Any UFC/MMA fans?

[Jack Weber]

Pacquiao vs Marquez 1

This is why you don't quit!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VxGTSzYCCE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZQNUqPHWHU

[Jack Weber]

Continued...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IeHZSrsuU_A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFoA_F2fHdM

[Jack Weber]

Continued...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-h0ST_y5gk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G3kZz34XeE

[Jack Weber]

And finally...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkFsZF_0gd4

[Shady]

Also, anyone interested in seeing an amazing fight, check out the Gatti/Ward trilogy. It's probably the best collection of fights I've ever seen.

[Jack Weber]

Trilogy???

Zale vs Graziano!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwVzJM3-cxk

[Jack Weber]

And finally...

[Shwa]

Watch the videos Jack just posted for a stunning rebuke of the premise that a fighter can defend himself as long as he's still on his feet. -k

Small potatoes even though you misrepresented the premise. Are you saying, because of the videos that Jack posted, that boxers who are still on their feet are unable to defend themselves?

[kimmy]

Small potatoes even though you misrepresented the premise. Are you saying, because of the videos that Jack posted, that boxers who are still on their feet are unable to defend themselves?

Your claim was:

"A fighter who is still on his feet hasn't submitted and can still defend himself by moving away."

Well, the Holmes vs Frazier and Duran vs Moore videos that Jack posted showed two fighters who are still on their feet but are clearly unable to defend themselves anymore.

Remaining on his feet is clearly not a sufficient requirement for a boxer to defend himself. So your claim is false.

-k

[Shwa]

Your claim was:

"A fighter who is still on his feet hasn't submitted and can still defend himself by moving away."

Well, the Holmes vs Frazier and Duran vs Moore videos that Jack posted showed two fighters who are still on their feet but are clearly unable to defend themselves anymore.

Remaining on his feet is clearly not a sufficient requirement for a boxer to defend himself. So your claim is false. -k

Well, heck no. My claim was this:

A fighter who is still on his feet hasn't submitted and can still defend himself by moving away. It would be pathetic and cowardly only if said hurt and staggering fighter fell and the other fighter jumped on him and started wailing away.

If the fighter has not chosen to submit and chooses not to move away to defend themselves, then they are still dangerous and the fight is still on until the referee says its over. Those are the rules. There are no rules in boxing that say you can jump a guy when he is down. The manly thing is to allow your opponent to get up.

Now if you think that the only way a boxer can defend themselves is the ability to absorb punches, then you obviously are not aware of the "sweet" of the science.

[kimmy]

Well, heck no. My claim was this:

If the fighter has not chosen to submit and chooses not to move away to defend themselves, then they are still dangerous and the fight is still on until the referee says its over. Those are the rules. There are no rules in boxing that say you can jump a guy when he is down. The manly thing is to allow your opponent to get up.

Now if you think that the only way a boxer can defend themselves is the ability to absorb punches, then you obviously are not aware of the "sweet" of the science.

I am plenty aware. And again, watch the videos: they were no longer able to defend themselves. They were, to borrow your phrase from earlier, "pooched". They were not sufficiently alert or mobile to employ "sweet science" to avoid punches anymore.

Clearly you have no problem with wailing away on a defenseless fighter, provided he's still standing.

-k

[Jack Weber]

The point I was trying to make in both the Frazier/Holmes and Duran/Moore fights is that it's not fair to call the attacking fighter cowardly for simply doing his job.The principle coward in both cases was the referee and the secondary coward(s) were the repective corners who sen their fighters out into a fight that was clearly a lost cause.I'd even go farhter,in the case of Frazier/Holmes and say the matchmaker was at fault because Marvis Frazier had only had 11 professional fights when he stepped into the ring with Larry Holmes.Frazier had no business being in the same arena as Larry Holmes,let alone the same ring...What other result was even remotely possible?

As far as hitting fighters while they are down in a Boxing match...This is the usual result...

The last is essentially fighters BS by Roy Jones....

[Shwa]

I am plenty aware. And again, watch the videos: they were no longer able to defend themselves. They were, to borrow your phrase from earlier, "pooched". They were not sufficiently alert or mobile to employ "sweet science" to avoid punches anymore.

Clearly you have no problem with wailing away on a defenseless fighter, provided he's still standing.

-k

Avoiding punches??

Did you not read what I wrote or are you being intentionally obtuse? Apparently you think that someone who has trained to the tee is incapable of being dangerous when they appear to be sufficiently alert or mobile or even if they have been bloodied and are on the brink. I assure you that appearances are not everything and despite the few youtube examples posted, many a fighter has delivered some sweet comeuppance when all appears lost.

If the guy doesn't drop or back off he is still dangerous.

Get it?

[kimmy]

Avoiding punches??

Did you not read what I wrote or are you being intentionally obtuse? Apparently you think that someone who has trained to the tee is incapable of being dangerous when they appear to be sufficiently alert or mobile or even if they have been bloodied and are on the brink. I assure you that appearances are not everything and despite the few youtube examples posted, many a fighter has delivered some sweet comeuppance when all appears lost.

If you wish to argue that Moore or Frazier were still defending themselves in the videos we're discussing, we'll have to agree to disagree.

If the guy doesn't drop or back off he is still dangerous.

Get it?

An MMA fighter working off of his back remains extremely dangerous as well. But you're too ignorant of the sport to remotely grasp that.

Let's have a look at what you posted earlier:

Gimme a break, that us almost as useless a reply as Shady or Kimmy. Many fighters are no longer in an "active defense" because they are already pooched. And when do they usually get pooched? When they are in an active defense. All you have said here is that once a guy is knocked out or gives up, the other guy has to stop beating on him. Nooo....

First off, I already posted the rule and explained how athletics commissions in North America interprets it, but you completely ignored that and continued to spout crap anyway. As already explained, the referee has a mandate to stop the fight when a fighter is no longer defending himself. Contrary to what you're trying to suggest, that doesn't require him to be knocked out or give up. It's the referee's judgment, and MMA referees do not a fighter tee off unopposed from a mount position for more than a few seconds before stopping the fight.

MMA referees are very assertive in stopping fights to protect fighters. Far more so than in boxing.

Said it before, and will repeat:

if Duran-Moore was an MMA fight, Duran would have mounted Moore after that knockdown and started punching, and the referee would have stopped it before he landed 3 punches.

Since it was a boxing match, Moore gets time to get back to his feet, too shaky to box effectively, and takes another dozen power-shots to the head before the referee decides Moore has to be protected.

So which sport is really the barbaric one?

-k

[kimmy]

The point I was trying to make in both the Frazier/Holmes and Duran/Moore fights is that it's not fair to call the attacking fighter cowardly for simply doing his job.The principle coward in both cases was the referee and the secondary coward(s) were the repective corners who sen their fighters out into a fight that was clearly a lost cause.

It wasn't cowardly of Duran or Holmes to push for the finish against stunned opponents. It isn't cowardly for an MMA fighter to push for the finish against a downed opponent either.

Both sports rely on the referee to intervene to protect the fighters. I think that anybody who has seen a significant amount of both sports would agree with me that referees in MMA are more assertive in stopping fights than those in boxing.

In MMA, it tends to be very apparent when a fighter needs to be protected. In boxing there's always that tendency to think "well, Paulie is still on his feet, he could still land that big punch and turn it around... he still has a chance..."

-k

[Shwa]

So which sport is really the barbaric one? -k

Which sport is "really the barbaric one?"

Trying to knock out or knock down an opponent in boxing is the name of the game. Do you have any idea of how difficult that can be? Heck kimmy, people can get hurt! An opponent is still dangerous while they are still standing and able to throw their fist or were you unaware of that? Now, you can YouTube as many "barbaric" examples of boxing you want, but you are simply providing an exception to the rule. Ho-hum...

Beating on an opponent while he is down is unmanly, cowardly and gutless. Every man knows this. It is in the MMA rules that you can do this. Barbarism has nothing to do with it.

[kimmy]

Beating on an opponent while he is down is unmanly, cowardly and gutless. Every man knows this. It is in the MMA rules that you can do this. Barbarism has nothing to do with it.

Cowardly AND gutless!

It seems to me that this whole argument of it being "gutless" is based on the premise that the guy on the bottom is defenseless, and that's simply false.

I don't know... maybe you guys see promo-clips that Sports-Net puts together showing guys throwing punches from a mount position and assume that that is what happens when the fight goes to the mat. And the promo-clip doesn't show you that the referee stops the fight right then, or that attaining that mount position was the result of several minutes of complicated grappling, or that the usual outcome of a fight going to the mat isn't a mount and a flurry of punches anyway.

-k

[dre]

Which sport is "really the barbaric one?"

Trying to knock out or knock down an opponent in boxing is the name of the game. Do you have any idea of how difficult that can be? Heck kimmy, people can get hurt! An opponent is still dangerous while they are still standing and able to throw their fist or were you unaware of that? Now, you can YouTube as many "barbaric" examples of boxing you want, but you are simply providing an exception to the rule. Ho-hum...

Beating on an opponent while he is down is unmanly, cowardly and gutless. Every man knows this. It is in the MMA rules that you can do this. Barbarism has nothing to do with it.

At this point your posts are just the irrational rants of someone that doesnt know what theyre talking about.

Every man knows this.

Horseshit.

[Shady]

An MMA fighter working off of his back remains extremely dangerous as well. But you're too ignorant of the sport to remotely grasp that.

This is the core of the problem. People who are ignorant to MMA, just don't understand it. Perhaps pictures will help.

Silva winning a fight, from his back, with a triangle choke. His opponent was on top, trying to strike.

PIC

Arm bar from the bottom, to win a fight. His opponent was also on top, trying to strike.

PIC

Silva with another triangle choke. On the bottom of opponent on the top.

PIC

Guillotine choke, from the bottom, on an opponent on top.

PIC

[Shwa]

At this point your posts are just the irrational rants of someone that doesnt know what theyre talking about.

Horseshit.

Why are you the type that jumps on a man when he is down?

[Shwa]

Cowardly AND gutless!

It seems to me that this whole argument of it being "gutless" is based on the premise that the guy on the bottom is defenseless, and that's simply false.

-k

Nope. It is based on the premise that beating on a guy when he is down is dishonourable and cowardly in the same way beating on a woman is.

[Shady]

Nope. It is based on the premise that beating on a guy when he is down is dishonourable and cowardly in the same way beating on a woman is.

Complete nonsense. You're just an old, tired, ignorant boxing fan, that feels threatened by the popularity of MMA. Give it a rest.

[Shwa]

Complete nonsense. You're just an old, tired, ignorant boxing fan, that feels threatened by the popularity of MMA. Give it a rest.

Really? So you were taught that it is ok to beat a man when he is down were you? Sounds like you come from a culture much different from mine. Let me guess, you are a recent immigrant.

[Jack Weber]

I don't know how I could be threatened by MMA since I pay almost no attention to it???

I do welcome it's presence,however,because it has forced Boxing promoter's to cross promote and put on competative bouts we would not normally see...

Edited September 21, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

Really? So you were taught that it is ok to beat a man when he is down were you? Sounds like you come from a culture much different from mine. Let me guess, you are a recent immigrant.

Hehehehe....

I have found that MMA fans seem to have a short attention span,and require their comabative sport's outcome to be short and sweet....I prefer to see how someone can figure out how to impose their will on someone over a longer period of time...