# CBS Sports Journalist Bashes MMA



## The Elemental (May 2, 2007)

Sports writer Mike Freeman written a completely biased and pathetic excuse for an article bashing MMA giving out points that have no creditbility: http://cbs.sportsline.com/columns/story/10162545


I've written a response to him, I know I didn't need to reply to a closedminded idiot but I felt it was duty to (Man! I sound so cheesy):



> First of all, I like both MMA and boxing. With all due respect Mr. Freeman, I found your article to have no credibility and completely biased, your comments have no weight behind them. You make no good points against MMA being a great sport. All you do is use silly insults at nothing in particular. Allow me to comment on certain points:
> 
> "Ultimate fighting will never be as good as boxing on its worst day."
> 
> ...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 2, 2007)

Well obviously most fight fan's will totally disagree with him.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 2, 2007)

I think people see skill far more in things they understand, then in things they don't.

Boxing, until you understand a little bit about it, is a rather primative sport of people punching each other in the head until one falls down.  Once you actually take some time to understand it, and maybe even train a little it becomes a rather complex "sweet science" and the fights suddenly have a lot of depth.

MMA is the same, but in my mind at least, it is far more complex and deep technically and stratigically then boxing.  But I enjoy both


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (May 2, 2007)

The Elemental said:


> Sports writer Mike Freeman written a completely biased and pathetic excuse for an article bashing MMA giving out points that have no creditbility: http://cbs.sportsline.com/columns/story/10162545
> 
> 
> I've written a response to him, I know I didn't need to reply to a closedminded idiot but I felt it was duty to (Man! I sound so cheesy):


 
Just realize that boxing has been steadily losing money and viewership with the increased popularity of MMA.  Then realize alot of the sports "journalists" have a vested financial interest in boxing staying alive as THE combat sport of choice.  When you realize that, articles like this showup as what they are....desperate attempts by people trying to stick to their comfort zone and maintain their "cash cow".  It's incredibly trite and not worth the energy.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 2, 2007)

Kenpojujitsu3 said:


> Just realize that boxing has been steadily losing money and viewership with the increased popularity of MMA. Then realize alot of the sports "journalists" have a vested financial interest in boxing staying alive as THE combat sport of choice. When you realize that, articles like this showup as what they are....desperate attempts by people trying to stick to their comfort zone and maintain their "cash cow". It's incredibly trite and not worth the energy.


 
This is very true!


----------



## terryl965 (May 2, 2007)

People will have there opinion, he is just one with little opinion in my views


----------



## MJS (May 2, 2007)

Interesting that the link to the article mentions Mayweather.  In another article I linked in GMA, found here, it seems that he is really anti MMA.  IMHO, like any MA, the un-educated are always going to have a biased opinion.  Thing is, is that boxing and MMA are two different animals, yet people like the ones in the article, cant make the seperation.  Regardless of skill, there have been a few boxers who've entered the UFC and didn't fare too good.  The one glove boxer in UFC 1 I think, and another in UFC 3 or 4.  Boxing is just one area that is needed to round out the skills.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 2, 2007)

MJS said:


> Thing is, is that boxing and MMA are two different animals, yet people like the ones in the article, cant make the seperation.



Nope, they look at MMA and all they can see is what is, according to boxing standards, "bad boxing"


----------



## MJS (May 2, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Nope, they look at MMA and all they can see is what is, according to boxing standards, "bad boxing"


 
I don't even know why they would call it boxing or make a comparison.  Maybe I'm just not thinking like they are, but if they can't see the differences between the two, they have issues.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 2, 2007)

Let me reword that...

They see the fight, and the only part of it that they recognize is the boxing.  And the boxing done in MMA is by boxing standards, poor boxing.

It's not terribly uncommon, lots of posts on MT even take that approach.  That the parts that they understand, by there arts standards, are done poorly.  Whether it's boxing, kicking or occasionally even straight grappling.


----------



## MJS (May 2, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Let me reword that...
> 
> They see the fight, and the only part of it that they recognize is the boxing. And the boxing done in MMA is by boxing standards, poor boxing.
> 
> It's not terribly uncommon, lots of posts on MT even take that approach. That the parts that they understand, by there arts standards, are done poorly. Whether it's boxing, kicking or occasionally even straight grappling.


 
Gotcha.   I'd still lean on the side of people not understanding the differences.  Granted, there are many kicks and punches used by a MMA fighter, that are the same kicks and punches used by a TMAist.  Difference is, is that the MMAist has 'supercharged' for lack of better words, the strikes and kicks.  I'm no boxer and I'm not a MMA fighter, but obviously they have made some changes to the punches, otherwise why would boxers be complaining?

Mike


----------



## Odin (May 3, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Let me reword that...
> 
> They see the fight, and the only part of it that they recognize is the boxing. And the boxing done in MMA is by boxing standards, poor boxing.
> 
> It's not terribly uncommon, lots of posts on MT even take that approach. That the parts that they understand, by there arts standards, are done poorly. Whether it's boxing, kicking or occasionally even straight grappling.


 
Your so right, you know the amount of straight Muay thai boxers that complain about the thai boxing in mma.


----------



## Odin (May 3, 2007)

MJS said:


> Interesting that the link to the article mentions Mayweather. In another article I linked in GMA, found here, it seems that he is really anti MMA. IMHO, like any MA, the un-educated are always going to have a biased opinion. Thing is, is that boxing and MMA are two different animals, yet people like the ones in the article, cant make the seperation. Regardless of skill, there have been a few boxers who've entered the UFC and didn't fare too good. The one glove boxer in UFC 1 I think, and another in UFC 3 or 4. Boxing is just one area that is needed to round out the skills.


 
Mayweather has been quoted to saying that he would 'knock out' Chuck Liddel, Dana White has already called his bluff by saying that any time Mayweather is ready he'll set it up.....lets be honest Mayweather is a very vocal fighter and true he does back up what he says but Chuck Liddel would kill him in the Octagon.

Not to mention if chuck did knock him out, boxing would take a massive blow, one in which it will be hard to recover from.


----------



## MJS (May 3, 2007)

Odin said:


> Mayweather has been quoted to saying that he would 'knock out' Chuck Liddel, Dana White has already called his bluff by saying that any time Mayweather is ready he'll set it up.....lets be honest Mayweather is a very vocal fighter and true he does back up what he says but Chuck Liddel would kill him in the Octagon.
> 
> Not to mention if chuck did knock him out, boxing would take a massive blow, one in which it will be hard to recover from.


 
It would certainly be a fight worth seeing!  It would be interesting though to see how the rules would play out, if this ever did happen.  Would it be boxing rules or MMA rules?  Either way, if I was to place a bet on the winner, I'd have to go with Chuck!! 

Mike


----------



## Odin (May 3, 2007)

MJS said:


> It would certainly be a fight worth seeing! It would be interesting though to see how the rules would play out, if this ever did happen. Would it be boxing rules or MMA rules? Either way, if I was to place a bet on the winner, I'd have to go with Chuck!!
> 
> Mike


 
From the way Mayweather was talking he'd be happy to have it under MMA rules, very vain guy is Mayweather he also said that people do MMA because they cant compete in boxing. 

we'll have to see how the whole thing pans out, to be honest I cant see Mayweathers promoters letting it happen theres to much to lose with nothing to gain......if it did though.....wow!


----------



## mrhnau (May 3, 2007)

Odin said:


> From the way Mayweather was talking he'd be happy to have it under MMA rules, very vain guy is Mayweather he also said that people do MMA because they cant compete in boxing.
> 
> we'll have to see how the whole thing pans out, to be honest I cant see Mayweathers promoters letting it happen theres to much to lose with nothing to gain......if it did though.....wow!


well, despite some earlier posts, I think if Chuck goes w/ the pure boxing rules, I think Mayweather would beat him, unless Chuck has some serious time to train (think minimum of a year). Even then, its likely he would lose.

If Mayweather were to use the UFC rules, he would get his tail smacked. If you want to see something REALLY ugly pit him up against someone like Tito who is a good grappler. Once Mayweather is on his back, he would be destroyed, unless he has alot of time to prepare (think minimum of a year again).

I don't think it will happen. It does not make financial sense. The best UFC guys are making in the 100k range. Mayweather is making in excess of $1million a fight (these numbers are based on what I've seen, correct me if I'm wrong please). Would it make financial sense for Mayweather to concentrate on the UFC for a year and abandon boxing for a bit?

personally, I'd love to see happen. I'd also love to see how long Mayweather would stand up w/ a decent grappler. He is unaccustomed to dealing with takedowns, submissions and ground/pound. If it were to happen now, it would be short and ugly.


----------



## mrhnau (May 3, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Let me reword that...
> 
> They see the fight, and the only part of it that they recognize is the boxing.  And the boxing done in MMA is by boxing standards, poor boxing.
> 
> It's not terribly uncommon, lots of posts on MT even take that approach.  That the parts that they understand, by there arts standards, are done poorly.  Whether it's boxing, kicking or occasionally even straight grappling.


Does one need perfect boxing form to be effective? Given the different rule set, does it even make sense?

I'm also laughing a little bit about some of the comments about how poor MMA guys box. Thats only one aspect of the fighting. It's an important one, but there are effective fighters that don't really box at all, with the exception of setting up the takedown. Western boxing also does not have the patent on punching. There are varients of styles/forms that are still effective.

It's kind of like a a guy specializing in shot-put being so proud he can out throw a decathalete. So what if you can? Can you also toss a javelin as good? High jump just as good? how about your hurdles?


----------



## Odin (May 3, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> well, despite some earlier posts, I think if Chuck goes w/ the pure boxing rules, I think Mayweather would beat him, unless Chuck has some serious time to train (think minimum of a year). Even then, its likely he would lose.
> 
> If Mayweather were to use the UFC rules, he would get his tail smacked. If you want to see something REALLY ugly pit him up against someone like Tito who is a good grappler. Once Mayweather is on his back, he would be destroyed, unless he has alot of time to prepare (think minimum of a year again).
> 
> ...


 

See i honestly dont think that Chuck would need to take him to ground in order to win, i think with 2oz gloves chuck would school him on MMA stand up.....even stand up wise i dont think a straight boxer could survive in the Octagon...especially against one of the best stand up fighters in the world.


----------



## mrhnau (May 3, 2007)

Odin said:


> See i honestly dont think that Chuck would need to take him to ground in order to win, i think with 2oz gloves chuck would school him on MMA stand up.....even stand up wise i dont think a straight boxer could survive in the Octagon...especially against one of the best stand up fighters in the world.


Depends on the rule set. I'm not necessarily talking about grappling  Boxing, you have 8 second counts, and if you happen to fall, you have 10 seconds to recover your senses. UFC, you get knocked down, the guy jumps on you and continues to pound. Also, if going w/ boxing, you don't need to worry about getting kicked in any kind of way. You are taking away some of Chucks very effective tools to win a fight... would he still win? I don't know, but I think given boxing rules (heavier gloves, no kicks, knockdown rules, 8 second count if stunned, shorter rounds but more of them), Mayweather wins.


----------



## mrhnau (May 3, 2007)

Mayweather said:
			
		

> UFC's champions can't handle boxing. That's why they are in UFC. Put one of our guys in UFC and he'd be the champion. Any good fighter, he'd straight knock them out





			
				Sean Sherk said:
			
		

> I don't think that fight would last longer than a minute, to be honest with you. And I don't think he should be talking about something that he can't back up, because I'll fight him tomorrow. I literally would, if they called and asked me to fight Floyd Mayweather, Jr. tomorrow, it's done. He's not going to fight me though, and he's just running his mouth. I don't really respect that a whole lot.



Bring it on


----------



## MJS (May 3, 2007)

Odin said:


> From the way Mayweather was talking he'd be happy to have it under MMA rules, very vain guy is Mayweather he also said that people do MMA because they cant compete in boxing.


 
Out of curiosity, does he have any type of MMA training aside from boxing? IE: Grappling, kicking skills, etc.



> we'll have to see how the whole thing pans out, to be honest I cant see Mayweathers promoters letting it happen theres to much to lose with nothing to gain......if it did though.....wow!


 
I agree.  Most likely it won't happen.  I recall a while back Ralph Gracie challenged Roy Jones Jr.  Then again, money talks, so who knows...if the price is right.


----------



## MJS (May 3, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Does one need perfect boxing form to be effective? Given the different rule set, does it even make sense?
> 
> I'm also laughing a little bit about some of the comments about how poor MMA guys box. Thats only one aspect of the fighting. It's an important one, but there are effective fighters that don't really box at all, with the exception of setting up the takedown. Western boxing also does not have the patent on punching. There are varients of styles/forms that are still effective.
> 
> It's kind of like a a guy specializing in shot-put being so proud he can out throw a decathalete. So what if you can? Can you also toss a javelin as good? High jump just as good? how about your hurdles?


 
My thoughts exactly.  2 different animals, 2 different rule sets.  IMHO, it seems like we have people (Mayweather) making uneducated assumptions of MMA.

Mike


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (May 4, 2007)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18445713/


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (May 4, 2007)

And take this...

http://msn.foxsports.com/boxing/story/6772742?MSNHPHMA


----------

