New Fight Question

[Hume]

[ QUOTE ]
Pressure points are real.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're also legal in MMA, but somehow not being used...

[Smasharoo]

Ramon Dekkers could be considered one of the greatest Muay Thai kickboxers in the world. His record was 175-25 with 90 knockouts. I've seen clips of the man and he has some mean punches, kicks, and knees. He had an mma fight with Genki Sudo, who has a modest career of 14-4. Dekkers lost in the first round when it went to the ground and he submitted to a heel hook. Not knowing how to at least avoid submissions in MMA is a killer and not being trained in avoiding takedowns practically insures you'll wind up on the ground if the other man wants it there.

Hi, kickboxers, largely also failed boxers. Particularly European ones.

"Random UFC guy beat the 10,000th best boxer in the world in 20 seconds OMGZ!!oneone!! How can you not see the boxer would have no chance!!1eleven!!"


They started it to promote BJJ? So what -- of course they did. They felt it was most effective in real fights so they wanted to show it and benefit from it spreading. To do this they created a scenario with almost no rules and put their money wear their mouth was. And it worked. Their motives don't nullify the results.

No, they don't. The lack of money to attract world class competitors nullify the results. If I have a no hold bars championship and a purse of $3 and I win it, then I guess I have a great shot of killing Vladimir Klitchko hand to hand.

Right?

You guys are the funniest. I love white kids.

[Smasharoo]

The thing is, you don't have to be a world class boxer to be the best fighter. You have to be the person who can best adapt. The simple truth is that the best MMA fighter will likely be the one who can adapt better because of his training.

Right, he just *couldn't adapt to boxing* and make 100 times as much money for subsantially less risk. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense. UFC guys world class athletes, super adaptable, just not good at boxing.

That makes way more sense than them being second teir fighters competing in a second tier fighting competition.

/sigh. The power of marketing on the average person is really something to behold.

[kdotsky]

You're just repeating yourself. All you've said over and over again is that there's more money in boxing. Nobody has disagreed and people have argued why that doesn't make them the best in a real fight. You've countered with either a) "lol" b) insult c) repeating yourself yet again. That, in combination with the fact that you've tried to bring race into the debate over 5 times (which I've seen you do in other unrelated threads) makes it pretty clear you must be a troll (or at least I hope so, for your sake).

[kdotsky]

[ QUOTE ]

Right, he just *couldn't adapt to boxing* and make 100 times as much money for subsantially less risk. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense. UFC guys world class athletes, super adaptable, just not good at boxing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, pretty much. Grappling ability is more important to have than striking ability. That's why you tend to see short, stout guys (wrestler body types). That's also why they would never be able to compete in straight boxing. That's also why a baseball player couldn't move down to something like volleyball -- it's a completely different skillset as well as a completely different body type required. Everyone realizes this but you.

I bet that exhibition fight with Ali was painful for you to watch. Even if it was a money-making stunt, I find it hard to believe that Ali would willingly choose to embarrass himself by not even landing a single punch. And that wrestler didn't come from a big talent pool.

[Smasharoo]

You're just repeating yourself.


That's what happens when you're right, and it's a simple point, but people keep ignoring it entirely. Sorry, not my fault. I realize it's hard to deal with being wrong, but ignoring completely a very simple and completely conclusive point is, yes, going to lead to me repeating it over and over.



All you've said over and over again is that there's more money in boxing. Nobody has disagreed and people have argued why that doesn't make them the best in a real fight. You've countered with either a) "lol" b) insult c) repeating yourself yet again.


Because I have *no other option* than repeating myseld, because it's a simple point, and anyone who isn't exactly in the prime UFC demographic marketing zone would think about for about 12 seconds and then say "huh, yeah, that makes perfect sense". People who are, attempt wild rationalizations not based on any facts at all, call them true and then get upset when I say "No," and make the same very simple point that has never been adressed.

Let me make it again in a diffrent way that maybe will be easier to comprehend:

UFC FIGHTERS ARE IN THE MINOR LEGUES OF FIGHTING.

Get it? The minor legues. They're not the best in the world. They're the best that short money can buy. There's a big diffrence. The best MMA fighters in the world are...tada..boxers. Sinking in yet?

You are comparing MINOR LEGUE ATHELETES to ELITE ATHLETES in a competition that NEITHER HAS TRAINED FOR SPECIFICALLY.

Your argument is idnentical to saying that the world lawn mower riding champion will beat the Nextel Cup winner in a truck race on grass because he's used to riding on grass.


That, in combination with the fact that you've tried to bring race into the debate over 5 times (which I've seen you do in other unrelated threads) makes it pretty clear you must be a troll (or at least I hope so, for your sake).

Race is a factor, it's not my fault. So is age. The UFC is a place for white guys to win at some form of combat, something they have serious trouble doing otherwise. I didn't make it that way, it's that way because white guys that would litterally get killed trying to compete in professional boxing have a chance to win in the minor legues.

MMA offers minor leuge money to minor legue athletes who are nowhere near in the class of fighters of AVERAGE professional boxers. Thinking they'd have anything close to even money shot against world class boxers in hand to hand combat is ludicrous.

I'll say something else AGAIN, since no one wants to deal with it, physical gifts are much, much more important than technique. This is why there are weight classes in every hand to hand competition. If there weren't the larger stronger guys would win. World class boxers are stronger, faster, better conditioned, and have better reflexes than MMA fighters. The talent goes where the money is. Sorry.

It's just simply not the case that the MMA fighters are secretly better athletes who are just as strong, just as fast, jast as tough, but somehow JUST NOT GOOD AT BOXING.

Wake up. This is *not* a radical change in skill set for boxers where the specefic skill set of UFC fighters will matter enough to compensate for the massive diffrence in raw physical talent. It's hand to hand fighting, and in hand to hand fighting the tougher, faster, stronger guy wins, even if his skill set is slightly limited.

If there was a minor legue basketball orginisation that used 9 foot nets and didn't require dribbling, the guys who played in for short money would still lose to NBA players.

Get it yet, or do I have to say it again?

Let me know which of my points you disagree with:

1. The most talented hand to hand fighters will go wherever the most money is.

2. The most money is presently in boxing by a fcator of 100. It's not slightly more money it's 100 times more

3. World class boxers have never competed in UFC competitions, not because they wouldn't win, but because the money isn't sufficent for them to bother.

4. UFC fighters have never become professional boxers, not because the money itsn't there, but because they JUST AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

That's it. "Best MMA Fighter" is at the momeny a world class boxer. It's that simple. In reality, "Best 20 MMA fighters" are probably all boxers. Just like "Best 10 minature golfers" are probable playing on the PGA and not telling their freinds how the freaking windmill would make it impossible for the best putters on Earth to compete against them.

Clear yet?

[MuresanForMVP]

man what a troll. K thx bye.

[Smasharoo]

Yeah, pretty much. Grappling ability is more important to have than striking ability.


To killing someone in hand to hand combat? Interesting.


That's why you tend to see short, stout guys (wrestler body types). That's also why they would never be able to compete in straight boxing. That's also why a baseball player couldn't move down to something like volleyball -- it's a completely different skillset as well as a completely different body type required. Everyone realizes this but you.

No, everyone who's bought into UFC marketing hype has bought that striking isn't as effective in hand to hand combat because everyone in the UFC is so bad at it.

See the diffrence? Correlation is not causation. The fact that the vast number of competitors in the UFC are relatively terrible at striking with thier hands (because if they were good at it they'd be boxing) doesn't equate to the actual technique being less effective.

Would the UFC guys have an advantage if the fight *started in a clinch*, yes, of course. That wasn't the question though.

[Smasharoo]

man what a troll. K thx bye.


Right, so no answers? Gotcha. I don't blame you for giving up, either, you have nothing to counter with other than "OMG UFC Rulez!!11"

[w_alloy]

Smash, you are being extremely trollish. You have made your point but yet continue to belligerently and retardly repeat yourself. You have an extremely unfounded arrogance which is quite annoying. Also, are you reading in threaded mode? You do not need to respond to every post.

You fail to realize both how much more effect ground fighting and grappling are in real fights than punching on your feet, and how much more important technique is than athleticism in these fights. If there was a substantial training period, boxers would be the favorites. But there isn't.