Ok, fair enoughAutobarn wrote:sure, i'm no MMA expert, and i have enjoyed winding ppl up - especially with the chinese burn comment - and i like making a fool of myself. all the fights i've seen have involved meatheads who behave like hulk hogan. though that canadian bloke st pierre (?) has talent and athletic ability. from what i've seen, these MMA fights are almost guaranteed to end up in holds or on the floor. so in MMA rules they almost always beat the boxer or kickboxer. however, in boxing rules, it looks like the MMA fighter's punching skills are pretty much shown up. this is all i'm getting at: that cross training does NOT create guys with world class striking abilities.
the maurice smith point was that he was a striker first and foremost, having done world class kickboxing, and then when he could get his shots off without being taken down, the other guy was in dreamland
Regarding world class striking abilities - it depends how you define them. World class boxing ability, and world class striking ability are two very seperate things. Boxing is striking within a very strict set of rules. You could argue that world class "striking" in it's truest form would include every facet of the striking game, elbows, knees, kicks in addition to punches. By that token, world class boxing ability, is actually quite limited when compared to say a Muay Thai fighter.
As for the Maurice Smith comment, that's part of the intrique and interest of mma - the clash of styles, and how a pure striker would fare against a pure grappler for example. With fighters training as they do now, they're generally well skilled in every aspect of the game - but just as some boxers are counter-punchers/bangers etc, mma fighters also tend to lean towards certain skill sets etc, so you still get classic striker vs grappler battles - the only difference from 10yrs ago now is that these guys are much much better at what would traditionally have been the weaker part of their game.
If all the fights you've seen have involved meatheads and Hulk Hogan types, you're watching the wrong shows, or have been very unfortunate in the fights you've caught
We always see people commenting on here about how they can't have a serious debate with their mates about boxing, as their friends know f@ck all, but presume because they've seen highlights on youtube or read Frank Warrens column they're genius's when a fights on at the pub. The boxing vs mma debates on this board are much the same to be honest... a bunch of boxing fans who have little to no knowledge of the subject they're trying to debate, yet will jump on the bandwagon because it's the cool thing to do, they don't understand the sport so presume it's evil incarnate, or perhaps see it as a threat to boxing and therefore try to defend something they love. Either way... if people are seriously going to try and debate the topic, they should at least know something about the sport and its participants, and the fights they're using as examples.
As I said... we read all the time from posters on here about how they can't have serious boxing conversation with their pals or the blokes down the pub because their ill informed opinions are based solely on what's printed in The Sun, or hyped on Sky Sports. I think the same goes for mma fans trying to debate this with most fans of boxing.
EDIT: Autobarn, I should add, the last couple of paragraphs aren't directed at you - but some of the other posters on this board who seem completely incapable of a rational debate
D 
