Would GSP Smash a Boxer?

Training
61

[quote]goldengloves wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
In a street fight with no rules and no weapons the typical mma guy will destroy the typical boxer. There should be no debate about this except from the die hard boxing fans.

You do know that the words, “street fights with no rules and no weapons” sound fucking retarded when you put them all in the same sentence, right?

To you maybe, but most of average intelligence understand that one can use a “qualifier” when debating a theoretical.

Then again the op didn’t say would GSP smash a boxer if the boxer was using a knife. I guess that’s a whole other debate isn’t it? Which fighter would win in a knife fight the mma figher or the boxer?

Okay.

As I stated, the only real debate will come from a die hard boxing fan who feels some sort of inner threat toward mma (mma on ppv out drawing boxing)and feels that he must defend the boxing turf, how silly. In reality there really is no comparison in most cases with comparable experience the boxer will lose. If there are weapons involved then the fighter who has the most experience with said weapon (and other variables) will win.

Does that make you feel better? If not you can always launch one of your now famous infantile profanity monologues.

It is clear here that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Big fucking surprise.

He lost me at “street fight with rules”.[/quote]

Sorry I lost you. Look at it this way, we can discuss for hours two people fighting under different conditions. One has a knife, the other a bar stool and every possible combination of weapons and potential weapons. But rather than launch into such a dogmatic argument it makes more sense to limit the fighters to merely hands and feet. Obviously, there are no rules in a street fight, but for purposes of debate it’s smart to have those rules.

Anyway, it’s always fun to ponder what would happen with other fans of the combat arts.

62

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
In a street fight with no rules and no weapons the typical mma guy will destroy the typical boxer. There should be no debate about this except from the die hard boxing fans.

You do know that the words, “street fights with no rules and no weapons” sound fucking retarded when you put them all in the same sentence, right?

To you maybe, but most of average intelligence understand that one can use a “qualifier” when debating a theoretical.

Then again the op didn’t say would GSP smash a boxer if the boxer was using a knife. I guess that’s a whole other debate isn’t it? Which fighter would win in a knife fight the mma figher or the boxer?

Okay.

As I stated, the only real debate will come from a die hard boxing fan who feels some sort of inner threat toward mma (mma on ppv out drawing boxing)and feels that he must defend the boxing turf, how silly. In reality there really is no comparison in most cases with comparable experience the boxer will lose. If there are weapons involved then the fighter who has the most experience with said weapon (and other variables) will win.

Does that make you feel better? If not you can always launch one of your now famous infantile profanity monologues.

It is clear here that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Big fucking surprise. [/quote]

You’ve not launched even one cogent argument, yet you claim I don’t know what I’m talking about. I suppose that’s pretty typical. At least you got through a post without talking about how you want Sarah Palin gang raped and then dropped from a 90 foot cliff, or some such anti-Palin rhetoric that you’re known for, you must be back on your meds.

Maybe there’s hope for you yet.

63

[quote]ZEB wrote:
goldengloves wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
In a street fight with no rules and no weapons the typical mma guy will destroy the typical boxer. There should be no debate about this except from the die hard boxing fans.

You do know that the words, “street fights with no rules and no weapons” sound fucking retarded when you put them all in the same sentence, right?

To you maybe, but most of average intelligence understand that one can use a “qualifier” when debating a theoretical.

Then again the op didn’t say would GSP smash a boxer if the boxer was using a knife. I guess that’s a whole other debate isn’t it? Which fighter would win in a knife fight the mma figher or the boxer?

Okay.

As I stated, the only real debate will come from a die hard boxing fan who feels some sort of inner threat toward mma (mma on ppv out drawing boxing)and feels that he must defend the boxing turf, how silly. In reality there really is no comparison in most cases with comparable experience the boxer will lose. If there are weapons involved then the fighter who has the most experience with said weapon (and other variables) will win.

Does that make you feel better? If not you can always launch one of your now famous infantile profanity monologues.

It is clear here that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Big fucking surprise.

He lost me at “street fight with rules”.

Sorry I lost you. Look at it this way, we can discuss for hours two people fighting under different conditions. One has a knife, the other a bar stool and every possible combination of weapons and potential weapons. But rather than launch into such a dogmatic argument it makes more sense to limit the fighters to merely hands and feet. Obviously, there are no rules in a street fight, but for purposes of debate it’s smart to have those rules.

Anyway, it’s always fun to ponder what would happen with other fans of the combat arts.

[/quote]

the boxer is going to win the boxing match, the mma fighter will win an mma match. boxers don’t train for anything except boxing, the mma fighters knows that. i wouldn’t expect for that fight to be too centered around kicks and punches. just like if you put a mma fighter in the ring, they probably wouldn’t be able to adjust. comparing boxing and mma is like the baseball and cricket comparison, two vaguely similar things that are completely different.

i don’t know if a mma fighter could handle fighting a full round, they like to have their naps when they lay on top of each other :).

64

weeps for humanity

65

thank you donut.

66

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Look at it this way, we can discuss for hours two people fighting under different conditions. One has a knife, the other a bar stool and every possible combination of weapons and potential weapons. But rather than launch into such a dogmatic argument it makes more sense to limit the fighters to merely hands and feet. Obviously, there are no rules in a street fight, but for purposes of debate it’s smart to have those rules.

Anyway, it’s always fun to ponder what would happen with other fans of the combat arts.

[/quote]

There is an entire industry based around telling people what to do in certain situations. That’s kind of what the martial arts in general is based off of, especially arts like Krav and Silat or Escrima.

It isn’t a dogmatic argument- its a relevant one. Arguing what happens in a “street fight” when both combatants are unarmed, there’s only two of them, and they’re both high skilled, trained fighters - that’s called “Sport.”

Argue sport or talk about real violence- but the two aren’t similar and aren’t interchangeable.

Now kindly go back to bashing gays in the politics forum thank you.

67


WHO WOULD WIN BATMAN OR SUPERMAN

68

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
sevenmoist wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What about a tiger versus an angry polar bear?

Tiger all the way.
What about a killer whale vs. a great white?

Didn’t you see Jaws 2? The shark wins.

What about Chuck Norris vs. Ditka?[/quote]
Wow that would be tough but I am going Ditka.
O.K. how about Abe Lincoln vs. JFK?

69

[quote]sevenmoist wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
sevenmoist wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What about a tiger versus an angry polar bear?

Tiger all the way.
What about a killer whale vs. a great white?

Didn’t you see Jaws 2? The shark wins.

What about Chuck Norris vs. Ditka?
Wow that would be tough but I am going Ditka.
O.K. how about Abe Lincoln vs. JFK?

[/quote]

Are we talking when they were both in their primes or during Abe’s later career when he started just cherry picking fights for the easy money and didn’t train so hard?

Also, would this be at a catch weight?

70

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
sevenmoist wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
sevenmoist wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What about a tiger versus an angry polar bear?

Tiger all the way.
What about a killer whale vs. a great white?

Didn’t you see Jaws 2? The shark wins.

What about Chuck Norris vs. Ditka?
Wow that would be tough but I am going Ditka.
O.K. how about Abe Lincoln vs. JFK?

Are we talking when they were both in their primes or during Abe’s later career when he started just cherry picking fights for the easy money and didn’t train so hard?

Also, would this be at a catch weight?[/quote]

For the record, TR would whip any president in history.

Extensive background in boxing and wrestling, not to mention he was one of the first Americans to get a brown belt in Judo as I recall.

Andrew Jackson was better with guns, but hand to hand TR would’ve kicked some ass.

71

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Look at it this way, we can discuss for hours two people fighting under different conditions. One has a knife, the other a bar stool and every possible combination of weapons and potential weapons. But rather than launch into such a dogmatic argument it makes more sense to limit the fighters to merely hands and feet. Obviously, there are no rules in a street fight, but for purposes of debate it’s smart to have those rules.

Anyway, it’s always fun to ponder what would happen with other fans of the combat arts.

There is an entire industry based around telling people what to do in certain situations. That’s kind of what the martial arts in general is based off of, especially arts like Krav and Silat or Escrima.

It isn’t a dogmatic argument- its a relevant one. Arguing what happens in a “street fight” when both combatants are unarmed, there’s only two of them, and they’re both high skilled, trained fighters - that’s called “Sport.”

Argue sport or talk about real violence- but the two aren’t similar and aren’t interchangeable. [/quote]

You should explain your argument to two guys who are about to go out into an alley to settle something. One of them is a mma expert and the other is a seasoned boxer. Tell them that one of them should have a club or several friends to jump in. Tell them that it’s impossible for the two of them to fight just one on one with no weapons, then tell them that the’re about to take part in a sport, not really a fight. Yea, try that out sometime.

Saying that it’s always sport is a cop out. When you say such things you are making a claim that the two can never square off in a situation described above. As you must know that’s ludicrous.

[quote]Now kindly go back to bashing gays in the politics forum thank you.
[/quote]

Sorry if I offended your delicate sensiblities by pointing out a few statistics, never called anyone a name, like you always seem to do, just debated the facts. It seems that the only time that liberals like yourself become offended is when one of the major liberal bastions is attacked: Pro Homosexuality, pro abortion, pro higher tax, large government. Quite a constituency that you have to cater to.

I’ll keep in mind going forward that you have one more sacred cow that can never be questioned, boxing.

72

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You should explain your argument to two guys who are about to go out into an alley to settle something. One of them is a mma expert and the other is a seasoned boxer. Tell them that one of them should have a club or several friends to jump in. Tell them that it’s impossible for the two of them to fight just one on one with no weapons, then tell them that the’re about to take part in a sport, not really a fight. Yea, try that out sometime.
[/quote]

Oh ok. So the next time I see a pro boxer and a UFC fighter at a bar who decide to get their John Wayne sensibilities together and settle the score by going toe-to-toe, I’ll let them know. You fuckin moron.

You are goddamn right it will never happen. That you are suggesting that it could or would is probably making a lot of folks on this forum laugh their balls off.

Now again, take your decrepid bible thumping ass back to the politics forum. There’s no room for you here except as a compliment to Headhunter.

73

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:

You should explain your argument to two guys who are about to go out into an alley to settle something. One of them is a mma expert and the other is a seasoned boxer. Tell them that one of them should have a club or several friends to jump in. Tell them that it’s impossible for the two of them to fight just one on one with no weapons, then tell them that the’re about to take part in a sport, not really a fight. Yea, try that out sometime.

Oh ok. So the next time I see a pro boxer and a UFC fighter at a bar who decide to get their John Wayne sensibilities together and settle the score by going toe-to-toe, I’ll let them know.[/quote]

Who said that? I said a “seasoned boxer” and an “mma expert.” Oh well, reading comprehension was never your strong suit, neither is thinking, at least you’re consistent.

This is classic fightingirish, he misquotes others and then calls them names after he sets up a strawman. Classic, but oh so tired.

[quote]Saying that it’s always sport is a cop out. When you say such things you are making a claim that the two can never square off in a situation described above. As you must know that’s ludicrous.

You are goddamn right it will never happen. That you are suggesting that it could or would is probably making a lot of folks on this forum laugh their balls off.[/quote]

First you feel compelled to bring homosexuality into the argument, now you’re talking about mens testicles. Hmm, anyway, to say that there has never been and will never be a street fight between an mma guy and a boxer is, as I said before, ludicrous. But then you are just being you, obstinate, slow to catch on, usually wrong and always full of personal attacks. This is why most of the better posters on this forum ignore you, but then you know that right? No?

[quote]Now again, take your decrepid bible thumping ass back to the politics forum. There’s no room for you here except as a compliment to Headhunter.
[/quote]

Does everything come down to Christianity with you? That’s odd, but you are one odd little man anyway. Now it’s the Bible you have a problem with. I see, well that does have a lot to do with boxing so I understand why you would bring it up.

Some advice: Less posting more reading of good quality books.

74

[quote]ZEB wrote:
some bullshit that’s not worth reading.
[/quote]

You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

Kindly go back to harassing gays on the politics board.

Thanks.

75

[quote]ZEB wrote:
some bullshit that’s not worth reading.
[/quote]

You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

Kindly go back to harassing gays on the politics board.

Thanks.

76

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
some bullshit that’s not worth reading.

You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.[/quote]

Yet, you’ve given not one good argument to refute it.

[quote]Kindly go back to harassing gays on the politics board.
[/quote]

This has already been charged by you and clearly refuted by me, did you miss that part?

Ha, why don’t you get someone to post for you Irish you’re pathetic.

77

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is why most of the better posters on this forum ignore you, but then you know that right? No?
[/quote]

When did you become the voice for the “better posters” of this forum? Especially when Irish is one of the better posters on this forum…regardless if you like him or not.

It’s fairly easy to tell what posters are full of shit when it comes to anything related to combat sports and/or self-defense. Especially when politics(of all things) is injected into a discussion of this sort. You seem to know your politics better…so keep at your strong points…

78

Maybe a less shitstorm provoking question would be “Is boxing or mixed martial arts more similar to what occurs in a typical streetfight?” or “given a choice between the two, would boxing or mixed martial arts prepare someone for a typical streetfight better?”

79

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
sevenmoist wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
sevenmoist wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What about a tiger versus an angry polar bear?

Tiger all the way.
What about a killer whale vs. a great white?

Didn’t you see Jaws 2? The shark wins.

What about Chuck Norris vs. Ditka?
Wow that would be tough but I am going Ditka.
O.K. how about Abe Lincoln vs. JFK?

Are we talking when they were both in their primes or during Abe’s later career when he started just cherry picking fights for the easy money and didn’t train so hard?

Also, would this be at a catch weight?

For the record, TR would whip any president in history.

Extensive background in boxing and wrestling, not to mention he was one of the first Americans to get a brown belt in Judo as I recall.

Andrew Jackson was better with guns, but hand to hand TR would’ve kicked some ass.[/quote]

I would put Putin in the mix and definitely Paddy Ashdown (used to be the leader of the Lib Dems in the UK)

80

[quote]Kevin_Meaux wrote:
Maybe a less shitstorm provoking question would be “Is boxing or mixed martial arts more similar to what occurs in a typical streetfight?” or “given a choice between the two, would boxing or mixed martial arts prepare someone for a typical streetfight better?”[/quote]

I think again this is a pointless argument. A streetfight is a streetfight, MMA and Boxing are sports with rules. Someone who has trained in either will have some useful tools to use in a streetfight and will be used to taking a few licks but that is as far as it goes.