# Professional Boxing



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

The sport is in decline.

When I was a child it was televised on the US networks regularly and was widely watched. Everyone seemed to be talking about "the Fights" ..It was a regular occasion for many men to get together, like the Saturday night poker game. Bar rooms would be full of cigarette smoke as empty beer bottles accumulated on the tables as regular patrons all seemed to file in to watch the fight of the week. Everyone knew who the heavyweight champion was, and who would be next to take a crack at the title.

Today the appeal has faded. Many feel it should be banned. And the sport has always been linked with organized crime. How worse can it get? I'm really not sure whether I'd miss it.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

It's not violent enough for today's young crowd. The bars are still packed for pay per view except now its for MMA which I don't get at all.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

I was a big boxing fan back in the 80's,the heavyweights got all the glory,but to me the middle/welter weights were the fights to watch.
The years when Hearns,Hagler,Duran and Leonard fought each other regularly was the golden era to me.

I'm not a fan of MMA myself either.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

It really isn't like it used to be--and to listen to the old guys even what I remember wasn't as good.
I was never into in a big way--but I'd follow the news of the big fights & who was the champ, etc.

Now?

I haven't paid attention in ages.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I get the appeal of MMA. 

It at least _seems_ less crooked and more real than boxing. Boxing always seemed to have a lot of questionable decisions. Most MMA bouts are knock outs or submission tap outs.

It doesn't turn me on but it's definitely what a lot of young men enjoy watching.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Boxing isnt in decline, the boxers are getting better and better all the time. Its actually more popular now world wide than it has ever been. Just because the fat fucks in North America would rather watch pie eating contests while they stuff their fat faces doesnt mean boxing isnt alive and well. Its just that the fat fucks here think that North America is the whole world. SOG, GOAT................


----------



## 67mike (Feb 20, 2014)

MMA is so much more exciting than plain old boxing.

It is like driving a 1974 pinto vs 2015 Hellcat.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> It's not violent enough for today's young crowd. The bars are still packed for pay per view except now its for MMA which I don't get at all.


I agree. I cant get enjoy MMA. I respect them as athletes and fighters, but its not entertaining to me to watch prolonged amounts of hugging, followed by what looks like a street fight that should have been broken up, where one guy sits on the chest of the other and just punches him senselessly.
Plus, theres a certain thug/douchebag element to the whole thing....maybe because there isn't that much money being made, comparatively.
I am truly surprised however, that there hasn't been any big tragedies in the sport. its always seemed like an accident waiting to happen.

I miss boxing...there was a of excitement back in the day for the big name fights. 
but im not surprised its dead. too much behind the scenes shenanigans/corruption etc, and the lack of a truly great champ, and a rival or rivals to contest him.
to me, it hasn't been interesting since the days of Holyfield, Tyson, etc.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

67mike said:


> MMA is so much more exciting than plain old boxing.
> 
> It is like driving a 1974 pinto vs 2015 Hellcat.


I have to disagree. I find MMA incredibly boring: especially when they start grappling on the mat, or one guy pins the other against the fence and starts pummeling him. Or maybe that is the exciting part?

Back in the 80s, when Middleweight and Welterweight boxing was stacked full of giants ie Thomas Hearns, Marvin Haggler, Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran etc there were lots of fantastic fights. I don't follow it as closely as I used to but I still watch if I come across it on TV nowadays. MMA? Never watch it.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

MMA can be more exciting but when it gets taken to the ground and they are rolling around it can get boring. I enjoy watching both MMA and boxing but MMA gets all the attention so I don't usually catch to many boxing fights. YouTube knockout reels of both boxing and MMA is right up my alley though. All killer no filler. 

I used to box at a local club here. Couple big fighters came outta that club, mike strange and billy Irwin. Both Olympic champs. Billy has the club now and a buddy of mine just started going again. I would like to start training again just for the excersize. It's a great workout. Not enough time in the week though


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Moosehead said:


> MMA can be more exciting but when it gets taken to the ground and they are rolling around it can get boring. I enjoy watching both MMA and boxing but MMA gets all the attention so I don't usually catch to many boxing fights. *YouTube knockout reels of both boxing and MMA is right up my alley though. All killer no filler.
> *
> I used to box at a local club here. Couple big fighters came outta that club, mike strange and billy Irwin. Both Olympic champs. Billy has the club now and a buddy of mine just started going again. I would like to start training again just for the excersize. It's a great workout. Not enough time in the week though


re: bolded, I wish the networks picked up on this "all killer, no filler" type of production. When my daughter was born, my wife and I spent a lot of late nights rocking her to sleep in front of the tv. on Saturday nights, they'd play hockey "game in an hour" edited rebroadcasts of the Leafs, etc. Loved it. much better than just highlights, but without every mundane moment of an actual game.

to your second paragraph, I recently discovered an old high school friend of mine was a professional boxer, and did quite well. Ray Olubowale. We knew him as Bola.
Funny thing, in high school, he was a gentle giant. no intimidation aside from his size. Actually seemed kind of gawky/clumsy. I most remember the gym teachers trying to groom him for the basketball teams, due to his size, and perhaps ethnicity. But it was to no avail. really sweet, intelligent guy, but he must have been a late bloomer athletically, because in HS, he didn't show much aptitude. Maybe he just hadn't found his sport yet.


----------



## neldom (Apr 29, 2009)

I watch the occasional MMA fight when invited out to watch it, but I could really take it or leave it.
A friend of mine made the joke about all the wrestling around on the floor and the long holds "It's just like prison sex, just because it's violent doesn't mean it's not gay."

The real turn off for me about MMA is the fans and the merch, to me it seems like the Nickelback of sports, or at least it draws very much the same crowds...


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Lots of things have lead to the steady decline in boxing popularity in NA. I'll still watch the occasional rebroadcast of a bout I already know the result of, just to see how they got there. Caught the last Klitschko fight live, but it was a yawner.

MMA I like watching and watch pretty much all of it (at least UFC level) that gets broadcast, minus pay per views. I think I bought one GSP fight a couple years back. Yes, there can be some boring fights - styles make fights and if they don't get it right, or someone just isn't on or aggressive that night, it can be boring.....or one guy totally dominates but no KO or submission, mostly boring. They you get cards like last Sunday where 10 underdogs won.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I won't knock it, but I don't enjoy watching two guys try and beat the shit out of each other.

Admittedly Im really not much of a sports fan though so I guess I'm not their target domographic.

That goes both for boxing and MMA.

I work out with a few guys who practise MMA of various types. I just do see the appeal.


----------



## deadear (Nov 24, 2011)

Boxing is great but MMA has taken over because white guys can win at MMA. White guys get the dung beat out of them in boxing. They cut too easy and their skeleton is too thick and heavy full of dead weight.


----------



## 67mike (Feb 20, 2014)

deadear said:


> Boxing is great but MMA has taken over because white guys can win at MMA. White guys get the dung beat out of them in boxing. They cut too easy and their skeleton is too thick and heavy full of dead weight.


This is just plain silly.


----------



## deadear (Nov 24, 2011)

67mike said:


> This is just plain silly.


What is silly about it ? It is a fact. Name the last great white boxer, it does come down to genetics at the top level of any sport. It is apperent you know very little about either sport


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

I thought the thread title (Professional Boxing) referred to UPS, etc. packing amps, etc. for shipping.

:sSig_DOH:

Cheers

Dave


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

deadear said:


> What is silly about it ? It is a fact. Name the last great white boxer, it does come down to genetics at the top level of any sport. It is apperent you know very little about either sport


Klitschko brothers. You're full of shit.

Want a lower weight class? Gennady Golovkin.

Lower? Mexicans have long been dominant in lower classes, are they white enough for you?


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

OOOPS..maybe not a good time to try and inject some humour into this thread.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## deadear (Nov 24, 2011)

keto said:


> Klitschko brothers. You're full of shit.
> 
> Want a lower weight class? Gennady Golovkin.
> 
> Lower? Mexicans have long been dominant in lower classes, are they white enough for you?


Who ? Mexicans are latino's dummy. Hagler , Hearns, Leonard, Ali, Fazer, ETC. ETC. you know nothing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvelous_Marvin_Hagler This is a boxing great.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

I figured that's about what I'd get in reply. Hey, I have no argument with the fighters you named being greats - maybe not Fazer, I don't know his body of work. j/k I know you meant Smokin Joe, who I don't really consider to be in the same league as the rest but whatever. I watched most of all of their fights, with Frazier being the exception and mostly have only seen the Ali v Frazier bouts.

Continuing to feed the troll, if you don't know the Klitschkos or Golovkin, you're hardly in a position to talk about the state of the sport in current times.


----------



## deadear (Nov 24, 2011)

Now I will continue to feed the troll. You have named 3 fighters that are fighting when boxing is at its lowest. I only checked one guys stats and he is a white euro fighting mainly other white euro's to get his record up to a wopping 30 fights. Hardly a all time great of the sport. Case closed.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Golovkin is something like 32-0, that's probably who you looked up. Pretty hard to assess all time greatness until one's career is at least near its end, if not over, so I'm not proposing him in that class, but he's great now.

You asked to name the last great white boxer. Wladimir Klitschko has beaten all comers for many years now, 1 loss in 15 years and that was a lucky shot (Sanders). Sure it's a weaker era, but I'd not be alone in putting him up among the all time greats.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

keto said:


> Wladimir Klitschko has beaten all comers for many years now, 1 loss in 15 years and that was a lucky shot (Sanders). Sure it's a weaker era, but I'd not be alone in putting him up among the all time greats.


How can you put him up among the greats? Klitschko has what has to be one of the most padded records in the history of boxing, same goes for Vitali. Vitali couldn't even beat a washed up Lennox Lewis. I think they have a place in history right alongside of the likes of Ricky Hatton... not that great if you ask me.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Facts on boxing and athletes in general:

1. Athletes get worse over time. Its a fact, just look at all the records from the caveman era. Those fuckers were beasts.
2. Except those athletes from the 70s who made all sports at their peaks. Smoking, over eating, laziness, these things just added to their awesomeness.

Wlad, SOG, Pacman, Floyd. These guys are so far ahead of the older generations it isnt even funny. Im not sure why old people thing the era they grew up in was the absolute finest and everything went to hell after that. Its actually pretty sad talking to old people about sports. I love Gretzky, and Orr and all those guys, but fuck, they couldnt play in todays NHL, they are too fucking slow. Its pretty hard to beat a modern athlete because they are too fucking fast. Rant off to the old timers in here. Please turn off your rose colored glasses and alzheimers.........

- - - Updated - - -

Question for deadear, are you a fucktard rascist, because your anti Mexican and anti white things is making me picture you getting a banning...........


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

I stopped watching boxing after Foreman vs Schulz in 1995. Schulz kicked Foreman's ass for 12 rounds but somehow Foreman won by unanimous decision. Schulz didn't have a scratch on him and Foreman could barely get sunglasses on after the fight because his face was so swollen. The sport was too corrupt to watch anymore. Plus it's simply unrealistic. 

I love MMA. I've watched every UFC since 1993. I rarely ever watch any other promotions because I find the skill level is just not there yet. The main complaints I've heard about MMA is the ground fighting. I can see how it can be boring if you don't know what you are watching. I have a background in different martial arts including judo so I'm pretty familiar with the ground game and find it exciting to watch - especially two really good grapplers. 

I'm the MMA fan that enjoys watching two people test their skills against each other. I don't see it as "two guys trying to beat the shit out of each other". 

As for the previous string of posts...I think deardear is just being a troll. What do you do, this is the internet after all.


----------



## deadear (Nov 24, 2011)

Accept2 said:


> Facts on boxing and athletes in general:
> 
> 1. Athletes get worse over time. Its a fact, just look at all the records from the caveman era. Those fuckers were beasts.
> 2. Except those athletes from the 70s who made all sports at their peaks. Smoking, over eating, laziness, these things just added to their awesomeness.
> ...


No racism intended just facts on who is winning all major title bouts over the last fifty years or so. Gretzky could not play in the NHL today well that is news to me. BTW I will close the fucking account before I suck hole to a moderator.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

This forum will not tolerate klan members. We love our Mexican brothers..............


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

On the street this type of behaviour gets you put in jail. It's violence and that's the long and short of it. Many people have been killed and untold numbers have been seriously hurt by it. That is not sport. Why would someone want to watch some guy get pounded into the canvas? I'm sure his family doesn't.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

What about Jimmy The Greek


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I for one would love for boxers to wear headgear. That would separate the pure boxers from the brawlers who bring nothing to the sport except the blood-lust fans.......


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

deadear said:


> What is silly about it ? It is a fact. Name the last great white boxer, it does come down to genetics at the top level of any sport. It is apperent you know very little about either sport


Rocky Balboa?


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Steadfastly said:


> On the street this type of behaviour gets you put in jail. It's violence and that's the long and short of it. Many people have been killed and untold numbers have been seriously hurt by it. That is not sport. Why would someone want to watch some guy get pounded into the canvas? I'm sure his family doesn't.


If someone put two dogs in a ring and let them fight in front of paying clients, the organizer would be arrested and publically disgraced.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

Here are some other things that get you put in jail on the street....slashing someone with a hockey stick, pulling someone's jersey over their head and peppering them with uppercuts, slamming someone into a wall, a 300lb man tackling someone to the ground. People celebrate those activities. What's the difference?



Steadfastly said:


> On the street this type of behaviour gets you put in jail. It's violence and that's the long and short of it. Many people have been killed and untold numbers have been seriously hurt by it. That is not sport. Why would someone want to watch some guy get pounded into the canvas? I'm sure his family doesn't.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

The obvious answer is that in the human form of violent entertainment, the participants are more or less involved voluntarily. I said "more or less", because some people in less fortunate nations feel they have to participate to escape from poverty.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

Accept2 said:


> Wlad... These guys are so far ahead of the older generations it isnt even funny.


You can't really believe Klitschko is in another class over the greats that came before him.










Give me a time machine and put him up against this guy,

[video=youtube;CRCVwsIokEw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCVwsIokEw[/video]

and I can guarantee you you'd see the same result.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Morkolo said:


> You can't really believe Klitschko is in another class over the greats that came before him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tyson in his prime was a beast.
winning fights in a handful of minutes.

but that's part of what went wrong. You need great rivalries in sport. Larry bIrd vs Magic Johnson (basketball). Sugar Ray Leonard vs Roberto Duran , Nicklaus vs palmer etc. Uncontested greatness becomes boring.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

I don't see what's obvious about that answer. Are you suggesting that people who participate in violent sports like hockey and football are participating voluntarily so that's ok but people who participate in boxing or MMA are doing so to escape poverty? That doesn't sound right at all. 



Krelf said:


> The obvious answer is that in the human form of violent entertainment, the participants are more or less involved voluntarily. I said "more or less", because some people in less fortunate nations feel they have to participate to escape from poverty.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Tyson fougt in an era when boxers had 2 jobs. Buster was a dock worker, and made a cool $8,500 the night he knocked out Tyson. Bought himself a used car. Whenever Tyson did fight anyone real, (Lewis, The Real Meal), he floundered. Against cab drivers he was good though. It was the Don King era. Tyson's biggest win, a shot Holmes who came out of retirement, because they were running out of cab drivers and dock workers. And yes, compared to todays guys, those old guys were slow, and slow in boxing is bad. That is why Valuev, another Don King ace never fought anyone real...........


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

[video=youtube;BF-sxSipAMs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF-sxSipAMs[/video]


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Stratin2traynor said:


> I don't see what's obvious about that answer. Are you suggesting that people who participate in violent sports like hockey and football are participating voluntarily so that's ok but people who participate in boxing or MMA are doing so to escape poverty? That doesn't sound right at all.


There are a number of issues at play. Firstly, the degree of violence differs in the sports you mentioned. Football and hockey are body contact sports, but except for the occasional emotion-spurred fight, they are not pugilistic. i.e. the purpose of these sports is to score goals or get the ball over the line, not physically harm a person, although it may unintentionally happen in the process.

However in places like Mexico, the Spanish Caribbean and the poorer parts of Central and South America,(and even US Ghettos) boxing can be seen as a way to put food on the table and assist family members who are struggling to eat or receive medical attention. This is unlike the kid in Canada whose parents can generally afford to buy the hockey gear and drive him or her to the rink at 6 AM Saturday mornings. Sure, a lot of Canadians have problems affording sports for their kids and some are denied the opportunity, but the child or parent is not lured into a ring to fight in order to subsist.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

The purpose of all professional sports events is to put bums in seats (in the arena and at home watching) and reap the rewards. Period. 

I tuned out a long time ago.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> I for one would love for boxers to wear headgear. That would separate the pure boxers from the brawlers who bring nothing to the sport except the blood-lust fans.......


and also take the head butting and other cheap shot crap out.



Accept2 said:


> Tyson fougt in an era when boxers had 2 jobs. Buster was a dock worker, and made a cool $8,500 the night he knocked out Tyson. Bought himself a used car. Whenever Tyson did fight anyone real, (Lewis, The Real Meal), he floundered. Against cab drivers he was good though. It was the Don King era. Tyson's biggest win, a shot Holmes who came out of retirement, because they were running out of cab drivers and dock workers. And yes, compared to todays guys, those old guys were slow, and slow in boxing is bad. That is why Valuev, another Don King ace never fought anyone real...........


I agree on one hand but Tyson only 'floundered' after he gave up his original team and went 'all King'. His style changed and everything about his persona changed. His style though, was 180 degrees different after Cus was gone.

Furthermore, Lewis never fought anyone either. By the time that Lewis fought Tyson, Mike was over 10 years past his prime. Just have a look at Lennox Lewis' fight career:
http://boxing.about.com/od/records/a/lewis.htm

It's pathetic. By the time Lewis fought Holyfield, Evander was 37 and had been fighting for 15 years with close to or about 40 pro fights. He was 30 pounds heavier, a couple of inches taller and had something like 6 inches of reach over Holyfield...he should have absolutely destroyed him. Instead, the 'Excellence of Execution' f'd it up enough that the fight was called a draw. It was a bad 'decision' but not even in the worst 5 that I can recall. 

Riddick Bowe probably would have beaten Lewis who (he or his management or both) made such financial demands that Bowe refused to meet them (said demands) and vacated the title on principle. Lewis never did fight him...oh, but he fought Tyrell Biggs, Razor Ruddock and Tony Tucker. Lewis was the most over-rated champion of all time. Let's demand this much money and maybe he just won't fight me. Smart, I guess. The 'Excellence of Execution' was around when other fighters were around but he just didn't fight them...oh...sorry, he fought Shannon Briggs who Foreman obviously beat but the decision was given to Briggs to set up the fight with Lewis. Lewis chose Briggs over other fighters. The only thing that Lewis ever did that was respectable was his Olympic fighting IMO.


Now that I have that all out...boxing f'd itself by setting up the next fight with the decisions of the current fights. I used to be such a fight fan and all of the bad decisions made by judges soured me on it. Figure skating with punching. I went to MMA for the lack of poor decisions. Much of the lustre has worn off of MMA for me too but there are still some fights that can attract my interest. The Pac Man fight vs Mayweather would have been awesome 7 years ago.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

smorgdonkey said:


> and also take the head butting and other cheap shot crap out.
> 
> 
> I agree on one hand but Tyson only 'floundered' after he gave up his original team and went 'all King'. His style changed and everything about his persona changed. His style though, was 180 degrees different after Cus was gone.
> ...


The whole 80s/90s is filled with matches that should have happened but never did. It continued in this era by Vitali. When your career is that long but only a small number of matches, you missed quite a few. Off the top of my head, Tyson missed matches with Foreman, Bowe, Mercer, Wotherspoon, and Morrison. Lewis fought a garbage can instead of Bowe, and made sure he stayed away from Wlad and Byrd among others. Alot of them do it, just look at Pacman and Floyd, finally going to town after all these years. I personally think SOG would mop the floor with both of them at the same time. However, Lewis, Tyson and Holyfield were the champs of their era, and nothing can take away from that. Even as athletes get better over time, I still revere the older ones, especially a guy like Sugar Ray Robinson, who I think SOG is going to end up emulating............


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

Huh?? Sorry but it still sounds like you're saying the same thing as before. 

I have no idea what you are talking about. You say that football and hockey are contact sports that are not pugilistic and that the purpose of the sport is to score goals (points) or get the ball over a line. Well, here's some news for ya, boxing and MMA involve scoring points through strikes, takedowns and positioning. 

Look, at the end of the day, some people find it distasteful to watch two people test themselves against each other. I get it, if you don't like it, don't watch it. But to call it simply street fighting or a blood sport just demonstrates the narrow lense through which you view it. To think that hockey, football or any other contact sport is better or more civilized in comparison just because the contact that causes career ending injuries is incidental to playing the game or scoring a point, is ridiculous. Besides, I don't see how smashing someone into the boards in hockey is not intended to cause a person physical harm. WTF?

I think I'm done with this thread. 



Krelf said:


> There are a number of issues at play. Firstly, the degree of violence differs in the sports you mentioned. Football and hockey are body contact sports, but except for the occasional emotion-spurred fight, they are not pugilistic. i.e. the purpose of these sports is to score goals or get the ball over the line, not physically harm a person, although it may unintentionally happen in the process.
> 
> *However in places like Mexico, the Spanish Caribbean and the poorer parts of Central and South America,(and even US Ghettos) boxing can be seen as a way to put food on the table and assist family members who are struggling to eat or receive medical attention. *This is unlike the kid in Canada whose parents can generally afford to buy the hockey gear and drive him or her to the rink at 6 AM Saturday mornings. Sure, a lot of Canadians have problems affording sports for their kids and some are denied the opportunity, but the child or parent is not lured into a ring to fight in order to subsist.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

I love hockey. It's the fighting I don't like. And I never called it street fighting or a blood sport. You're exaggerating everything I say. I think you have a real sensitivity to this and I really don't why you like violence so much.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

Lol. Sorry, I'm not trying to exaggerate everything you're saying. I've just heard so many complaints about MMA that I am a little sensitive to them. I know it sounds weird but I don't find MMA to be "violent". I don't see it as an attempt to harm someone (despite some of the hype for certain fights). I do however find hockey to be unnecessarily violent. It should be a sport of skill but it doesn't matter how much skill you have if you get crushed or crosschecked by some goon.

I had a friend in University whose job it was to crush and hurt people when he got called up to the NHL. And he did. Never understood that. Plus, my wife's cousin had his NHL career ended prematurely because of cheap shots that were clearly not incidental.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Stratin2traynor said:


> Lol. Sorry, I'm not trying to exaggerate everything you're saying. I've just heard so many complaints about MMA that I am a little sensitive to them. I know it sounds weird but I don't find MMA to be "violent". I don't see it as an attempt to harm someone (despite some of the hype for certain fights). I do however find hockey to be unnecessarily violent. It should be a sport of skill but it doesn't matter how much skill you have if you get crushed or crosschecked by some goon.
> 
> I had a friend in University whose job it was to crush and hurt people when he got called up to the NHL. And he did. Never understood that. Plus, my wife's cousin had his NHL career ended prematurely because of cheap shots that were clearly not incidental.


im with you on the hockey stuff, but how can MMA not be about trying to hurt someone, or violent? In MMA are you rewarded or punished for knocking someone out or putting them in so much pain they surrender and beg for mercy? Do you win or lose if your opponent is rendered unconscious? What other skills are there in MMA if not to inflict pain/harm/violence?


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

I hear what you're saying. I just see it more as applying techniques as opposed to being "violent". Generally speaking, you're not trying to harm someone, you're applying techniques until they concede - whether it's tapping out or being knocked out. I've been in many competitions over the years and have never once fought with the intent to harm someone. It was simply a test of skill.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Stratin2traynor said:


> I hear what you're saying. I just see it more as applying techniques as opposed to being "violent". Generally speaking, you're not trying to harm someone, you're applying techniques until they concede - whether it's tapping out or being knocked out. I've been in many competitions over the years and have never once fought with the intent to harm someone. It was simply a test of skill.


well, that doesn't sound that different from a hockey player with a skill at checking or bumping someone in such a severe way that they are unable to pass/receive/shoot the puck. if they happen to get hurt, well, so be it 
checking/hitting in hockey is taught the same way a punch/kick/lock etc is taught in MMA. its a bit naïve to think when you are fighting someone, no one will get harmed. The big difference to me, is in hockey, there are more rules that players have to navigate through.
all one needs to do is, google : MMA fight blood 
and see that very clearly, harm is inflicted and people do get hurt, and its all part of the game/winning.
any sport that rewards someone for knocking someone else out, is violent. The difference is, in hockey, theres an expectation to hold back to some degree when you could actually hurt a person. I know of no such rule in MMA, but maybe you can educate me.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

The thing about MMA is the stoppages are generally faster than boxing stoppages. Doctors are in very close proximity and look over fighters who don't even appear injured. I think that the way that the UFC has integrated doctors into overseeing the sport has put them on a high level when it comes to safety.

The chokes which are a very prevalent do not cause injury. Joint locks and many submission holds do cause pain but unless the fighter applying it over does it or the one trying to resist submitting holds out to long, they don't cause injury.

Many repeated hits to the head as in boxing causes much more damage.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

Shouldn't a hockey player develop the skill to skate, handle a puck, pass a puck, and put said puck in the net? If the player had that skill it wouldn't be necessary to slam someone into the boards, or trip them, or crosscheck or whatever other dirty maneuvers take place in hockey. That's what I don't like about hockey. Playing dirty (IMO) is accepted as the norm and "how the game is played". 

I'm knocking hockey. Lots of people love it and I'm in the minority. I get it. I just find it funny when people who enjoy or accept the violence in hockey turn around and suggest that two people facing off in a controlled environment under unified rules with a referee is somehow barbaric. 

I don't think it's naive at all to think that I can fight someone and not harm them. I've done it many times - not drinking or in a bar Lol. It's a little different if you have to punch someone in the face but, as in hockey, that's part of the game. There are lots of rules in MMA as well. Knocking someone out is only one way to win at MMA. I prefer submissions. 

You can probably google hockey accidents, hockey deaths and find similar if not worse images. I just googled hockey blood. Yuck.




Diablo said:


> *well, that doesn't sound that different from a hockey player with a skill at checking or bumping someone in such a severe way that they are unable to pass/receive/shoot the puck. if they happen to get hurt, well, so be it *
> checking/hitting in hockey is taught the same way a punch/kick/lock etc is taught in MMA.* its a bit naïve to think when you are fighting someone, no one will get harmed. The big difference to me, is in hockey, there are more rules that play ers have to navigate through.*
> all one needs to do is, google : MMA fight blood
> and see that very clearly, harm is inflicted and people do get hurt, and its all part of the game/winning.
> any sport that rewards someone for knocking someone else out, is violent. The difference is, in hockey, theres an expectation to hold back to some degree when you could actually hurt a person. I know of no such rule in MMA, but maybe you can educate me.


----------



## stringer (Jun 17, 2009)

Krelf said:


> The sport is in decline.
> 
> When I was a child it was televised on the US networks regularly and was widely watched. Everyone seemed to be talking about "the Fights" ..It was a regular occasion for many men to get together, like the Saturday night poker game. Bar rooms would be full of cigarette smoke as empty beer bottles accumulated on the tables as regular patrons all seemed to file in to watch the fight of the week. Everyone knew who the heavyweight champion was, and who would be next to take a crack at the title.
> 
> Today the appeal has faded. Many feel it should be banned. And the sport has always been linked with organized crime. How worse can it get? I'm really not sure whether I'd miss it.


The sport is definitely in decline in NA. Many reasons, other options etc... but I have read recently that NBC will be airing fights again on "free" tv, that is with a paid cable subscription. That may help. I really feel that PPV has had a lot to do with the decline.

One of my earliest / fondest memories was watching with my grandfather when Ali fought Spinks, but am beginning to tire of it myself. Poorly / untrained judges and referees do not help things. The lack of an international regulating body harms the sport also. Obviously the sport is still corrupt and looks as though it always will be.

Have you seen the prices for the upcoming Mayweather / Pacquaio bout? over 20,000 for ringside and about 10,000 for the nosebleeds and a PPV price of 100 bucks. I have been waiting for this fight and will buy it, but it will more than likely be the last PPV I buy. I'm just dreading that the fight will be judged a draw or a no contest due to cuts caused by clash of heads.

MMA has grown immensely over the years but I believe it is starting to peak. I've watched a bit but must admit I am not a fan. When I first started watching it, UFC 6 maybe? There weren't even weight classes if I recall correctly. At first I didn't know what I was looking at and it appeared that it was 2 guys rolling around on the floor. I've learned that that's not the case. Many rule changes over the years. When I watch now it seems like there is much more stand up fighting. My least favorite part of MMA is when one fighter knocks another down and they jump in for the kill, throwing punches to the head when the head is on the mat and has nowhere to go. Has there been a death yet? Boxing on the other hand can be quite brutal in its own regard, seeing a fighter knocked down several times in the course of a fight and have him take a severe beating lasting up to 36 minutes while receiving hundreds of hits to the head in that time. Just recently yet another boxer passed due to brain injuries suffered during a fight several months prior. As for head gear, it may lessen the blow to a small degree, but the main purpose as far as I know is to prevent cuts, just as gloves main purpose is to protect the hands so they don't break and you can continue to punch with full force, not to protect the opponent. Banning the sport due to the deaths needs a closer look. Comparing deaths in other sports will show that boxing is not the most dangerous. More people die sport fishing.


----------

