Top Tier Boxers that could dominated Top Tier MMA fighters.

[master of read]

The thing I found so funny about that was that Inoki hit and kicked him several times and tried to injure him with a joint lock and it took Bruno a minute to realize Inoki was going at him for real because it really wasn't effecting him that much.

sounds like that story about meng. he was in mexico wrestling a multi-man match, when one of the other wrestlers starts shooting on him. but meng was so damn tough, nothing he did work on him and the crowd began laughing at his attempts to beat him up.

[wjowski]

Boxing is too overly-specialized to work on it's own in an MMA setting.

[Powerboy]

Boxing is too overly-specialized to work on it's own in an MMA setting.

It was never actually stated that it was an MMA setting. Of course the MMA guy would win most of the time in an MMA fight. The real question is what would happen in a "real fight" out on the street or just in a situation not tailor-made for one of them.

[Jackalope89]

It would take a bit of specialized training, but yes, the boxer could beat the MMA fighter. The training would consist mainly of blocking various/common take downs. Which, depending on what it is, could give the boxer quite the advantage.

However, MMA fighters that are stronger in striking would still go for the boxer's legs. Others, well, MMA fighters are taught various forms of stand up styles. And while the explosive and devastating boxer punches are something to always keep in mind, it has been shown that, while not quite as refined, MMA fighters can strike with similar power.

[wjowski]

It was never actually stated that it was an MMA setting. Of course the MMA guy would win most of the time in an MMA fight. The real question is what would happen in a "real fight" out on the street or just in a situation not tailor-made for one of them.

Assuming all else being equal that doesn't change my answer. The MMA guy is going to have the more complete skillset for 'real' fights.

[big_adventure]

Assuming all else being equal that doesn't change my answer. The MMA guy is going to have the more complete skillset for 'real' fights.

Eh, not enough to win 10/10 or anything. Fights start out standing up and facing each other. To get a takedown you need to get close, and going close against someone who has dedicated all of their training to movement, endurance and punching isn't a picnic. Having a broader skillset but being less good at each aspect of of it isn't going automatically massively favor the broader skillset holder. Assuming completely equal ability - so imagine two clones of prime Tyson, one trained in MMA and the other as a boxer, both trained for say 5 years, yeah, the MMA-trained guy would have an edge, but it would by no means be a stomp.

[Powerboy]

Eh, not enough to win 10/10 or anything. Fights start out standing up and facing each other. To get a takedown you need to get close, and going close against someone who has dedicated all of their training to movement, endurance and punching isn't a picnic. Having a broader skillset but being less good at each aspect of of it isn't going automatically massively favor the broader skillset holder. Assuming completely equal ability - so imagine two clones of prime Tyson, one trained in MMA and the other as a boxer, both trained for say 5 years, yeah, the MMA-trained guy would have an edge, but it would by no means be a stomp.

I was kind of trying to convey something like this myself but you did it much better.

It's been argued that, in reality, you need a few basic attacks and defenses and everything else is extraneous, not in a sports event but otherwise.

It's also very dependent on the circumstances. Suppose you are fighting on pavement in the Wal-Mart parking lot or an alley. Going to the ground may be a little more difficult on pavement. Suppose you are fighting in a parking lot where there is no cage to back your opponent into and limit his ability to escape. Or your opponent dances away from your every attempt to go low and/ or grapple or you feel like you just tried to wade through a propeller every time you try to get close.

It works in reverse too. Suppose you are fighting in a relatively small room or one filled with objects that make it harder to move and avoid your opponent and easier for him to trap you.

Who wins can be very circumstantial. Training for "a wide variety of attacks and defenses" can be equaled out by all training being focused on a very specific sort of attack. Nor would I really say that training to punch is really only one attack because there is a lot to it and I wouldn't say that a boxer's defenses are useless against anything that isn't above the waist punches.

In my own experience of sparring in different martial arts styles, if I had a choice of who to fight, I most assuredly would not choose a boxer.

[Sharpandpointies]

Barring the boxer actually getting training in grappling and, as such, familiarity with how to avoid takedowns and the like, boxers are not going to dominate MMA fighters. It's not their venue.

Might as well ask if any top-tier MMA fighters are going to dominate top-tier boxers in a boxing match (same answer: no).

[Sharpandpointies]

As a side note - in a serious fight, on pavement, grappling is going to favor (you guessed it) the grappler.

Sure, it's going to suck. But the grappler is going to be 100% in control once they hit the ground, and the person getting by far the worst of 'grappling on pavement' is going to be the guy being manhandled.

[big_adventure]

As a side note - in a serious fight, on pavement, grappling is going to favor (you guessed it) the grappler.

Sure, it's going to suck. But the grappler is going to be 100% in control once they hit the ground, and the person getting by far the worst of 'grappling on pavement' is going to be the guy being manhandled.

Of course! The more skilled or better able person will have an advantage over the less skilled or able one.

The hard part would be getting them onto the ground. In Khazan for example, which is giant and massive, I would give an edge to a boxer. They train much more in movement and in endurance then mma guys, and with no walls (effectively) to run into, they can keep sticking and dancing away. Not a stomp level edge, but an edge. In an MMA octagon or other tiny floorplan, I'd give the edge to the MMA guy, because they'd have the edge in forcing the encounter to the ground. Still not a stomp though, because that guy still has to get through the defenses of someone used to very quick people attacking them. But a winning level edge.

[Sharpandpointies]

Of course! The more skilled or better able person will have an advantage over the less skilled or able one.

The hard part would be getting them onto the ground. In Khazan for example, which is giant and massive, I would give an edge to a boxer. They train much more in movement and in endurance then mma guys, and with no walls (effectively) to run into, they can keep sticking and dancing away. Not a stomp level edge, but an edge. In an MMA octagon or other tiny floorplan, I'd give the edge to the MMA guy, because they'd have the edge in forcing the encounter to the ground. Still not a stomp though, because that guy still has to get through the defenses of someone used to very quick people attacking them. But a winning level edge.

My experience and what I've seen of boxers and MMA fights runs more along the lines what follows:

1. Boxers have scratch-zero experience dealing with any kind of takedowns, or the setups for those takedowns - their stance and movements demonstrate this, their reflexes are hardwired to operate at punch-range against punches. Which is kinda what they need to be top-tier boxers.
2. MMA guys, while not being on the level of the boxers, DO have experience with striking. And they have a lot of experience using various set-ups to try to take down strikers - not boxing strikers, but often something worse: strikers who are experienced with such attempts, and know the best ways to shut them down.

We know that people's hard-wired defenses are predicated around what they've trained against. And their defenses against other stuff tend to be lacking. Not great, but lacking. I've had hilarious experiences with boxers training against knives - they often do the exact WRONG things (that's not a knock against boxing, they still tend to do better than completely inexperienced people).

Similarly, I feel, a boxer against a properly set-up shoot by a top-end guy.

Now, I've seen a top-end MMA guy try to take on an over-the-hill, boxer-turned MMA fighter in a boxing match (it was an MMA match, but the two of them got together before the match and agreed 'boxing rules'), and get wrecked. This was a top-end dude against, again, an over-the-hill ex-boxer who had transitioned into MMA, as I recall (forget the names). The boxer obliterated him, as I expected he would.

I have zero doubt the same thing would happen if the rules were reversed - the MMA fighter wouldn't have a serious problem taking the boxer down, all things being equal.

But mileage may vary, and clearly does.

And either way, the answer to the question the OP presents is still 'No'. ^_^

[big_adventure]

My experience and what I've seen of boxers and MMA fights runs more along the lines what follows:

1. Boxers have scratch-zero experience dealing with any kind of takedowns, or the setups for those takedowns - their stance and movements demonstrate this, their reflexes are hardwired to operate at punch-range against punches. Which is kinda what they need to be top-tier boxers.
2. MMA guys, while not being on the level of the boxers, DO have experience with striking. And they have a lot of experience using various set-ups to try to take down strikers - not boxing strikers, but often something worse: strikers who are experienced with such attempts, and know the best ways to shut them down.

We know that people's hard-wired defenses are predicated around what they've trained against. And their defenses against other stuff tend to be lacking. Not great, but lacking. I've had hilarious experiences with boxers training against knives - they often do the exact WRONG things (that's not a knock against boxing, they still tend to do better than completely inexperienced people).

Similarly, I feel, a boxer against a properly set-up shoot by a top-end guy.

Now, I've seen a top-end MMA guy try to take on an over-the-hill, boxer-turned MMA fighter in a boxing match (it was an MMA match, but the two of them got together before the match and agreed 'boxing rules'), and get wrecked. This was a top-end dude against, again, an over-the-hill ex-boxer who had transitioned into MMA, as I recall (forget the names). The boxer obliterated him, as I expected he would.

I have zero doubt the same thing would happen if the rules were reversed - the MMA fighter wouldn't have a serious problem taking the boxer down, all things being equal.

But mileage may vary, and clearly does.

And either way, the answer to the question the OP presents is still 'No'. ^_^

End of the day, that was what I was going with - neither side is dominating anyone. Circumstances or rules can favor one or the other, and in a greater or lesser fashion depending on the confluence of those two. But if you took two clones of Anderson Silva, trained one in boxing for 5 years and one in BJJ or another "mma-friendly" style, they'd be close, with the difference being whether the terrain favored one or the other. Bigger spaces allow more movement and allow boxers, with their superior strike defense, movement and endurance to have the edge. Smaller spaces favor approaches that favor grappling, takedowns and kicks (which are very slow compared to punches), which means MMA guys grab the edge. But in any case, it's not like an elite boxer is helpless against a grab - they happen all the time in boxing, nor is an MMA fighter incapable of dealing with a good jab.

The answer is "no" in both directions. :-) Nobody is dominating without favorable rules AND a big skill advantage.

[Sharpandpointies]

End of the day, that was what I was going with - neither side is dominating anyone.

I think the above shows you’ve misunderstood what I was getting at, but as things are getting circular, I will leave it.

[big_adventure]

I think you’ve misunderstood what I was getting at, but as things are getting circular, I will leave it at that.

It's possible that I read and wrote that after a couple of drinks. :-)