MMA - How do you feel about it?

Looking for opinions on how us boxing fans feel about the sport


Regards

Steffan

I do like it and record the events shown on ESPN to watch the next day.

But I prefer watching the sweet science so much more.

I don't like it as a spectacle at all. I am sure they are highly skilled and I admire their dedication but there is just too much grappling and when they are not 'in hold' it turns my stomach seeing a guy kicking another one in the face or pinning them down and pounding the back of their opponents head. I can't even watch it and it's just too extreme a form of violence for me. I am a sensitive soul deep down and boxing is about my limit. I hate watching bare knuckle fights on the TV/youtube and MMA is not all that far removed in terms of pure aggression.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I don't like it as a spectacle at all. I am sure they are highly skilled and I admire their dedication but there is just too much grappling and when they are not 'in hold' it turns my stomach seeing a guy kicking another one in the face or pinning them down and pounding the back of their opponents head. I can't even watch it and it's just too extreme a form of violence for me. I am a sensitive soul deep down and boxing is about my limit. I hate watching bare knuckle fights on the TV/youtube and MMA is not all that far removed in terms of pure aggression.

Its a fight. Not sure why fans of a sport which has resulted in more deaths (boxing) get so hung up on this.

My thoughts... hard sport, not so exciting to watch.

I have not voted as I don't feel there are any options that are representative of my views which would best be expressed as ambivalent.

rowley wrote:I have not voted as I don't feel there are any options that are representative of my views which would best be expressed as ambivalent.

And what are your ambivalent views on the sport then Rowley?

johnson2 wrote:
Its a fight. Not sure why fans of a sport which has resulted in more deaths (boxing) get so hung up on this.

It is nothing to do with the amount of deaths, it is purely the techniques used that I don't like. My post shouldn't have been too hard to understand, Jack, especially to a 'man' with your capabilities.

On reflection Steffan ambivalent was a poor choice of word on my part, indifference or apathy would have been more appropriate.

rowley wrote:On reflection Steffan ambivalent was a poor choice of word on my part, indifference or apathy would have been more appropriate.

You do strike me as a very apathetic person I must say. Maybe its an 'approaching 40' thing?

I'm equally indifferent, but if pressed would say that my views are in line with those that Bernard Hopkins has previously espoused.

Union Cane wrote:I'm equally indifferent, but if pressed would say that my views are in line with those that Bernard Hopkins has previously espoused.

For those unaware of B Hops original views:

“Everybody is different but I don’t want to watch two grown men wrestling with panties on.

“I’m from the hood, we don’t play that. To me, I’m not buying a ticket to watch two grown men with panties on, sweating, with nuts in their face. That’s not me.

“To compare that to boxing is ludicrous. It’s a porno — it’s an entertainment porno.

“I can understand if 90 per cent of women were going to those things but I can’t understand a grown man sitting there with a couple of guys watching two grown men with panties on, sweating. That’s just my opinion but it’s not a good look.”

Like jeff, I didn't vote because my views aren't represented by any of the voting options. Next time, Steffan, please include a "meh" option.

I don't mind watching MMA as it is exciting but I have no passion for it to be honest. Boxing has always been a passion of mine and that includes the history and concern for the future of boxing. With MMA I find myself just liking the presentation instead of the contents.

superflyweight wrote:Next time, Steffan, please include a "meh" option.

I was thinking of a "meh" option. But that would discourage debate and lead to apathetic posts that dont really contribute a lot...which is totally what happened anyway

Steffan wrote:

superflyweight wrote:Next time, Steffan, please include a "meh" option.

I was thinking of a "meh" option. But that would discourage debate and lead to apathetic posts that dont really contribute a lot...which is totally what happened anyway

The lesson in there Steffan is don't fight destiny.

Not to be confused with don't fight density.

Im hoping my 'Floyd v Manny - Will they fight and if not who is to blame?' thread will achieve new heights...

Union Cane wrote:Not to be confused with don't fight density.

No one would dare take your niche on this site

I think it is nice in Waingro's absence that someone has taken up the role of chief pollster. Maybe one on which klichko is ducking haye the most would be a winner.

Don't know about that Rowley because Duran was overrated imo

I love it, like boxing. i do prefer a good boxing fight over a good MMA fight but enjoy both.

I've practised boxing and decided to have a go at MMA and now train solely in MMA. From a training point of view I find it much more interesting and fun.

Both take a tremendous amount of dedication and fitness levels are the same IMO.

A big problem is people criticise things in MMA fights when they actually don't know what they're watching.

I admit I don't like it when people try and lay and pray on their opponent, which is where people have a wrestling background and not diverse enough to try another way. The UFC hate this as well and do not pay these guys as well and reluctant to give them title shots.

But the above is countered by boxers who are spoilers who clinch all the time.

If people think it's too violent that's fair enough, it's everyone's personal opinion.

Baguazhang - if there is a teacher in uk of this discipline pm me for I wish to learn.

It's just a tad boring for me. We all joke about people rolling about in tight pants but a lot of the time it actually is just that. Granted there are some skilled elements and some spectacular KO's but they're few and far between, and in general it is just two blokes jostling about for position on the floor.

Union Cane wrote:Not to be confused with don't fight density.

Speaking of which, did anyone see Khan on Chris Moyes Quiz Night? I saw that he was scheudled to be on it but couldbn't bring myself to watch a show with Chris Moyles in it?

Saw that Khan announced on twitter last Wednesday that he was getting engaged on the following Saturday. What a nice surprise that must have been for his betrothed.

To quote Malcolm Tucker - "he's so dense that light bends round him".

Fists of Fury wrote:It's just a tad boring for me. We all joke about people rolling about in tight pants but a lot of the time it actually is just that. Granted there are some skilled elements and some spectacular KO's but they're few and far between, and in general it is just two blokes jostling about for position on the floor.

I understand your feelings and it's also refreshing not to get a reply with the sole aim to belittle it.

I think if you watch enough MMA you have that opinion albeit it's not your thing so you're not going to.

Fighters with a wrestling background are quite dominant at the moment, the reason is they are generally the hardest to take down and the best at taking people down and therefore the they better dictate where the fight takes place and in their domain it's the floor.

The problem is that currently the scoring system appears to favour the wrestlers i.e. the yanks in that they score 1/2 takedowns regardless of applying much damage and effective aggression once on the floor over someone landed 15-20 good clean punches standing. Many fighters are becoming more vocal about this and I think there will be change in the next few years which should lead to some changing their styles.

Present day MMA is only 20 years old so is still developing i.e. punches to back of head and kicks to a downed opponent are now illegal in the vast majority of all MMA organisations so it's becoming more mainstream.

superflyweight wrote:

Union Cane wrote:Not to be confused with don't fight density.

Speaking of which, did anyone see Khan on Chris Moyes Quiz Night? I saw that he was scheudled to be on it but couldbn't bring myself to watch a show with Chris Moyles in it?

Saw that Khan announced on twitter last Wednesday that he was getting engaged on the following Saturday. What a nice surprise that must have been for his betrothed.

To quote Malcolm Tucker - "he's so dense that light bends round him".

his engagement party was on the saturday

MMA - i dont mind it, but to me it's far too WWF.

his engagement party was on the saturday.

I assumed that. I was just being facetious.

I'm not expecting to make people fans who are not, but if people want to see some decent fight (one i've found in full), see below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HziG9DBfJf0

Amir Khan's fiance is pretty..

Im looking forward to his next fight..

It should be announced by next Friday (according to inside sources)

Read someting Boris saying they had given Petersen till the end of the week and if it can't be done he will move to welter, who he will take on there is anyone's guess, although Ortiz is free now.

Khan normally takes an easier opponent after a loss.. Ortiz is way too much of a threat..

OK YOU TWISTED MY ARM...

The next opponent is going to be '5H1TTY shane mosley' (mayweathers words not mine)

I think we would all agree that Mosley is beyond over the hill..So Khan to keep his distance to a 12 round UD and Mosley will get another payday..

I fear you are right, would be nice though to think on the back of the fall out from the Petersen fight, when even his staunchest defenders would have to admit Khan did not emerge from with much credit he would take someone like Ortiz to win back a few supporters, don't think the reaction to Mosley would be overly positive. Also do not want to see a guy like Mosley fall into the role of sacrificial lamb.

I would say that I tentatively like it. Ive seen some awful boring stuff in it and I have seen some explosive fights. I also prefer its set up to boxing, if not the actual sport.

I often wonder whether my preference for boxing largely stems from tradition and being more used to it as much as anything else. Ive followed boxing alot longer and understand it much more so that plays a big factor.

When I try to think of it rationally, alot of the criticisms applied to it run both ways. I know MMA fans who claim boxing is boring and to be fair to them for every comment saying UFC if two guys rolling around on the floor they can probably counter with an example in boxing of two guys in a bear hugging contest. Im not sure a Bernard Hopkins fight or god forbid a Skelton/Ruiz kind of contest would do much for the casual punter and this is probably what "two guys rolling on the floor" look like to an untrained eye. Both sports are very hit and miss and I think if you have a lack of familiarity or an untrained eye you are likely to see alot of the worst aspects in all but the most thrilling encounters in both sports.

rowley wrote:I fear you are right, would be nice though to think on the back of the fall out from the Petersen fight, when even his staunchest defenders would have to admit Khan did not emerge from with much credit he would take someone like Ortiz to win back a few supporters, don't think the reaction to Mosley would be overly positive. Also do not want to see a guy like Mosley fall into the role of sacrificial lamb.

I totally agree mate.. His behaviour during and after the Peterson fight has been embarrasing..

Here's a blade prediction...I'm told that Khan will fight Mosley and then Ortiz (Mayweathers last 2 opponents) to create a credible arguement to fight Money May next year..Thats the plan!!

He would do what Pacquiao has done to an extent..but without the Bobfather interferring..

rowley wrote:I have not voted as I don't feel there are any options that are representative of my views which would best be expressed as ambivalent.

That was a little high brow for our forum wasn't it Rowley? haha

I actually don't like MMA/UFC as it is too much. Too many kicks hugs,roll overs, elbows, knees etc. I like boixng because it is more of a distinct art form. I like knowing that the fighters have one means to deconstruct each other, and that they stay on their feet (unless knocked down).

Seanusarrilius wrote:

rowley wrote:I have not voted as I don't feel there are any options that are representative of my views which would best be expressed as ambivalent.

That was a little high brow for our forum wasn't it Rowley? haha

Would have been if I'd have used the right word, ambivalent more accurately means torn between two opposing positions, as I have no actual position on MMA apathetic would have worked better.

rowley wrote:

Seanusarrilius wrote:

rowley wrote:I have not voted as I don't feel there are any options that are representative of my views which would best be expressed as ambivalent.

That was a little high brow for our forum wasn't it Rowley? haha

Would have been if I'd have used the right word, ambivalent more accurately means torn between two opposing positions, as I have no actual position on MMA apathetic would have worked better.

Hey! Don't be too hard on yourself, you used a serious word, I give you credit.

As someone who trains in both boxing and MMA, I prefer watching boxing but training in MMA. Both have their share of boring fights although at least the MMA fights are shorter rather than a 12 round snoozefest in boxing.

Don't be fooled by perceptions of boxing being more skillful and MMA just being a lot of thrashing around on floor. The floor stuff is where the most skill is needed. That being said, I do prefer a stand up fight with two guys trading hard.

Hopkins' comments above also make me laugh. He's basically saying MMA is gay. Put him in the ring with a UFC fighter of a similar level relative to his in boxing, and I don't think he'd be saying it was gay after about 30 seconds.

He'd probably have prison flashbacks and shank the guy in the throat.

MMA for me would be OK if it weren't for the ground game, which is obviously a huge part of it.

Just can't get excited by it as a sport.

Would probably put it as high on my list of things to watch as womens boxing - would even prefer to rot my brain with back to back episodes of the only way is essex with the wife. Seriously that show makes my think Tysonisking could go to Essex and be considered clever.

huw wrote:MMA for me would be OK if it weren't for the ground game, which is obviously a huge part of it.

I reckon that aspect puts most people off initially and unless they stick with it and learn about the skill involved it'll always be a bore to them. Visually for the layman it looks very unskillful and slanted in favour of bigger guys but you only have to go back to the first few UFC fights and watch Royce Gracie to see how that skill on the floor can overcome much bigger guys.

Aside from the actual action, I mentioned on another thread that boxing could learn a lot from the way UFC runs things in terms of promotion, fighters, match ups etc

Group Cpt Lionel Mandrake wrote:

Aside from the actual action, I mentioned on another thread that boxing could learn a lot from the way UFC runs things in terms of promotion, fighters, match ups etc

As for the UFC yes, it is promoted well but then it's not fair to compare the UFC with boxing as a whole. You would have to compare UFC with say the WBO and here lies the problem for boxing. If it had one governing body, or at least one dominant one then it would be able to promote itself better. Where the UFC is lucky here is that it's fighters are contracted to fight just under that banner which makes it so dominant and reduces the risk of other organisations taking it on (especially as it tends to buy anyone that starts getting popular!!).