The Sweet Science. That's what boxing has been known as for a century. At it's best, boxing is elevated to art by those who practice it. George Foreman once said that boxing is the sport to which all others aspire.
I agree. And that includes Mixed Martial Arts.
Please click on the video below and you will see two of my colleagues -- Joe Fernandez and Wally Matthews -- debate the merits of each sport. It's interesting, informative and, yes, even entertaining. So watch it and form your own opinion. But first, let me give you mine.
Over the last century, boxing has produced some of the greatest sporting events of all time. Dempsey-Tunney, Louis-Schmeling II, Ali-Liston, Ali-Frazier I, Leonard-Duran I and II, Arguello-Pryor I, Tyson-Holyfield I and II, De La Hoya-Mayweather. These were not merely fights, but events that enthralled even the casual fan. Each one was its own Super Bowl. A mini-World Series stuffed inside of 15 rounds or less. Documentaries are still being made about Joe Louis, books are still being written on Muhammad Ali.
MMA is in its infancy and may ultimately provide our cultural with similar, iconic, events. I've watched my share of MMA on YouTube and Spike TV. Joe has directed me to some intriguing matchups and I will tell you this, I'm not looking to get caught in anyone's arm-bar any time soon. But in my opinion, MMA will never supplant boxing.
In the video, Joe points out that many MMA stars are former top collegiate wrestlers and Brazilian jiu-jitsu black belts. I'm sure they are brilliant within their own disciplines. Just as Mayweather is within boxing. But there is a reason that those sports have not made it to network television on their own. While the athletes are skilled, the action is simply not very compelling. That's why the only wrestling we see on television is of the fake variety.
The reason MMA has been so successful is that it has taken legitimate sports -- wrestling, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, etc. -- and added a rogue element. You are allowed to elbow your opponent, knee your opponent, hit him while he's down and do other things that one would basically find offensive in a bar fight. Without those "rules" MMA would lose its appeal. MMA is a sport for the MTV generation. It's a sport of instant gratification. Observers want to see someone bludgeoned and bludgeoned quickly. They want to see someone's arm snapped and they don't want to wait 10 rounds for that to happen. I am sure there are fans of MMA, like Joe, who are
connoisseurs of the sport. He appreciates the nuances of an MMA fight. But that person is as common as a triple heel lock. The millions who are turning in to watch UFC are tuning in for legalized mayhem. So, yes, congratulations MMA, you have succeeded in providing the blood thirsty fan with a quick fix.
After the Mayweather-De La Hoya fight, HBO commentator Jim Lampley said that the fight reached a skill level -- and sustained it -- in such a manner you would never see in MMA. That comment irked my MMA friends. And rightfully so. There are a variety of skills on display in an MMA fight. But again, that's not why people are watching MMA.
I would like to take Lampley's point further. It is the sustained skill, the sustained action that makes boxing intriguing. I've yet to see that in an MMA fight. The great boxing matches in history have tremendous give-and-take. As the rounds roll by, the momentum swings back and forth. That's what makes a great sporting event. What are the best games you've watched? The ones during which a team rallies from sure defeat, or where there are numerous lead changes. In MMA, there is very little ebb and flow. The skills that are on display aren't sustained for long periods of time.
Go to YouTube. Seach for Ali-Fraizer I or III, Pryor-Arguello I, Chavez-Taylor I, Gatti-Ward I or any other classic boxing match. Watch it and then tell me if you can find a single MMA fight that beats it for athleticism, valor and drama.
I'll be waiting for your response. -- CASSIDY
You can read Joe Fernandez's side of the argument at his MMA blog Fighting Words
Watch the debate on video below:
Who won the debate?
CLICK HERE to vote.
Comments (8)
Dempsey-Tunney, Louis-Schmeling II, Ali-Liston, Ali-Frazier I, Leonard-Duran I and II, Arguello-Pryor I, Tyson-Holyfield I and II, De La Hoya-Mayweather.....
The last two you named are not examples of your "sustained drama"...Tyson was so popular for his ability to demolish all opponents in the first few rounds.
Mayweather-De La Hoya...many critics and more fans left disappointed, that fight was by no means an epic like the Ali-Frazer battles.
The fact you threw in that over hyped and ultimately disappointing fight says something about your taste for both boxing and sporting
In your demand for epic battles where one man rallies from certain defeat, I can name countless.
The new heavyweight champ of the UFC,Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira has numerous such bouts, he is known for his "Rocky-like" style where he takes a beating and comes from behind for the win.
If you are looking for MMA fights that show similar levels of athleticism, determination, valor and determination and have not found them you must not be looking very hard.
In regards to an MMA fight that can match those of Ali-Frazier, perhaps there is not one out there.
But Ali-Frazier is unique even in boxing, picking the best boxing fights from the past 100 years and comparing them to the best of the last 10 years of MMA is a bit unfair..
James. Thanks for writing. It was a great post. My point with the De La Hoya-Mayweather fight was that it was a mega event, one that people who normally don't watch boxing actually paid to watch on PPV. I'm with you that the actual fight did not live up to the hype, but it was a very, very good fight between two great fighters. The first Tyson-Holyfield fight did have the sustained action that I think marks all good fights. The second one, well, people are still talking about it. You are right when you say it's unfair to compare 100 years to 10 years. But for all the hype UFC gets, it has yet to produce a classic that has crossed-over to general public the way boxing has. Again. Thanks for writing.
Boxing is dead. It's time to move to a sport that's vibrant, exciting, passionate. Boxing is ancient history
There have been plenty of MMA fights with incredible, back-and-forth action, but you're right in that there hasn't been an epic match (#1 vs. #2 with tons of hype) that has displayed this kind of pace. For example, Cro Cop-Fedor, GSP-Hughes II and A Silva-Henderson were all entertaining, but pretty much one-sided. Fights like Edgar-Griffin or Huerta-Guida have incredible action, but those guys (albeit very good fighters) are not at the top of their divisions.
Boxing isn't dead, but it's niche, just like MMA. And until ESPN or a major network decides to cover them consistently (instead of 2-3 a year), they'll remain niche.
P.S. Wally clearly doesn't understand the submission game. If I guy doesn't tap, he would A) pass out and his opponent would pound on him til the ref stopped it or B) break a limb and lose to a ref stoppage moments later. Submission holds are technical wins more than anything, not tests of will and honor.
Quite the opposite Mr. Cassidy, true MMA fans watch it cause of the beauty of the sport, not cause of blood.
"MMA is a sport for the MTV generation. It's a sport of instant gratification. Observers want to see someone bludgeoned and bludgeoned quickly. They want to see someone's arm snapped and they don't want to wait 10 rounds for that to happen."
Unfortunately, I agree that most casual MMA fans are only looking for a good brawl. However, there's more going on. I think the tone of the quote suggests misleadingly that mixed martial artists might be in more danger than boxers. Depending on how you look at it, this might or might not be true. Someone in MMA might have his ACL seperated in a fight, where a boxer wouldn't, but when an MMA fight is over, it's over. I.E., if you're knocked out, or "unable to mount an intelligent defense" the referee stops the fight. It's over. A boxer gets an 8 count and might very well go the distance, getting punched in the head a hundred plus times in the process. Over the long term that amounts to brain trama, plain and simple.
"I would like to take Lampley's point further. It is the sustained skill, the sustained action that makes boxing intriguing. I've yet to see that in an MMA fight. The great boxing matches in history have tremendous give-and-take. As the rounds roll by, the momentum swings back and forth. That's what makes a great sporting event. What are the best games you've watched? The ones during which a team rallies from sure defeat, or where there are numerous lead changes. In MMA, there is very little ebb and flow. The skills that are on display aren't sustained for long periods of time."
I highly suggest you Google the Nick Diaz vs Karo Parisyan bout. You claim that MMA lacks a sustained skill level, well then you haven't seen some skinny, tall dude get mauled by a much bigger wrestler only to sweep him into a triangle lock, transition to a shoulder lock when the wrestler postures, and then stretches out the armbar.
"But in my opinion, MMA will never supplant boxing."
I respectfully disagree. How old are you? I think you're older than I am, and I'm 19. Almost none of my friends since I can remember have watched any boxing except the classics. Most of them, however, are quite familiar with the UFC and MMA more broadly.
I don't think boxing is going to die or anything, it's been around since the Olympics of ye olde, but I do think MMA is going to eclipse it in popularity within a decade. Anyways, just my 2 cents.
Folks. Great posts. Thanks for reading and writing. I will take your advice and check YouTube for the Diaz-Parisyan fight. And yes, sadly, I am much older than 19 : (... However i still believe that while there are some MMA fans who appreciate the nuances of an MMA fight, most are watching for the violence. Keep the posts coming. Great debate.-- Bobby
While I do agree that many MMA fans may want to see more immediate action and violence, etc. I think you're forgetting that the same applies to any combat sports and, in some cases, sports in general. MMA isn't for everyone, neither is boxing, neither is baseball. However, each has examples of wonderful displays of different skills that thrill people in their own ways and the fact that some watch it for different reasons in no way should cheapen the experience for me or anyone else. (i.e. Simply because person X is watching Hockey to see a fight shouldn't make Hockey less of a sport)
I'm a fan of combat sports in general, as it shows the heart and skill of one person against another in a generally pure (in a certain sense) and exciting fashion. While boxing does this with one or two fights on a card very well for the most part, it relies on one fight to either live up to the hype or disappoint and most anyone who has ordered an event knows which is more likely. MMA is different in that even in the undercard you're likely to see some very impressive feats that should satisfy everyone actually watching and paying attention. For instance, if you like the ebb and flow matches, I can recommend plenty just in the past year or two: Henderson/Rampage, Karo/Sanchez, Diaz/Sanchez, Griffin/Edgar, Guida/Griffin for starters and that's off the top of my head.