[Thai Clinch]

Originally Posted by Brandon Couden

there was actually pankration back in the day when the romans had the olympics as well as boxing and wrestling, so just saying ones older doesnt really win the agument, but boxing is still a more popular world wide and there there are alot more seasoned veterns with years of expierence. We havent seen any guys yet who have been participating in mma since they were 6 yet. MMA still has alot of fighters who are athletes from other sports such as wrestling, judo, ju jitsu, kickboxing, ect. we are just starting so see what pure mma fighers are, guys like rich franklin.
Right now boxing titles are fucked up, to many sanctioning bodies, rarley one recognized champion, so its difficult to even know who is the champ so not as prestigous as they once were. Unfortunaly MMA is becoming more and more like that with all the new organizations popping up, we will have to judge who's the best by rankings like boxing does. The thing is it easier in boxing to unify titles than it is IN mma right now. Hopkins was the undisputed middle weight champ hands down, before the two losses to Jermain Taylor (they were both draws in my opinion). Its all entertainment so who cares, whats important is whats more important to you and what do you like.

Hes right, Pankration was done by the Greeks bak in the day at the olympics...but when the romans came along they say it as too barbaric and they split up pankration into 2 diffretn sports...boxing and wrestling....or somthin like that

[CapitolCity]

Unless the original belt is still being passed around from 4,000-8,000 years ago, I'm not sure I understand why a boxing belt is more prestigious than a MMA belt simply because it has been around longer.

[stand up wit me]

tell yall what. i can't name a single boxing champ nowadays so imma say mma.

and enough with the history lesson about boxing. who cares what came first if anything boxings obsaleat (spelling) now.

[getgot]

Originally Posted by samurai_guy

MMA title.

There's 10 times more Boxing titles out there.

but most know and admit that they are worthless.

however, the number 1 fighter can fight the number 2 fighter for the one that matters.

MMA is full of politics too for all you jackasses saying thats the problem with boxing.

[Bambaloo]

Originally Posted by belly

The Pride belt has also been around since 4,000 BC and it has been defended twice. Another miraculous feat.

Lol perfect reply. I thought it wasfunny when this kid was defending prides sporatic title fights and he said Aurelio had to prove he was worthy of a shot at the title by beating Gomi... the title holder

[Prophet of Pain]

i would say that cavemen probably wrestled each other for brontasauraus leg back in the day
in an mma forum i would day that most of the votes would be for mma, i would take the owgp belt over any belt becaue of the multiple fights in one night

[The Real Ben]

The world respects boxing much more than MMA. Alos, Boxing titles and commissions aren't divided into promotions like Pride or UFC. Anyone can fight for any title, given they receive a shot for it.

Once MMA develops a longer history and becomes universal in the way boxing is, they will gain a great deal more respect.

[bdreason]

Boxing is perhaps the most corrupt organized sport in the world. I tend not to trust anything that has to with the sport; matchups, title shots, judges decisions... all of them have been fixed at one time or another.

[brownthug88]

its much harder to be successful at boxing since it has far more depth.
The wbc and wba titles are very presitgious, IBF is ok but WBO is a worthless belt.

[Sambo234]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankration

MMA origin circa 648 bc