Very cool. Go Dana.
I think Bernard Hopkins, Oscar D, and even Gatti would be able to maul a lot of MMA fighters.
that is bullshit. Not in a "real fight". Maybe pure boxing... but that's it.
agreed, boxing is only 1 element
you guys assume that the mma fighter is going to automatically get the takedown without getting punched. I'm not saying any of the top guys are gonna lose to these guys, but some of the mid level guys have about a 50/50 chance against a top level boxer in a "real" fight. There are also a lot of good "pure grapplers", not necessarily MMA fighters, that would lose MMA fights to top level boxers. I could see Tarver KO'ing Wallid Ismail in a fight. Or Joe Morrieria (sp?) vs. Bernard Hopkins?? The only fighter thats going to OWN a boxer is a wrestler with a good chin.
I agree with you MRFANtastic. even if you are a good grappler, if you have a terrible shot with no setups and the boxer has his range there is a good chance the grappler could get ko'd but its hard to get the right punch. A there is a good chance that they will clinch up and end up going to the ground. A good wrestler with a strong double leg should have no problem.
This shoulda happened
In all fairness to boxing, having the fight under MMA rules is not exactly fair. It's called boxing because, well, you're only allowed to box.
Dana is asking boxers to fight an MMA match by MMA rules against MMA experts, it's not even remotely fair.
"Punchers Chance" isn't such a good thing to rely on.
why did you bump this ? boxers can't even beat kickboxers, never mind mma'ers
ttt
ttt
ttt
the point is that guys on their barstools will always be talking about who is the 'toughest'- so, who can beat who in a 'fight'- clearly that in general would be a mmaer over a boxer, and perhaps this would help dispell the myth that it might be otherwise.
also, it does not matter if some boxers would beat some mmaers, what matters is that the top boxer would get schooled byt he top mmaers.