MMA vs Boxing

First topic message reminder :

Well we had Toney represent boxing where he embarassed himself. Now it seems Jeff Lacy is not retiring but is considering having a boxing match again Diaz. I've seen Diaz fight in MMA and whilst good, I wouldn't give him a chance against a washed up Lacy.

But are there any MMA players who could be good pro boxers and any pro bexers who could cut it in MMA? Julius Francis tried MMA and got it handed to him.

azania wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote:plus with one promoter it becomes very clear who is ducking who in the event of fighters trying to avoid people

What happens if some of the best fighters don't get on with this promoter.

Many DK fighters didn't like him (and I'm being polite) but they fought the best in heavily stacked cards. Wasn't Chavez/Taylor fight an undercard fight? Nowadays that alone would be PPV and topping whatever bill.

Better value for money with DK and the best fought the best. If you didn't play ball or weren't willing to give him a huge chunk of cash he could freeze fighters out which wasn't right. Their was less politics and more big fights when DK was on top.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote:plus with one promoter it becomes very clear who is ducking who in the event of fighters trying to avoid people

What happens if some of the best fighters don't get on with this promoter.

dana and silva dont get on in the UFC, but he still fights and defends his title and is well paid for the privalige

With one title there would be approx 20 world title fights a year - spread around the world. It's just not practical.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:With one title there would be approx 20 world title fights a year - spread around the world. It's just not practical.

Do you watch fights because there is some spurious belt on the line or because you want to see a fight between two well matched fighters?

i'd rather watch two equally matched fighters (in boxing or MMA) fight without a title on the line that watch a one sided hammering from a champion of a hand picked fightern anyday

azania wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:With one title there would be approx 20 world title fights a year - spread around the world. It's just not practical.

Do you watch fights because there is some spurious belt on the line or because you want to see a fight between two well matched fighters?

I simply don't care about the belts. They don't really mean anything, but if they help to make more top fights and fighters more money then they're a good thing.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

azania wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:With one title there would be approx 20 world title fights a year - spread around the world. It's just not practical.

Do you watch fights because there is some spurious belt on the line or because you want to see a fight between two well matched fighters?

I simply don't care about the belts. They don't really mean anything, but if they help to make more top fights and fighters more money then they're a good thing.

But does it? It makes more money for sanctioning bodies, promoters and a few boxers. Fans lose out big time as we are sold a sham as a title fight. Is there anyone outside of Herbie Hide who would consider himself the world heavyweight champ? Or Francesco Damiani for that matter?

It was Hide's WBO belt that got him a fight with Bowe.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It was Hide's WBO belt that got him a fight with Bowe.

Yes and Bowe used that to get a legit belt. Damiani and Akinwande?

Who cares that Akinwande had a WBO belt. I don't see how it was detrimental to Boxing. The belts are just a necessary commercial tool.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Who cares that Akinwande had a WBO belt. I don't see how it was detrimental to Boxing. The belts are just a necessary commercial tool.

A commercial tool that is often used to stop the best fighting the best.

azania wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Who cares that Akinwande had a WBO belt. I don't see how it was detrimental to Boxing. The belts are just a necessary commercial tool.

A commercial tool that is often used to stop the best fighting the best.

That ' commercial tool ' would be Frank Warren, surely ?

He certainly qualifies on the second criterion.

azania wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Who cares that Akinwande had a WBO belt. I don't see how it was detrimental to Boxing. The belts are just a necessary commercial tool.

A commercial tool that is often used to stop the best fighting the best.

This is a good arguement.

Yes the belts delay, but rarely prevent, the best fighting the best. It is this delay that often builds up fights though. There will be a happy medium somewhere.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Who cares that Akinwande had a WBO belt. I don't see how it was detrimental to Boxing. The belts are just a necessary commercial tool.

A commercial tool that is often used to stop the best fighting the best.

That ' commercial tool ' would be Frank Warren, surely ?

He certainly qualifies on the second criterion.

Ha. Very true old chap.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Who cares that Akinwande had a WBO belt. I don't see how it was detrimental to Boxing. The belts are just a necessary commercial tool.

A commercial tool that is often used to stop the best fighting the best.

That ' commercial tool ' would be Frank Warren, surely ?

He certainly qualifies on the second criterion.

However, after last night Ricky Hatton and Amir Khan make old Fwank look like a genious.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Who cares that Akinwande had a WBO belt. I don't see how it was detrimental to Boxing. The belts are just a necessary commercial tool.

A commercial tool that is often used to stop the best fighting the best.

That ' commercial tool ' would be Frank Warren, surely ?

He certainly qualifies on the second criterion.

However, after last night Ricky Hatton and Amir Khan make old Fwank look like a genious.

Too true.

However, after last night Ricky Hatton and Amir Khan make old Fwank look like a genious.

at me. I can't even spell genius.