Search the site

  

About this blog

Share your views and opinions with the Sunday Sun bloggers: Ken Oxley's life of a middle-aged man, Mike Kelly's wine and boozing, Ian Robson's cheeky take on TV, Tony Hitchens on rubbish and recycling and Robert Weatherall's reviews of the news.

Recent comments

Recent Posts

Tag cloud...

Sponsored links

Feeds

  • Add to:
  • icongoogle.gif
  • iconyahoo.gif
  • iconbloglines.gif
  • iconaol.gif

Mixed Martial Arts versus the old Champ Boxing

Posted by Phil Doherty on November 30, 2007 3:51 PM | 

IN the blue corner we have the young contender Mixed Martial Arts and in the red corner the old champ Boxing.

But who will win the battle of the ring – or cage – to be the true heavyweight champion of the airwaves and audience figures?

There's no doubt Boxing has a hardcore of fans who will never renounce their love of the ‘noble’ art, but the names on the lips of youngsters are not heavy weight boxing champs Sultan Ibragimov or Ruslan Chagaev.

No, the youth of today are talking about the Chuck Liddle and the awesome Matt Hughes, kings of the Octagon.

Already the audience figures for the UFC, Cage Rage and Pride mixed martial arts tournaments are far outstripping many traditional sports and according to some reports it has already eclipsed boxing as the premier fighting sport.

Why would this be?

MMA is the new kid on the block and there’s a freshness about the whole enterprise that is missing in the ‘old’ boxing world.

Also, you don’t see the stars of the octagon surrounded by fifty minders when they meet the fans. No, they mix freely and so come across as open and interested in the people whose bums pay their wages.

MMA also combines multiple skills far beyond boxing and is therefore much more interesting to watch as you don’t know whether a fight will stay upright or – bang – will go to the ground and turn into a submission wrestling match.

Anyone who knows about real fighting will recognise this often happens in real confrontations. Most real fights end up as wrestling matches on the ground. So realism counts.

Although MMA looks brutal to the casual onlooker, in truth it has a far better safety record than boxing where opponents continually pound each other in the head.

There are far more martial artists in ANY country than there are boxers. Just think how many martial arts clubs are in your leisure centre!

And as any core martial art can be part of the MMA there are also more contenders.
It also appeals to kickers, punchers and grapplers as it contains them all.

Will boxing throw in the towel? Will it be knocked out on its feet? Or will it slug it out with the new bad boy on the block and ultimately triumph?

Only at the sound of the last round bell will we truly tell who is the Real Champ.

Comments (3)

Baz wrote...

I don't see any reason why boxing and MMA can't co-exist in the same way that rugby and football do. Both sports have their own hardcore of fans who will forever argue that their sport is superior but there is nothing stopping people from enjoying both sports, no rule that says a boxing fan can't enjoy MMA and vice versa. There are things to enjoy about both sports, boxing has the tradition and the high production values but MMA has a fresher feel about it and is gaining ground on boxing in terms of exciting fight cards and big arena spectacle. On the negative side boxing can be accused of promising big but delivering little in terms of real entertainment and MMA still carries the social stigma of being just too brutal looking to be accepted by the mainstream. As with every argument there are two sides here but as long as both sports remain safe and continue to provide entertainment and inspiration to new and potential martial artists I don't think I’ll be able to decide that one is better than the other.

Posted by: Baz  | December 5, 2007 10:39 PM

Andy wrote...

I think boxing will always have the majority support. Like Baz says they can co-exist like football and rugby but I will also use that example here to demonstrate a point. Football always has the majority vote, the bigger attendances, the bigger TV contracts. Why? Because it's easier to understand. Rugby has its hardcore fans who know whats going on but the majority are fair weather fans who barely know whats going on except that they know who's winning. MMA has a similar problem. To most the grappling sequences are merely grown men rolling around and wouldn't know their prefered positions from their arm bars. Where as boxing, because its simplified to one area of combat, can be easily judged as to who has the upper hand. Simply MMA has too many facits of combat for joe public to take the time to learn the rules and techniques to and tends to be enjoyed by martial artists and a select few others. It'd be interesting to compare the Hatton/Mayweather fight attendance figures to the corresponding UFC event (in terms of percieved importance) and see who comes out swinging. I know who my moneys on.

Posted by: Andy  | December 6, 2007 1:56 AM

Marks wrote...

That is exactly right. MMA is the new fighting sport, which combines not just boxing but kicking, clinch fighting, and submission grappling. In the boxing ring, as soon as the fighters clinch, the ref breaks it not long after. In the cage, when clinched, this is when it can be most exciting, and where all other weapons apart from fists come into play. It is a very open sport to. Many world class MMA fighters train at dojos where others may go and train. Frank Shamrocks submission fighting acadamy for instance.

Posted by: Marks  | February 5, 2008 9:20 AM

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)