- Joined
- 2 Nov 2005
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 245
- Country
Gypsy fighting does have rules. Its not a fight to the death
Google it.
No gypsy would have been able to handle this fella. imho
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickson_Gracie
Gypsy fighting does have rules. Its not a fight to the death
Google it.
No gypsy would have been able to handle this fella. imho
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickson_Gracie
Sponsored Links
N
namsag
Watching it its much the same as how we fought as fit teenagers hit them with any part of your body that you can and dont stop till they cant get back up.
As with any sort of fighting it does not matter how good your technique is. It all boils down to one simple thing, whether you can actually take a punch no point looking the part if you have a glass jaw .
As with any sort of fighting it does not matter how good your technique is. It all boils down to one simple thing, whether you can actually take a punch no point looking the part if you have a glass jaw .
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2005
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 245
- Country
Hmmm. Your right in the fact that anyone will go down if they are hit right.
However the aim is not to get hit. Thats were technique comes in.
Also there are more ways to win a fight other than strikes to the head.
MMA might look like brawling to the untrained eye, but believe me technique is hugely important.
Boxing is the toughest sport by a mile imo in comparison to mma.
mma is brutal maybe but not tough.
Just watching some of this mma on u tube and my conclusion is that it just an extension of street fighting where a man is down and severly disadvantaged and has his lights kicked out. We've all seen it on a saturday night in a street fight where anything goes.
Not that difficult and doesn't require toughness.
You cant call it a fight anymore when one man is on his back thus the so called winner has a hollow victory.
Couping the other person of his feet is basically just a wrestling technique. Any small person who can get a big person down will immiedietly have the advantage.
None of these guys would have lasted a round with hagler, hearns, the sugar rays, jake lamotta, roberto duran etc under boxing rules.
And you can't say the opposite because one person is deemed a winner over a severly disadvanaged opponent.
mma is brutal maybe but not tough.
Just watching some of this mma on u tube and my conclusion is that it just an extension of street fighting where a man is down and severly disadvantaged and has his lights kicked out. We've all seen it on a saturday night in a street fight where anything goes.
Not that difficult and doesn't require toughness.
You cant call it a fight anymore when one man is on his back thus the so called winner has a hollow victory.
Couping the other person of his feet is basically just a wrestling technique. Any small person who can get a big person down will immiedietly have the advantage.
None of these guys would have lasted a round with hagler, hearns, the sugar rays, jake lamotta, roberto duran etc under boxing rules.
And you can't say the opposite because one person is deemed a winner over a severly disadvanaged opponent.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,624
- Reaction score
- 667
- Country
MMA does look horribly brutal IMO.
I would consider this less violent.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-sfqzFdmk
Mr. W.
I would consider this less violent.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-sfqzFdmk
Mr. W.
I
imamartian
with respect... i hate links with no explanation, so you have to click on it to see what it is... that's fine in your own post, i just don't bother clicking on it... but hijacking another post with one is so fookin annoying... please don't do it on my threads.... thank-you!
I
imamartian
Boxing is a tough sport... and i wouldn't like to spill the beer of Hagler, Hearns, Tyson etc in a bar.
But to think it's tougher than MMA gobsmacks me (no pun intended !!)
MMA includes boxing, and kick boxing, and wrestling (the US college stuff, not that ridiculous big daddy panto stuff), and any, non weapon based martial art.
So the skill is being good at all of these disciplines, and extremely good at some of them. Some fights can stay on their feet and be boxed with a KO.. some go to the ground with ground'n'pound, many others end with a clever, choke of arm bar etc .
An MMA fighter would avoid Tyson's fists and take him down and choke him...
But to think it's tougher than MMA gobsmacks me (no pun intended !!)
MMA includes boxing, and kick boxing, and wrestling (the US college stuff, not that ridiculous big daddy panto stuff), and any, non weapon based martial art.
So the skill is being good at all of these disciplines, and extremely good at some of them. Some fights can stay on their feet and be boxed with a KO.. some go to the ground with ground'n'pound, many others end with a clever, choke of arm bar etc .
An MMA fighter would avoid Tyson's fists and take him down and choke him...
mma every time,been doing it for a while now.
go check how boxer James "lights out" Tony lasted against the nature boy Randy Couture
go check how boxer James "lights out" Tony lasted against the nature boy Randy Couture
I
imamartian
Randy Couture is just a god in the sport... he's 46 and still winning belts.... any of you feel that at 46 you had your full strength and stamina to stand up to a 24 year old hand pick fighting bull? i doubt many could... Randy is awesome !!
Which is exactly why it isn't a tough sport. Its the sport of cowardly neanderthals.
You cant fight with a dead person and the person still standing certainly isn't the winner imo.
Theres a finesse to boxing that mma will never touch.
I
imamartian
"Cowardly neanderthals"... is one of those insulting and ridiculous responses used in order to make your position more tenable !!! However, all it does Norcon, is show your lack of understanding of the sport.
These fighters train to be the best in all disciplines.... they are incredible athletes, and incredibly hard.
Finesse?!! what are you on about? if you were in a war and faced an enemy soldier, and both your guns jammed, and he raised his fists to you... and you to him... but suddenly he swung a huge kick at your head, knocking you to the floor, jumped on you and sunk his arms around your neck and choked you to death, who'd be the winner then? you? eh?
There are no dead people in MMA, you are allowed to 'tap out' when you know your time is up!!!! in boxing that equates to staying on the floor, or hiding behind the ref, or turning your back on your opponent !!
You need discipline in a fight to make it tough. mma doesn't have that discipline.
Which is why I believe boxing to be the tougher sport.
And regarding your analogy to an enemy soldier, whilst he was swinging his boot I would have had him knifed in the groin.
Which is why I believe boxing to be the tougher sport.
And regarding your analogy to an enemy soldier, whilst he was swinging his boot I would have had him knifed in the groin.
I
imamartian
You need discipline in a fight to make it tough. mma doesn't have that discipline.
Which is why I believe boxing to be the tougher sport.
And regarding your analogy to an enemy soldier, whilst he was swinging his boot I would have had him knifed in the groin.
honestly norcon... take a step back, count to ten, wikipedia MMA and then come back with a response!!
discipline??? where in mma is there a lack of discipline? ffs ! ??
the two fighters enter the cage, listen to the ref, and then fight according to a strict set of rules, and with the utmost respect for each other, even if they don't like each other !!!
As for your knifing in the groin thing, my analogy was based around mma.. and i'd already explained that there were no weapons!..
my point was that your opponent maybe didn't have your specific boxing skill, but was resourceful enough to get round that and still beat your ass with other skills!!!
It ludicrous to make an analogy between an enemy soldier on the battlefield in a life or death situation with mma fighters who have to resort to cowardly tactics to end up in a situation where they are deemed the winner.
Boxing is tougher imo so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
If you had two fighters lined up for me and one was mma and the other a boxer I'd choose the mma guy.
Why? Because its an easier fight.
Boxing is tougher imo so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
If you had two fighters lined up for me and one was mma and the other a boxer I'd choose the mma guy.
Why? Because its an easier fight.
I
imamartian
norcon, you're all opinion and no fact....!!!
so you prove to no one that your argument is close to being reasonable !!
and no boxer would take on an mixed martial artist without more training... whereas, i'm sure many mm artists would take on a boxer !!
Sponsored Links