50-0: The Death of MMA (Video)

I never said it would die. People still fucking play racketball for fucks sake, and boxing is still an aspect of MMA. It's not like Muay Thai is dead or BJJ. It's going to eventually not be the mainstream professional sport it is even today, and specially not the one it used to be.

I think that's already gone....and MMA didn't really replace it. Remember how the HW boxing champ was a big deal....and it was also hard to get people to care for anything else in pro-boxing?

Who knows?
 
Anyone who thought this video was serious has invalidated all of their views, past and present, for all eternity.
 
I think that's already gone....and MMA didn't really replace it. Remember how the HW boxing champ was a big deal....and it was also hard to get people to care for anything else in pro-boxing?

Who knows?

The HW boxer was big because of KO power, societal standards, and that's what the promoters went with at the end of the day. There's still a stigma left over there, but no longer can one just be big and get a free pass to stardom. At the same time casuals have been shaved off that happened to be the biggest audience of said HWs, leaving those who appreciate true technique to bring those strong weight classes to the biggest stage. It's largely happened in MMA too.

MMA has very much replaced and continues to parts of boxing. The only reason boxing is even where it is now in terms of popularity is because of some of the faults of MMA in being able to establish itself with younger individuals.

1. People still see it as barbaric. Declining and will continue to.

2. Homophobia and interpretations of masculinity still runs rampant, especially in lower income communities. Essentially people think "throwing hands" is the only way a man should fight. Declining and will continue to do so.

3. Costs of training are high. Things have gotten pricier in most martial arts gyms, but with the establishment of actual MMA gyms to essentially get a pass to everything, more people are being introduced than ever before.

Meanwhile you have empty boxing gyms and ones that have already closed all over the country. That's just he reality of it.

As MMA continues to grow and new generations are exposed to it, it's going to continue to make boxing more and more he niche sport it is.
 
"allegedley hitting his girlfriend once"

Mayweather-letter2.jpg


He has been accused of domestic violence by multiple women on several occasions, and has even pleaded guilty I think to domestic violence. Along with evidence of his baby mamas suffering concussions and bruises from him... Just saying
 
SOOO much wrong with this video. The guy who made it is an absolute idiot who thinks MMA is for skinheads, and that jiu jitsu doesn't work in the real life....
 
The HW boxer was big because of KO power, societal standards, and that's what the promoters went with at the end of the day. There's still a stigma left over there, but no longer can one just be big and get a free pass to stardom. At the same time casuals have been shaved off that happened to be the biggest audience of said HWs, leaving those who appreciate true technique to bring those strong weight classes to the biggest stage. It's largely happened in MMA too.

MMA has very much replaced and continues to parts of boxing. The only reason boxing is even where it is now in terms of popularity is because of some of the faults of MMA in being able to establish itself with younger individuals.

1. People still see it as barbaric. Declining and will continue to.

2. Homophobia and interpretations of masculinity still runs rampant, especially in lower income communities. Essentially people think "throwing hands" is the only way a man should fight. Declining and will continue to do so.

3. Costs of training are high. Things have gotten pricier in most martial arts gyms, but with the establishment of actual MMA gyms to essentially get a pass to everything, more people are being introduced than ever before.

Meanwhile you have empty boxing gyms and ones that have already closed all over the country. That's just he reality of it.

As MMA continues to grow and new generations are exposed to it, it's going to continue to make boxing more and more he niche sport it is.
The HW boxer was big because of KO power, societal standards, and that's what the promoters went with at the end of the day. There's still a stigma left over there, but no longer can one just be big and get a free pass to stardom. At the same time casuals have been shaved off that happened to be the biggest audience of said HWs, leaving those who appreciate true technique to bring those strong weight classes to the biggest stage. It's largely happened in MMA too.

MMA has very much replaced and continues to parts of boxing. The only reason boxing is even where it is now in terms of popularity is because of some of the faults of MMA in being able to establish itself with younger individuals.

1. People still see it as barbaric. Declining and will continue to.

2. Homophobia and interpretations of masculinity still runs rampant, especially in lower income communities. Essentially people think "throwing hands" is the only way a man should fight. Declining and will continue to do so.

3. Costs of training are high. Things have gotten pricier in most martial arts gyms, but with the establishment of actual MMA gyms to essentially get a pass to everything, more people are being introduced than ever before.

Meanwhile you have empty boxing gyms and ones that have already closed all over the country. That's just he reality of it.

As MMA continues to grow and new generations are exposed to it, it's going to continue to make boxing more and more he niche sport it is.

Eh....you have a chip on your shoulder about HWs. The golden era of HW boxing was quite technical, it was not just about size and power.

You are right about most of it, but way too passionate about an irrelevant topic.
 
Eh....you have a chip on your shoulder about HWs. The golden era of HW boxing was quite technical, it was not just about size and power.

You are right about most of it, but way too passionate about an irrelevant topic.

I have no qualms with HWs but the facts are the facts. There is a clear skill difference, albeit I will admit not nearly as wide as it is in MMA. The same can be said largely in many other sports, I.e basketball with taller people. When you enter ranges of the population that are not as prominent you will run into other physical shortcomings.

It is also very relevant. We are talking about the most integral chapter in combat sports history. For one not to be informed on the subject puts their entire existence in that realm into question.
 
Mma will never die , it's a combat sport,

Even though it lost a ton a popularity and is basically a niche sport

It partially has to do with 2 things

Wme mismanagement and

boxing making fights that matter and super fights

I don't think mma will ever be in it's golden era but it could improve slightly in popularity mainly in the USA .

Mexico has almost forgotten mma even exists
 
LOL I was entertained (for about 4 mins). The guy is obviously trolling with the MMA stuff but hey, the Conorites deserve it.
 
I have no qualms with HWs but the facts are the facts. There is a clear skill difference, albeit I will admit not nearly as wide as it is in MMA. The same can be said largely in many other sports, I.e basketball with taller people. When you enter ranges of the population that are not as prominent you will run into other physical shortcomings.

It is also very relevant. We are talking about the most integral chapter in combat sports history. For one not to be informed on the subject puts their entire existence in that realm into question.

Allow me to go on a tangent to something I find more interesting?

You touched an area that interests me more and obsesses sherdog: big people and skills. There are two parameters I often see completely wrong (or unfairly treated) in the forums here plus a third one (*). First that bigger men have less "technique", whatever is meant by that. A technique is a learned and developed movements. Some movements are either harder or easier to execute as you get bigger: usually just gets harder. In many sports, moving around longer and heavier limbs is more difficult: we don't see tall gymnasts for example, most "acrobatics", i.e. hand eye coordination gets harder to teach to bigger kids. This is not true for other sports, of course: free-style swimming benefits from size, but long distance running does not. The list is long, all curves are quite complex in the "morphology"-"ability" space.

The other point you also touched: demographics or "gene pool". Chances are that a predisposition to execute certain movements "better" will be found in larger population samples. So, take a truly global sport: soccer. It takes its own mix up of "technique" or "fundamentals", the innate abilities, lets call it "talent" and turns out most soccer players only slightly taller and bigger than their population of origin (it's been measured, we can dig it in google scholar). One caveat is that soccer doesn't rely a lot on balls flying high (like volleyball and basketball), and although there is contact, the fouls are controlled so the sport privileges smooth movement (or at least tries to) as opposed to Rugby and our football. So, top soccer players are insanely talented, but not particularly "misshaped" relative to the population.

This is not true in sports where being bigger carries an advantage, especially the sports that are popular in america: basketball and football, (and, to an extent, baseball - but guys got big here for power....). Here's where it gets interesting: where is it that a player has the "right size" and the "perfect technique" to be a major game changer? In Basketball, there have been exceptionally skilled tall player: to perform some of their feats, carrying those frames is not easy. Michael Jordan is not a small man, and he executed motions that a lot of super talented smaller men could not pull off WHILE facing the big defenders. The acrobatics and so on, sure, smaller players will tend to execute them with greater ease: but hats off to the big guy who can use them effectively.

That said, this generalisation that "bigger men" are sloppier, not technical and so on, is usually an oversimplification, or straight out unfair. If you happen to be a giant, and need to "fight other giants", the sets of tools that are useful and at your disposal differ from those employed by smaller men.

This is why I brought the golden age of HW boxing: it was a period of highly technical, olympic-medalist boxers who performed complex movements carrying massive frames. Unfortunately, this era died... we had Tyson who was carved by D'amato (study Tyson's style, it's fascinating) and then interest in boxing changed a lot.

The * I mentioned earlier: there is a subsection of sherdoggers who are obsessed with the idea that there are "A-level" athletes in the NBA/NFL that, if they did MMA instead, would completely dominate the sport. They are partially correct: it's a great gene pool. But they are incorrect in how narrowly they define of athleticism altogether.

In any case: I don't think the topic of whether boxing will be thriving or not is important, because it's too speculative right now. Honestly, whatever sells the most and attracts people will be most popular, and MMA is in the right direction. For example, it has huge potential to grow in Asia, and that might completely reshape MMA market. But it's a parameter we've been waiting for a few years already. And boxing, as a discipline, might become a symbiotic part of MMA, with its own pure form thriving in the amateur scene and in a lower key professional scene. I'd guess more or less that, which is exactly what you predicted: but I wouldn't dare sentencing it as a definitive trend.
 
Allow me to go on a tangent to something I find more interesting?

You touched an area that interests me more and obsesses sherdog: big people and skills. There are two parameters I often see completely wrong (or unfairly treated) in the forums here plus a third one (*). First that bigger men have less "technique", whatever is meant by that. A technique is a learned and developed movements. Some movements are either harder or easier to execute as you get bigger: usually just gets harder. In many sports, moving around longer and heavier limbs is more difficult: we don't see tall gymnasts for example, most "acrobatics", i.e. hand eye coordination gets harder to teach to bigger kids. This is not true for other sports, of course: free-style swimming benefits from size, but long distance running does not. The list is long, all curves are quite complex in the "morphology"-"ability" space.

The other point you also touched: demographics or "gene pool". Chances are that a predisposition to execute certain movements "better" will be found in larger population samples. So, take a truly global sport: soccer. It takes its own mix up of "technique" or "fundamentals", the innate abilities, lets call it "talent" and turns out most soccer players only slightly taller and bigger than their population of origin (it's been measured, we can dig it in google scholar). One caveat is that soccer doesn't rely a lot on balls flying high (like volleyball and basketball), and although there is contact, the fouls are controlled so the sport privileges smooth movement (or at least tries to) as opposed to Rugby and our football. So, top soccer players are insanely talented, but not particularly "misshaped" relative to the population.

This is not true in sports where being bigger carries an advantage, especially the sports that are popular in america: basketball and football, (and, to an extent, baseball - but guys got big here for power....). Here's where it gets interesting: where is it that a player has the "right size" and the "perfect technique" to be a major game changer? In Basketball, there have been exceptionally skilled tall player: to perform some of their feats, carrying those frames is not easy. Michael Jordan is not a small man, and he executed motions that a lot of super talented smaller men could not pull off WHILE facing the big defenders. The acrobatics and so on, sure, smaller players will tend to execute them with greater ease: but hats off to the big guy who can use them effectively.

That said, this generalisation that "bigger men" are sloppier, not technical and so on, is usually an oversimplification, or straight out unfair. If you happen to be a giant, and need to "fight other giants", the sets of tools that are useful and at your disposal differ from those employed by smaller men.

This is why I brought the golden age of HW boxing: it was a period of highly technical, olympic-medalist boxers who performed complex movements carrying massive frames. Unfortunately, this era died... we had Tyson who was carved by D'amato (study Tyson's style, it's fascinating) and then interest in boxing changed a lot.

The * I mentioned earlier: there is a subsection of sherdoggers who are obsessed with the idea that there are "A-level" athletes in the NBA/NFL that, if they did MMA instead, would completely dominate the sport. They are partially correct: it's a great gene pool. But they are incorrect in how narrowly they define of athleticism altogether.

In any case: I don't think the topic of whether boxing will be thriving or not is important, because it's too speculative right now. Honestly, whatever sells the most and attracts people will be most popular, and MMA is in the right direction. For example, it has huge potential to grow in Asia, and that might completely reshape MMA market. But it's a parameter we've been waiting for a few years already. And boxing, as a discipline, might become a symbiotic part of MMA, with its own pure form thriving in the amateur scene and in a lower key professional scene. I'd guess more or less that, which is exactly what you predicted: but I wouldn't dare sentencing it as a definitive trend.

It is a definitive trend, whether it changes back around maybe speculation although not in favor of boxing, but it's certainly headed in that trajectory.

Bigger people are also less technical. There's no way around that either. You have to most certainly measure it differently, but there is a gauge and people in MMA and even boxing are failing it miserably. The athleticism is not there. The ability to comprehend martial arts is not there. You are talking about a segment of the population that is many times more populous not having any advantage over one that is much smaller in number. It's not only theoretically ridiculous, but it can be proven to be factually ridiculous as well.

Look at the HWs in MMA. They are laughed at for good reason. The so-called P4P best ever was knocked silly by a MW whose technique isn't particular great himself, and he is known as the most technical HW ever.

It's just the situation. You can even look at the reasoning fiscally. There's a reason why bigger guys get paid more in every sport. They are not in huge supply and even a average at best one will tend to be overpaid. It's not anything to get upset about. It's something to accept and move on.
 
It is a definitive trend, whether it changes back around maybe speculation although not in favor of boxing, but it's certainly headed in that trajectory.

Bigger people are also less technical. There's no way around that either. You have to most certainly measure it differently, but there is a gauge and people in MMA and even boxing are failing it miserably. The athleticism is not there. The ability to comprehend martial arts is not there. You are talking about a segment of the population that is many times more populous not having any advantage over one that is much smaller in number. It's not only theoretically ridiculous, but it can be proven to be factually ridiculous as well.

Look at the HWs in MMA. They are laughed at for good reason. The so-called P4P best ever was knocked silly by a MW whose technique isn't particular great himself, and he is known as the most technical HW ever.

It's just the situation. You can even look at the reasoning fiscally. There's a reason why bigger guys get paid more in every sport. They are not in huge supply and even a average at best one will tend to be overpaid. It's not anything to get upset about. It's something to accept and move on.

I think you didn't read or care about the arguments I made. I didn't limit my arguments to the bigger men in MMA, I was talking about sports in general.

If being "big" were what you paint it to be, the NBA roster would resemble a horse racing locker room. You're exaggerating and refusing the nuances of reality with a rabid passion that makes any discussion impossible.

Also, your use the word "ridiculous" is wrong: you cannot prove or disprove that something is subjective.

So, I guess until you calm down, we can have a talk. The initial comment I made, that you have a chip on your shoulder about HWs was unfortunately true. Reality is nuanced and I gave it an honest shot to discuss it pleasantly with you. If you rather stick to your dogmatisms, hey, it's sherdog: you are always right!
 
Last edited:
I think you didn't read or care about the arguments I made. I didn't limit my arguments to the bigger men in MMA, I was talking about sports in general.

If being "big" were what you paint it to be, the NBA roster would resemble a horse racing locker room. You're exaggerating and refusing the nuances of reality with a rabid passion that makes any discussion possible.

Also, your use the word "ridiculous" is wrong: you cannot prove or disprove that something is subjective.

So, I guess until you calm down, we can have a talk. The initial comment I made, that you have a chip on your shoulder about HWs was unfortunately true. Reality is nuanced and I gave it an honest shot to discuss it pleasantly with you. If you rather stick to your dogmatisms, hey, it's sherdog: you are always right!

No, because size still plays a factor, not just skill. You don't have to be as skilled to play 3 feet under the rim as you do playing under 4. That seems to be what you aren't comprehending. You look at the bigger players in the NBA today, they are developing more and more tools then before because they can. This isn't a coincidence, and it's not something you are weirdly attributing that I'm envious about. It's the reality of the skill level developing from people that could only just sit there and be big and tall like Shaq and people that can actually play basketball.

Same can be said about MMA and boxing. It's not debatable, because it's just not. If you can break it down technically (which you clearly can't) you can see the differences in skill. You just seem to want to see them equally, or maybe even with a superiority, but the fact that you felt compelled to bring up this topic from another shows that it's actually you that is being bothered. You obviously can't accept this is the reality of the situation and the standpoint not just most people take, but the most informed people take as well.
 
No, because size still plays a factor, not just skill. You don't have to be as skilled to play 3 feet under the rim as you do playing under 4. That seems to be what you aren't comprehending. You look at the bigger players in the NBA today, they are developing more and more tools then before because they can. This isn't a coincidence, and it's not something you are weirdly attributing that I'm envious about. It's the reality of the skill level developing from people that could only just sit there and be big and tall like Shaq and people that can actually play basketball.

Same can be said about MMA and boxing. It's not debatable, because it's just not. If you can break it down technically (which you clearly can't) you can see the differences in skill. You just seem to want to see them equally, or maybe even with a superiority, but the fact that you felt compelled to bring up this topic from another shows that it's actually you that is being bothered. You obviously can't accept this is the reality of the situation and the standpoint not just most people take, but the most informed people take as well.

I comprehended and explained it.

But you're too obtuse and belligerent in this forum.

Goodbye.
 
Back
Top