[Nedders]

While Freeman's attack was reprehensible, I found Doyel's response hardly more dignified. They've continued thier spat on the message boards, so I thought I'd send them the thoughts of a tried and true MMA/boxing fan.

http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messag...no/2397849/0/L

'Freeman, Doyel, I'm putting you both on notice, actually. Because each of you is peddling ignorance, in spades.

Firstly, Freeman, the "barfighters" and "human cockfighting" schtick was tired 12 years ago, even when it was far more applicable. MMA fighters are trained athletes in multiple disciplines, including your beloved boxing. The fact that they engage in ground fighting or striking with more than their hands does not make them any less dignified as combatants than boxers (who, mind you, routinely clinch and hold, low blow, and occassionally bite their opponents). MMA is a far safer sport than boxing, with no casualities in the history of sanctioned MMA competition. Boxers die as a result of injuries from sanctioned fights, every year. You clearly have virtually no understanding of the sport and have no basis from which to criticise, outside of your extreme audacity. You clearly are feeling squeezed as an outsider to a growing worldwide phenomenon, and have resorted to the lowest form of backlash as a means of reconciling yourself with the situation. As a longtime fan of boxing, I'm ashamed to have your assanine rantings as representative of the boxing worlds views toward MMA.

As for you, Doyel, well you made some valid arguments as to why boxing has soured in recent decades, as well as why MMA has made it's slow ascent to nationwide recognition, but in reality, your tactics are no less slanderous than Freeman's. If in fact, MMA is the present and future, and you truly believe boxing to be a dead art, what do you have to gain from pissing on its proverbial grave? Why not do the classy thing, take the high road, and celebrate the one remaining fight you feel is relevant to American fight fans. MMA owes as much to boxing as any other combat sport..why not show some gratitude if this is boxing's last hurrah? Also, I find it a bit troubling that you're the representative of the MMA viewpoint, and yet your experience with Pride is limited to FSN re-airs of old fights? Can I be the baseball guru at SportsLine if I only follow the National league? Pride was the premier organization in MMA for a time when the UFC was a fringe sport in the US, as evidenced by the defection of many of the UFC's best fighters from the late 90's (Mark Coleman, Don Frye, Mark Kerr, Gary Goodridge etc) to it's ranks. Pride made MMA events into spectacle, skyrocketed the salaries and visibility for fighters, and hosted many of the greatest MMA bouts in the history of the sport. While Pride may be in transition after the recent purchase by the UFC, your ignorance regarding the organization and its fighters is reprehensible considering your position at a national..indeed global, website. It's akin to your soccer correspondent only having watched MLS for the past decade. So, thank you for what you've done and are doing for the sport, no thank you for your bash on boxing, and please, school yourself to the history of MMA on the world stage. The UFC, though emerging as a global leader, is far from the only place in town for elite level MMA.

As for boxing...boxing has some serious issues, to be sure, and by observable trends is on the backside of a long decline as one of the premier sports in America. All of the issues with corruption, promoters, pay-per-view, obscure belts and weight classes, mandatory fights, in addition to the general lack of recognizable star power, have all contributed to this slow degradation of a once great tradition. The rising popularity of alternative combat sports has also contributed, but to be sure, boxing has crafted its own plight and cannot lay the burden of it's failures on outside forces.

That being said, let me explain to you why boxing isn't, and never will be, "dead" as a sport. Those making MMA out to be the enemy of boxing are only partially correct, in so much as MMA incorporates boxing technique and conditioning into into the overall cocktail of fighting styles it encompasses. You also see variations on wrestling, submission grappling, and kickboxing, all incorporated to varying degrees in MMA. So the question has to be asked, since MMA incorporates kickboxing, why does K-1 continue to flourish as an organization? Why are submission grappling and jiu-jistu tournaments like Abu-Dhabi still around? Why are there still collegiate and Olympic wrestlers, both Greco-Roman and freestyle?

The fact is that while MMA may have already surpassed boxing in terms of overall popularity and recognition in America, boxing as an art form and as a sport is under no threat of "dying", any more than any other discipline of martial arts. In fact, most MMA stars would likely tell you the crucial importance of training boxing techniques into their standup skillset. Now MMA mirrors reality far more than strictly boxing in so much as it more closely mimmicks actual fighting scenarios..I can tell you personally that of the number of fights I've been in, few have remained standing the entire time, and almost none were limited strictly to blows with the hands. In this way MMA has a transcendent appeal to those who follow combat sports.

Now some people can still appreciate guys who strictly throw hands, and those people will always appreciate boxing on some level..but MMA still has guys to offer them as well (Liddell, Gomi etc). Some people prefer submission artists who can impose their will on the ground, and while they will follow Sambo tournaments and the ADCC, they can still watch MMA for their fix too (Nogueira's, Fedor). Kickboxing fans can soak up some K-1, and then tune in for Mark Hunt and Mirko "Cro Cop" Filipovic (yes he has a last name) in MMA circles.

So yes, you can be, and yes I AM a fan of both MMA and boxing. I was transfixed when Hopkins beat Tarver, and I cheered when St Pierre KO'd Hughes. I admire Ricky Hatton's panache and I marvel at Fedor Emelianenko's brilliance. I see no conflict between such feelings and experiences. I was a fan of MMA when it was an outsider sport, under threat from Congress with virtually no positive press coverage. I was a fan of boxing when it was front-page material, when the nation stood still for big fights and boxers were transcendent figures in American culture. However the tides have turned, for better or worse, I'll still be a fan of both, tomorrow and going forward. I have no need to engage in petty, childish demagoguery and name calling, as apparently do national columnists like yourselves.'

[boardo]

Excellent post/reply. can't really say too much else.

Very good read.

[hitmenow]

Theyre just trying to get publicity for their site. They know how much MMA fans HATE people who dont like MMA so they use this one article to stir you guys up then a response to get even more people reading.

[Nedders]

Originally Posted by hitmenow

Theyre just trying to get publicity for their site. They know how much MMA fans HATE people who dont like MMA so they use this one article to stir you guys up then a response to get even more people reading.

I don't "hate" people who don't like MMA, but I will hold them accountable for their reasons. Saying things like:

'Many of the ultimates are nothing but thugs and ruffians. All that league has done is take a few former nightclub bouncers, knuckle crackers and parolees, put on some fancy TV graphics and told them, "Kick the other guy in the nuts." '

Is both grossly inaccurate and hypocritcal considering some of boxings most storied champions have been street thugs and degenerates (Mike Tyson, anyone?). There's also no "kicking in the nuts" in MMA.

So I won't try and persuade Freeman into liking MMA, but I will hold him accountable when he applies standards of judgment selectively toward MMA but not to boxing. If you don't like it, then say you don't like it, but don't use false rationalizations that could just as easily be made against the sport you're championing (Umm, shots to the nuts? That doesn't happen every other fight in boxing?) as the one you're bashing.

[987612345]

Originally Posted by Nedders

As for boxing...boxing has some serious issues, to be sure, and by observable trends is on the backside of a long decline as one of the premier sports in America. All of the issues with corruption, promoters, pay-per-view, obscure belts and weight classes, mandatory fights, in addition to the general lack of recognizable star power, have all contributed to this slow degradation of a once great tradition. The rising popularity of alternative combat sports has also contributed, but to be sure, boxing has crafted its own plight and cannot lay the burden of it's failures on outside forces.

That being said, let me explain to you why boxing isn't, and never will be, "dead" as a sport. Those making MMA out to be the enemy of boxing are only partially correct, in so much as MMA incorporates boxing technique and conditioning into into the overall cocktail of fighting styles it encompasses. You also see variations on wrestling, submission grappling, and kickboxing, all incorporated to varying degrees in MMA. So the question has to be asked, since MMA incorporates kickboxing, why does K-1 continue to flourish as an organization? Why are submission grappling and jiu-jistu tournaments like Abu-Dhabi still around? Why are there still collegiate and Olympic wrestlers, both Greco-Roman and freestyle?

The fact is that while MMA may have already surpassed boxing in terms of overall popularity and recognition in America, boxing as an art form and as a sport is under no threat of "dying", any more than any other discipline of martial arts. In fact, most MMA stars would likely tell you the crucial importance of training boxing techniques into their standup skillset. Now MMA mirrors reality far more than strictly boxing in so much as it more closely mimmicks actual fighting scenarios..I can tell you personally that of the number of fights I've been in, few have remained standing the entire time, and almost none were limited strictly to blows with the hands. In this way MMA has a transcendent appeal to those who follow combat sports...

great analysis...

[we are 138]

Originally Posted by boardo

Excellent post/reply. can't really say too much else.

Very good read.

Ottawa Sucks. Go Sabres!

[Miyamoto]

Nicely done, Nedders. Here's mine:

Dear Michael,

Wow. Just... Wow.

I'm actually amazed that I'm writing this for two reasons: first, I doubt highly that you'll ever read it. As you mentioned, your email in-box is sure to be inundated with the high-pitched, blood-thirsty squeals of the many "MMA apologists" (what do we have to apologize for??? more on that later...), so it's likely that the following will be lost in the inter-ether. Secondly -- and more importantly -- the tenor of your article is such that I can only conclude that you won't listen to any pro-MMA argument, no matter how fact based, and no matter how well formed.

So, with this in mind, I set forth on my fool's errand. You, sir, are my windmill. Call me Don Quixote.

First, let me address some of your direct quotes: "Many of the ultimates are nothing but thugs and ruffians." Okay. Shall we start a list of boxers who are ex-cons? Violent offenders? No, we don't have that kind of time. Seriously, the idea that you'd even front this as an argument knowing the history of the sport you're championing is truly flabbergasting to me.

"All that league has done is take a few former nightclub bouncers, knuckle crackers and parolees, put on some fancy TV graphics and told them, "Kick the other guy in the nuts.""

It's an interesting, if untrue, characterization of MMA -- and one that indicates to me that you began and ended your familiarity with MMA during its early years. Unfortunately, we are not in those early years -- we are in the years that multiple Olympic medalists and Olympic-caliber athletes compete in the sport. The names Lindland, Gardner and Yoshida should ring a bell. No, I'm afraid that your description doesn't live up to the facts of the current MMA field. Now, I'm not suggesting that MMA is without its malcontents. However, before you start listing them, I'd like you to begin with looking at the roster of boxers for parolees.

"No skill is required to knee someone in the groin (and it happens despite rules stating it is illegal)."

This really cracks me up. Yes, it does happen. When knees to the legs are allowed, frankly, it's pretty easy to accidentally hit someone in the groin. However, knees to the groin seem to occur less frequently in MMA than low blows in another sport I could mention.

"No UFC goon has or ever will possess the grace and natural showmanship of De La Hoya or the true fearsome fighting skills of Mayweather."

"Notice the word: skills. This match will not resemble a bar-room brawl but meticulous, highly practiced, man-to-man warfare between two skilled, all-time athletes."

I'd love to have the opportunity to sit with you, Michael, and pick out a few fights to watch. To teach you a little bit about what you're looking at. You seem to be suggesting that to do what the athletes in the UFC do requires no skill -- but you clearly have no idea what's involved. Your perception is colored by your culture -- you're brought up on boxing, so you think if someone doesn't move like a boxer, it's because he's unskilled. You'd ask someone to ride a motorcycle like he rides a ten-speed.

It takes tremendous MULTI-DIMENSIONAL skills to be a successful MMA fighter in today's age. Frankly, too many skills to truly master any of them in most cases. I'll grant you, Mayweather punches better than anyone in the UFC. Of course he does. Because it's ALL he does. Imagine a sport that featured only jabs. If someone dedicated as much time and was blessed with as much talent as Mayweather in this hypothetical sport, he'd jab better than Mayweather, because his focus would be on jabbing and jabbing alone. However, he'd adopt certain movements that took advantage of the rules in his sport, and his jab would likely be different than a traditional boxing jab. Head to head with Mayweather, he'd beat Floyd jabbing. Floyd would kill him boxing.

Well our hypothetical "Jab" sport is to boxing what boxing is to MMA. It's that simple, and that true.

"The UFC should be banned..."

Based on what? The culturally-biassed perception that you have that it is more violent than boxing? I'm aware of a study that shows that the injury rate in boxing and MMA are on a par. It's worth noting, though, that the injuries in boxing are heavily weighted toward head trauma -- MMA's injuries are more evenly distributed across the body. The reasons are clear: watch an average boxing match versus the average MMA match, and you'll see that the number of strikes to the head are much higher in boxing. A fighter gets in trouble in boxing and he clinches, only to be separated by the referee to receive more punishment. He gets knocked down, and is given a standing-eight count to recover and go back into the fray -- and go he does, because there is a culture in boxing that frowns on the notion of submission. To admit that the opponent is superior can be catastrophic to a fighter's career. Just ask Roberto Durran.

On the other hand, if an MMA fighter gets in trouble and clinches, the clinch isn't broken. He can change the dimensions by taking the fight to the ground, or by striking from closer range. If the referee perceives that a fighter is in danger, the fight is ended -- immediately. No standing-eight, no going back in to receive more punishment. And, finally, the notion of submission is embraced: fighters can, at any time, say that they've had enough. Frankly, I find that to be far more civilized. Don't you?

[alizae_airforce]

Originally Posted by Nedders

While Freeman's attack was reprehensible, I found Doyel's response hardly more dignified. They've continued thier spat on the message boards, so I thought I'd send them the thoughts of a tried and true MMA/boxing fan.

http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messag...no/2397849/0/L

'Freeman, Doyel, I'm putting you both on notice, actually. Because each of you is peddling ignorance, in spades.

Firstly, Freeman, the "barfighters" and "human cockfighting" schtick was tired 12 years ago, even when it was far more applicable. MMA fighters are trained athletes in multiple disciplines, including your beloved boxing. The fact that they engage in ground fighting or striking with more than their hands does not make them any less dignified as combatants than boxers (who, mind you, routinely clinch and hold, low blow, and occassionally bite their opponents). MMA is a far safer sport than boxing, with no casualities in the history of sanctioned MMA competition. Boxers die as a result of injuries from sanctioned fights, every year. You clearly have virtually no understanding of the sport and have no basis from which to criticise, outside of your extreme audacity. You clearly are feeling squeezed as an outsider to a growing worldwide phenomenon, and have resorted to the lowest form of backlash as a means of reconciling yourself with the situation. As a longtime fan of boxing, I'm ashamed to have your assanine rantings as representative of the boxing worlds views toward MMA.

As for you, Doyel, well you made some valid arguments as to why boxing has soured in recent decades, as well as why MMA has made it's slow ascent to nationwide recognition, but in reality, your tactics are no less slanderous than Freeman's. If in fact, MMA is the present and future, and you truly believe boxing to be a dead art, what do you have to gain from pissing on its proverbial grave? Why not do the classy thing, take the high road, and celebrate the one remaining fight you feel is relevant to American fight fans. MMA owes as much to boxing as any other combat sport..why not show some gratitude if this is boxing's last hurrah? Also, I find it a bit troubling that you're the representative of the MMA viewpoint, and yet your experience with Pride is limited to FSN re-airs of old fights? Can I be the baseball guru at SportsLine if I only follow the National league? Pride was the premier organization in MMA for a time when the UFC was a fringe sport in the US, as evidenced by the defection of many of the UFC's best fighters from the late 90's (Mark Coleman, Don Frye, Mark Kerr, Gary Goodridge etc) to it's ranks. Pride made MMA events into spectacle, skyrocketed the salaries and visibility for fighters, and hosted many of the greatest MMA bouts in the history of the sport. While Pride may be in transition after the recent purchase by the UFC, your ignorance regarding the organization and its fighters is reprehensible considering your position at a national..indeed global, website. It's akin to your soccer correspondent only having watched MLS for the past decade. So, thank you for what you've done and are doing for the sport, no thank you for your bash on boxing, and please, school yourself to the history of MMA on the world stage. The UFC, though emerging as a global leader, is far from the only place in town for elite level MMA.

As for boxing...boxing has some serious issues, to be sure, and by observable trends is on the backside of a long decline as one of the premier sports in America. All of the issues with corruption, promoters, pay-per-view, obscure belts and weight classes, mandatory fights, in addition to the general lack of recognizable star power, have all contributed to this slow degradation of a once great tradition. The rising popularity of alternative combat sports has also contributed, but to be sure, boxing has crafted its own plight and cannot lay the burden of it's failures on outside forces.

That being said, let me explain to you why boxing isn't, and never will be, "dead" as a sport. Those making MMA out to be the enemy of boxing are only partially correct, in so much as MMA incorporates boxing technique and conditioning into into the overall cocktail of fighting styles it encompasses. You also see variations on wrestling, submission grappling, and kickboxing, all incorporated to varying degrees in MMA. So the question has to be asked, since MMA incorporates kickboxing, why does K-1 continue to flourish as an organization? Why are submission grappling and jiu-jistu tournaments like Abu-Dhabi still around? Why are there still collegiate and Olympic wrestlers, both Greco-Roman and freestyle?

The fact is that while MMA may have already surpassed boxing in terms of overall popularity and recognition in America, boxing as an art form and as a sport is under no threat of "dying", any more than any other discipline of martial arts. In fact, most MMA stars would likely tell you the crucial importance of training boxing techniques into their standup skillset. Now MMA mirrors reality far more than strictly boxing in so much as it more closely mimmicks actual fighting scenarios..I can tell you personally that of the number of fights I've been in, few have remained standing the entire time, and almost none were limited strictly to blows with the hands. In this way MMA has a transcendent appeal to those who follow combat sports.

Now some people can still appreciate guys who strictly throw hands, and those people will always appreciate boxing on some level..but MMA still has guys to offer them as well (Liddell, Gomi etc). Some people prefer submission artists who can impose their will on the ground, and while they will follow Sambo tournaments and the ADCC, they can still watch MMA for their fix too (Nogueira's, Fedor). Kickboxing fans can soak up some K-1, and then tune in for Mark Hunt and Mirko "Cro Cop" Filipovic (yes he has a last name) in MMA circles.

So yes, you can be, and yes I AM a fan of both MMA and boxing. I was transfixed when Hopkins beat Tarver, and I cheered when St Pierre KO'd Hughes. I admire Ricky Hatton's panache and I marvel at Fedor Emelianenko's brilliance. I see no conflict between such feelings and experiences. I was a fan of MMA when it was an outsider sport, under threat from Congress with virtually no positive press coverage. I was a fan of boxing when it was front-page material, when the nation stood still for big fights and boxers were transcendent figures in American culture. However the tides have turned, for better or worse, I'll still be a fan of both, tomorrow and going forward. I have no need to engage in petty, childish demagoguery and name calling, as apparently do national columnists like yourselves.'

EXCELLENT POST!
I dont think I could have said it better myself. These posts are the reason I still come to message boards even though it is filled with trolls.

[sweeptheleg]

Excellent my friend. That summarization should be posted and reposted on many a message board and blog.

Bravo!

[alizae_airforce]

Miyamoto, excellent reply.