gnasher16 30,121 Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 Well if you meant what was peoples favorites you should have said....but you asked who would win !...well my logic tells me a boxer would win a boxing match and an mma fighter would win an mma fight....just like a tennis player might win a tennis match and and a cricketer zzzzzzzzzz....see what i mean,theres no logic to the question..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 26,217 Posted June 21, 2008 Report Share Posted June 21, 2008 Yes but it defeats the whole object of the sport.....as the chap above says,the origins of mma was vale tudo......ufc 1 to about 7 was it i cant remember....were real fights,as close to what anyone could call " a real fight "...that was its design.....but it was banned in most states in america because it was too violent !!....the many rules since have been brought in by the ufc backing down to society and tv companies.......as you saidthere was 2 rules thats all....now thats a fight.....yes timed rounds make sense......but the amount of things you now cant do in a fight stop it from being a " real fight " which is what the original idea of the sport was.........just as a quick example...and i hate to drop names......but a dutch chap i used to know actually beat randy couture back in the late 90,s when randy was a lot younger and at the top of his game.....this was vale tudo.....he admitted he probably wouldnt have beaten him in a ufc contest but vale tudo was very close to a real fight hence he beat him........the sport today certainly isnt what they tried to bill it as in the early 90,s...and it WAS for monetary reasons not safety......still a very exciting sport though....but i dont believe it will ever have the tradition/money/fame etc of boxing.As for a boxer or mma fighter winning a street fight .....pointless argument. sorry gnasher maybe i titled this thread wrong, i didnt mean ufc as an organisation against boxing...... i simply meant an MMA fighter against a boxer!!! for arguements sake, silva in a 'fight' against his weight category oponent in boxing!!! earlier on you were all for boxing being the best bods in the fight game, when in reality boxers are a one trick pony......useless!!!! One trick poney....... useless i dont susspect you would be saying that if you were getting hit by a boxer, longdogrunner personaly i like them all, for difrent reasons, and all the combat sports have somthing to offer. like many chaps on here i have boxed, also played judo , and done some grappaling. feck me its that long ago , (10 yr) it wasn't even called mma. can any of you remember bushido that used to be on, still got some old vale tudo stuff somwhere. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
trappa 518 Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Trappa....ufc/mma....was designed as a contest to see who would win a fight,it was never specifically aimed at martial arts/boxing.....which martial art does head butting come under ? headbutts played a big role in the early ufc,s....as did groin shots,kicks to the head of a downed opponent......and many more...none of these come under the banner of a martial art...its just part of what happens in a real fight........ In the earlier ufc's their were lots of fighters under the banner of trapfighting, shootfighting even street fighting. This is where it came from. They may not be bona-fide martial arts but it can be an art in itself, thus it was allowed. As for ufc never being specifically aimed at martial arts?!? course it was, the ultimate fighting championship was invented for that very reason- would karate beat judo, would jiu jitsu beat muay thai etc Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LDR 29 Posted June 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 Well if you meant what was peoples favorites you should have said....but you asked who would win !...well my logic tells me a boxer would win a boxing match and an mma fighter would win an mma fight....just like a tennis player might win a tennis match and and a cricketer zzzzzzzzzz....see what i mean,theres no logic to the question..... gnasher, you're nearly as pedantic as me....... ........i'll do it A, B, C for you see if thats any clearer??? A= a boxer in a ring with a MMA fighter, going by boxing rules should win!!! B= an MMA fighter against a boxer in an octagon, playing by MMA rules, should win!!! C= the two of them in any setting using all their skills....who would win??? MMA in my view would be the victor, so therefore surely MMA is better!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest oneredtrim Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) . Edited June 22, 2008 by oneredtrim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LDR 29 Posted June 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 To be fair i think folk are underestimating the hand-skills of top class boxers..if you think a great level of concentration is needed with MMA then falling for a single faint could very easilly be curtains in an art that studies hand moves with great intensity. Douglas did it with his lead foot against Mr. I'm gonna eat your kids...the difference between a top class pugilist and a journeyman. Snooker player versus Pool player in a game of billards....i'll take (£) the snooker player. Not really mate, if khan is meant to be a top boxer, which we have to assume he is at the minute, look at the little chancers he fights, each one of them has been able to get in and give him a hug........in the MMA world this would be the start of the end, plain and simple!!!! About the pool v snooker thing, if you watch the 9 ball tournaments, all our snooker boys play that too and they look shit against the america pool lads!!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest oneredtrim Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) . Edited June 23, 2008 by oneredtrim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LDR 29 Posted June 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 You putting words in me mouth again LR , can't recall saying Khan was a top boxer...he's a kid on a learning curve. The fact thats he's on the TV winding this mob up is just a side issue. Your pool analogy seems to have gone a bit adrift (most unfair)....wonder what the pool lads are like playing billards (an halfway house). ....I didnt say you had said HE was, but you said a top class boxer, and unfortunately this is our best prospect....... ...... so thats why i used him in it, what weight category is that welsh dude in??? You're showing your age now with billiards....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest oneredtrim Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) . Edited June 23, 2008 by oneredtrim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,121 Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 In the earlier ufc's their were lots of fighters under the banner of trapfighting, shootfighting even street fighting. This is where it came from. They may not be bona-fide martial arts but it can be an art in itself, thus it was allowed. As for ufc never being specifically aimed at martial arts?!? course it was, the ultimate fighting championship was invented for that very reason- would karate beat judo, would jiu jitsu beat muay thai etc I really think you need to remember what the ufc billed their organisation as back in the early 90,s......." cage fighting "....." no rules fighting "...the reason it was called no rules fighting was because it was supposed to be a fight without rules !!!....kick boxing,judo and of the fancy named martial arts....do what you like or what you need to do to win a fight......that was how they billed it.....if you can find any of the old interviews with any of the fighters around then you will get what they was saying.....it was not to see if karate would beat judo or boxing beat jui jitsu etc etc...it was to see who would win a fight without rules in a cage....2 men enter the cage 1 man leaves and all that bollocks.....it just so happens that time has proved what works and what doesnt.....but a lot of this has been adapted to suit the changes of rules that followed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,121 Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) [quote name='longdogrunner' date='Jun 22 2008, 02:53 PM' post='564954 gnasher, you're nearly as pedantic as me....... ........i'll do it A, B, C for you see if thats any clearer??? A= a boxer in a ring with a MMA fighter, going by boxing rules should win!!! B= an MMA fighter against a boxer in an octagon, playing by MMA rules, should win!!! C= the two of them in any setting using all their skills....who would win??? MMA in my view would be the victor, so therefore surely MMA is better!!!! Well seeing as you are so much brighter than me and you clearly know your a,b,c.......i will venture into a really tough question......WHO WOULD WIN AT WHAT ??? chess ? painting by numbers ?...what ? if its a fight then its clearly a ridiculous question as a boxer trains to use his hands and an mma fighter trains to use his whole body...they are totally different sports....i,ll throw the question back at you with squash and tennis......who would win ?....see how ridiculous it sounds !....cant believe im having this conversation so longdog you can have the last word,lifes too short and all that. Edited June 22, 2008 by gnasher16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LDR 29 Posted June 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 gnasher, you're nearly as pedantic as me....... ........i'll do it A, B, C for you see if thats any clearer??? A= a boxer in a ring with a MMA fighter, going by boxing rules should win!!! B= an MMA fighter against a boxer in an octagon, playing by MMA rules, should win!!! C= the two of them in any setting using all their skills....who would win??? MMA in my view would be the victor, so therefore surely MMA is better!!!! Well seeing as you are so much brighter than me and you clearly know your a,b,c.......i will venture into a really tough question......WHO WOULD WIN AT WHAT ??? chess ? painting by numbers ?...what ? if its a fight then its clearly a ridiculous question as a boxer trains to use his hands and an mma fighter trains to use his whole body...they are totally different sports....i,ll throw the question back at you with squash and tennis......who would win ?....see how ridiculous it sounds !....cant believe im having this conversation so longdog you can have the last word,lifes too short and all that. it dont sound ridiculous at all mate squash would win hands down..... ........i think we all know the answer really, MMA is far superior to boxing!!!! there's no shame in prefering boxing gnasher, i was trying to keep it lighthearted as i like a bit of debate and banter, but if you wanna be a funny f****r, sarcasm is easy to do, usually what people start to do when they lose an arguement and want to back out of it...... nevermind mate, you keep watching amir khan take on useless muppets and nasseem make his come back.....absolute classic bouts!!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,121 Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) My guess is your a little older than you sound......but not by much !........maybe you should have kept it simple and said YOU like mma best. Edited June 22, 2008 by gnasher16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LDR 29 Posted June 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 My guess is your a little older than you sound......but not by much !........maybe you should have kept it simple and said YOU like mma best. How old are we talking??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,121 Posted June 22, 2008 Report Share Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) . Edited June 22, 2008 by gnasher16 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.