BJ thought he won the first one (and I kind of do too), and that if he fought exactly the same fight, the judges would see it his way this time. Edgar fought a lot better the second time, though.

I really hope Maynard does not beat Edgar. It does seem to be a bad matchup for Edgar, and Maynard has beaten him before, but I wouldn't count Edgar out. I think his boxing is superior and if he can just stay off the fence...who knows?Anything's possible, but I can see a lot of ways for Maynard to win and not very many ways for Edgar to win. They're pretty similar except for Maynard's power, which I think will make all the difference [again].

I don't know, I think BJ beating Hughes would still be impressive. People were quick to dismiss hughes, but he has looked good lately, and had a very impressive win over Almeida. That aside, I just think it will be an exciting fight -- the first two were exciting and I think the history will bring the best out of both.
I agree it would be impressive, and Hughes looked amazing in the Almeida fight. Nobody could've predicted the farmaconda :D.

I have mixed feelings about Hughes. He really presents himself as an asshole, but I've met him and he's very personable one on one. I read his book, and, unlike a lot of fighters' books, I believed every word of it, because he made himself look like a raging asshole and no one would lie to do that.

I'd like to see both Hughes and Penn take another stab at the top of their respective weight divisions (as unlikely as that seems in Hughes' case, I wouldn't rule it out), than waste what could be one of their twilight fights scrapping with each other again.

misterW

10-26-2010, 07:55 PM

I think BJ thought he won the first one (and I kind of do too), and that if he fought exactly the same fight, the judges would see it his way this time. Edgar fought a lot better the second time, though.
It could be. It seemed the second time that Penn came out very aggressively in the first round and after he didn't dominate as expected, and in fact lost the round, he became demoralized. I have always thought that Penn needs to initiate takedowns more, especially against a smaller fighter like Edgar. For God's sake, he has the best top game in MMA, why not use it as much as possible?

The general consensus seems to be that Hughes is a real ass, at least in his personal life, but I will say that he has always seemed very classy in his post fight interviews.

I'd like to see both Hughes and Penn take another stab at the top of their respective weight divisions (as unlikely as that seems in Hughes' case, I wouldn't rule it out), than waste what could be one of their twilight fights scrapping with each other again.

I could certainly see Penn as champ again, especially if he switched camps. Hughes is still solidly in the top of his division, but I don't see him beating GSP, Koschek, or Fitch.

Cisco

10-26-2010, 08:47 PM

If Hughes were able to get past Koschek or Fitch (huge "if"), I could almost see him shocking GSP. Dude badly needs a real striking coach, though.

Cisco

10-26-2010, 09:00 PM

Actually, I'm not taking it for granted that Georges will beat Koschek and Shields. I know anything can happen.

misterW

10-26-2010, 09:32 PM

If Hughes were able to get past Koschek or Fitch (huge "if"), I could almost see him shocking GSP. Dude badly needs a real striking coach, though.

Well, anything can happen, but I think of Shields, Hughes, Fitch, and Koschek, Hughes is the biggest long shot. He was out-struck and knocked out in their second fight and simply destroyed in their third -- tossed around like a rag doll before being submitted.

I think Koschek is still the biggest threat. He has the best wrestling of the bunch and is capable of putting St. Pierre on his back, and he is capable of knocking out his opponents as well (ie see Dustin Hazlett and Yoshida). My money is on St. Pierre, and I think he is unarguably the better fighter, but it would not be terribly shocking if Koschek upset him.

Fitch is a great, well rounded fighter, but St. Pierre is better at each facet of the game. I think their second fight would resemble the first.

If Shields can take St. Pierre down, the fight becomes interesting, but that is a big if. I think it is just a poor match up for Shields. St. Pierre is very difficult to take down, would likely be able to get back to his feet when he is, and has much better standup than Shields.

I think if any of those fighters is going to upset him, it will be Koschek -- as much as I would hate to see that.

pravnik

10-26-2010, 10:23 PM

I enjoy MMA and WWE. So it's not a knock. But I've heard that the MMA, while not scripting the outcome of the match, somestimes what you see in MMA is sometimes fought in a way that looks more violent that it is. Maybe some punch pulling, etc.You may have heard that MMA looks more violent than it actually is, due to shorter fights than boxing, bloody but largely superficial cuts, etc., and that's largely true. However, it's absolutely false that what you're seeing somehow isn't entirely "real" or is "worked" in any way like a pro wrestling match.

Unlike professional wrestling, mixed martial arts is regulated by state laws and administrative codes governing combative sports, and overseen by state regulative agencies, etc., same as boxing. Those laws are enforced on promoters, managers, referees and combatants very, very strictly. A promoter or manager who attempted to tamper with either the mechanics or the outcome of a match in any way would be looking at the loss of his license and surety bond, suspension or banning, and possible civil or criminal penalities. Even if that weren't the case, there's no incentive for any fighter to "work" a fight and pull punches or "make it look more violent" somehow. The fighter's job is to win fights, and their fight record is their resume and career. Whether you find it fascinating or boring, MMA is a regulated and legitimate combat sport, not a worked show for the crowds.

Cisco

10-26-2010, 10:48 PM

Well, anything can happen, but I think of Shields, Hughes, Fitch, and Koschek, Hughes is the biggest long shot. He was out-struck and knocked out in their second fight and simply destroyed in their third -- tossed around like a rag doll before being submitted.

I think Koschek is still the biggest threat. He has the best wrestling of the bunch and is capable of putting St. Pierre on his back, and he is capable of knocking out his opponents as well (ie see Dustin Hazlett and Yoshida). My money is on St. Pierre, and I think he is unarguably the better fighter, but it would not be terribly shocking if Koschek upset him.

Fitch is a great, well rounded fighter, but St. Pierre is better at each facet of the game. I think their second fight would resemble the first.

If Shields can take St. Pierre down, the fight becomes interesting, but that is a big if. I think it is just a poor match up for Shields. St. Pierre is very difficult to take down, would likely be able to get back to his feet when he is, and has much better standup than Shields.

I think if any of those fighters is going to upset him, it will be Koschek -- as much as I would hate to see that.
I completely agree.

StusBlues

10-27-2010, 09:38 AM

Actually, no.

Penn is a real conundrum. I was just telling a friend the other day that if nobody trained, Penn could probably kick anyone's ass on the planet. Unfortunately for him, everyone else trains.

There is that, yes. Penn has a remarkable amount of raw talent and knows the game as well as any fighter out there, but he's always seemed to rest on his reputation instead of motivating himself to climb the next mountain. Dana books him into big fights and gives him the benefit of the doubt in scheduling rematches, then BJ shows up listless and unmotivated, pulling off a few great strikes and grappling techniques but rarely fighting hard the whole match. Unfortunately, the UFC is not an exhibition sport.

I think if any of those fighters is going to upset him, it will be Koschek -- as much as I would hate to see that.

Unfortunately, you're right. GSP has gravitated from a kickboxing style that incorporated some grappling into a ground-and-pound style that only incorporates kickboxing when absolutely necessary. He got away with it in Koschek I because Koschek didn't think GSP had the chutzpah to wrestle with an NCAA champ, so Kos kept looking for GSP's strikes and got his head handed to him on the ground. This time out, Kos is going to be looking for the takedown from the opening bell. Maybe we'll see GSP reinvent himself again as a Liddell-type sprawl-and-brawl type; he certainly has the tools to do it.

Cisco

10-27-2010, 12:32 PM

Unfortunately, you're right. GSP has gravitated from a kickboxing style that incorporated some grappling into a ground-and-pound style that only incorporates kickboxing when absolutely necessary. He got away with it in Koschek I because Koschek didn't think GSP had the chutzpah to wrestle with an NCAA champ, so Kos kept looking for GSP's strikes and got his head handed to him on the ground. This time out, Kos is going to be looking for the takedown from the opening bell. Maybe we'll see GSP reinvent himself again as a Liddell-type sprawl-and-brawl type; he certainly has the tools to do it.
This is a common misconception. GSP never really had a kickboxing style (his striking comes from kyokushin karate, not kickboxing). He's always been more of a grappler and ground and pound fighter. I think the misunderstanding originates from his coming out party in the 2nd Matt Hughes fight. He decided to stand up because: A) he got subbed the first time they fought, and B) my grandmother has better standup than Matt Hughes. Georges worked him over on the feet and then knocked him down with a head kick. That was the first time most casual fans really took notice of GSP, so they assume he's a striker.

As for him being the next Liddell . . . put it this way: at this point in his career, Liddell had 10 KOs. Georges has 0, which after 22 fights starts to raise the question of if he has KO power.

StusBlues

10-27-2010, 01:45 PM

Cisco

10-27-2010, 05:45 PM

Cisco, I use "kickboxing" to denote what you'd probably call standup, regardless of source discipline. GSP has a third-degree blackbelt in kyokushin karate, but most of the standup technique he used prior to UFC 74 looked more like muay thai.

I'm not sure how you're placing GSP as a grappler prior to the Koschek fight. He didn't start training extensively with wrestlers until after the first Hughes fight, and didn't get his black belt in BJJ until after the second Serra bout. Watch the first Penn fight at UFC 58--GSP clearly wants to make it a kickboxing match, and is very awkward at times on the ground, getting pushed off easily when he mounts Penn because of his poor mount position. He's grown tremendously as an all-around fighter since then.

To be fair, GSP did try his hand at submission grappling in Abu Dhabi in 2005. He won his first bout, then this happened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCLoV40jDKM).
I'm trying to figure out how you can make a case for him being a standup fighter at all, or what he ever did that looked like muay thai. The man has never won a fight on the feet. The reason Georges looks awkward in the first Penn fight is because Penn lit him up on the feet in round 1, and Penn is one of the best ground fighters in the world. Georges won that fight on takedowns, because he had a vastly superior gastank (in fact, a good argument can be made that he didn't win it at all, but that's another topic).

That he didn't get his BJJ blackbelt until beating Serra really says absolutely nothing about whether he's more of a ground fighter or a standup fighter. Legitimate BJJ blackbelts are notoriously hard to get (especially if you're not Brazillian), often taking well over a decade. I'm pretty sure - if I remember correctly - he had a blackbelt before that, and then started over and eventually went down to Brazil to do some really high level training before the Serra fight*. Oftentimes, a BJJ instructor will make you accomplish something tangible to get your blackbelt, so the Serra fight was sort of in the right place at the right time, especially because Serra had won their first bout and Georges was nervous about the rematch. For another example: Frank Mir had to beat Tim Sylvia to get his blackbelt, even though he was a very accomplished grappler for years before that fight.

*It's not unheard of for fighters to give up their blackbelts and start over; Diego Sanchez did this too, when he left Greg Jackson's camp.

Georges was asked to wrestle for the Canadian national team at the 2008 Olympics. I think he got the invite sometime in 2007. You don't get a call like that unless you are at an unbelievably high level of grappling.

Also, you kind of brush off the fact that he competed at Abu Dhabi in 2005, but ADCC is no joke. It is every bit as legit as the Olympics. Georges has a world class grappling pedigree, a long list of grappling credentials, and pretty much nothing outside of the 2nd Hughes fight to back up the notion that he's a striker.

misterW

10-27-2010, 08:46 PM

I would say GSP has always been a grappler with good standup for when he needs it. Check out the formula for his pre-UFC fights -- take down, ground and pound, submission. Regardless of when he got his blackbelt in the UFC, he was grappling pretty well before that. He was able to take down and beat Karo Parysian in his first UFC fight (no slouch on the ground), outgrapple Mayhem Miller (a blackbelt who was supposed to have the advantage on the ground), repeatedly take down and ground and pound Shawn Sherk (known for his wrestling), and take down and control BJ Penn on the ground in their first fight.

I will disagree with Cisco and say that he has shown the ability to win on his feet when he feels he has the advantage there -- aside from Hughes 2, he knocked out Jay Hieron in one of his early UFC fights, and spent a number of rounds successfully kickboxing Fitch, Alves, and Penn. The thing is GSP shows a strong tendency to play the odds -- if you can win on the ground, why take a chance with letting a lucky shot hit you on the feet?

As for the 2005 ADCC performance, StusBlus does not mention that the guy he beat in the first round was Otto Olsen, ADCC 2003 runnerup and NCAA wrestling champ who at one point defeated Koscheck in wrestling.

Cisco

10-27-2010, 08:59 PM

I will disagree with Cisco and say that he has shown the ability to win on his feet when he feels he has the advantage there -- aside from Hughes 2, he knocked out Jay Hieron in one of his early UFC fights, and spent a number of rounds successfully kickboxing Fitch, Alves, and Penn. The thing is GSP shows a strong tendency to play the odds -- if you can win on the ground, why take a chance with letting a lucky shot hit you on the feet?
I'm not saying he sucks standing up, and I don't think I said he can't win a fight on the feet-- I just said he has never knocked anybody out standing. I almost mentioned the Hieron fight, because that is the closest thing I can think of to a standup victory for Georges, but it was still a ground-and-pound stoppage. My original point was that he's no Chuck Liddell on the feet by any stretch of the imagination, and that's not a knock-- as an overall fighter, he's better than Chuck.

misterW

10-27-2010, 09:10 PM

I'm not saying he sucks standing up, and I don't think I said he can't win a fight on the feet-- I just said he has never knocked anybody out standing. I almost mentioned the Hieron fight, because that is the closest thing I can think of to a standup victory for Georges, but it was still a ground-and-pound stoppage. My original point was that he's no Chuck Liddell on the feet by any stretch of the imagination, and that's not a knock-- as an overall fighter, he's better than Chuck.

If memory serves correctly, I think Hieron was all on the feet, but I agree with your overall point -- at least in this stage of his career, he doesn't seem to have 1 punch knockout power.

Cisco

10-27-2010, 09:26 PM

Georges St. Pierre Vs. Jay Hieron (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=29771726)

misterW

10-27-2010, 09:42 PM

Georges St. Pierre Vs. Jay Hieron (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=29771726)

He knocked him down with a punch and finished him with punches on the ground. I wouldn't call that ground and pound since GSP didn't shoot in and take him down. That seems the defining criteria between a grappling based victory by strikes and a striking based one.

Cisco

10-27-2010, 09:50 PM

Autolycus

10-28-2010, 10:29 AM

Cisco

10-28-2010, 11:14 AM

With that said, as an American living in Japan (which means probably no PPV access), which fight should I look forward to and how should I look forward to seeing it?
Check out Dream FC (http://www.dreamofficial.com/).

StusBlues

10-28-2010, 01:03 PM

Fair enough, but it was still ended by strikes on the ground, not the feet. My point was that Chuck's claim to fame was devastating power in his strikes. Georges' is speed, accuracy, grappling ability . . . hell, pretty much everything but devastating power in his strikes ;).

Well, then it would be a pretty drastic reinvention, wouldn't it?

Hey, Wilt Chamberlain led the NBA in assists once....

misterW

10-28-2010, 05:21 PM

misterW

10-28-2010, 05:27 PM

OK I skimmed this thread and the arguments won me over into accepting MMA as a real sport. I'm a middle-of-the-road karate practitioner, I always root for the amazing strikers.

With that said, as an American living in Japan (which means probably no PPV access), which fight should I look forward to and how should I look forward to seeing it?

What you might really like is watching some of the career compilations that have been put together of some of the great fighters. Since you like striking, you should check out Anderson Silva, Chuck Liddell, or Wanderlei Silva. You can download these compilations from a number of sites. I don't know, is pointing out some MMA file sharing web sites against the rules on this message board?

Cisco

10-28-2010, 05:51 PM

What you might really like is watching some of the career compilations that have been put together of some of the great fighters. Since you like striking, you should check out Anderson Silva, Chuck Liddell, or Wanderlei Silva.
+ Cro Cop.

misterW

10-28-2010, 08:34 PM

+ Cro Cop.

Good call. Might want to skip the UFC years. : )

Cisco

10-28-2010, 09:00 PM

Good call. Might want to skip the UFC years. : )
The huh? Cro Cop has never fought in the UFC.

misterW

10-28-2010, 09:13 PM

The huh? Cro Cop has never fought in the UFC.

That is a good way to deal with it -- the Memento/Shutter island approach! You are correct of course; I must have misspoke. Cro crop happily retired after winning the Grand Prix.

misterW

10-28-2010, 09:14 PM

And he certainly never fought Frank Mir. : )

Cisco

10-28-2010, 09:34 PM

I must have misspoke. Cro crop happily retired after winning the Grand Prix.
It was great, huh? I have no doubt he could've kept stomping mudholes in people's asses for a few more years, but he just didn't have anything left to prove.

Cyberhwk

10-29-2010, 01:57 AM

And he certainly never fought Frank Mir. : )
Or Gabriel Gonzaga (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbsz_hpv1I)! :eek: <---- Not for the squeemish, then again if you were squeemish, what are you doing in an MMA thread?

Check out Dream FC (http://www.dreamofficial.com/).
Wow! I was surprised to still see Sakuraba in the lineup so I Wikied him. He's a full 6 years younger than Randy Couture.

Cisco

10-29-2010, 02:08 AM

Wow! I was surprised to still see Sakuraba in the lineup so I Wikied him. He's a full 6 years younger than Randy Couture.
Saku is actually a year older than Couture. He aged 7 years the night he fought Arona.

gonzomax

10-29-2010, 02:15 PM

I was watching some MMA fights last night. They were leg grabbing boredom. Guys stand around and make a good fight a bore by rolling om the floor until they get a hold on a leg .

vdgg81

10-29-2010, 04:37 PM

Snowboarder Bo

10-29-2010, 06:32 PM

I just got home and finished today's paper, and came in to ask the same, thing, vdgg. This is HUGE news here in Las Vegas. Frankly, I can't see how it could be a bad thing. It just makes sense to consolidate all the fighters under one (very recognizable, profitable) banner, IMO.

misterW

10-29-2010, 11:21 PM

Great thread! I've been wanting to start a thread on mma for awhile now, but kept putting it off.

Have you guys heard of the WEC/UFC merger? I think it's the greatest thing to happen to the UFC in a long time. The WEC was tied with Pride in my mind as the promotion with the most exciting fights and was pulling ahead and I couldn't understand how it got such little audience when it was basically for free. Now everybody will get to know the little guys, they'll get paid more and José Aldo will be recognized as the most exciting fighter alive.

It definitely makes sense to add the lighter weight classes to the UFC -- the WEC 35 and 45 pounders are tops in the world. I just wonder what happens to the duplicate weight classes now. The WEC had kind of served as a developmental league in that respect.

misterW

10-29-2010, 11:23 PM

I was watching some MMA fights last night. They were leg grabbing boredom. Guys stand around and make a good fight a bore by rolling om the floor until they get a hold on a leg .

If you don't like the grappling aspect, MMA is definitely not for you. Since grappling is such an effective part of actual fighting, you'll see a lot of it in MMA.

Cardinal

10-30-2010, 01:59 PM

Hold a guy down defenseless and pound him in the face until the ref decides he has had enough. It is ugly. It is bottom basement sport.What's truly ugly is taking a guy who just got nearly knocked out, counting to 8, and sending back in with the mental abilities now of a 10 year old. That's mean. After seeing the MMA rules, I truly do not understand how someone who couldn't stand for 8 seconds is judged to be able to get back into a punching match.

gonzomax

10-30-2010, 04:14 PM

How much blood do you need? Boxing is still a sport. MMA is a hyped bar fight.

Measure for Measure

10-30-2010, 04:30 PM

It's possible that MMA is safer than boxing, where the pounding to the head is relentless. [1] Hold a guy down defenseless and pound him in the face until the ref decides he has had enough. It is ugly. It is bottom basement sport. It is ugly. But I'll note that participants are not permitted to pound the head to the mat: they deliver roundhouse punches for a reason.

[1] There's an oft-quoted study that downplays the risks of MMA. It's a decent study, but its conclusions tend to be exaggerated in the media. For example, the authors stress that their dataset is wholly based upon post-fight medical exams. IMHO, combat sports should be under stricter regulations: there should be mandatory long term health tracking. And to the extent that the tax payer will be paying the fighters' medical bills later on, this form of entertainment should be heavily taxed.

I denounce all combat sports. I also watch them on occasion with a high level of interest.

gonzomax

10-30-2010, 05:04 PM

I am a pacifist and I have trouble reconciling my interest in boxing.

misterW

10-30-2010, 06:51 PM

Hold a guy down defenseless and pound him in the face until the ref decides he has had enough. It is ugly. It is bottom basement sport.

Your first misunderstanding is evident in your use of the word "defenseless". Although it may seem counterintuitive, having somebody you are fighting on top of you while on the ground is not necessarily a bad place to be if you know what you are doing. At one point in time, before wrestlers and strikers learned to defend submissions more effectively, a jiu-jitsu expert might see such a position as clearly advantageous. Even now there are some fighters who are so good at grappling from the bottom that they will purposely put themselves in such a position. And even being on the bottom for most fighters these days is seen as a temporary disadvantage rather than as the end of the fight.

Your second misunderstanding is the idea that it is somehow more dangerous to be struck on the ground as opposed to say, against the ropes of a ring. The difference is that in MMA, if the man being struck looks like he is no longer mounting an intelligent defense, the ref stops the fight. In boxing, that is much more unlikely. In fact, as a poster noted above, rather than end the fight, the losing fighter in boxing is often given a brief recovery period, which often serves only to prolong the beating.

gonzomax

10-30-2010, 09:05 PM

misterW

10-30-2010, 09:53 PM

I made no claim about a guy on the ropes. None at all. I said holding a guy down and beating him in the face when he is unable to defend himself is cruel, ugly and base. I do not see it as something i would watch . I have watched several times and it does not appeal to me. It is artless .

Well, I already noted that I disputed the "unable to defend himself" part. If a fighter is skilled enough, he can win the whole fight from that position.

I am also curious: if you want to win a fight by punching a guy in the face (MMA or boxing), why is it any more or less cruel, ugly, and base to do it by (a) punching him in the stomach so that he is unable to defend his face, or (b) outmaneuvering him in grappling so that one has openings to punch his face?

They seem to me simply different means to achieve the same end (although it should be noted that in MMA there is a fair chance that once the opponent is outmanoeuvred in grappling, there may be no need to punch him in the face at all).

Again, I think the dislike stems from an outdated notion of what a fight should look like, which is only a result of the lack of exposure to grappling arts through much of our history in this country.

Chicagojeff

10-31-2010, 06:12 PM

I made no claim about a guy on the ropes. None at all. I said holding a guy down and beating him in the face when he is unable to defend himself is cruel, ugly and base. I do not see it as something i would watch . I have watched several times and it does not appeal to me. It is artless .

Well.. i consider art Diego "Nightmare" Sanchez versus Paulo Thiago it was on the card with the Lesnar cain match.. that fight was everything that MMA is about. The moves.. the cardio.. the never give up will that both guys put out their. Fighting about boxing versus MMA is pointless.. as long as the main guy in Boxing carrying the banner is that asshole Floyd Mayweather you lose.. as long as those boring ass Klitcho brothers carry the heavyweight banner.. you lose. They suck so bad i refuse to google them to properly spell their name. I've watched both fight too many times to remember.. call me when you get some guys worth watching..

gonzomax

10-31-2010, 06:30 PM

I am not defending the present boxers. The heavy weights have been bad for a long time. When Hearns, Hagler and Sugar Ray were fighting, boxing was great sport. There have been some great fights in lighter and middleweight classes.
Boxing managers found out they could make their fighters careers last longer and be more lucrative by picking fighters they could beat. So the last decade or so there are mismatches in championship fights. But that does not mean it will be that way forever.

davidw

10-31-2010, 06:33 PM

I've watched both fight too many times to remember.. call me when you get some guys worth watching..

Nov. 20, Paul Williams vs. Sergio Martinez rematch. Guaranteed to be a great fight.

StusBlues

11-01-2010, 08:33 AM

It definitely makes sense to add the lighter weight classes to the UFC -- the WEC 35 and 45 pounders are tops in the world. I just wonder what happens to the duplicate weight classes now. The WEC had kind of served as a developmental league in that respect.

Unification bouts, like when UFC bought Pride. These have a lot of potential, especially with UFC's 155 division being kind of stressed right now. Time for some new blood.

misterW

11-01-2010, 08:57 AM

Unification bouts, like when UFC bought Pride. These have a lot of potential, especially with UFC's 155 division being kind of stressed right now. Time for some new blood.

It will be interesting to see how fighters like Don Cerrone do in the UFC. He's an exciting fighter with some great striking and jiu-jitsu and with the right matchups, he could give some top quality guys problems. The thng is, I'm not sure how great he is against wrestler types, and the UFC is full of them. If Ben Henderson gives him problems, how will he handle Griffin, Edgar, Maynard, etc.?

GargoyleWB

11-01-2010, 10:54 AM

If you don't like the grappling aspect, MMA is definitely not for you. Since grappling is such an effective part of actual fighting, you'll see a lot of it in MMA.

Agreed. I enjoy MMA matches in general, but there is a vast spectrum of potential interesting matches and matchups and, like boxing, there are a lot of humdrum matches to sift through to find the real quality bouts.

The rule changes of recent years have moved matches to more of a multi-skilled contest where you see a good mix of stand up striking vs takedowns, and decisive victories instead of marathon endurance struggles. Early UFC & MMA were heavily biased toward grappling and had a greater proportion of long drawn-out grapple snoozefests IMO.

The present state is most interesting to me from a viewer who enjoys a tactical contest where either focus (grapple vs strike) can trump the other.

StusBlues

11-01-2010, 03:28 PM

It will be interesting to see how fighters like Don Cerrone do in the UFC. He's an exciting fighter with some great striking and jiu-jitsu and with the right matchups, he could give some top quality guys problems. The thng is, I'm not sure how great he is against wrestler types, and the UFC is full of them. If Ben Henderson gives him problems, how will he handle Griffin, Edgar, Maynard, etc.?

Interesting is the word for it. Everyone Cerrone has fought in WEC seems to be a standup-first type of fighter. I don't see any NCAA-level opponents on his resume.

Not sure what I can add objectively here. Lightweight isn't as strong a division in WEC since Zuffa tends to channel their best 155ers to the UFC. That said, the WEC LW champion (the winner of the Henderson/Anthony Pettis bout) is slated to face the winner of the upcoming Frankie Edgar/Gray Maynard fight for, I presume, unification of the UFC and WEC belts.

misterW

11-01-2010, 07:04 PM

Interesting is the word for it. Everyone Cerrone has fought in WEC seems to be a standup-first type of fighter. I don't see any NCAA-level opponents on his resume.

Not sure what I can add objectively here. Lightweight isn't as strong a division in WEC since Zuffa tends to cha

Yeah, Henderson and Varner were both wrestlers, but I don't think of the same calibre as the UFC guys.

Idee

11-01-2010, 08:03 PM

I grew up watching boxing and then I met UFC and I haven`t watched a boxing match since.

vdgg81

11-11-2010, 04:04 PM

So, WEC 52 is on in just a few hours, you guys excited? For those who don't know, it airs at 9 p.m. on Versus in the US.

I'm having a couple of friends over to watch it with me. Neither is a great fan of mma but the little guys are so exciting to watch that both of them have come over here for every WEC since I introduced them to it. Ironically, I have another friend that's a huge fan of the sport but can't be bothered to watch the lighter weight classes, so he just records the events for later when he's got nothing else to watch. It's a pity, but I guess it's because so many people are like him that this is the penultimate event from the promotion. I think the merger with the UFC is great both for the UFC and the fighters, but I'll miss the WEC when it's gone next year.