Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    792
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Hey Kilbourn, thanks for the other side of the coin. I was about to go apeshit at Wisconsin and ignorant sportswriters. Glad I read the thread first.

    But if that mag is aimed at tourists, WTF is he writing about MMA/UFC for? Makes no sense...

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Gaia
    Posts
    98
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by War Wheel View Post
    In the interest of clarity for younger members and late adopters, everybody knew about the UFC in the "blood and guts" days. Everybody. Fewer people liked it than do now, but it had a much bigger news profile back then than it does even today. Don't confuse the post-ban dark ages with the pre-ban explosion.

    In summary, he must have been living in a hole for 15+ years.
    I figured my mma timeline was a bit condensed. Thanks for the clarification.
    But if that mag is aimed at tourists, WTF is he writing about MMA/UFC for? Makes no sense...
    Because theyíre a DAILY magazine and to be quite honest not a lot happens in Milwaukee that would interest out-of-towners, other than violence, crime and festivals. Today they feature a very nice article about locally made hot sauce (diversity!) and another on a portrait of Homer Simpson that was placed under the Homer ST sign (clever!). Itís all just a bunch of fail, which might be why Iíve never met someone who actually reads it.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nome, AK
    Posts
    177
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    obvious outgrowth of the chaos and relative civility of boxing.
    This was my favorite part. Punching people in the face is civil, but armbars? That's barbarism!

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    120
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I suspect that some of these MMA haters think of boxing as glamorous because they remember, or think they remember, Sinatra and Old Vegas and Ali and Cosell and title fights on network television. This allows them to overlook the fact that boxing is extremely violent, and more dangerous to the participants than MMA. MMA will never be as glamorous as boxing once was, because today our popular culture is too fragmented for anything to be that glamorous, and because there will never be another performer like Sinatra.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    20
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by madrigan View Post
    never be another performer like Sinatra.
    Says who?

    And yeah....I want a MMA career but I could totaly understand why some one likes Boxing more then MMA, even though Boxing is in MMA but its not that simple.

    Boxers are very underestimated by MMA fans, they fight long rounds, long time....MMA fights end very quickly....if you watched Manny Pacquiao v.s Ricky Hatton and then watched Chuck Liddel v.s Shogun Rua....you will see the huge difference =)
    I enjoy doing MMA alot more then watching it, kinda weird.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    120
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cane Fu View Post
    Says who?

    And yeah....I want a MMA career but I could totaly understand why some one likes Boxing more then MMA, even though Boxing is in MMA but its not that simple.

    Boxers are very underestimated by MMA fans, they fight long rounds, long time....MMA fights end very quickly....if you watched Manny Pacquiao v.s Ricky Hatton and then watched Chuck Liddel v.s Shogun Rua....you will see the huge difference =)
    I enjoy doing MMA alot more then watching it, kinda weird.
    Says me. I don't know what you object to about my statement so I don't know how to respond.

    As for boxing, I don't think anyone has trouble understanding why someone would like boxing more than MMA. It's a personal preference, and there are about 1000 posts on this forum about how great boxing is and how great boxers are. The point is that it's ridiculous to argue that boxing is civilized relative to MMA, and furthermore to describe MMA as if it's a scene from Judge Dredd. Both sports are violent. Both sports are violence.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    20
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by madrigan View Post
    Says me. I don't know what you object to about my statement so I don't know how to respond.

    As for boxing, I don't think anyone has trouble understanding why someone would like boxing more than MMA. It's a personal preference, and there are about 1000 posts on this forum about how great boxing is and how great boxers are. The point is that it's ridiculous to argue that boxing is civilized relative to MMA, and furthermore to describe MMA as if it's a scene from Judge Dredd. Both sports are violent. Both sports are violence.
    Yeah, rofl....but to be honest, I think the injury chance is high in MMA then Boxing, but Boxing can also really mess you up, like when Ali fought Frazier, they were killing eatch other, for a very long time....during that fight Frazier was blind in one eye u know =p Im still more of a ali fan tho =), look at Manny Paqcuiao I am sure he is good as the boxer u mentioned or better,

    :gaygay: cool smiley.

  8. #18
    Hesperus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    3,039
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cane Fu View Post
    I think the injury chance is high in MMA then Boxing
    Think with citations next time.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    68
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Begel
    This sport was an obvious outgrowth of the chaos and relative civility of boxing. And I'm worried that the logical outgrowth from MMA is to put a fighter in a ring with a lion, a tiger or a pit viper.
    See, the difference between MMA and putting a fighter in a ring with a lion or tiger is MMA is a voluntary sport. I can't imagine putting fighters in rings without weapons with a lion or tiger would be a voluntary sport for very long.

  10. #20
    Hesperus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Great Plains
    Posts
    3,039
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I hate the **** out of P.E.T.A., but I also think the fact that it's probably not consensual for the lion or tiger is an issue too. I'm libertarian enough that if you want to hunt an animal (barehanded and naked) in its natural environment, I'll allow just about any animal. By all means, liver punch a black rhino, ground and pound a gorilla, or literally mata a leo. I'd love to see you try, and whatever happens is an outcome of the natural order.

    But systematic for-profit fighting? A little much, sorry. Consenting humans can do anything to each other they want, provided they don't hurt anyone else, but animals do not give consent the way humans can. Bestiality is a crime, after all. *shoots accusing stare at Lebell*

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO