The Neutral Corner

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