Is professional boxing "dead?" - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is professional boxing "dead?" (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/18/2009 1:59:59 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Its dead and cold.....MMA is the king now and for along time.

http://www.hbo.com/boxing/webcast/index.html

Page 2 belongs to Boxing.

As for Boxing narrowing it's fanbase by going PPV. Agreed on all accounts.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:02:48 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
we'll see what happens tomorrow when it goes head to head with a UFC pay per view event (though it is kinda a lackluster card on the UFC side)

My family loves fights, and were going to order the Mayweather-Marquez boxing card tomorrow. Like I said earlier I love UFC/MMA, but i'm not going to throw down $50 to see Franklin headline a card.

On another note I don't understand all the boxing hate in this thread, I have respect for all combat sports and those who participate in them. I can think of several sports (NASCAR,Tennis, and Baketball) that are far more fucking ridiculous than the sweet science.

Yes boxing is only one aspect of fighting, but its the aspect that alot of people find the most exciting. YMMV

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:11:40 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
we'll see what happens tomorrow when it goes head to head with a UFC pay per view event (though it is kinda a lackluster card on the UFC side)

My family loves fights, and were going to order the Mayweather-Marquez boxing card tomorrow. Like I said earlier I love UFC/MMA, but i'm not going to throw down $50 to see Franklin headline a card.

On another note I don't understand all the boxing hate in this thread, I have respect for all combat sports and those who participate in them. I can think of several sports (NASCAR,Tennis, and Baketball) that are far more fucking ridiculous than the sweet science.

Yes boxing is only one aspect of fighting, but its the aspect that alot of people find the most exciting. YMMV

Who you guys rooting for tomorrow? What do you think about Cotto Pacquiao matchup?

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:20:37 PM EDT

[#4]

Fuck ANYTHING even remotely related to don king.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:22:53 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Boxing is dying sport. They learn and master one aspect of fighting with a whole bunch of bullshit rules. Anyone who is a MMA pro would not stand toe to toe and trade blows with a boxer.

The sweet science isn't so sweet in the real world. It only works with a strict set of rules. Don't shoot, take me down and stomp my ass, just stand there and let me punch you.

I stand by my statement, MMA fighter wins 9 out of 10 fights.

Why would anyone take Boxing as a mode of self defense? That's absurd. Ground game is a big part of MMA, and in a defensive scenario, taking a fight to the ground is a big fucking no-no.

Face it. You are ignorant of the sport. I have said nothing bad to deface MMA or it's fighters. Boxing isn't just about trading blows, despite what you've seen in Rocky. Defense a huge part of the sport, however most people who prefer MMA want to see a slugfest, so there you have it.

Like I have said. Both are entertaining. They can co-exist.

Lets see I grew up in the 70's and 80's watching most all of the great boxing matches. I am far from ignorant of the sport. Face it MMA is a more advanced and more realistic fighting. Most all fights end up on the ground, better hope your friends are tougher than the other guys if its a street fight. Actually I think boxing is a great mode of self defense, some of the very best boxers can go many a rounds without getting hit squarely.

Someone start the thread MMA vs. Boxing with a poll. We'll let the great arfcom GD decide

First of all, when you introduce a weapon in the equation (as in your original post), it becomes a defensive situation and not a street fight. You wouldn't want to go to the ground with a guy with a knife, and you sure as hell wouldn't want to wrestle a guy with a gun. Second, call me crazy, but it just sounded like you were knocking boxing for not having any real world applications, so which is it?

We're not here talking about which is better, realistic, advanced etc etc. We're talking about Boxing as a sport in general. But on the topic, think of it this way. Boxers have to work with what they have, which is very little (compared to MMA). As one dimensional as it may seem, there is a science behind it. There wouldn't be great champions if there wasn't.

I don't even know why you are turning it into a pissing match between MMA vs. Boxing.

Just for your future knowledge, there was no weapon introduced. The term shoot is used to describe the movement of advancing quick and low to put your opponent on the ground.
Further posting on this is pointless as you have no clue what your talking about.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:26:35 PM EDT

[#6]

Was thinking about this the other day. Last heavyweight fight i remember being excited about was Lewis vs Mercer early 90's. As i recall it was battle. Lightweights took over, that makes for some boring fights.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:27:03 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
It is dying, not completely dead yet.

I second this.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:29:56 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
MMA fighter vs Boxer

I think 9 out 10 fights would go to the MMA fighter.

Boxing is just one part of a fight, MMA gives a more rounded match.

Double edge sword. Same could be said for Boxing because you don't have the luxury of kicking, kneeing, wrestling, etc. Put an MMA guy in the ring with a pure Boxer, he'd get rocked from post to post.

Put MMA guy in ring with pure boxer and he will pick up boxer and slam his ass to the mat, and then ground and pound him until he taps. A boxer is helpless on his back catching elbows to the face.[/quote]

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:30:44 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Punch,Punch, Hug.

Repeat.

/thread

I grew up with a dad who was a boxing fan, we would watch the fights together, then cable TV came into the picture....then something happened, boxing started to suck, it was boring and it was always over analyezed, the commentators became annoying and the fighters began to seem lazy, weak and primadonnalike.

I quit watching, won't tune into a boxing match again.

MMA...it is here, it isn't going anywhere.

Excuse the music but you get the picture
Castillio Corrales

Saw that fight live. That was by far the best boxing match i've seen in my life. Absolutely epic.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:41:22 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Was thinking about this the other day. Last heavyweight fight i remember being excited about was Lewis vs Mercer early 90's. As i recall it was battle. Lightweights took over, that makes for some boring fights.

Mercer-Lewis at MSG was a pretty good HW fight, and I think Mercer should have gotten the decision. I think Holyfield was headlining the event. I watched Mercer-Lewis for the first time since it aired about 8 months ago. It might still be on Youtube if you look for it.

A lot of the best and most exciting fights have taken place from the 135 lbs class up through the 168 lbs weight class. In the 90's there was a fighter out of Phoenix named Michael Carbajal . He couldn't have weighed more than 125 lbs. But he was fun to watch.

ETA: grammar edits

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:43:33 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Boxing is dying sport. They learn and master one aspect of fighting with a whole bunch of bullshit rules. Anyone who is a MMA pro would not stand toe to toe and trade blows with a boxer.

The sweet science isn't so sweet in the real world. It only works with a strict set of rules. Don't shoot, take me down and stomp my ass, just stand there and let me punch you.

I stand by my statement, MMA fighter wins 9 out of 10 fights.

Why would anyone take Boxing as a mode of self defense? That's absurd. Ground game is a big part of MMA, and in a defensive scenario, taking a fight to the ground is a big fucking no-no.

Face it. You are ignorant of the sport. I have said nothing bad to deface MMA or it's fighters. Boxing isn't just about trading blows, despite what you've seen in Rocky. Defense a huge part of the sport, however most people who prefer MMA want to see a slugfest, so there you have it.

Like I have said. Both are entertaining. They can co-exist.

Lets see I grew up in the 70's and 80's watching most all of the great boxing matches. I am far from ignorant of the sport. Face it MMA is a more advanced and more realistic fighting. Most all fights end up on the ground, better hope your friends are tougher than the other guys if its a street fight. Actually I think boxing is a great mode of self defense, some of the very best boxers can go many a rounds without getting hit squarely.

Someone start the thread MMA vs. Boxing with a poll. We'll let the great arfcom GD decide

First of all, when you introduce a weapon in the equation (as in your original post), it becomes a defensive situation and not a street fight. You wouldn't want to go to the ground with a guy with a knife, and you sure as hell wouldn't want to wrestle a guy with a gun. Second, call me crazy, but it just sounded like you were knocking boxing for not having any real world applications, so which is it?

We're not here talking about which is better, realistic, advanced etc etc. We're talking about Boxing as a sport in general. But on the topic, think of it this way. Boxers have to work with what they have, which is very little (compared to MMA). As one dimensional as it may seem, there is a science behind it. There wouldn't be great champions if there wasn't.

I don't even know why you are turning it into a pissing match between MMA vs. Boxing.

Just for your future knowledge, there was no weapon introduced. The term shoot is used to describe the movement of advancing quick and low to put your opponent on the ground.
Further posting on this is pointless as you have no clue what your talking about.

Never was a fan of MMA so I'm not familiar with it's terms. You don't see me knocking MMA though. However, for someone who's watched boxing in the 70's and 80's you sure sound like an ignorant prick

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:44:42 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Once the big fights went to pay-per-view, I stopped paying attention.

BIG +1.

That ended it for me. Not that I was a fan to begin with.

But it also ended it for my dad and his friends. He never missed a fight. Once it went to pay-per-view, he never watched another fight.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:44:53 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
MMA fighter vs Boxer

I think 9 out 10 fights would go to the MMA fighter.

Boxing is just one part of a fight, MMA gives a more rounded match.

Double edge sword. Same could be said for Boxing because you don't have the luxury of kicking, kneeing, wrestling, etc. Put an MMA guy in the ring with a pure Boxer, he'd get rocked from post to post.

Put MMA guy in ring with pure boxer and he will pick up boxer and slam his ass to the mat, and then ground and pound him until he taps. A boxer is helpless on his back catching elbows to the face.

http://nextround.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/rocky_thunderlips.jpg
[/quote]

Boxing is a sport(but a boxer will fair damn well in a street brawl). It's a game. The sweet science, which it's called that because you have such a small number of possible attacks and you have to figure out how to make them work.

Posted: 9/18/2009 2:45:34 PM EDT

[#14]

Boxing is lame. MMA is far more entertaining.

Just my opinion.

Posted: 9/18/2009 3:13:46 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Boxing is dying sport. They learn and master one aspect of fighting with a whole bunch of bullshit rules. Anyone who is a MMA pro would not stand toe to toe and trade blows with a boxer.

The sweet science isn't so sweet in the real world. It only works with a strict set of rules. Don't shoot, take me down and stomp my ass, just stand there and let me punch you.

I stand by my statement, MMA fighter wins 9 out of 10 fights.

Why would anyone take Boxing as a mode of self defense? That's absurd. Ground game is a big part of MMA, and in a defensive scenario, taking a fight to the ground is a big fucking no-no.

Face it. You are ignorant of the sport. I have said nothing bad to deface MMA or it's fighters. Boxing isn't just about trading blows, despite what you've seen in Rocky. Defense a huge part of the sport, however most people who prefer MMA want to see a slugfest, so there you have it.

Like I have said. Both are entertaining. They can co-exist.

Lets see I grew up in the 70's and 80's watching most all of the great boxing matches. I am far from ignorant of the sport. Face it MMA is a more advanced and more realistic fighting. Most all fights end up on the ground, better hope your friends are tougher than the other guys if its a street fight. Actually I think boxing is a great mode of self defense, some of the very best boxers can go many a rounds without getting hit squarely.

Someone start the thread MMA vs. Boxing with a poll. We'll let the great arfcom GD decide

First of all, when you introduce a weapon in the equation (as in your original post), it becomes a defensive situation and not a street fight. You wouldn't want to go to the ground with a guy with a knife, and you sure as hell wouldn't want to wrestle a guy with a gun. Second, call me crazy, but it just sounded like you were knocking boxing for not having any real world applications, so which is it?

We're not here talking about which is better, realistic, advanced etc etc. We're talking about Boxing as a sport in general. But on the topic, think of it this way. Boxers have to work with what they have, which is very little (compared to MMA). As one dimensional as it may seem, there is a science behind it. There wouldn't be great champions if there wasn't.

I don't even know why you are turning it into a pissing match between MMA vs. Boxing.

Just for your future knowledge, there was no weapon introduced. The term shoot is used to describe the movement of advancing quick and low to put your opponent on the ground.
Further posting on this is pointless as you have no clue what your talking about.

I don't watch boxing much anymore but I hope it doesn't die in my lifetime. I'm getting to where I can't stand to watch the UFC anymore because of the bad punching technique. I get sick of watching those guys "throw" a jab and not have a fucking clue, Anderson Silva excluded, why they are throwing it. 10 ft away from each other and they throw a lazy SLOOOOW jab, WTF? Don't get me started on the left hook most of those guys don't have. Not to mention the lack of head movement or defense. For all of these guys to have "boxing coaches", no one seems to know how to slip and roll. However, I still enjoy watching Anderson Silva fight because he gets it. He works his angles, sets his opponent up and imposes his will, but he does not want to fight Roy Jones in a boxing match. He wouldn't last more than 2 rounds. Having spent the better part of my life between thai boxing and boxing gyms, and limited bjj experience, I understand the strengths of each one. I always viewed boxing as a necessary evil as it made my kickboxing endeavors easier as those guys were never as proficient with their hands nor with their use of angles. When you get in the ring with a boxer that uses/understands angles, cutting the ring off and how/why you jab, your in for a looonnng fight/sparring session. I have respect for anyone, regardless of discipline, because of having been there myself, it takes balls to step into that ring/cage, with all eyes on you and do what you do. For those that don't know that experience, it frightening, exciting, and a definite adrenaline rush.

Posted: 9/18/2009 3:28:26 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Its dead and cold.....MMA is the king now and for along time.

+1

Boxing is slow, boring, oh and did I mention SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWW

Posted: 9/18/2009 3:32:19 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Boxing is dying sport. They learn and master one aspect of fighting with a whole bunch of bullshit rules. Anyone who is a MMA pro would not stand toe to toe and trade blows with a boxer.

The sweet science isn't so sweet in the real world. It only works with a strict set of rules. Don't shoot, take me down and stomp my ass, just stand there and let me punch you.

I stand by my statement, MMA fighter wins 9 out of 10 fights.

Why would anyone take Boxing as a mode of self defense? That's absurd. Ground game is a big part of MMA, and in a defensive scenario, taking a fight to the ground is a big fucking no-no.

Face it. You are ignorant of the sport. I have said nothing bad to deface MMA or it's fighters. Boxing isn't just about trading blows, despite what you've seen in Rocky. Defense a huge part of the sport, however most people who prefer MMA want to see a slugfest, so there you have it.

Like I have said. Both are entertaining. They can co-exist.

Lets see I grew up in the 70's and 80's watching most all of the great boxing matches. I am far from ignorant of the sport. Face it MMA is a more advanced and more realistic fighting. Most all fights end up on the ground, better hope your friends are tougher than the other guys if its a street fight. Actually I think boxing is a great mode of self defense, some of the very best boxers can go many a rounds without getting hit squarely.

Someone start the thread MMA vs. Boxing with a poll. We'll let the great arfcom GD decide

First of all, when you introduce a weapon in the equation (as in your original post), it becomes a defensive situation and not a street fight. You wouldn't want to go to the ground with a guy with a knife, and you sure as hell wouldn't want to wrestle a guy with a gun. Second, call me crazy, but it just sounded like you were knocking boxing for not having any real world applications, so which is it?

We're not here talking about which is better, realistic, advanced etc etc. We're talking about Boxing as a sport in general. But on the topic, think of it this way. Boxers have to work with what they have, which is very little (compared to MMA). As one dimensional as it may seem, there is a science behind it. There wouldn't be great champions if there wasn't.

I don't even know why you are turning it into a pissing match between MMA vs. Boxing.

Just for your future knowledge, there was no weapon introduced. The term shoot is used to describe the movement of advancing quick and low to put your opponent on the ground.
Further posting on this is pointless as you have no clue what your talking about.

I don't watch boxing much anymore but I hope it doesn't die in my lifetime. I'm getting to where I can't stand to watch the UFC anymore because of the bad punching technique. I get sick of watching those guys "throw" a jab and not have a fucking clue, Anderson Silva excluded, why they are throwing it. 10 ft away from each other and they throw a lazy SLOOOOW jab, WTF? Don't get me started on the left hook most of those guys don't have. Not to mention the lack of head movement or defense. For all of these guys to have "boxing coaches", no one seems to know how to slip and roll. However, I still enjoy watching Anderson Silva fight because he gets it. He works his angles, sets his opponent up and imposes his will, but he does not want to fight Roy Jones in a boxing match. He wouldn't last more than 2 rounds. Having spent the better part of my life between thai boxing and boxing gyms, and limited bjj experience, I understand the strengths of each one. I always viewed boxing as a necessary evil as it made my kickboxing endeavors easier as those guys were never as proficient with their hands nor with their use of angles. When you get in the ring with a boxer that uses/understands angles, cutting the ring off and how/why you jab, your in for a looonnng fight/sparring session. I have respect for anyone, regardless of discipline, because of having been there myself, it takes balls to step into that ring/cage, with all eyes on you and do what you do. For those that don't know that experience, it frightening, exciting, and a definite adrenaline rush.

Word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeN8SGdOM-o&feature=PlayList&p=E0D6178CCD02F061&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=25
His boxing technique is decent, and he has a lot of natural talent.

Posted: 9/18/2009 5:51:15 PM EDT

[#18]

I am hardly an expert on the subject matter, but as far as the pure boxer vs. the MMA guy, here is my opinion.

The MMA guy vs. the boxer in a boxing rules match, the MMA guy will PROBABLY lose.

The boxer vs. the MMA guy in a MMA match in The Octagon....the Boxer is going to be humiliated.

So given the unlikely scenario where two professionals of each discipline were given a month to train for a fight on the other set of rules, I think the MMA guys would fair much better in a boxing ring than a boxer would fair in the octagon. I would give decent odds to the MMA guy (speaking in general of course) to beating the boxer as well.

Chuck Liddel vs. Mike Tyson in their primes would have been interesting...though isn't Liddel in a weight class just under Tyson? Doesn't matter. Liddel would have annihilated Tyson in MMA. In boxing, I think he would have done okay. Correct me if I am wrong.

Posted: 9/18/2009 5:55:06 PM EDT

[#19]

Boxing will always have it's niche, but I think for the most part the average person would find UFC more interesting than boxing.

Posted: 9/18/2009 6:16:16 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
I am hardly an expert on the subject matter, but as far as the pure boxer vs. the MMA guy, here is my opinion.

The MMA guy vs. the boxer in a boxing rules match, the MMA guy will PROBABLY lose.

The boxer vs. the MMA guy in a MMA match in The Octagon....the Boxer is going to be humiliated.

So given the unlikely scenario where two professionals of each discipline were given a month to train for a fight on the other set of rules, I think the MMA guys would fair much better in a boxing ring than a boxer would fair in the octagon. I would give decent odds to the MMA guy (speaking in general of course) to beating the boxer as well.

Chuck Liddel vs. Mike Tyson in their primes would have been interesting...though isn't Liddel in a weight class just under Tyson? Doesn't matter. Liddel would have annihilated Tyson in MMA. In boxing, I think he would have done okay. Correct me if I am wrong.

Chuck in his prime against Tyson as he is today would not end well for Chuck. The only reason Chuck was as successful as he was is because is was fighting wrestlers and grapplers. Chuck like so many other cross overs from kickboxing to boxing would have fair the same. Very few have crossed over and had any kind of success. I believe Troy Dorcy and one or two of the Russian heavyweights are the only ones that made the grade. Others, like one of my trainers a former WAKA champion, didn't do so well. Actually, it ended badly. I can name other multi world champion kickboxers that crossed over and after 5 or 6 fights went back to what they were successful at.

Posted: 9/18/2009 6:22:01 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Boxing is dying sport. They learn and master one aspect of fighting with a whole bunch of bullshit rules. Anyone who is a MMA pro would not stand toe to toe and trade blows with a boxer.

The sweet science isn't so sweet in the real world. It only works with a strict set of rules. Don't shoot, take me down and stomp my ass, just stand there and let me punch you.

I stand by my statement, MMA fighter wins 9 out of 10 fights.

Why would anyone take Boxing as a mode of self defense? That's absurd. Ground game is a big part of MMA, and in a defensive scenario, taking a fight to the ground is a big fucking no-no.

Face it. You are ignorant of the sport. I have said nothing bad to deface MMA or it's fighters. Boxing isn't just about trading blows, despite what you've seen in Rocky. Defense a huge part of the sport, however most people who prefer MMA want to see a slugfest, so there you have it.

Like I have said. Both are entertaining. They can co-exist.

Lets see I grew up in the 70's and 80's watching most all of the great boxing matches. I am far from ignorant of the sport. Face it MMA is a more advanced and more realistic fighting. Most all fights end up on the ground, better hope your friends are tougher than the other guys if its a street fight. Actually I think boxing is a great mode of self defense, some of the very best boxers can go many a rounds without getting hit squarely.

Someone start the thread MMA vs. Boxing with a poll. We'll let the great arfcom GD decide

First of all, when you introduce a weapon in the equation (as in your original post), it becomes a defensive situation and not a street fight. You wouldn't want to go to the ground with a guy with a knife, and you sure as hell wouldn't want to wrestle a guy with a gun. Second, call me crazy, but it just sounded like you were knocking boxing for not having any real world applications, so which is it?

We're not here talking about which is better, realistic, advanced etc etc. We're talking about Boxing as a sport in general. But on the topic, think of it this way. Boxers have to work with what they have, which is very little (compared to MMA). As one dimensional as it may seem, there is a science behind it. There wouldn't be great champions if there wasn't.

I don't even know why you are turning it into a pissing match between MMA vs. Boxing.

Just for your future knowledge, there was no weapon introduced. The term shoot is used to describe the movement of advancing quick and low to put your opponent on the ground.
Further posting on this is pointless as you have no clue what your talking about.

I don't watch boxing much anymore but I hope it doesn't die in my lifetime. I'm getting to where I can't stand to watch the UFC anymore because of the bad punching technique. I get sick of watching those guys "throw" a jab and not have a fucking clue, Anderson Silva excluded, why they are throwing it. 10 ft away from each other and they throw a lazy SLOOOOW jab, WTF? Don't get me started on the left hook most of those guys don't have. Not to mention the lack of head movement or defense. For all of these guys to have "boxing coaches", no one seems to know how to slip and roll. However, I still enjoy watching Anderson Silva fight because he gets it. He works his angles, sets his opponent up and imposes his will, but he does not want to fight Roy Jones in a boxing match. He wouldn't last more than 2 rounds. Having spent the better part of my life between thai boxing and boxing gyms, and limited bjj experience, I understand the strengths of each one. I always viewed boxing as a necessary evil as it made my kickboxing endeavors easier as those guys were never as proficient with their hands nor with their use of angles. When you get in the ring with a boxer that uses/understands angles, cutting the ring off and how/why you jab, your in for a looonnng fight/sparring session. I have respect for anyone, regardless of discipline, because of having been there myself, it takes balls to step into that ring/cage, with all eyes on you and do what you do. For those that don't know that experience, it frightening, exciting, and a definite adrenaline rush.

Word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeN8SGdOM-o&feature=PlayList&p=E0D6178CCD02F061&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=25
His boxing technique is decent, and he has a lot of natural talent.

I am a big fan of Anderson, especially because of the thai boxing background, but he doesn't have the boxing skills to beat Roy Jones. I am not a Roy Jones fan because I don't like his attitude, but he can fight. If he hadn't kept going up in weight, he'd probably still be undefeated.

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

Posted: 9/18/2009 6:22:43 PM EDT

[#22]

I come from a family of boxing fans and I was a big fan for years.

I really started to like UFC and MMA largely because I couldn't handle watching anymore fixed boxing matches. I watched one too many boxing matches where the judges were so obviously paid off it became a farse. The fix has been in with boxing since long before I started watching it too. Ever since Liston/Ali II it was all downhill.

Posted: 9/18/2009 6:25:55 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Was thinking about this the other day. Last heavyweight fight i remember being excited about was Lewis vs Mercer early 90's. As i recall it was battle. Lightweights took over, that makes for some boring fights.

Mercer-Lewis at MSG was a pretty good HW fight, and I think Mercer should have gotten the decision. I think Holyfield was headlining the event. I watched Mercer-Lewis for the first time since it aired about 8 months ago. It might still be on Youtube if you look for it.
A lot of the best and most exciting fights have taken place from the 135 lbs class up through the 168 lbs weight class. In the 90's there was a fighter out of Phoenix named Michael Carbajal . He couldn't have weighed more than 125 lbs. But he was fun to watch.
ETA: grammar edits

Yep that fight was part of what turned me off on the HW's. I still believe Lewis got the decision because he had the bigger name and they wanted to set him up for another title shot vs Holyfeild.

Posted: 9/18/2009 7:23:37 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Was thinking about this the other day. Last heavyweight fight i remember being excited about was Lewis vs Mercer early 90's. As i recall it was battle. Lightweights took over, that makes for some boring fights.

Mercer-Lewis at MSG was a pretty good HW fight, and I think Mercer should have gotten the decision. I think Holyfield was headlining the event. I watched Mercer-Lewis for the first time since it aired about 8 months ago. It might still be on Youtube if you look for it.

A lot of the best and most exciting fights have taken place from the 135 lbs class up through the 168 lbs weight class. In the 90's there was a fighter out of Phoenix named Michael Carbajal . He couldn't have weighed more than 125 lbs. But he was fun to watch.

ETA: grammar edits

Yep that fight was part of what turned me off on the HW's. I still believe Lewis got the decision because he had the bigger name and they wanted to set him up for another title shot vs Holyfeild.

Mercer-Lewis was a close fight that could have gone either way. (I found the fight, btw) I think Mercer took it 6 rounds to 4. Other, including the judges disagree. Some real travesties in the sport that I remember watching were Sweet Pea Whitaker vs. Julio Cesar Chavez. Whitaker got ROBBED in that one. De La Hoya vs. Trinidad was a bad decision as well. And Holyfield-Lewis I was just

Posted: 9/18/2009 7:31:22 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Are u kidding? This year is a BIG year for Boxing.

Boxing has ups and downs. It's a trend. However, in recent years, the period of ups and downs are becoming more frequent. Boxing will not die.

As to MMA, it's a different type of entertainment. Both can co-exist.

Mayweather vs. Marquez TOMORROW. Pacquiao vs. Cotto November 14. Klitschko vs. Arreola.

Quoted:
Boxing was at its best when the heavy weights ran the show.

Now the guys are bums and politics have ruined it.

Boxing is dead and will never make come back.

UFC has taken over and it is continually growing.

BUMS? WOW.

The best Boxers in the World come from the lighter-intermediate divisions.

Here is how you know boxing is dead:

I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who can name 3 active professional boxers.

Boxing has been dead for years.

Posted: 9/18/2009 7:34:04 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
MMA fighter vs Boxer

I think 9 out 10 fights would go to the MMA fighter.

Boxing is just one part of a fight, MMA gives a more rounded match.

Double edge sword. Same could be said for Boxing because you don't have the luxury of kicking, kneeing, wrestling, etc. Put an MMA guy in the ring with a pure Boxer, he'd get rocked from post to post.

Learning curve for MMA is much higher.

Posted: 9/18/2009 7:37:08 PM EDT

[#27]

MMA is where it's at but i think it could make somewhat of a comeback if they got some decent heavyweights.

it's pretty sad to see the utter lack of talent or development of talent

Posted: 9/18/2009 7:39:13 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Boxing is Dead. A professional MMA Fighter would win 99 out of 100 fights with a boxer in the same weight division. Boxing is so boring and unrealistic because 99% of street fights end up on the ground if neither party has a weapon. The corruption in boxing over the past few decades hasn't helped out either.

MMA fighters get hit in the face with tiny gloves and boxers are used to getting hit with gloves that are like pillows in comparison. MMA fighters are in better condition and they would just take the boxer down and submit him or ground and pound until he was knocked out or tapped out.

Not true. They've done measurements on both styles of gloves and found that there is little different between the two gloves.

Posted: 9/18/2009 7:45:42 PM EDT

[#29]

Boxing, namely the heavyweight division, was killed off in the early 80's. By the mid 80's all they had was Mike Tyson a freak diverson that fell through the cracks when he was getting started.

What killed boxing? the PPVs, the corruptness, they all had large contributing factors, but what truely killed boxing was football.

Up until the 1980's, the highest paid athletes were boxers. The nice fat paydays went to the heavyweight champs. Top notch professional athletes would follow the funds to the sport they participated in. Thus, prior to the 1980's, boxing was able to use the siren's call of cash to lure the top athletes.

In the 80's however, football began to really pay. One could make as much money, and not be subjected to having someone trying to bash their head in. Thus, the last bastions of boxing talent, the inner city gyms, fell to the wayside. Inner city kids could play other sports to get paid, and they did.

By the end of the 80's, heavyweight boxers were at best 2nd tier athletes, all the top ones were in football.

Take a look at things today. There is no real credible American Heavyweight, they're all foreigners. Now, take a look at NFL athletes who could have been awesome boxers if they chose that path. Ray Lewis would have been a killer, same for Shaun Merriman. That would actually be an interesting bout...Lewis vs Merriman.

So with no top athletes who are strengthen the sport, it's health was failing...and finally the viruses of corruption and scandal and Don King killed the host.

There still is hope in the lighter classes, mainly because boxing is one of the few sports where these lighter people can show off their skills. If Mayweather was bigger, he'd have been drawn into football long ago.

Boxing vs. MMA? They're both good, they're both bad. Neither is perfect. They both have good and bad bouts.

Posted: 9/18/2009 8:35:54 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Are u kidding? This year is a BIG year for Boxing.

Boxing has ups and downs. It's a trend. However, in recent years, the period of ups and downs are becoming more frequent. Boxing will not die.

As to MMA, it's a different type of entertainment. Both can co-exist.

Mayweather vs. Marquez TOMORROW. Pacquiao vs. Cotto November 14. Klitschko vs. Arreola.

Quoted:
Boxing was at its best when the heavy weights ran the show.

Now the guys are bums and politics have ruined it.

Boxing is dead and will never make come back.

UFC has taken over and it is continually growing.

BUMS? WOW.

The best Boxers in the World come from the lighter-intermediate divisions.

Here is how you know boxing is dead:

I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who can name 3 active professional boxers.

Boxing has been dead for years.

You really don't have to rack your brains. Bernard Hopkins is still fighting. Roy Jones is still fighting. James Toney is still fighting. These guys were big names when Tyson was still around.

But I agree, Boxing isn't what it used to be.

Posted: 9/18/2009 8:44:11 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Are u kidding? This year is a BIG year for Boxing.

Boxing has ups and downs. It's a trend. However, in recent years, the period of ups and downs are becoming more frequent. Boxing will not die.

As to MMA, it's a different type of entertainment. Both can co-exist.

Mayweather vs. Marquez TOMORROW. Pacquiao vs. Cotto November 14. Klitschko vs. Arreola.

Quoted:
Boxing was at its best when the heavy weights ran the show.

Now the guys are bums and politics have ruined it.

Boxing is dead and will never make come back.

UFC has taken over and it is continually growing.

BUMS? WOW.

The best Boxers in the World come from the lighter-intermediate divisions.

Here is how you know boxing is dead:

I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who can name 3 active professional boxers.

Boxing has been dead for years.

Just like horse racing.

Posted: 9/18/2009 8:45:44 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
I can't even remember the last time I heard anyone even talk about boxing or see an ad for a pay per view event. It's all MMA now, and predominantly UFC at that.

Will it ever make a comeback? I am doubting it. MMA is so much more interesting to watch. The sport slit its own throat to some extent when it fragmented into so many different factions.

What say you?

Professional what? Boxing?

Never heard of it.

Posted: 9/18/2009 8:49:49 PM EDT

[#33]

When did boxing start to really fade and lose the fan base, compared to when did MMA really become popular with the general public? I'd say there is a noticeable gap, MMA moved in to fill the void left when the aforementioned issues dragged boxing down.

An argument could be made that wrestling "sports entertainment" helped bridge the gap. Regular broadcasts with the same cast, aggressive merchandising, and a deliberate effort to draw in younger viewers. You don't have to buy or even like a product to agree that a business plan has been successful (this applies to McDonald's & Wal-Mart too).

Maybe the UFC brand is falling into the same trap as boxing - focusing the fans on a very select group of competitors who only appear on infrequent PPV broadcasts.

Comparing athletes who specialize in one sport vs those who specialize in another is pointless. A few guys have the natural talent to excel at everything, but for most of the competitors it is one rules/skill set that is the sole focus of their training time.

Posted: 9/18/2009 9:12:41 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Heavyweight class is dead. Lighter weights not quite as much, but getting there. Dont like MMA either.

Posted: 9/18/2009 10:57:24 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Once the big fights went to pay-per-view, I stopped paying attention.

that,

But I admit to really enjoying friday night fights within the last 5 years.

Posted: 9/19/2009 2:58:33 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Are u kidding? This year is a BIG year for Boxing.

Boxing has ups and downs. It's a trend. However, in recent years, the period of ups and downs are becoming more frequent. Boxing will not die.

As to MMA, it's a different type of entertainment. Both can co-exist.

Mayweather vs. Marquez TOMORROW. Pacquiao vs. Cotto November 14. Klitschko vs. Arreola.

Quoted:

Boxing was at its best when the heavy weights ran the show.

Now the guys are bums and politics have ruined it.

Boxing is dead and will never make come back.

UFC has taken over and it is continually growing.

BUMS? WOW.

The best Boxers in the World come from the lighter-intermediate divisions.

Here is how you know boxing is dead:

I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who can name 3 active professional boxers.

Boxing has been dead for years.

You really don't have to rack your brains. Bernard Hopkins is still fighting. Roy Jones is still fighting. James Toney is still fighting. These guys were big names when Tyson was still around.

But I agree, Boxing isn't what it used to be.

I can't stand Toney. He's just a big blob now has been at least since he fought the most horrible boxer to have ever been champ...John Ruiz.

In fact, I dislike ruiz as a boxer so much that I'm going to post my favorite video of him:

And the longer, 8 minute video that includes pre-fight intorductions and post-fight replays.

Posted: 9/19/2009 3:06:34 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
we'll see what happens tomorrow when it goes head to head with a UFC pay per view event (though it is kinda a lackluster card on the UFC side)

My family loves fights, and were going to order the Mayweather-Marquez boxing card tomorrow. Like I said earlier I love UFC/MMA, but i'm not going to throw down $50 to see Franklin headline a card.

On another note I don't understand all the boxing hate in this thread, I have respect for all combat sports and those who participate in them. I can think of several sports (NASCAR,Tennis, and Baketball) that are far more fucking ridiculous than the sweet science.

Yes boxing is only one aspect of fighting, but its the aspect that alot of people find the most exciting. YMMV

Who you guys rooting for tomorrow? What do you think about Cotto Pacquiao matchup?

Our hearts are with JMM, while our brains are with Pretty Boy Floyd.

Pacquiao is my man, i've been following the guy religiously for the past three years, and he is amazing. The improvement he has shown over his past several fights is remarkable. He went from being a jab-jab-straight left fighter, to a fighter that can throw any punch from any angle with devestating power and unmatchable hand speed. Cotto is a solid fighter, no doubt, but I dont think anybody can stop the pac-man right now.

Posted: 9/19/2009 3:14:36 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

we'll see what happens tomorrow when it goes head to head with a UFC pay per view event (though it is kinda a lackluster card on the UFC side)

My family loves fights, and were going to order the Mayweather-Marquez boxing card tomorrow. Like I said earlier I love UFC/MMA, but i'm not going to throw down $50 to see Franklin headline a card.

On another note I don't understand all the boxing hate in this thread, I have respect for all combat sports and those who participate in them. I can think of several sports (NASCAR,Tennis, and Baketball) that are far more fucking ridiculous than the sweet science.

Yes boxing is only one aspect of fighting, but its the aspect that alot of people find the most exciting. YMMV

Who you guys rooting for tomorrow? What do you think about Cotto Pacquiao matchup?

Our hearts are with JMM, while our brains are with Pretty Boy Floyd.

Pacquiao is my man, i've been following the guy religiously for the past three years, and he is amazing. The improvement he has shown over his past several fights is remarkable. He went from being a jab-jab-straight left fighter, to a fighter that can throw any punch from any angle with devestating power and unmatchable hand speed. Cotto is a solid fighter, no doubt, but I dont think anybody can stop the pac-man right now.

Marquez isn't fighting at his natural weight. He's also getting up there in years. As much as I'd like to see him take that arrogant Mayweather, I don't think he will. Floyd also came in heavy for the weigh-in and is supposed to be severely punished monetarily because of it. I'm betting Marquez's managers put in a weight clause like that because they know he is already at a weight disadvantage.

I'm rooting for Cotto, but I think Pacquiao is a step above him. He does look almost unstoppable these days.

Posted: 9/19/2009 3:21:15 PM EDT

[#39]

I don't watch boxing anymore but I remember watching this:

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

Watch it all the way through for the slow motion footage at the end. I would not want to get hit by him.

Posted: 9/19/2009 3:26:42 PM EDT

[#40]

This is truth.

Twenty years ago I watched a TON of boxing, great middleweights and good heavyweights but it started getting boring in the HW division (jab, punch, tie up, wait for ref to separate, rinse, repeat) and I saw one too many fights where the scoring was in COMPLETE denial of what happened in the ring. About 6 years ago I watched my last boxing match. I don't expect to be back.

The main problem I have with UFC is that lately they try to turn every card into a stand-up punch fest with guys who aren't great punchers. Fuck if I wanted to see that I'd watch an local boxing match.

With Affliction gone I just hope UFC doesn't continue with their current trend of lackluster cards.

Right now WEC is where all the great action is.

Quoted:

I come from a family of boxing fans and I was a big fan for years.

I really started to like UFC and MMA largely because I couldn't handle watching anymore fixed boxing matches. I watched one too many boxing matches where the judges were so obviously paid off it became a farse. The fix has been in with boxing since long before I started watching it too. Ever since Liston/Ali II it was all downhill.

Posted: 9/19/2009 3:29:24 PM EDT

[#41]

Boxing is dead.

A bad UFC fight would be a lively boxing match.

It's over.

Posted: 9/19/2009 3:33:01 PM EDT

[#42]

I still like boxing. I like other sports too. I'm just cool that way.

Posted: 9/19/2009 3:40:32 PM EDT

[#43]

It's funny...

For decades people were lamenting the lack of success of white fighters in the heavyweight division, now the division is dominated by white fighters - they just ain't American. And that is, imho why boxing is "dead" - No Americans in the glamor division who anyone has ever heard of. Heck, the African American fighters look to need a bit of EO to get over against the Slavic fellows nowadays. Too many belts to keep track of too. It has been over 3 years since an American has held the title. This is part of it.

MMA is on the rise, even if it can be atrocious. Here is how I would rate it: Great Boxing match > Great MMA, Good MMA = Good Boxing, Bad MMA > Bad Boxing. I've sat through some dreadful cards in both.

Posted: 9/19/2009 3:59:12 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

It's funny...

For decades people were lamenting the lack of success of white fighters in the heavyweight division, now the division is dominated by white fighters - they just ain't American. And that is, imho why boxing is "dead" - No Americans in the glamor division who anyone has ever heard of. Heck, the African American fighters look to need a bit of EO to get over against the Slavic fellows nowadays. Too many belts to keep track of too. It has been over 3 years since an American has held the title. This is part of it.

MMA is on the rise, even if it can be atrocious. Here is how I would rate it: Great Boxing match > Great MMA, Good MMA = Good Boxing, Bad MMA > Bad Boxing. I've sat through some dreadful cards in both.

MMA is on the rise, even if it can be atrocious. Here is how I would
rate it: Great Boxing match > Great MMA, Good MMA = Good Boxing, Bad
MMA > Bad Boxing.

That's probably better than I've ever heard it put. And because there are an awful lot of fights, and most of them will not be great or good, it stands to reason that that would be the reason why MMA would seem better than boxing.

And your first point is spot on. Eastern Europeans have done to boxing what they have done to basketball and hockey. As it's gotten harder for me to pronounce the players names, and the more foreign looking they became, my interest in the sports declined. Eastern Europeans in boxing and basketball are not flashy. Not at all. But they are big and effective. They're fundamentally good. It doesn't hurt the NBA's marketability as much because it's still a team game (in theory), and there will still be some flashy black players who can make the highlight reel. Boxing is one-on-one and and that lack of flash, lack of hype, lack of charisma, and simple lack of English-speaking hurts the popularity.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is professional boxing "dead?" (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us