BoxRec

exittored wrote:

I'm actually very insulted and i'd hope most true boxing fan's are also insulted that on a boxing only website you've brought this bloody debate up again especially after one of the best weekend's of boxing i've seen in a while, i'm still buzzing from the Carl Froch vs Jean Pascal fight plus the amazing performance from Manny Paquio

Strange how all the usual suspects crawl out of the woodwork, yes you Ant Evans, just wish you'd all just F.O back to your shite fecking mma websites and watch the fecking shite that UFC/MMA has to offer and leave us all alone

Look Deserter, i wasn't really having a go at you although i do object to another boxing vs mma debate, Ant Evans just brings outs the worst in me with his constant knocks of boxing whilst acting as though UFC is this wonderful thing! BULLSHIT, i have watched probably about 5 UFC shows over the years and its a big myth they are really competitive from top to bottom plus they have plenty of boring fights too, one very good boxing fight beats a whole UFC show hands down anytime!

Is UFC better marketed and Promoted than Boxing? YES on that, its ahead of boxing at the moment as they put some real money on posters, television/radio adverts and billboards rather the the old fashioned way but it's catching up with what Golden Boy is doing in America

The Biggest problem with Boxing is the way its run, has nothing to do with UFC, whats the point of even bringing it up!

No worries fella. Happy to debate and wouldn't claim to have all the answers myself, which is why I like hearing other people's opinions

lowersmiths wrote:i honestly dont think boxing is in decline.

Put it this way; the last 3 HBO PPVs (excl Sat) did in total the same amount of buys as Cotto v Margarito. For Hatton v Malignaggi only 2k of tickets were sold to Brits at the time. 6k were returned. RJJ v Calzaghe had 2-4-1 at the venue, as did Haye v Barrett. Even at Cotto v Margarito only 10k people were there.

In comparison, UFC did their second biggest buy rate for Couture v Lesnar in Nov (allegedly 600,000), and have sold out every event this year.

exittored wrote:

I'm actually very insulted and i'd hope most true boxing fan's are also insulted that on a boxing only website you've brought this bloody debate up again especially after one of the best weekend's of boxing i've seen in a while, i'm still buzzing from the Carl Froch vs Jean Pascal fight plus the amazing performance from Manny Paquio

Strange how all the usual suspects crawl out of the woodwork, yes you Ant Evans, just wish you'd all just F.O back to your shite fecking mma websites and watch the fecking shite that UFC/MMA has to offer and leave us all alone

Look Deserter, i wasn't really having a go at you although i do object to another boxing vs mma debate, Ant Evans just brings outs the worst in me with his constant knocks of boxing whilst acting as though UFC is this wonderful thing! BULLSHIT, i have watched probably about 5 UFC shows over the years and its a big myth they are really competitive from top to bottom plus they have plenty of boring fights too, one very good boxing fight beats a whole UFC show hands down anytime!

Is UFC better marketed and Promoted than Boxing? YES on that, its ahead of boxing at the moment as they put some real money on posters, television/radio adverts and billboards rather than the old fashioned way boxing has been doing it but it's catching up with what Golden Boy is doing in America with cross promotions and starting to bring back major sponsorships back to the sport.

The Biggest problem with Boxing is the way its run, has nothing to do with UFC, whats the point of even bringing it up!

Dude... if you're actually "insulted" that we want to discuss the merits of UFC promotion, and how it could benefit boxing, then you've got a few problems.

More over... this is a boxing forum, yes - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to discuss mma if we choose. With the greatest of respect, who are you to dictate what is talked about on here.

If you are that disgusted by UFC, and are insulted or offended by people discussing and debating it - I suggest you just don't click on any threads with "UFC" in the title. It's not difficult.

Perhaps chill out a bit... and don't let 3 letters get to you so much.

lowersmiths wrote:i honestly dont think boxing is in decline.

I don't think it is either at this juncture, but I'm just doing an amateur bit of forecasting and the twin trend of an emerging competitor (in the form of UFC/MMA) and the apparent inability of boxing to reach a youthful audience as effectively as in the past equal serious warning signals to me.
The whole marketing and presentation of boxing so piss-poor considering that it contains more human drama than any other sport, hence so many great films/books etc about it. If the 'old school' approach to branding and marketing continues then it will inevitably suffer in terms of reach, in my opinion.
Oh, and on a particpation level it's been declining for years while MMA has been growing.

Does anyone think a decent reality show of young untested Brit fighters, similar to TUF, would work in this country? Maybe with debutant amateurs turned pro?

The reality side seems to capture the imagination of kids. Sure Contender fell on its ass, but you knew beforehand who was good and who wasn't. If the field is even, would it be more interesting?

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Does anyone think a decent reality show of young untested Brit fighters, similar to TUF, would work in this country? Maybe with debutant amateurs turned pro?

The reality side seems to capture the imagination of kids. Sure Contender fell on its ass, but you knew beforehand who was good and who wasn't. If the field is even, would it be more interesting?

I think it's a great idea, and works very well in the UFC - with many of the participants going on to be successful.

The problem is that these guys are going into TUF, knowing that its a gateway to fighting in the UFC - and that even if they lose, providing they go for it with the right attitude, have a good level of talent, and are entertaining - there's a good chance of making it in the UFC, even if they don't win.

Simply because of the nature/setup of boxing, this wouldn't be possible at the moment - what with too much emphasis on the "0", and the fact that all prospects are with rival promotors.

lowersmiths wrote:i honestly dont think boxing is in decline.

If we're talking about big (old) names getting together, no, it's probably not in decline when compared to, let's say, 12 months ago. Everything else, though? The stuff Emerson has just underlined? Unfortunately, boxing is in a woeful state right now. Wasn't the PPV figure for Calzaghe-Jones one of the, if not THE worst in HBO history? The live gates are also badly suffering right now. Nobody, aside from Mr Hatton, can seem to fill even half an arena this side of the Atlantic. The sames goes for America. Nobody cares.

As much as I loved seeing Pacquiao beat De La Hoya on Saturday, that result may have just knocked another nail in America's boxing coffin. Pacquiao's a big star in his own right, of course, but nobody is Oscar De La Hoya. We may need Floyd Mayweather to return in 2009 just to stand a chance.

Deserter wrote:

lowersmiths wrote:i honestly dont think boxing is in decline.

I don't think it is either at this juncture, but I'm just doing an amateur bit of forecasting and the twin trend of an emerging competitor (in the form of UFC/MMA) and the apparent inability of boxing to reach a youthful audience as effectively as in the past equal serious warning signals to me.
The whole marketing and presentation of boxing so piss-poor considering that it contains more human drama than any other sport, hence so many great films/books etc about it. If the 'old school' approach to branding and marketing continues then it will inevitably suffer in terms of reach, in my opinion.
Oh, and on a particpation level it's been declining for years while MMA has been growing.

that's a lot of ''management speak''

personally i believe the love of boxing is passed on through fathers, grandfathers and friends. that is why it will always survive. MMA is a fad, just like the fake wrestling which it so closely resembles.
im also a little worried some posters are saying UFC's stranglehold on their fighters is a good thing. how does that work in terms of wages and leverage? sounds a bit like football in the uk before jimmy hill broke the strangehold.

Eraserhead wrote:

lowersmiths wrote:i honestly dont think boxing is in decline.

If we're talking about big (old) names getting together, no, it's probably not in decline when compared to, let's say, 12 months ago. Everything else, though? The stuff Emerson has just underlined? Unfortunately, boxing is in a woeful state right now. Wasn't the PPV figure for Calzaghe-Jones one of the, if not THE worst in HBO history? The live gates are also badly suffering right now. Nobody, aside from Mr Hatton, can seem to fill even half an arena this side of the Atlantic. The sames goes for America. Nobody cares.

As much as I loved seeing Pacquiao beat De La Hoya on Saturday, that result may have just knocked another nail in America's boxing coffin. Pacquiao's a big star in his own right, of course, but nobody is Oscar De La Hoya. We may need Floyd Mayweather to return in 2009 just to stand a chance.

there is a massive economic downturn on at the moment, in case you hadnt noticed.
honda just pulled out of F1, events are being dropped from golf tours and boxing isnt immune from this.
why do the calzaghe v jones figures surprise you? it was a poor fight from the moment it was announced. let's see what the figures are for DLH v Pac Man.

Fighters come and go and DLH's time is up. He has been brilliant for the sport but life goes on (PS mayweather doesnt draw fans, pacquaio does)

personally i believe the love of boxing is passed on through fathers, grandfathers and friends. that is why it will always survive. MMA is a fad, just like the fake wrestling which it so closely resembles.

Great post strangely i was thinking about this very point yesterday as my love of boxing came from watching boxing with my father who was an ex boxer himself and than boxing myself and understanding the technical aspects of the sport

What you have to understand though is that alot of the young boys who follow UFC are growing up without fathers or any kind of male influence in their lives which is a reflection of society itself i guess

I was taught to never hit a man once he was down both through my father and Boxing wheras the boys watching UFC/mma are getting the message that when someone is down its ok to kick them in the head or jump on top of them and punch their heads in till they are virtually unconcious!

The simple fact is that if you tried to run Boxing in the worst way possible, it wouldn't be far off than what's happening to it at the moment but hey its still doing pretty damn well especially when the Good fights are put on

I'm hearing 3 million PPV'S for Oscar vs Pacman, maybe i heard wrong as even half that would be a major success in these economic times but that don't sound like a sport in decline to me!

lowersmiths wrote:

Deserter wrote:

lowersmiths wrote:i honestly dont think boxing is in decline.

I don't think it is either at this juncture, but I'm just doing an amateur bit of forecasting and the twin trend of an emerging competitor (in the form of UFC/MMA) and the apparent inability of boxing to reach a youthful audience as effectively as in the past equal serious warning signals to me.
The whole marketing and presentation of boxing so piss-poor considering that it contains more human drama than any other sport, hence so many great films/books etc about it. If the 'old school' approach to branding and marketing continues then it will inevitably suffer in terms of reach, in my opinion.
Oh, and on a particpation level it's been declining for years while MMA has been growing.

that's a lot of ''management speak''

personally i believe the love of boxing is passed on through fathers, grandfathers and friends. that is why it will always survive. MMA is a fad, just like the fake wrestling which it so closely resembles.
im also a little worried some posters are saying UFC's stranglehold on their fighters is a good thing. how does that work in terms of wages and leverage? sounds a bit like football in the uk before jimmy hill broke the strangehold.

Whether you want to call it management speak or not doesn't detract from its importance and validity. Especially as you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head - that passing on of 'love' has been declining for years and continues to, with the result that boxing's penetration into the younger demographic is probably at an all-time low. Those people are the future of the sport so for that reason alone you should be very concerned.
Whatever your thoughts on MMA, only the most blinkered of people could possibly describe it as a fad, and the same love you're talking about being passed on will ensure MMA's growth. With more young people training and fighting in MMA rather than boxing that equals more family and friends supporting them, attending events etc. That's not rocket science.

lowersmiths wrote:

Deserter wrote:

lowersmiths wrote:i honestly dont think boxing is in decline.

I don't think it is either at this juncture, but I'm just doing an amateur bit of forecasting and the twin trend of an emerging competitor (in the form of UFC/MMA) and the apparent inability of boxing to reach a youthful audience as effectively as in the past equal serious warning signals to me.
The whole marketing and presentation of boxing so piss-poor considering that it contains more human drama than any other sport, hence so many great films/books etc about it. If the 'old school' approach to branding and marketing continues then it will inevitably suffer in terms of reach, in my opinion.
Oh, and on a particpation level it's been declining for years while MMA has been growing.

that's a lot of ''management speak''

personally i believe the love of boxing is passed on through fathers, grandfathers and friends. that is why it will always survive. MMA is a fad, just like the fake wrestling which it so closely resembles.
im also a little worried some posters are saying UFC's stranglehold on their fighters is a good thing. how does that work in terms of wages and leverage? sounds a bit like football in the uk before jimmy hill broke the strangehold.

If that's the case, why does nobody (that I encounter) seem to give a shit about boxing anymore? Why does nobody want to go and watch boxing events anymore? What happened to their fathers passing on the love? As a boxing nut, I'm really worried. Your view of boxing being somehow transported through the generations is like saying newspapers will always be relevant because our great grandfathers used to read them. Things change. You can't just expect boxing to always seem relevant to young kids. The rise of the UFC has come about because they put so much emphasis on gearing their sport towards the new generation. They can't rely on it being passed down through generations. While the UFC work hard to break ground, boxing can always sit back, relax and take comfort in the idea that our glorious sport will always filter through the generations...

Right.

Who knows? Maybe I'm just moving in the wrong circles Maybe there's a picturesque pub somewhere in the East End where everybody drinks whisky and eats Frazzles while bouncing toddlers on their knees and discussing the impressive win streak of Ivan Calderon. I feel a song coming on...

EddieShredder wrote: I take it you'll be going to 95? What tickets would you suggest at the O2?... I see they're doing £45, 75, 100, 150 + + tickets....

I saw 75 and 85 at the O2 - strangely the £75 ones I had for 85 were excellent - better than the £100 ones at 75. I'm going to the Dublin show next month.

Boxing is my first and true love but here are a few fringe but important reasons not mentioned by others why I think UFC is really taking off:
- Excellent (and consistent) commentary team. Compare that to some of the dross we hear for boxing
- Extremely fast paced and one fight after the other
- Fantastic live experience. Music, highlight reels shown. Feels like they actually care about the customer experience. I love what Hennesy is doing but I was often bored between fights this past Saturday. Unforgivably, the fans who paid the £ to be there couldn't hear the post fight interviews, which is of course part of the night. UFC actually uses crowd reactions to fuel a better atmosphere for TV viewers too.
- Excellent and consistent marketing (DVD's, games, adverts, posters, internet blogs and lots lots more)
- The bonus system (extra cash for fight, KO, submission of the night)

Quote ..."personally i believe the love of boxing is passed on through fathers, grandfathers and friends. that is why it will always survive. MMA is a fad, just like the fake wrestling which it so closely resembles."....


To be honest as much as i love boxing its thinking that MMA is a "fad" that is one of the biggest problems. MMA has grown so big in a relatively short space of time and shows no signs of slowing down. Boxing can learn so much from it . The fighters seem like they want to fight. Not because of a massive pay packet but because they want to be the best in their sport.

By giving the audience fast action , decent undercards and little bad decisions the majority of the crowd leaves happily after a nights fighting. Aslong as u hav Setanta there is no paying £15 a shot for a fight card either.

Im still more a boxing fan than MMA. Watching the Pacman vs De la Hoya fight was fantastic and UFC fights very rarely get me going like a big boxing match does..

I think it will be interesting as new MMA orginizations crop up , if the UFC might face the same problems as boxing has. Money talks and if fighters leave to go elsewhere then problems could arise. Dana White seems to hav it all just now but that could change. I just cant see that by ignoring MMA its going to go away as some boxing fans would suggest..

Ant Evans wrote:I don't believe boxing's decline has much to do with the UFC. I remember covering major boxing shows over the last 10years and not only being the youngest writer there, but the youngest person in the entire arena other than the fighters. Boxing troubles are deep and wide and would exist whether or not the UFC have developed or not. The only think UFC is doing is holding up a foil to boxing's troubles and mistakes.

I don't believe UFC/MMA is a direct cause, but it's certainly a catalyst. We have a finite population, and if younger individuals are choosing to watch or participate in UFC/MMA over boxing then the fact is that is another individual 'lost' to boxing (though there will invariably be a degree of cross-over as they're not mutually exclusive, as this board proves).
UFC/MMA is undoubtedly stealing 'market share' from boxing IMO.

Perhaps we need to make Boxing "cool" again. For those saying that the DLH ppv figures will show boxing is healthy, that's one fighter not a whole sport!

UFC PPVs
UFC 67 - 350,000-400,000 buys (early estimates)
UFC 66 - Over 1 million buys (biggest non boxing ppv ever according to Late Jan Wrest Obs)
UFC 65 - 500, 000 buys (St-Pierre vs. Hughes)
UFC 64 - 300, 000 buys (Franklin vs. Silva)
UFC 63 - 400,000 buys (Hughes vs Penn 2)
UFC 62 - 500,000 buys (Liddell vs Sobral)
UFC 61 - 775,000 buys (Ortiz vs Shamrock 2)
UFC 60 - 615,000 buys (Hughes vs Gracie)
UFC 59 - 415,000 buys (Tito/Forrest and Sylvia/Arlovski)
UFC 58 - 290,000 buys (Franklin vs Loiseau)
UFC 57 - 400,000 buys (Couture vs Liddell 3)
UFC 52 - 280,000 buys (Couture vs Liddell 2)
UFC 40 - 150,000 buys (Ortiz vs Shamrock)
UFC 5 - 260,000 buys (Gracie vs Shamrock)

MORE UFC PPVS (I haven't seen the source for these though)
UFC 33 Ortiz vs. Matyushenko 75,000
UFC 34 Couture vs. Rizzo 45,000-60,000*
UFC 35 Penn vs. Pulver 35,000
UFC 36 Barnett vs. Couture 45,000-60,000*
UFC 37 Lindland vs. Bustamante 45,000-60,000*
UFC 38 Hughes vs. Newton 45,000-60,000*
UFC 39 Rodriguez vs. Couture 45,000-60,000*
UFC 41 Tank vs. Mir 60,000
UFC 42 Hughes vs. Sherk 35,000
UFC 43 Couture vs. Liddell 49,000
UFC 44 Couture vs. Ortiz 94,000
UFC 45 Tank vs. Cabbage 40,000
UFC 46 Couture vs. Belfort 77,000
UFC 47 Ortiz vs. Liddell 104,000
UFC 48 Shamrock vs. Kimo 110,000

Boxing PPVs
Most PPV buys, JAN-OCT 2006
1. BOX Oscar DeLa Hoya vs. Ricardo Mayorga 925,000
2. UFC Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock 775,000
3. UFC Matt Hughes vs. B.J. Penn 700,000
4. WWE Wrestlemania 636,000
5. UFC Matt Hughes vs. Royce Gracie 600,000
6. UFC Chuck Liddell vs. Renato Sobral 500,000
7. UFC Tito Ortiz vs. Forrest Griffin 425,000
8. BOX Shane Mosely vs. Fernando Vargas 420,000
9. UFC Chuck Liddell vs. Randy Couture 400,000
10.BOX Floyd Mayweather vs. Zab Judah 375,000

VARIOUS HBO BOXING PPVs - 2006
Morales/Pacquiao III - 350,000 buys (11/2006)
Morales/Pacquiao II - 355,000 buys (01/2006)
Vargas/Mosley - 420,000 buys (02/2006)
Mayweather/Judah - 375,000 buys (04/2006)
De La Hoya/Mayorga - 925,000 buys (05/2006)
Tarver/Hopkins - 330,000 buys (06/2006)
Mosley/Vargas II - 350,000 buys (07/2006)

DE LA HOYA PPV HISTORY
Rafael Ruelas( 5/95) 330,000 buys = $9.9 million
Genaro Hernandez(9/95) 220,000 buys = $6.6 million
M.A. Gonzalez(1/97) 345,000 buys = $12.1 million
Pernell Whitaker(4/97) 720,000 buys = $28.8 million
Hector Camacho(9/97) 560,000 buys = $22.4 million
Wilfredo Rivera(12/97) 240,000 buys = $9.6 million
J.C Chavez II( 9/98) 525,000 buys = $23.6 million
Ike Quartey( 2/99) 570,000 buys =$25.7 million
Felix Trinidad(9/99) 1.4 million buys = $71.4 million
Shane Mosley(6/00) 590,000 buys = $29.5 million
Javier Castillejo(6/01) 400,000 buys = $16.0 million
Fernando Vargas(9/02) 935,000 buys = $47.8 million
Yory Boy Campas(5/03) 350,000 buys = $17.5 million
Shane Mosley II( 9/03) 950,000 buys = $48.4 million
Felix Sturm(6/04) 380,000 buys = $19.0 million
Bernard Hopkins(9/04) 1 million buys = $56.0 million
Ricardo Mayorga (05/06) 875,000 buys (note, my other source says 925,000)

Now let's look sat the last 3 boxing PPVs:
Hopkins v Pavlik - 190,000
RJJ v Calzaghe - 200,000
Marquez v Casamayor - 50,000

Compared to 450,000 for Cotto v Margarito

During the same period:
UFC 88 - 590,000
UFC 90 - 300,000
UFC 91 - 850,000

I think UFC 89 was free.

Not having read all that is here.... can I just add sometjing that I know is
often over looked in most debates...

the more you under stand something the greater you appreciate it...
whether that be cricket ( i find boring, but many do not) or something
like MMA>

Now a wrestler views mma differently to a boxer and they both see
the same fight with different eyes and perspectives. The both
appreciate or find fault with different things..but what the both are
usually fascinated with is that they see 'what they do' in action
in a cage and under limited rules.

Now MMA striking is vastly different to kick boxing and boxing, as is
its grappling-wrestling...everything has to be modified and varied
in accordance to the 'new threats' and tools.

Take the striking for example most often MMA striking is magnetic..
in the sense that both fighters are quickly locked up and drawn
to one another...or they are at a distance that see's them backing
away...combination punching is very hard to get going when the guy
clinches or leg attacks you for a take down...

On the same token wrestlers (pure ones) strugle because shooting
from such a distance without contact (hands on) is very hard and
is easily countered.

Take the jab for example it has the same principles but it sets up
kicks, take downs, sprawls...it also will lead to you getting leg
kicked or single legged...it really is something that needs to be
adapted and applied accordingly to the sport.

Boxing and wrestling are by far more sophisticated at their 'ranges'
than MMA is. But alot of things that work in each of those sports
really does not in MMA for so many reasons.

As for what is 'better' its a sport and we all have different tastes.

As for who are better athletes...give MMA time to catch up...at
the moment elite boxers earn their pay..they are true trades men
and artisans.

As are elite wrestlers that sadly do not get paid for their efforts..

Most MMAers are under paid..but the sport is evolving and is
eliminating itself of its 'martial arts' weaknesses.

As for the weekend...boxing had some damned good action..MMA
was stagnate...but I am sure fans of MMA were more impressed with
UFC than Pacmans epic win.

Ignorance is simply that..ignoring knowledge and facts. Whether its
bliss or not is perhaps simplistic. It does lead to silly comments
and ideas.

I love boxing but I fight and coach MMA. Its simple as that.

Boxing is on the decline I think becauise most DVD rental stores
have nearly every UFC, KOTC etc available for sale and rental
and yet the only boxing they have maybe some doco on Tyson
and 'when we were kings'...

That has had a lot to do with the success of MMA as far as increasing
general interest...
Boxing needs to get its great fights out there...where can you walk into
a store and buy or rent a good boxing DVD...?

Here in Oz not too many places..unless you really go out of your way
to look and generally what you find are the usual suspects of fights.

Robinson wrote:Not having read all that is here.... can I just add sometjing that I know is
often over looked in most debates...

the more you under stand something the greater you appreciate it...
whether that be cricket ( i find boring, but many do not) or something
like MMA>

Now a wrestler views mma differently to a boxer and they both see
the same fight with different eyes and perspectives. The both
appreciate or find fault with different things..but what the both are
usually fascinated with is that they see 'what they do' in action
in a cage and under limited rules.

Now MMA striking is vastly different to kick boxing and boxing, as is
its grappling-wrestling...everything has to be modified and varied
in accordance to the 'new threats' and tools.

Take the striking for example most often MMA striking is magnetic..
in the sense that both fighters are quickly locked up and drawn
to one another...or they are at a distance that see's them backing
away...combination punching is very hard to get going when the guy
clinches or leg attacks you for a take down...

On the same token wrestlers (pure ones) strugle because shooting
from such a distance without contact (hands on) is very hard and
is easily countered.

Take the jab for example it has the same principles but it sets up
kicks, take downs, sprawls...it also will lead to you getting leg
kicked or single legged...it really is something that needs to be
adapted and applied accordingly to the sport.

Boxing and wrestling are by far more sophisticated at their 'ranges'
than MMA is. But alot of things that work in each of those sports
really does not in MMA for so many reasons.

As for what is 'better' its a sport and we all have different tastes.

As for who are better athletes...give MMA time to catch up...at
the moment elite boxers earn their pay..they are true trades men
and artisans.

As are elite wrestlers that sadly do not get paid for their efforts..

Most MMAers are under paid..but the sport is evolving and is
eliminating itself of its 'martial arts' weaknesses.

As for the weekend...boxing had some damned good action..MMA
was stagnate...but I am sure fans of MMA were more impressed with
UFC than Pacmans epic win.

Ignorance is simply that..ignoring knowledge and facts. Whether its
bliss or not is perhaps simplistic. It does lead to silly comments
and ideas.

I love boxing but I fight and coach MMA. Its simple as that.

Good Post Robinson

if this thread had been going 20 years ago, some of you would have been scared stiff by the sight of young kids karate chopping and kung fuing their teenage years away.

ufc is a fad, let's talk again in 20 years and see what has happened.

lowersmiths wrote:if this thread had been going 20 years ago, some of you would have been scared stiff by the sight of young kids karate chopping and kung fuing their teenage years away.

ufc is a fad, let's talk again in 20 years and see what has happened.

Totally inaccurate comparison as it's ignoring one massive (and vital) difference.
Despite their increase in participation during that period, karate, kung-fu and Tae-kwon do never managed to break into mainstream spectatorship. Even kick-boxing failed to do this despite its Westernised-format and borrowing from boxing.
This hurdle, which proved insurmountable for the other fighting 'arts', has already been achieved comfortably by UFC/MMA. The numbers don't lie and you can see that in terms of PPV it's already outperforming boxing.
Your ancestors didn't play the violin in Rome by any chance did they?

Also UFC has already been around for 15 years, and the buy rate for UFC 1 was higher than Marquez v Casamayor 3 months ago!

But it's fine, Boxing's been around for decades so it'll survive. Just like Woolworths.

Insert head back in sand.

Deserter wrote:

lowersmiths wrote:if this thread had been going 20 years ago, some of you would have been scared stiff by the sight of young kids karate chopping and kung fuing their teenage years away.

ufc is a fad, let's talk again in 20 years and see what has happened.

Totally inaccurate comparison as it's ignoring one massive (and vital) difference.
Despite their increase in participation during that period, karate, kung-fu and Tae-kwon do never managed to break into mainstream spectatorship. Even kick-boxing failed to do this despite its Westernised-format and borrowing from boxing.
This hurdle, which proved insurmountable for the other fighting 'arts', has already been achieved comfortably by UFC/MMA. The numbers don't lie and you can see that in terms of PPV it's already outperforming boxing.
Your ancestors didn't play the violin in Rome by any chance did they?

UFC hasn't broken into mainstream spectatorship. So what if 6,000 tickets get sold for an event easily - Grimsby Town can sell that every Saturday afternoon (well maybe a couple of seasons ago).

Look at boxing on a world scale and MMA on a world scale (ie, try looking at the world around you and not the six inches in front of your face).

MMA is a poor product marketed well in the UK/USA. Boxing is a brilliant product marketed poorly. MMA is nothing in the vast majority of the world.....

I can't understand the complete refusal to accept the fact that the UFC, and MMA as a whole is a legitimate sport - and not only that, but the fact it is kicking Boxing's ass in terms of marketing, promotion, and popularity.

I also don't understand why people are getting so wound up and hostile about it. Everyone on here who's trying to talk about UFC is still a boxing fan, and in most cases - a boxing fan foremost. The reason we're highlighting the success of the UFC, is that we would love to see our beloved sport take a leaf out of their book - on so many levels; better promotions, better fights, better all round entertainment.

We've had a great year for boxing - but I've enjoyed more UFC shows as a whole, than I have boxing shows. Nothing beats a great boxing bout - but having four or five great fights a year, with practically no undercard fights of note, doesn't compare to great promotions with good, even fights throughout the card.

Anyone would think we're trying to turn Boxrec into UFCrec, and replace boxing with mma every weekend, the way some of you are going on.

By all means avoid the threads, and don't watch MMA if it doesn't interest you - but some of you are making ludicrous statements, which ultimately just make you look stupid.

EddieShredder wrote:I can't understand the complete refusal to accept the fact that the UFC, and MMA as a whole is a legitimate sport - and not only that, but the fact it is kicking Boxing's ass in terms of marketing, promotion, and popularity.

I also don't understand why people are getting so wound up and hostile about it. Everyone on here who's trying to talk about UFC is still a boxing fan, and in most cases - a boxing fan foremost. The reason we're highlighting the success of the UFC, is that we would love to see our beloved sport take a leaf out of their book - on so many levels; better promotions, better fights, better all round entertainment.

We've had a great year for boxing - but I've enjoyed more UFC shows as a whole, than I have boxing shows. Nothing beats a great boxing bout - but having four or five great fights a year, with practically no undercard fights of note, doesn't compare to great promotions with good, even fights throughout the card.

Anyone would think we're trying to turn Boxrec into UFCrec, and replace boxing with mma every weekend, the way some of you are going on.

By all means avoid the threads, and don't watch MMA if it doesn't interest you - but some of you are making ludicrous statements, which ultimately just make you look stupid.

I agree, UFC is far more consistent in terms of levels of excitement and matchups, but for sheer majesty and drama, it cannot compete with the very best of boxing - the fights are often over too fast, and it's not that artistic watching someone being knelt on and simultaneously punched in the head.

Boxing could learn a lot from MMA, and I think it will in time - there are younger promoters coming through now, many of them fighters, who I am sure have watched a fair bit of MMA themselves.