New Fight Question - Page 65

Smasharoo · #**641** 12-15-2006, 04:49 PM

You think that whoever is paid the most is the most talented? Maybe in their particular sport, but probably not in sports as a whole.

No, of course not, but between two very simmilar sports, yes. Let's say one society had two other sports that were very simmilar. Let's say Cricket was reasonably popular in the US and that kids learned it and baseball around the same time, but that pro baseball players made what they do now and the highest paid cricket player made $200,000.

What's the likelyhood that Barry Bonds would have played cricket?

I find that hard to believe. What do you mean by you've trained them? Were you ever a boxer? MMA fighter?

I was joking.

I have boxed though, and competed in full contact martial arts competitions, but not direct equivilents to UFC.

Smasharoo · #**642** 12-15-2006, 04:52 PM

And I doubt that how dangerous boxing is is much of a factor for keeping most mma guys from doing it

Me too. I tend to think giant paychecks aren't either.

GiantBuddha · #**643** 12-15-2006, 05:01 PM

Boxing is really bad for you. Boxing's as much about endurance as it is about fighting ability (not saying boxers can't fight). World Class Boxers are elite athletes, though. I just don't think that's a huge advantage. Advantage, yes, but it probably won't overcome some disadvantages.

blackize · #**644** 12-15-2006, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]

That's the point. Particularly when we're talking about two sports that are reasonably simmilar in terms of physical demands. This isn't polo and basketball we're talking about. It's two sports where if you remove skill sets, the physical atrributes and raw talent required are almost identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I block his posts and I still see them quoted. Oh well I guess I'll address this.

The above quote just proves that you don't know what you're talking about. While both boxing and MMA require agility, reflexes, and strength MMA does not require extreme punching power or hand speed like boxing does nor are reach advantages so overwhelming in MMA. If you'd care to think for a moment you would see why this is true. The majority of MMA fights are ended on the ground by submissions. Striking power and hand speed are of secondary importance and primarily serve to set up the takedown in MMA fights. Once the fight ends up on the ground reach becomes a nonissue.

Either lack of handspeed, reach, or lack of punching power could hold an MMA fighter back from being successful in boxing so obviously they would take 1-10% of the money in a sport that they are more suited to.

Blarg · #**645** 12-15-2006, 05:04 PM

You seem to be giving reach huge play here. There are plenty of top level boxers who beat guys with longer arms all the time. Tyson had VERY short arms.

Smasharoo · #**646** 12-15-2006, 05:07 PM

I block his posts and I still see them quoted. Oh well I guess I'll address this.

Admitting your 'roo adiction is the first step to recovery man.

Hopefully someone will quote that. Damn, I'm a funny bastard.

Smasharoo · #**647** 12-15-2006, 05:09 PM

You seem to be giving reach huge play here. There are plenty of top level boxers who beat guys with longer arms all the time. Tyson had VERY short arms.

This is exactly right. Reach isn't that big of a deal if a boxer knows how to get inside. If it was, guys with long arms and decent jabs would dominate boxing.

blackize · #**648** 12-15-2006, 05:21 PM

And Tyson gets destroyed when he steps into the ring with a competent opponent these days.

Edit: He's getting old now, but after prison he was still in his prime and could no longer hold his own with the best.

The current WBC champ has a 79 inch reach. The former champ 82 inches. Tyson 71 inches. While it is certainly possible to be a successful fighter without a long reach most of the greatest fighters in history have had long reaches.

The first 2 boxers cited above stand between 6'2 and 6'3. Fedor is 6'0 and Matt Hughes is between 5'9 and 5'10. Reach isn't the most important thing but it certainly helps and can be a barrier to smaller men.

Blarg · #**649** 12-15-2006, 05:30 PM

"These days" is a pretty important qualification, isn't it? You put it there yourself, after all. Why do that if you don't want to stand by it? Did everyone suddenly get taller or something? Is that why Tyson started losing, and continues to lose? Was he only beating guys with arms even shorter than his, previously? I don't know that he even met one.

Reach is usually pretty comparable, as weight classes tend to get people within a couple of inches of each other's height at most. If someone loses a bout, it's not because someone had better reach. It's because he didn't know how to box as well as the other guy.

I suddenly get the feeling you are a short man. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

blackize · #**650** 12-15-2006, 05:48 PM

Nah I'm 6'1/2" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I mentioned reach along with a bunch of other things I feel are far more important, but reach is still a factor between boxers of comparable skill. Tyson won handily in his early days because he was ferocious, relentless, in better shape, and generally stronger than his opponents. The sport has evolved though and the bigger guys with longer arms are very highly skilled, very strong, and in great shape. Honestly I don't think the short guys like Tyson can compete on the championship stage anymore.