most boxing fans have tma'ers mentality?

**han090** · Posted On: 10/19/2008 3:00pm

I dunno, i've often seen someone grab someones wrist, put it behind their back, and push them forward like that, or push the arm upwards...but (to my knowledge) that's never happened in an MMA fight either.

Even though it's fairly commonplace on "the streets". I hate to argue the case, but there are some things that work outside of the octogon, that don't work inside it (mostly because you're dealing with a skilled, trainer, fighter, who is expecting your attack. That element changes certain things).

**Anna Kovacs** · Posted On: 10/19/2008 3:39pm

Originally Posted by Siniq

Even Mike Tyson/from the 90's/ would get pwnd in an mma mach.

What you mean is Mike Tyson from the 90's would get owned in a grappling match with punches because anyone that tried to stand with him for more then 20 seconds in 4 ounce gloves would be dead. It's not very "mixed" if one party just scrambles desperately to get onto the ground as soon as possible.

**TheRuss** · Posted On: 10/19/2008 3:47pm

Originally Posted by v1y

Boxing fans it seems do not share this mentality. If you get your ass kicked by a superior boxer (or just lose based on the style matchup), all of a sudden people are saying "x person can't box". They are somehow unable to accommodate the ideas of being both an amazing boxer, and being able to get your ass kicked.

Thoughts?

It's a lot like NCAA BCS football - the emphasis on a perfect record has led to an emphasis on scheduling champions vs. cans. You show the idiots who buy into it a simple A beats B, B beats C, C beats A situation and they go into cognitive dissonance.

**hpr** · Posted On: 10/19/2008 3:59pm

Boxing suffers from the myth of being undefeated. Every manager tries to build their guy by using the undefeated status. No wonder idiot fans think someone who has lost is "spoiled goods", so to speak.

**Eddie Hardon** · Posted On: 10/20/2008 10:19am

Originally Posted by hpr

Boxing suffers from the myth of being undefeated. Every manager tries to build their guy by using the undefeated status. No wonder idiot fans think someone who has lost is "spoiled goods", so to speak.

Good point and inculcates a fear of taking a Risk. Then again, Marketability remains a factor and can persuade the public that the boxer is a potential World-Beater; anyone remember the Dane, Brian Nielsen? He was going for Marciano's record and nearly got there but without a World title.

In Britain during the 1970s, we got this quite often. The boxing group of Jarvis Astaire, Mike Barrett, Harry Levene and Terry Whatsisname (it'll come to me after I post) had a sweetheart deal with the BBC and would take good amateurs and build a Record suggesting we had a world titlist in the making. He would then get taken apart by an "unknown" American and the comment would be "Well, they've got fighters in gyms who could be World Champions"...that was actually said when Buster Drayton stopped Mark Kaylor.

What made this so disingenuous was that the clique divvied up the Monies amongst themselves so it looked like they'd fooled the public: not sure how much money actually got to the boxer BUT the contracts of this clique are alledged to have stipulated that out of Ring earnings were included cf Frank Bruno.

The emergence of Frank Warren changed all this and eventually the sweetheart deal with the BBC and the conjoined Promoted, Manager, Faciltator was revealed. Barry Hearn drove a further nail in that coffin.

Managers and Promoters are afraid of a loss on a fighter's Record because of the perceived threat to his marketability.

B-HOP v Pavlik. Well, the latter never really got going and was unable to adjust his march forward strategy. He could have tried to draw Hopkins by adopting the role of Counterpuncher and make B-HOP come forward but didn't think to apply it. Hopkins was very shrewd not least in getting close and turning away so when Pavlik threw the obligatory Right, it connected with the back of Hopkins Head. Of course. Still, Hopkins cried Wolf far too often - but, then again, I suppose it's a mark of his shrewdness.

The ref verbally threatened to take a point from Hopkins but left it woefully late. Bernard's behaviour immediately after the bell rang was unseemly and unwarranted. That apart, he fashioned some excellent rallies and that helped underline the paucity of idea's on Pavlik's part. Back to the drawing board for him.

**Vieux Normand** · Posted On: 10/20/2008 11:54am

Originally Posted by Lebell

learn it's secrets...master it...use it.

While we're on typing lessons, try:

"Learn its secrets..."

**Snake Plissken** · Posted On: 10/20/2008 12:28pm

Because boxing still has the holy grail record of Marciano's 49-0 and numerous more Sanctioning Orgs to award champions which rewards padded records in exchange for an undefeated champion.

If MMA continues on the same course, they may also suffer the same fate.

**Lebell** · Posted On: 10/20/2008 1:05pm

Originally Posted by Vieux Normand

While we're on typing lessons, try:

"Learn its secrets..."

thats what i typed.

**Law** · Posted On: 10/20/2008 1:06pm

I think that the nail has been hit on the head a few times in this thread. The general individual buys into the romance and enigma of that of the un-defeated boxer. Once that boxer loses then the living legend status all goes out of the window, per say. It’s akin to being told that Santa Claus doesn’t exist! That's he's a mere mortal after all. This is the point when the novelty is lost so to speak.

**Snake Plissken** · Posted On: 10/20/2008 1:09pm

That's because boxing fans may act like they LOVE the mystique of the undefeated champ but they really LOVE the come-down-ance and even more: LOVE making mention of the loss instead of the win.