My take on this whole MMA vs. Boxing rivalry

[CoolHat]

First, this is going to be a long ass rant, so those of you with short attention spans probably don´t need to bother.

Second, I´m not a boxing hater. I firmly believe that boxing and MMA can co-exist and thrive together. But I´m getting annoyed by the ignorant and opportunistic propaganda that some boxing lobbyists spew, acting like some old tyrant that tries to kill all its challengers in their infancy.

Third, this post is not about "who would win, boxer or MMAist", that shit has been talked to death already. Instead I´m trying to analyze the arguments that some boxing fans, athletes and promoters use to make MMA look like inferior sport to boxing.

1. "The Human cockfighting" argument.

Wherever MMA is discussed, the term "human cockfighting" always seems to rise its ugly head. The point is that MMA is barbaric, brutal and inhumane. I can accept this argument, because the basic premise of two guys beating the shit out of other for entertainment is certainly somewhat barbaric. But when boxing lobbyists use this argument it becomes problematic and hypocritical. If MMA is human cockfighting, what makes boxing any better? After all it has the same objective - to hurt your opponent until he drops. The means are different, but what exactly makes, say, elbows or chokes more barbaric or brutal than jabs or straights?

The answer is: nothing. But the main point of this argument is not to inform people but just the opposite. The real message must be read between the lines: boxing has civilized rules and MMA has not. We all know that is total BS, and even boxing lobby won´t utter outright lies. But they do srongly imply it and hey, if someones going to think modern MMA is no-rules-to-the-death-brutality, it´s not the boxing community´s job to set them straight, right?

2. Boxing is "Sweet Science", whereas MMA is just unrefined brawling.

So boxing is not less brutal than MMA, but at least it has more finesse, right? To be honest, this point has some validity: after all, MMA is still a young sport compared to boxing, so it is natural that all the technical and tactical aspects are not as developed as in boxing. However, while MMA is a young sport, it is (literally) a mix of many different martial arts, some of which have even longer histories than boxing. Take wrestling as an example: it probably has been around as long as man itself and I doubt anyone would say it is less scientific or refined than boxing. And let´s not forget that boxing itself s also a part of MMA.

So while MMA may still be in its developing stages, it is not inherently "less scientific". As time passes and new, better generations of fighters arise, I have no doubt that MMA will become just as much a "sweet science" as boxing.

3. Boxing has a rich history, MMA is just a fad

This argument is closely related to number 2. OK, boxing has a longer history; that is a fact and no one is denying it. But how exactly does it make boxing better? Does it mean that an athlete born in 1882 is inherently better than one born 1982? And more importantly, if people always preferred older things, we would still be living in trees and eating bananas. Progress is inevitable.

Sometimes the history of boxing comes into the discussion from another point if view. It´s something I call the "Alcohol" argument. As you know, some people (particularily the defenders of pot) like to point out that alcohol is just as dangerous as many illegal drugs and if it was invented today, it would immediately get banned. Now, since defenders of alcohol can not deny the medical facts, they argue that alcohol is so big part of our western culture and heritage, that it deserves its special treatment. Boxing lobby uses the argument to evade the fact that boxing is at least as dangerous as MMA:"sure it´s dangerous, but hey, it´s an American tradition, Gentleman Jim, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano..". Again, the fact that MMA hasn´t had enough time to build its heritage does not make it inferior.

4. Boxers are superior athletes, MMArtists are just amateur bums

The main reasoning behind this argument is the scale of the two sports. Boxing is still a much bigger sport with bigger purses, so it has a bigger talent pool and hence has more top athletes. Again, it is a valid point, but not without flaws. First, it is very US-centric argument - boxing may be the overall biggest martial art, but it is by no means no. 1 in every country. In many areas of the world different forms of grappling are more popular, so they are more attractive to the top talent.

Secondly, the whole argument is based on an one dimensional view of humanity. It defines man as an economical animal, that makes its decisions purely on monetary reasons. On larger scope of history and sociology this may be true, but on individual level there are other things to consider - local traditions, childhood idols, social circles, politics and even good old fashioned free will. Take Alexander Karelin, for instance: no one would say he was a lesser athlete since he made less money than, say, Vitaly Klitschko or that he only wrestled because he couldn´t make it in boxing.

Thirdly, not every athletically gifted individual is suited for boxing. Things like different body types, mental qualities etc. are vitally important when deciding which sport is the best for you. Again, no one would argue that Karelin would have been better off as a boxer.

And, fourth, again, the fact that MMA has smaller talent pool right now does not make it inherently inferior. It is just a temporary situation and it means that MMA has some catching up to do. And by the look of things, it´s well on it´s way.


When we look at all these 4 arguments, we see that the stand boxing has taken is not a very solid one. Arguments 2-4, while in some ways true, are all based on the fact that boxing has been around longer than MMA. The way things are going, the age difference may not be an issue very much longer. Argument 1 is not even an argument. It´s just emotional propaganda, used to paint a dishonest picture of MMA.

There you have it, thanks for your time. If some boxing fan finds my reasoning flawed, I would be most interested to hear intelligent responses.

[wolverinejoe800]

well said top to bottom. i agree 100%

anyway, to me, boxing is dead because heavyweight is dead. you get a couple of a dynamite like young tyson, riddick bowe, holy, and etc than boxing can resurrect at any point. historically you gotta have great heavyweights in order to have mass interest. but it's gonna be so hard for boxing to get any better because athletes in inner city doesn't want to go to gym and box, they want to be next MJ, or next LT and etc because you get equally rich and famous playing basketball/football. back then everyone wanted to be the next ali, but now we don't have ali. we have bron and kobe. just my 2 cents.

[Jay Pan ROKK]

In a way, boxe is just a TMA, unidimensional.

[Ancient Warrior]

Your thread is very well thought out and much appreciated, even if it doesn't recieve much attention.

What's there to argue with? Senator McCain is one of the hypocrites you're speaking of (if not "the" hypocrite) and is formally against MMA, whilst a devout follower of the "sweet science".

I think acceptance is just going to take time. I don't believe the sport is a fad, and won't fade into obscurity. It may have it's ups and downs in the future, but most controversial subjects have to run the gauntlet, before they're finally accepted. I think MMA is no exception.

[CoolHat]

Thanks for the kind words... but I´m not through yet. I´ve come up with another argument, inpired by this thread:

UFC 71 Boxing - Who’s "swallowed up" who ?

5. In the end, boxing is the most effective martial art

In the aforementioned thread respected Sherdog veteran and walking encyclopedia of boxing Kid McCoy argues that the Liddell/Rampage fight from last weekend was proof that MMA is slowly but surely becoming... boxing. The argument is that since boxing is the most effective way of combat, it will in due time become dominating style in MMA. Strikers will refine their techniques to the point that grapplers can´t handle them.

Now, this isn´t really n argument rather than speculation and prediction and as such can not really be counterargued otherwise than by saying "time will tell". But it is an interesting point nevertheless. The main point behind Kid´s thinking seems to be that boxing has become the "best" martial art through some kind of evolutionary process. That it has survived and outlasted other ways of combat because of it´s athletic superiority. Personally I think it has more to do with boxings entertainment value and historical issues than its inherent athletic qualities. I mean wrestling is still alive and doing fine and I haven´t seen or read any evidence that boxing would have "won" wrestling in the fight for survival. It just has been able to sell more tickets and create more gambling revenue - which can perhaps be at least partially explained by the fact that a wrestling match is easier to fix convincingly than a boxing match.

But anyway, time will tell.

[topm]

When the brutality argument is brought against MMA, it always surprises me that no reference is made to the disturbing frequency of boxing-related fatalities.

[Torgo]

MMA VS Boxing is the new UFC VS Pride.

Can't wait till the Boxing > MMA myth comes tumbling down.

[Jerome_1]

It could be argued that boxing is the most effective discipline in mma, if someone with good boxing skills can stuff a take down, and check a kick effectively, they can do extremely well in mma.

Mirko Filipovic is basically a stand up fighter with a great take down defence, same goes for Chuck Liddell. They never go to the mat unless they have to, the same with fighters like Wanderlei Silva and Anderson Silva.

"Boxing is the most effective" ? Ha. Not "boxing" as in De La Hoya style. Muy Thai, or kickboxing, or maybe just "striking" generally - you could make an argument for that maybe. Even there, I you have to add in "with great takedown defense" to make the point, and takedown defense is NOT classical boxing.

Plus, even if strikers are doing well right now, I think we have more cycles to go through before MMA matures. BJJ was dominant, maybe striking is now (open question), maybe the next crop of submission fighters works takedowns from the clinch instead of shooting, and then strikers refine their clinch work and wrestling, and so on.

[Noobios]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

It could be argued that boxing is the most effective discipline in mma, if someone with good boxing skills can stuff a take down, and check a kick effectively, they can do extremely well in mma.

so if a good boxer can wrestle and kickbox he'd do well?
wouldn't a good bjj guy who can slip a punch and take someone down be very effective as well?