Floyd Mayweather on MMA

Posted by: Hagakure

Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/03/07 03:00 PM


” Hold on, the UFC and Chuck Liddell didn’t escape Floyd’s venom. “UFC ain’t [censored],” he said. “It ain’t but a fad. Anyone can put a tattoo on their head and get in a street fight.” He singled out UFC poster boy Chuck Liddell for an extra overhand right. “We should put Liddell against a good heavyweight, under Mayweather Promotions, and if Chuck wins, then I’ll give him a million dollars out of my own pocket.” PBF then shoe-shined all MMA fighters. “These are guys who couldn’t make it in boxing,” he said. “So they do (MMA). Boxing is the best sport in the world and it’s here to stay.” Love him or hate him, think he’s just speaking truth or he has a rampant ego and you’re hoping Oscar has a pin on May 5th, and will pop Floyd’s bubble, you must admit this about PBF: he’s entertaining when he gets that mouth in high gear.

For the entire article
http://www.mmanews.com/ufc/Floyd-Mayweather-Takes-Shots-At-Chuck-Liddell--MMA.html
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/03/07 03:21 PM

Note how Floyd isn't talking about getting in a MMA ring, though.

Hard to talk trash when someone has you in a RNC, huh?
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/03/07 03:44 PM

While I'll admit that a boxer has excellent cardio as they need to for the amount of rounds they have and the length of time per round, I see them as two different sports. While a MMA guy who steps in the boxing ring would have much difficulty I also "know" a boxer would have equal or greater problems stepping into a MMA ring.

He can flap his gums all he wants because it is nothing. I like boxing still, I used to be a huge boxing fan and grew up watching this since the 70's. I however have to admit I find MMA much more entertaining and exciting as I believe the world does as boxing viewers are not as plentiful as they used to be but MMA fans have vastly increased. I think there is room for both of them but for a boxer to flap his gums putting down the MMA and in particular Chuck Liddell of the UFC, I see this nothing more then promotion of his next event. He has created controversy and that gets around, just like it has made its way to FA.com. Now many people will be more in tuned to watch if he gets his butt handed to him or not.

Is boxing the best sport in the world? If I was a boxer then I'd say yes. If I was a MMA fighter I'd say MMA was the best. If I played football I'd say football was the best. You get the idea ... but when it boils down to it the fans get the ultimate say and the sports they like the best will be more in your face and readily available to watch, especially if that sport has good promoters.
Posted by: BuDoc

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/03/07 04:13 PM

I would argue that todays elite MMA fighters have cardio that could hold their own with a boxer.

I would also say that a mma fighter would fare better(not win) in a boxing ring than a boxer would fare in a mma cage.

Page
Posted by: Hagakure

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/04/07 11:36 AM

Don't know what to make of it, Just sounds a tad bit arrogant.
Posted by: Supremor

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/04/07 11:44 AM

What do people expect?

MMA is a threat to boxing, it is likely that if MMA continues to grow, boxing revenues will fall, therefore boxers need to trash talk MMA. Anyway, MMA fighters have been trash talking boxing for years.

This is about media coverage and TV revenues. It has nothing to do with percieved levels of skill in fighting.;
Posted by: Neko456

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/04/07 01:10 PM

Quote:

Note how Floyd isn't talking about getting in a MMA ring, though.

Hard to talk trash when someone has you in a RNC, huh?




Why would a boxer or any fighter fight for less the $100k when he makes multi-millions per fight. Doesn't make sense to him or me. Skills like his if he got some ground skills he tear up the MMA ring, but why would he do that unless he got too old to Box.

I enjoy watching MMA/UFC maybe more then boxing, but in truth Boxing is were the MONEY at, lets just keep it real.

Now Chuck Liddile ain't doing too bad, but you couldn't compare his earinings to Floyd Mayweather's.


And Oscar my boy, but he ain't got a chance if Floyd don't slug with him, if he can avoid that Delahoya left hook, this is Floyds fight to win. But win or lose he going to make Millions $$$$.

It ain't bragging if it's True. But I do wish he had some restain.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/04/07 01:17 PM

Quote:

Why would a boxer or any fighter fight for less the $100k when he makes multi-millions per fight. Doesn't make sense to him or me. Skills like his if he got some ground skills he tear up the MMA ring, but why would he do that unless he got too old to Box.




See, that's where I have the problem with Mayweather running his mouth. He HAS the millions to burn, so if it's really about the lack of skill in the UFC (as he claims), why wouldn't he go in there and shut everybody up? Consider it "giving back to the fans" or something. Unless he is worried about getting his a$$ handed to him.......
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/04/07 01:34 PM

I don't doubt Mayweather has some skills ... but boxing only. He would be torn up if he entered the octogan ... there is no question. He can flap his gums all he wants as it means nothing.

You are correct, boxing is where the money is at. Win or lose he will make money hand over fist whereas even the top UFC fighter will never make that amount for one fight.

I'm an Oscar De La Hoya fan myself so I will be backing Oscar all of the way. Is Oscar beyond his prime though, we shall see. This Saturday we will know the outcome and I hope that Mayweather gets his butt handed to him.
Posted by: Fletch1

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/04/07 09:36 PM

On the food chain of combat athletes, as far as $$$ goes, he is right. Boxing is generations ahead of MMA. That doesn't mean it's closer to fighting or that he or any other boxer is a better fighter than any MMA pro however.

They are different sports and MMA is in it's infant stage still. The next ten years are going to be downright frightening with the level of skill you can expect to see in MMA.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/04/07 11:08 PM

Well here is my take,

Any pro boxer trained in MMA would wipe the mat with the full contact guys of today. If you have ever been around pro football, baseball or basketball, then you have an idea how good these guys really are, they are mutants.

I think the guy is an ass, but he is dead on right. When the money comes then you will see the truly elite fighters.
Posted by: Tom2199

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/05/07 08:34 AM

pro boxer? what about all these pro jujitsu guys?
its makes me cringe to hear things like that, hes a boxer not a mixed martial arts fighter. Put him in he ring with a Muay Thai boxer and he would get taken apart. Now add ground game to the spectrum and you have to take all those hours out of his hands just to start to make up for what hes lacking.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/05/07 08:52 AM

Quote:

Well here is my take,

Any pro boxer trained in MMA would wipe the mat with the full contact guys of today.




I'm not disagreeing with that, per se. However, I would bet that any pro boxer that isn't MMA trained would get HIS a$$ wiped all over the mat by someone that is.
Posted by: Prizewriter

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/05/07 10:30 AM

Think it is best to say that Mayweather, as he has demonstrated, has a great deal of insecurities. IMHO, its best to say, as others have done, that an MMAist or boxer would have advantages in a sporting contest based on the rules they fought under and their own ability. There is not much point in turning this into a style vs. style thread.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/05/07 11:09 AM

My point is not about style my point is about athletic ability.

The fact is pro athletes are on a completely different level. You may cringe when you here that but I question if you have ever been around the people who make it to the pros, you would understand the point.

That is not to say they would beat a pro juitsu guy without training, of course not.

But if you have the abiltiy to make it in pro boxing, why would you even consider fighting MMA? You wouldn't.

Just watch any clip of Mayweather and then watch any clip of any MMA match, the difference in ability jumps off the screen.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/05/07 11:39 AM

Kimo, I am afraid I am not understanding your point. Style specialists will be better at that particular style than a generic MMAist. But the overall skillset afforded by that MMA training will give the overall advantage to the more well-rounded fighter. So Floyd is simply picking nits to say that Chuck Liddell is not as good a boxer as he (Floyd) is. Chuck is not a boxer. Chuck could also say that Floyd is not as good a wrestler as he (Chuck) is.
Floyd is not a wrestler.

It is insulting and untrue to say that (especially the top tier) MMA people have no skill.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/05/07 04:35 PM

Quote:

Kimo, I am afraid I am not understanding your point.




Matt

My point is not about style. The reason I spoke up is as much as I am a fan of MA, and the people who are out there like the Chuck Liddell’s, I get very concerned when people start comparing them to other Pro Athletes, as someone else said MMA is generations behind boxing.

Liddell would most likely beat an untrained Mayweather in the octagon, but what does that prove? Chuck Liddell deserves respect his is among the best in the world at what he does, but if you look at him as an athlete, he is at best college caliber and that is a long way from Pro caliber athlete and no where near Floyd Mayweather (even if Floyd is a raging a******)

So Mayweather did not need to shoot of his mouth, but we as MA’s need to be realistic about the caliber of athletes in our sport, and I am sorry but I know of no one fighting today that is an elite athlete.

On another note, I doubt MMA will get much better, reason is that as the athletes improve the injuries will escalate causing 2 things to happen, more rules, and less people willing to risk injury. Boxing will always out earn MMA fights for that reason.
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/05/07 06:08 PM

Oscar and Floyd are to make between $10,000,000 and $25,000,000 each for this fight ... yes, generations ahead of MMA, no question. But you cannot base a pro based on money, that would be ridiculous. Baseball players make good money and they are pros but would not do well in MMA or boxing and neither would boxers or MMA guys do well in baseball. Then look at pro football players, tennis players, hockey players, etc. They are all pros in their specific sport and they are trained to the caliber that is required of them. If a MMA guy was going to turn to a pro boxer then you can guaran-god-dam-tee that they would train to that caliber. If a boxer wanted to do MMA he would have to do the same. They are two different sports and cannot be compared to each other so why does Mayweather even get off spouting crap like he is? The elite fighters in MMA are pros, no question. In every professional sport there are those that stand out more and perform better such as Evander Holleyfield, Jerome Bettis, Wayne Gretzky, Andre Agassi, Hank Aaron, etc. And there will always be those that don't, but that doesn't make them less of a pro, just not as elite.

Mayweather perhpas is in the elite level of boxing right now but to spout crap like this does nothing for him. In a MMA ring even with training he would be destroyed by somebody like Chuck Liddell. Are people that daft that they think grappling is so dam easy? That defending from a Muay Thai clinch and knees is no problem? How about defending from ground 'n pound or elbows being dropped? What because you can last 10-12 rounds in a boxing ring and you are a good boxer that you think fighting in the cage would be simple? Many guys have great hands and find out that isn't enough. Many guys are great on the ground and find that isn't enough. Many people are very well rounded and sometimes that isn't enough. Mayweather should only talk about stuff he knows and MMA is not one of them.

I hope he makes his millions and still gets his ass kicked by Oscar. Go get him Oscar, at least I know he has respect for MMA fighters.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/05/07 08:29 PM

Quote:

My point is not about style. The reason I spoke up is as much as I am a fan of MA, and the people who are out there like the Chuck Liddell’s, I get very concerned when people start comparing them to other Pro Athletes, as someone else said MMA is generations behind boxing.




Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop right there. 'Generations behind' in prize money - not skill. These guys are not boxers, so you cannot compare them to boxers. Boxers are specialists in a narrow feild of combat sports.

Quote:

Liddell would most likely beat an untrained Mayweather in the octagon, but what does that prove?




That Chuck has more overall skill - the exact point I was trying to make.

Quote:

Chuck Liddell deserves respect his is among the best in the world at what he does, but if you look at him as an athlete, he is at best college caliber and that is a long way from Pro caliber athlete and no where near Floyd Mayweather (even if Floyd is a raging a******)




Sorry, but that is just ridiculous. Again, TOTAL skill level is what I am looking at. Not one specific focus.

Quote:

So Mayweather did not need to shoot of his mouth, but we as MA’s need to be realistic about the caliber of athletes in our sport, and I am sorry but I know of no one fighting today that is an elite athlete.




Now you are really being ridiculous. Randy Couture, Genki Sudo, Fedor, etc...are not elite athletes? Come on man.
Posted by: Prizewriter

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/06/07 08:54 AM

http://www.fightnews.com/boxing/bc/perea100.htm

Fromm the article:

'On an interesting side note Floyd Mayweather Jr. cleared up some questions about his rumored life after boxing. In the past weeks boxing's widely regarded pound for pound champion had made derogatory comments about mixed martial arts and its fighters, prompting UFC President Dana White to reportedly offer Floyd Mayweather Jr. a fight against current UFC Lightweight Champion Sean Sherk to prove if Mayweather's suspicions of mixed martial arts fighters were true.

Mayweather Jr. swallowed his pride and sincerely stated to Fightnews that he has no plans of competing in any organization of mixed martial arts,

"I apologize to the UFC, sometimes we say things that we shouldn't have said and I'm man enough to admit that. I apologize to the Fertittas, Lorenzo and Dana White (UFC owners), . I respect MMA fighters and what they do in the UFC. I have no plans of fighting in mixed martial arts." '

Think it puts this one to bed.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/06/07 10:37 AM

Fair enough, and props to Floyd for being a man about it.
Posted by: Fletch1

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/06/07 06:03 PM

Agreed.

I think we usually hear this things come out of people's mouths when they believe that what they do is by definition "fighting" and deserving of the ultimate status and anything else is somehow less.

When faced with the reality of putting up or shutting up, I am glad that FM chose appropriately. He recognized that neither are the ultimate. They are simply different.

In the non combat sports world, it is like comparing Olympic Runners or Cyclists with Tri-athletes. The specialists may smoke the Tri-athletes in the run or bike portion but then again they might drown in the swim.
Posted by: Prizewriter

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/07/07 03:26 PM

Quote:

[url= Think it puts this one to bed.




I should've known better...
Posted by: brocksampson

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/10/07 10:35 PM

Interesting debate, but it comes from an ignorant/arrogant quote.
Someone should tell Floyd that boxing is for guys who can't make it in the NFL. It's a bigger sport(by the numbers) and there's just as much money in it if not more for the top pros. It would be interesting to hear his response, then again I'm tired of hearing his mouth.
Posted by: Prizewriter

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/11/07 02:57 AM

Quote:

Interesting debate, but it comes from an ignorant/arrogant quote.
Someone should tell Floyd that boxing is for guys who can't make it in the NFL. It's a bigger sport(by the numbers) and there's just as much money in it if not more for the top pros. It would be interesting to hear his response, then again I'm tired of hearing his mouth.




Yes it was arrogant. And he duly apologized for it. End of story IMHO.

In the USA, you may have a point. I think some bigger men turn to boxing when their basketball/ American Football careers don't pan out. Michael Grant and Jameel McCline spring to mind.

But for most other heavyweights outside of the USA, it isn't a consideration. Most other non-heavyweight boxers box because they want to, not because they are, as you seem to believe, less than capable in other sports. What about all those people who box but don't do it for money? Amateur boxers far outweigh the number of pros in the world. So finacial consdierations don't come in to deciding what sport they participate in.

Muhammed Ali was asked in High School to play American Football. He told the coach he wasn't interested in American Football, because he was a boxer.

Many other people have made similar choices. No one sport is better than the other. And as has been pointed out, when you start judging a sport or it's atheltes purely by the money they make, well, that is a dubious barometer of their ability.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/11/07 11:21 AM

Well said PW.
Posted by: RazorFoot

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/11/07 11:49 AM

I am through. Kimo's whole argument is based purely on his own suppositions and assumptions of what he thinks another athlete is about when the athlete himself has acknowledged his own shortcomings. "In his heart he feels"...How the heck would you have any idea what this man feels in his heart????

The matter was closed when Mayweather acknowledged the fact that he would not want to compete in the same arena as these athletes. END OF STORY. No other arguement you (Kimo) may have will over shadow that comment.

Scottie
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/11/07 12:33 PM

Agreed, Scottie. And how does he know that elite athletes aren't drawn to a given sport? World class swimmers are drawn to that sport because its' the one they want to do. The "second rate" baseball players are better than "second rate" cyclists? I suppose Mike Tyson could be a world class skier, huh? Or does skiing not count because there is not enough money in it?

Sorry, Kimo. I do give you props for being very civilized in your arguments. But you are just plain flat wrong.
Posted by: Dauragon c mikado

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/11/07 01:14 PM

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/11/07 01:51 PM

Quote:

And how does he know that elite athletes aren't drawn to a given sport?




Exactly. Earlier it was said that many MMA guys were thugs or bouncers or the such, which I'm sure there are some but are far shadowed by many who have other careers. Many of these people love to fight and are good at it. Why not take those skills to somewhere that you can make money? Randy "The Natural" Couture is an elite fighter as do I believe Chuck "The Iceman" Liddell is. I could name many others but the point is those that rise to the top are the elite athletes in that given sport. They won't be the only ones and years from now many will also rise but it doesn't make these people any less an elite athlete. And I guaran-god-dam-tee you that many will come in boxing that will surpass Mayweather. Heck he only won by a decision of 2 out of 3 judges to De La Hoya so he isn't that great when you compare their ages. In fact I would put De La Hoya as the over all elite athlete of the two as he has been doing it longer and better.

Kimo it is almost like you have a fascination for Mayweather or some vested interest. I'm not dismissing all that you have said but I do believe you are being narrow minded when it comes to the bottom line. That you dismiss the MMA fighters currently saying that none of them are elite athletes is crazy. That money has some bearing on this is untrue because many sports pay very poorly, just look at Canadian Football (CFL). The argument that down the road elite athletes will show up can be said about every sport but does not dismiss the fact that there are already elite athletes today who will still be elite athletes of tomorrow in their halls of fame.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/19/07 04:45 PM

Quote:

Sorry, Kimo. I do give you props for being very civilized in your arguments. But you are just plain flat wrong.






Based on what, you have no argument to refute mine, you simply say you simply say I am wrong. Well I am not wrong. There are guys with limited training training and no success in WWF and NFL crossing over and doing well, imagine guys who are truly talented,training from a young age and fighting in MMA.

Frankly if you guys think the fighters in MMA are the same caliber as NFL athlete, then you are insane, period.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/19/07 05:55 PM

Quote:

Frankly if you guys think the fighters in MMA are the same caliber as NFL athlete, then you are insane, period.




Some much for the civilized argument thing.

And again Kimo, YOU are the one making the assertion. So YOU need to prove your point. You can't use the "prove your point" tactic when I used it to you first. And "I have been around elite athletes" and "You don't understand my argument" ain't proof, my friend.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/19/07 09:01 PM

Quote:

Some much for the civilized argument thing.




I simply used the same argument used against me, suddenly it's not enough. OK I have used stats, personal experience, and common sense, none of it is good enough for a bunch of MMA homers who think Chuck Liddell is a world class athlete.

News flash guys he is not, he is a great MA and has shown what a striker can do in the Octagon, but as I have said he simply the best of a very small group of people.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/19/07 09:32 PM

Kimo -

Quote:

Any pro boxer trained in MMA would wipe the mat with the full contact guys of today.




That was your original quote. You seem to be implying that that any pro with a bit of MMA would wipe any other MMAer. Then your argument later changes to pros trained from a very young age. But isn't that what many MMAers are now? MMA has been around for 15 years, so there are certainly people that have trained very young.


Quote:

The fact is pro athletes are on a completely different level.




How do pro MMAers fit into that equation? They are inherently less skilled somehow? How do you prove or verify that? So far, it is only your opinion.


Quote:

But if you have the abiltiy to make it in pro boxing, why would you even consider fighting MMA?




Because you grew up doing MMA? That very opinion actually negates your own argument. Couldn't you easily reverse the two? Maybe the money doesn't matter as much to them as being in a particular sport.


Quote:

Chuck Liddell deserves respect his is among the best in the world at what he does, but if you look at him as an athlete, he is at best college caliber and that is a long way from Pro caliber athlete and no where near Floyd Mayweather




Please be specifc why he is not pro-caliber. He lacks.......something?


Quote:

NO he has a particular Skill he has trained in,




Yes. Like Mayweather. That has been my point all along.


Quote:

Matt if want to think the MMA fighters of today are on the same athletic level of Pro Football players or Pro Boxers like Mayweather and De la Hoya, fine believe away.




You said you had "stats". Please provide them and be specific why they are NOT pro caliber. Not fast enough? Not strong enough? Stats, please.


Quote:

The other point I am trying to make, that I guess I have not been clear about, is you cannot train the things that seperate great athletes from the elite professionals.




I agree, but this does not preclude someone from choosing MMA as a focus.
Posted by: Borrek

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/19/07 10:30 PM

Quote:


Frankly if you guys think the fighters in MMA are the same caliber as NFL athlete, then you are insane, period.




So lets do some math. According to the internet article "You Gotta Be Kidding!" by Mickey Charles CEO, sportsnetwork.com, the actual physical contact time in a 60 minute regulation NFL game is 12 minutes. Until someone watches a few games and determines otherwise, this is the number were going to use. This doesnt count those taxing minutes crouching in a huddle, or dancing in the endzone. So, there are 12 minutes of physical activity in an NFL game. Lets assume 6 minutes of that belongs to the defense and 6 minutes belongs to the offense. That means if one athlete plays every single play on one side of the line(yeah right) then they are exerting themselves for 6 minutes spread out over a 3 hour time period! wow talk about stamina! This is opposed to 15 minutes of head to head contact with two 60 second rest periods. Which sounds easier?

I would say that MMA athletes aren't the same caliber as NFL players, theyre tougher.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/19/07 11:13 PM

Quote:

I would say that MMA athletes aren't the same caliber as NFL players, theyre tougher.




Please tell me you are joking...scary thing is you are not.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/19/07 11:25 PM

Quote:

Any pro boxer trained in MMA would wipe the mat with the full contact guys of today.





I did say that and do believe it, but I can't back it up because we would need someone to do it to prove it eventually someone will, and then we will see who is right.

Quote:

How do pro MMAers fit into that equation? They are inherently less skilled somehow? How do you prove or verify that? So far, it is only your opinion.





Not sure how to be more clear on this, just the numbers of people competing should be enough to convince you, unless you have already decided to be un convinced.

Quote:

Please be specifc why he is not pro-caliber. He lacks.......something?





Lets take his 40 time, what's his vertical, how many times can he bench 225? Do I need to go on?

Quote:

Not fast enough? Not strong enough? Stats, please.







Yes Yes and Yes.

Quote:

I agree, but this does not preclude someone from choosing MMA as a focus.




Like I said before, the guys who are elite athletes are identified by the powers of pro sports, no way they lose a guy to cage fighting, not gonna happen.

One might eventually slip through, and he will be a beast in the ring, maybe kill a few people and get all the rules changed, but that has not happened yet.

We have guys who are washed up WWF and NFL players trying their hand at MMA, with almost no training and doing fairly well,that should be evidence enough for you guys.
Posted by: Borrek

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/19/07 11:40 PM

Quote:


Lets take his 40 time, what's his vertical, how many times can he bench 225? Do I need to go on?






What is Floyd Mayweather's 40 yard time? How many times can he bench 225? What is his vertical? Oh, thats right, those stats are totally useless in regards to boxing (and MMA)

Quote:



We have guys who are washed up WWF and NFL players trying their hand at MMA, with almost no training and doing fairly well,that should be evidence enough for you guys.




can you give names of these washed up WWF and NFL players, and what are their records, and how many other non-"pro-caliber" MMA fighters have the same or better record?
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/20/07 01:09 AM

Quote:

I did say that and do believe it, but I can't back it up because we would need someone to do it to prove it eventually someone will, and then we will see who is right.


Excuse excuse excuse.

Quote:

Lets take his 40 time, what's his vertical, how many times can he bench 225? Do I need to go on?



Just about the same as a boxer, but when thinking about it, he has to spend more time doing other things as well, such as getting a heavyweight fighter off his chest in grappling. Definitely adds up more than 'static' training.

Quote:

Yes Yes and Yes.


Prove it. Stats, data, facts. Not just "Yes Yes and Yes". That doesn't PROVE a thing. If you can't provide stats that proves MMA fighters aren't 'elite' then you're just full of excuses.

Quote:

Like I said before, the guys who are elite athletes are identified by the powers of pro sports, no way they lose a guy to cage fighting, not gonna happen.



Well, it has happened. UFC 1, Royce Gracie's first opponent was.. Tada! A pro-boxer. Didn't even land a punch and only got headbutted once and instantly tapped out.

Quote:

One might eventually slip through, and he will be a beast in the ring, maybe kill a few people


Enough with the killing people already. It's just stupid. And proves to us you're not intelligent enough to understand that MMA has rules that prevents lethal injuries. If you're going to talk 'tough' then maybe I can respond "Well if one slips in, he's going to have his limbs dislocated and then lay there helplessly while the MMA pounds away on his face while the 'elite' athlete can't move". Doesn't that sound stupid? Because that's what you sound like.

Quote:

We have guys who are washed up WWF and NFL players trying their hand at MMA, with almost no training


Who? Brock? He hasn't started yet. Besides that, back up your statements.

Kimo, I'd suggest, if you don't have data, stats, facts to back up your statements, then don't state. It just proves you more and more wrong.

Now, I'm going to try and make this argument a bit easier. Define "ELITE ATHLETE" or "PRO ATHLETE"? Are they supposed to be injected with steroids? Are they supposed to be superhuman? Are they supposed to look like gorillas? What are they?

If you're talking about an athlete who are experts at what they do, and are seemingly unrivalled in what they do, then MMA qualifies as an elite athlete because you can't just drop a boxer in there and expect him to last long. It's just not going to happen because MMA are experts at what they do, and that is fighting with no restriction on technique used.

-Taison out
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/20/07 09:49 AM

Quote:

I did say that and do believe it, but I can't back it up because we would need someone to do it to prove it eventually someone will, and then we will see who is right.




So you have no proof.

Quote:

Quote:


How do pro MMAers fit into that equation? They are inherently less skilled somehow? How do you prove or verify that? So far, it is only your opinion.




Not sure how to be more clear on this, just the numbers of people competing should be enough to convince you, unless you have already decided to be un convinced.




Note how you did not answer any of my questions.

Quote:

Lets take his 40 time, what's his vertical, how many times can he bench 225? Do I need to go on?




I'm sure I don't understand your point. Does any of that matter in the octagon? Not that I even think there would be a big difference anyway between top echelon MMAers and boxers.

But hell, let's throw Lance Armstrong in there. Is he an "elite athlete" in your view?

Quote:

Quote:

Not fast enough? Not strong enough? Stats, please.




Yes Yes and Yes.




Don't see any stats as you said you have. Just your opinion.

Quote:

One might eventually slip through, and he will be a beast in the ring, maybe kill a few people and get all the rules changed, but that has not happened yet.




So, people that do MMA are bound to be killers, huh? Nice stereotype, Kimo. Has Floyd or Oscar killed anyone? So I guess they can't be considered elite athletes? Or just not good MMAers?

Oy.
Posted by: Dauragon c mikado

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/20/07 10:32 AM

Isn't this whole thing becoming a childish charade of hairsplitting like alot of alot of debates on FA?
Posted by: Prizewriter

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/20/07 11:13 AM

Quote:

Isn't this whole thing becoming a childish charade of hairsplitting like alot of alot of debates on FA?




You're not wrong my friend... (sighs)

Look no one has any proof one way or the other. Debate by all means, but I don't think anyone is going to get their mind changed here.

Kimo, Kermit Cintron has asked to fight the UFC welterweight champion. Dana White is considering this. Until then, we won't know squat. You have demonstrated that , presently, you don't have a lot of proof for or against your claim. So there is little point in furthering it until you get some.
Posted by: pathfinder7195

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/20/07 11:34 AM

Yes yes yes. The saddest thing about this whole thread is it is nothing more than a bunch of sensitive MA all worried about who can kick who's butt.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/20/07 12:11 PM

Quote:

Yes yes yes. The saddest thing about this whole thread is it is nothing more than a bunch of sensitive MA all worried about who can kick who's butt.




While that is actually not a concern of mine, I get your point. I simply feel that if one comes on the forum and makes a rather bold claim (as Kimo has), then one should be able to offer proof of said point, instead of insulting everyone that disagrees. Expect to be called out on it.

Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/20/07 02:02 PM

I was arguing because he said a boxer could wipe the floor of a MMA in the octagon anyday. This is just plain ignorance, and got called out for that.

Then he said that boxers are 'elite' athletes when compared to MMA who are just 'collegiate'. Yet he's been unable to define 'elite athlete'. What makes an athlete elite?

And then he makes bold claims on a MMA elite, without backing up his statements.

Kimo has said some strong words without back up, and thus invalidated himself pretty much.

I don't care who can kick who's arse, because I know my killer-bunny with a demon soul will wipe the floor with all of you.

-Taison out
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/20/07 03:10 PM

Hey, I'm enjoying the thread so screw off.

When watching Pros vs. Joes they take retired pros to go up against the average guy who thinks he could be a pro. Many of these old pros still have it while many don't but they are still usually better then the average guy. When Randy Couture was on there he earned respect from the Joes and they even said as much after wrestling with him. Randy is doing this in his 40's and still kicking butt and made a comeback into the UFC and becoming the heavy weight champion. If Randy is not an elite pro athlete then I don't know who is because when Mayweather gets to this age he probably won't even have all of his faculty to even do basic reasoning.

Money is not a driver for everybody so cannot be a factor when discussing pro athletes. BJ Penn on the ground is a phenom and though I dislike the guy he is good at what he does and he's not in it for the money ... he already has money. How much a person can bench is also not a factor when discussing pro athletes otherwise 5 years ago I would have been considered a pro athlete as 225 lbs was less then my light weight before I hit the heavy weights.

I have yet to see a "WWE" star becoming an elite MMA'r. I wouldn't mind seeing some and I think many would do well, but I don't think many will make the transition. So with this said, are you saying the professional wrestlers are elite athletes? Some I agree, no actually many I do, but there are those that don't even come close. The same with NFL footballers that you brought up. Have you looked at some of the linemen, they aren't there because of their skill but only because they are huge guys and hard to move. Hardly an elite athlete or any caliber for that matter. Have a hard enough time just getting off the field sometimes.

Lance Armstrong, definitely is an elite athlete, no question and even more so than many due to the things he has had to overcome; an inspirational elite athlete. But Lance Armstrong couldn't do MMA, boxing, football or many other sports but he sure can ride like no other. Mayweather wouldn't even be able to compete on Lance' level even if he started as a child.

If you make it to the top in any sport and continually show the world that you belong there then you are an elite athlete in your sport. Perhaps you would do well in other sports and perhaps you wouldn't be able to but that doesn't take away from the sport that you are doing. The only thing that means something is how you perform. Money does not come into question nor does anything else, just how you perform. And who among us can say somebody is not elite when they can't even perform at those levels themselves.
Posted by: TeK9

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/20/07 07:01 PM

Come to think of it Taison, I've always suspected something evil about your bunny. But I could never put my finger on it.

The only thing I could say about boxers is that they train significantly longer for their fights than pro MMA'ist do, but then again when Tito fought Chuck Liddel, he had been in training for months which is far longer than boxers usually train.

Boxer usually spends 10 weeks training prior to a fight, MMAist average about 6 weeks. it's probably because of the rounds and the way they are set up to be less but longer.

I would however say that boxing is much more active than MMA, even though while ground fighting MMA are active but at the same time they get to rest more than boxers do in the clinch, slight movement allows them to maintain the clinch even if they are more resting rather than fighting for position. in boxing the ref seperates them up real quick.
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/21/07 02:21 PM

In the clinch there is no resting, trust me. Every muscle in your body is tight and preparing to be unbalanced. Try doing 5 minutes of just clinch work and you will be extremely exhausted. That is a tough workout.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/21/07 05:37 PM

Quote:

You have demonstrated that , presently, you don't have a lot of proof for or against your claim. So there is little point in furthering it until you get some.





Actually, I think the most important stat I can state is simply the magnitude of potential is so much higher in Pro Football, it would be extraordinary that a small population of athletes found in MMA would produce the same caliber, mathematically it would be like winning the lotto.

But we have done this dance long enough, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, there are currently several washed up athletes trying to compete in the MMA, most of them have very limited training, certainly not years of study.

Let's see how they do and we can re visit this topic then.

We are all just too stubborn to change our minds, anyway.
Posted by: Raul Perez

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/21/07 06:57 PM

correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Bob Sapp an ex-pro football player?

Hasn't he been the biggest let down of the new millenium when it comes to MMA?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giJxnhvK2js
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/21/07 11:56 PM

Bob Sapp was an ex-pro footballer. He got his arse kicked in both K-1 and MMA. And he's been in both for a LONG time.

Certainly argues Kimo's point to a good extent.

He's big, he's strong, but he plainly sucks.

Kimo, do you call that 'elite'?

-Taison out
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/22/07 12:05 AM

Quote:

I think the most important stat I can state is simply the magnitude of potential is so much higher in Pro Football, it would be extraordinary that a small population of athletes found in MMA


And where did you get this source?

Quote:

the proof of the pudding is in the eating, there are currently several washed up athletes trying to compete in the MMA


Like Bob Sapp who get his handed down to him on almost every occassion. You call that 'elite'? I thought you said 'elite athletes' are able to wipe the floor of the scrubby MM-Artists. Now answer this; what's an 'elite' athlete?

Quote:

Let's see how they do and we can re visit this topic then


The one that is in MMA isn't doing great. Now let's continue the discussion.

Quote:

the proof of the pudding is in the eating


I certainly agree, but then it's just another excuse for you not having to put down your sources, facts, data, stat and proof of your claims.

Quote:

We are all just too stubborn to change our minds, anyway.


Nope, you're the one that's being stubborn and even though you know we're right, you just can't accept the truth.

I do admit that Bob Sapp got skills but that's only due to him being in the industry for a long time but he's never been 'elite' in the MMA industry despite his physical advantage of strength he lacks in technique and functional strength geared towards combat. His body is made to run in the fields, not bull-rushing someone just to get KO'ed by a jab (Sapp-Crocop fight).

And you still haven't answered "What defines an 'elite' athlete".

-Taison out
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/22/07 07:46 AM

Quote:

He's big, he's strong, but he plainly sucks.





What is interesting is people can look at the same thing and see 2 different things.


Lets look at Bob Sapp, and when you do, it does not look so good for MMA.


First Bob Sapp was a Pro football player, who was under contract for 4 seasons, but only played in one game, he was a college standout who clearly could not make it in the Pros even with his "Beast Like" size and strength. Making him a college level athlete, the same level I credit the top MMA guys.


Then he tries his hand at wrestling, gets a contract but is cut because he cannot handle the cardio vascular demands.


So then he tries K-1 where he knocks out a 4 time champion, twice and for a few years has some success, enough success that everyone on this board knows who he is.


He manages to stick around, had a winning record until finally getting his orbital bone broken by one of the best fighters the sport has ever produced.


He is virtually untrained as a fighter. ( I hope this is obvious to everyone).


So Pro Football- Bust
Pro wrestling-Bust
Pro MMA, International Recognition, Fame, all with no or almost no training as a fighter.


And no I don't think he is an elite Athlete.


Now I will also say I think MMA has improved in the few short years since Bob Sapp made his mark, and a guy like him wouldn't last as long as he did today. But I don't the sport has evolved to the point where it's on Par with Pro Football, not even close.


Tasion- Elite athletes in my mind are guys with amazing physical skills, combined with reflexes, instinct and intelligence to rise over and above anything the average person could ever "train' for. In a word they are gifted.


MMA fighters are on the level of good college athletes, this is my assessment as an athlete and a Martial Artist, and I think anyone who seriously looks at them and evaluates them as athletes would agree.

edited to fix quote
Posted by: Dauragon c mikado

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/22/07 09:46 AM

This thread is simple to solve, Kimo doesn't know what he's talking about and everyone else keeps trying to argue against a point that isn't there.
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 12:01 AM

Quote:

This thread is simple to solve, Kimo doesn't know what he's talking about and everyone else keeps trying to argue against a point that isn't there.


QFW!

-Taison out
Posted by: TeK9

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 02:27 AM

I would disagree with anyone who says Bob Sapp is an untrained fighter. While he may not have the best technique, he has had training and has trained prior to every fight just like any pro athlete/competitor. He may not be a martial artist, but he is a pro fighter and while not the most technical he has come a long way on his attributes. Many other fighters claim they don't respect him as a fighter because he just uses his size and power to bull does his way into the sport...So what? He uses his attributes which is just another factor in whether he can do well as a competitor.

I have seen videos of his training for both boxing and kick boxing.

What Kimo is referring to as elite is DNA, he chooses nature over nurture. A point that neither proves him right or wrong as this can be argued to infinity.

However, I feel most people will agree that it is not just DNA that makes an elite athlete, but the combination of both nature and nurture, good genetics and quality training along with the spirit to persevere through.

I would compare someone like Tim Silvia to Bob Sapp, someone who has gotten by on training but mostly their attributes. Even though we all know Silvia trains with Militech camp. To me it was why the better athlete with great attributes such as Randy Couture was able to win rather easily.
Posted by: Dauragon c mikado

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 05:31 AM

Quote:

QFW!

-Taison out




I don't get this internet talk...QFW? ROFL? pwned?

Nothing makes sense anymore
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 08:08 AM

QFW = Quote for the win.

QFL = Quote for the lose.

Pwned = Owned (started as a typo for owned)

ROFL = Rolling around the floor laughing

Prolly = Probably

w/e = What ever
w/o = without
w/ = with

I play world of warcraft. Not a single individual that speak english anymore there.

-Taison out
Posted by: Dauragon c mikado

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 08:39 AM

Thankyou Taison, now I'm less likely to be shouting at the computer whilst foaming at the mouth trying to figure out what they mean
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 08:46 AM

Quote:

Not a single individual that speak english anymore there.



Me and the stupid Thai grammar. . .

Not a single individual speaks english there anymore.

-Taison out
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 09:22 AM

Quote:

Boxer usually spends 10 weeks training prior to a fight, MMAist average about 6 weeks. it's probably because of the rounds and the way they are set up to be less but longer.




After watching the UFC leading up to this weekends fight, Chuck Liddell says he starts training "harder" 12 weeks before his fight. Just thought I'd add that.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 10:11 AM

Quote:

he has had training and has trained prior to every fight




Training before a fight, is not the training I was referring to.

I was speaking to the years of training an MA does prior to making into the professional ranks.

Quote:

However, I feel most people will agree that it is not just DNA that makes an elite athlete, but the combination of both nature and nurture, good genetics and quality training along with the spirit to persevere through.





I would completely agree, I have posted to this point earlier.

On another note, Johnnie Morton who was a 12 year Vet receiver of the NFL has decided to fight in MMA, he will have his first professional fight only 2 months after he first stepped onto the mat.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 01:04 PM

Quote:

On another note, Johnnie Morton who was a 12 year Vet receiver of the NFL has decided to fight in MMA, he will have his first professional fight only 2 months after he first stepped onto the mat.




Well, until Johnnie goes in and starts beating the top MMA guys in his division, this example means nothing.
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 01:38 PM

Being a NFL fan, I have never once considered Johnnie Morton to be an "elite" football player. Honestly I never knew anything about him until he joined the Kansas City Chiefs, who I was a fan of, where he played for I believe 2 or 3 years only. He never stood out and why he was then passed off to the 49'ers where he played only 1 year and I don't even believe it was a full year. If he was elite then he would be a consideration for the Hall of Fame and that will never happen.

He fights on June 2, 2007 in K-1's Dynamite. His name isn't even listed on the card so he is obviously on an undercard so his "eliteness" or "elitenessless" doesn't even carry any weight nor is a big seller. I will be interested to see how he does and wish him well; seriously. According to Kimo as he was an NFL football player he should tear things up and losing is not an option because all MMA'ers are only at college level and this guy was a pro football player.
Posted by: JasonM

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 01:57 PM

Quote:

Tasion- Elite athletes in my mind are guys with amazing physical skills, combined with reflexes, instinct and intelligence to rise over and above anything the average person could ever "train' for. In a word they are gifted.





Man, I don't think I have every started a thread and read all the pages in one shot. It was quit interesting to read and I loved the arguments of everyone, excluding kimo sine I couldn't not see his argument as valid.

However, on the quote above I would like to comment. In my younger days I had a "gift" and seemed to do well in Karate. But, I think if you take a "gifted" person training 1 hour a day 3 times a week and a "not-so gifted" person training 2 hours a day for 6 days a week the person training harder and putting more into their training will be the one to excel. I think "gifted" is okay, but if the "gifted" doesn't have the drive and determination they will fall short. Also, i think "gifted" is not the right word it should be someone with a natural talent for the sport activity of their choice.

My .02 cents..
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 02:10 PM

This argument is getting a tad bit annoying in that Kimo never proves his points, make claims that he can't back up with facts/stats, uses examples that aren't valid (an NFL player who hasn't even started yet) and then makes excuses all the time.

But oh well, Dereck enjoys it and I'm not one that's going to tell Papa Dereck not to enjoy. Nope, he'll probably bear-hug me and break every bone in my fragile body if I take away his source of entertainment.

-Taison out
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 03:16 PM



Let's just not make Papa Dereck go any further then this.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 03:53 PM

Quote:

According to Kimo as he was an NFL football player he should tear things up and losing is not an option because all MMA'ers are only at college level and this guy was a pro football player




Sigh, you guys really don't get it, the point is he has NO training to speak of 2 months? Who can do what in 2 months?

Now take this athlete and train him for 10 years, like the Top MMA fighters and see how he does.

Bob Sapp was another case and point, no training in Martial Arts and he walks in and is fighting and beat champions.

I never said just by being in the NFL they automatically baat down the MMA guys, you still need to know how to fight and that takes training, a lot of it.

So we have what we have is Pro athlete, no training fighting MMA athlete's with years of training.

If what you belive is true, the MMA should easily dispatch the Pro Athlete. That didn't happen with Bob Sapp, we will see what happens with Johnnie Morton.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 03:59 PM

Kimo -

Quote:

That didn't happen with Bob Sapp




Dude......Bob Sapp is a gigantic man. Of course he was knocking out people 2/3 his size. That proves nothing more than "bigger is better". And again, until Johnnie starts whupping the champions, that example is worthless.

BTW Kimo, check this:

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...=0#Post15942548

"Frankly if you guys think the fighters in MMA are the same caliber as NFL athlete, then you are insane, period."

Indeed. It seems like a lot of NFL players must be insane then.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 04:05 PM

Quote:

Well, until Johnnie goes in and starts beating the top MMA guys in his division, this example means nothing.





This was an observation, I find in interesting that no one is concerned by the fact though.

Would this happen in any other sport? Jordon played baseball after 6-8 months, but at least he grew up playing the game. What prior training or experience does Johnnie Morton have? None I am aware of, but after 2 months he is in a Professional fight?

Oh and to Dereck'spoint about elite athletes, any guy how can play in the NFL for 12 years is elite in my mind, that is very tough to do. Maybe he didn't stand out when compared to other NFL starters, but when compared to the general population, it's a different story.

But this is semantics, you have to draw a line somewhere but in reality it's more of a slope, I draw it at the active playing NFL player, you are drawing at the Hall of Fame,
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 04:16 PM

Quote:

I find in interesting that no one is concerned by the fact though.




No one is concerned because you keep changing your argument everytime it is refuted. First it was 'Pro athletes would wipe the floor with MMAers'. Now it's 'Pro athletes can be competitve with MMAers'. That's a big difference my friend.
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 04:24 PM

Quote:

Sigh, you guys really don't get it, the point is he has NO training to speak of 2 months? Who can do what in 2 months?




I'll admit I stretched this but with that being said, not all MMA people had "10 years" of training to reach the top. Rich Franklin certainly didn't before he decided to experiment with MMA in his backyard/shed with some buddies and then hopped in the ring to try his hand, and he was a school teacher. And really, even if you gave somebody like Morton 10 years to train, that may not even make a difference. What you are forgetting is what you have been preaching, that some people have natural talent for things. Some people don't need years of training to be good fighters, they are naturally good fighters and why they fight. There are top MMA people getting beat by up and comers that have a quarter of their training and experience.

The thing with MMA is that they are not signed on million dollar deals guaranteeing them a spot in the limelight and their performance dictates if they fight. Yes football players that don't perform may not get to be on the first string but their performance can be affected by the others around them if they are playing well. In the ring/cage it is the fighter and only the fighter that they can rely on. They have more demands and I honestly believe stand the biggest to lose if they are boring or continue to lose. They can't keep collecting a hefty pay cheque or go to another team to try their hand. And as we all know that a hefty pay cheque in the UFC is peanuts compared to football.

NFL football players have 16 games a year only unless they make it to the play offs and Super Bowl, and a few preseason games. They are not on the field at all times and plays don't last but a few seconds to maybe a minute. They get breaks at the huddle or on the sidelines and depending on if they are actually the play maker or not dictates how much they have to perform. I have the greatest respect for football players as I've played and I am a big fan and it is my favorite sport of all time and always will be. But I don't buy in that the elite of the NFL with training are going to be top MMA fighters; they are two different sports and require different training and mindset. With the aggressive tendencies of the football players, I would bet very few have the fighting mentality which I think is one of the biggest things that perhaps a MMA fighter has.

I see things for how they are, not how I'd like to believe they are. Just like the old saying about which martial art is the best and we say it depends on the person, so does fighting in MMA. I don't care if you are a teacher, bouncer, football player, wrestler, martial artist or a stay at home dad, unless you have the fighting mentality and the skills to go with it then you won't perform well.

As for Bob Sapp, his pure size has always been a factor. I have seen Bob Sapp cry and his ring guys force him to fight when he didn't want to. Size does count but not always if you get somebody with the right mentality. Bob Sapp was a poor football player and only was in it for his size, unlike his brother who has actual talent. In professional wrestling he wasn't that great and got by on his size. I think the same thing for Bob Sapp is true in MMA. He needs more skill but for sure his size has carried him through. I will say one thing for this guy, he's a good actor as he was great in "The Longest Yard". I like the guy overall and if he can get by on his size then good for him. This just proves that natural talent is not necessary.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 04:34 PM

Quote:

Dude......Bob Sapp is a gigantic man. Of course he was knocking out people 2/3 his size. That proves nothing more than "bigger is better". And again, until Johnnie starts whupping the champions, that example is worthless.





Dude....these are professional fighters and this is Martial Arts. Sure size matters, if the fighters were close to equal in ability, but a professional fighter should be able to dispatch even a bigger opponent with low level skills.(some might say thats a major part of MA).
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 04:56 PM

Dereck, first thank you for you thoughtful and well written post, it's nice when someone takes the time to explain their point, instead of just calling an opinion "invalid" with nothing to back up.

I have to admit I at times have overstated for effect, it's the curse of a forum.

Quote:

There are top MMA people getting beat by up and comers that have a quarter of their training and experience.





This goes to my point about magnitude of people and development of the sport. In a professional sport if you have people like Rich Franklin coming on the scene and shooting to the top, you are not yet developed as a sport. This is not a knock it's simply the way things happen.

Your point about the fight mentality is well taken, but I think you find plenty of that in any decent football player,it's war on the field.

Football is not the same conditioning as MMA, I have never said MMA isn't very difficult and like boxing the action is constant, so conditioning needs to be modified for the sport you are doing, even an elite athlete needs to get in MMA shape.

But my overall point has always been the "caliber of athlete" and the guys who play in the NFL are extraordinary, they have to be to beat out all the other people who are fighting for those precious few roster spots.

Nobody is taking up football in their backyard then going to play in the NFL (well it kinda happened once and they made a movie about it).

I have made my points on Bob Sapp n other replies.

Good post even if we don't see eye to eye.
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 05:08 PM

I'm enjoying the debate, I needed something exciting on here to get involved in and this is a good start.

Quote:

Your point about the fight mentality is well taken, but I think you find plenty of that in any decent football player,it's war on the field.




I wanted to address this point as I think that we can't debate the rest too much longer. I played football and on the field I was aggressive and loved to hit and be hit. In martial arts I like to grapple, I love to throw people and I like being thrown. Many sports I was very aggressive and if you came and trained with me everybody would certainly tell you the same. Many people thing I can be too aggressive. However I don't have that fighting mentality, or don't believe I have. I'm just an aggressive person that puts my all into things and has fun doing it but being beat up on the level that say a MMA fighter has to do, sorry I don't think I'm that guy. However the war on the field in football I loved and still would love. I work hard and play hard and why I am always so battered and bruised and it seems continually am having surgeries to repair things. We may disagree on this but the war on the field I don't see as a fighter's mentality. Both aggressive but I believe different.

Thanks for the debate.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 05:17 PM

Quote:

Sure size matters, if the fighters were close to equal in ability, but a professional fighter should be able to dispatch even a bigger opponent with low level skills.(some might say thats a major part of MA).




Let's check some stats, bro. From Sherdog, this is Bob Sapp's record:

http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?FighterID=4416

The vast majority of his opponents were either no-name fighters or 100lb+ less weight than him. So I direct you back to your intial statement here. Jerome LeBanner, with a mediocre fight record and a 100 lb weight deficit fought Bob to a draw. Fujita, with a 110 lb weight deficit beat Bob. Noguiera, with a 120 lb weight deficit, beat Bob.

So what was your point again?

Quote:

instead of just calling an opinion "invalid" with nothing to back up.




BWAHA
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 05:43 PM

Folks -

My apologies. I attempted to split this thread from the original "Mayweather" topic, and bungled it somehow. Only the posts responding to the one I split got moved, not all of them following, as I intended. I will get with the webmaster to see if he can re-integrate the thread.

Here are the missing posts:

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...=0#Post15939464
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 05:52 PM

Quote:

Jerome LeBanner, with a mediocre fight record and a 100 lb weight deficit fought Bob to a draw.




This was the fight in question that Sapp was crying and wanting to quit. It wasn't your normal fight as the first and third round were stand up only, K-1 style where as the second and forth rounds were full MMA such as UFC/Pride. Sapp did not want to go back after the second round and was actually physically crying and his corner made him go back in. Bob was owned for the better part of these as he tanked after the first round and LeBanner should have been the clear victor ... dam judges.
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 05:56 PM

Quote:

Let's check some stats, bro. From Sherdog, this is Bob Sapp's record:

http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?FighterID=4416





Hey, were's the stat where Sapp lost to Cro Cop?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWx5Y_-sh-U
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 07:16 PM

Quote:

So what was your point again?





My point, again, is that he has NO TRAINING, or very little.

Second I have always said "with training" when I was referring to an athlete crossing over to MMA, I never said anyone could walk into the ring with no training and win.(even though it has already happened)

Bob Sapp should have been bounced out of MMA as soon as he got here by any professional fighter, he was not.

He was finally handled but it took one of the best fighter to ever come out of MMA.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 07:21 PM

Quote:

but the war on the field I don't see as a fighter's mentality. Both aggressive but I believe different.






I'll grant they are different and there are people who might excel one and not the other.
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 07:30 PM

Quote:

No one is concerned because you keep changing your argument everytime it is refuted




Show me where it is refuted? I've seen many people just say I am wrong, or my point is invalid but that is it.

No one has made an argument for the other side, simply saying I am dead wrong is not an argument.

Matt if you disagree with me, fine this stuff is subjective, but don't tell me I am wrong or have been refuted.
Posted by: Tom2199

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 08:09 PM

I would have thought Bob Sapp would have had tonnes of training, non stop in fact since he wasn't competing in the NFL and has his own fight team behind him.

I think its a bit far fetched to think that MMA athletes don't have the conditioning of a professional boxer these guys are in amazing shape. Yes there is probably more excellence in boxing but its been around for a lot longer and is much more mainstream and lets forget theres only 2 fists in boxing. Its a much simpler sport and therefore people work on that one thing alone.

Theres much more variables in MMA with the multiple styles after all boxing is part of MMA as is Wrestling, Judo etc. Are these things not Olympic sports? id say theres a high amount good caliber athletes in MMA as well coming from all sorts of backgrounds.

Like mentioned on another thread, knee a boxer, slam him, take him down and pound on him his conditioning wont fare so good.

Maybe you should be asking why they are so good? they practice one thing and one thing only thats boxing or wrestling etc You have all those things in MMA all these styles clash thats why someone like rich Franklin can come in and be good at what he does.

Anyway heres a few thoughts

Pancrase fights could be something stupid like 3 x 10 minute rounds on certain rules.

Jeff Munson is a Pro Boxer just to name one

Chuck Liddell is from a Muay Thai background (Obviously)

People like Fedor, Chuck, Silva are all seen to be at the top of the food chain.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/23/07 08:44 PM

Quote:

Show me where it is refuted? I've seen many people just say I am wrong, or my point is invalid but that is it.

No one has made an argument for the other side, simply saying I am dead wrong is not an argument.

Matt if you disagree with me, fine this stuff is subjective, but don't tell me I am wrong or have been refuted.






Are we reading the same thread? I have quoted you contradicting yourself and provided stats for my side, which you simply ignore. You have provided nothing, except opinion and changing arguments.

Peace out. I'm done here.
Posted by: Dauragon c mikado

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/24/07 03:44 AM

On the conditioning side of things, MMA guys and boxers train completly differently, meaning simply that an MMA guys conditioning routine would consist mainly of high intensity type things because in MMA not only is it punching, kicking, etc but also lifting, throwing, twisting, slamming, pushing, pulling and many other actions you would encounter as an MMA practitioner.
Having this type of conditioning they would fail at a fitness test designed for a boxer, ie- low-moderate intensity simply because their body are not adapted to the requirements for a boxing match.
Boxers would have the same result is the tried and MMA fitness test for the same reason as the MMA guy, it's not that they are inferior athletes but because they are simply not adapted to the requirements of an MMA match, so unless you have some kind of system where you can compare two completly different kinds of conditioning then I don't really know what the argument is about, or atleast what can come out of it
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/24/07 05:24 AM

Quote:

Second I have always said "with training" when I was referring to an athlete crossing over to MMA, I never said anyone could walk into the ring with no training and win.


What the... Kimo stop changing your arguments when they get refuted. You said a few pages ago, that a boxer could enter the ring and wipe the floor with MMArtists. Now you say, if they are trained like a MMArtists? WTF? What happened to all that talk about "naturally gifted", "elite athlete"?

Quote:

My point, again, is that he has NO TRAINING, or very little.



Didn't you say, they don't need training because they are 'naturally gifted' 'elite athletes'?

-Taison out
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/24/07 05:35 AM

Quote:

Quote:

No one is concerned because you keep changing your argument everytime it is refuted




Show me where it is refuted? I've seen many people just say I am wrong, or my point is invalid but that is it.

No one has made an argument for the other side, simply saying I am dead wrong is not an argument.

Matt if you disagree with me, fine this stuff is subjective, but don't tell me I am wrong or have been refuted.




We've put up stats, facts and even videos. YOU, however, haven't given a thing to prove your points. At all.

Like I said before, all you do is excuses, changing arguments, giving invalid examples and say "you don't understand" or "Yes yes yes".

Quote:

but don't tell me I am wrong or have been refuted.


Err.. You just have been refuted. Owned?

You come to the board, with an argument. Around 10 people with EXPERIENCE in the very arts you try to say "aren't elite", come here, argues your point with valid reasons WITH backup evidence, and you tell us to judge you wrong? Then why did you even bring up the subject in the first place.

Sorry, Kimo. You're just arguing what people said 10 years ago when MMA just started, and those critics are now regretting opening their mouths. Don't be one of them.

Quote:

No one has made an argument for the other side, simply saying I am dead wrong is not an argument.


Err.. Dude, I think with all the counter-points we've made, I can soon publish a book with the topic "Why Kimo is wrong". You're the one that doesn't spend time reading the counter-points, reflect, and just accept the obvious.

Me, I'm too tired to argue today.

I'll argue further tomorrow. Today, I'm going to retire to my chamber with some nice wine.

-Taison out
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/24/07 10:20 AM

Quote:

Any pro boxer trained in MMA would wipe the mat with the full contact guys of today.




Was the quote that caused all the uproar, I have never said they could win without training.

I don't generally respond to you Taison because you don't have much logic or thoughtfulness in your posts, you posture you call names, but at end of the day you have no idea what you are talking about.

I respect that certain people strongly disagree with me, and I enjoy the debate, but you I do not enjoy because you are rude, arrogant and not even aware of the position of the people you are ranting at.
Posted by: Dauragon c mikado

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/24/07 10:26 AM

Quote:

I don't generally respond to you Taison because you don't have much logic or thoughtfulness in your posts, you posture you call names, but at end of the day you have no idea what you are talking about.




QFL!
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/25/07 05:43 AM

Quote:

don't generally respond to you Taison because you don't have much logic or thoughtfulness in your posts, you posture you call names, but at end of the day you have no idea what you are talking about.


No, you don'r respond to me because everytime, even though I am not able to put things as elegantly like others, I am right, and you're unable to prove otherwise, thus you tend to ignore me by changing the subject.

Quote:

but you I do not enjoy because you are rude, arrogant


I am arrogant? yup, agreed there, unless you get to know me better. Rude? Hmm, don't know, if that's how you interpret me shouting the same things again and again just to be ignored, yeah, then I am rude.

Quote:

and not even aware of the position of the people you are ranting at.


And who may you be oh holy, "I am not able to discuss with". What position are you in? FA.com is based on a community of martial artists who aren't distinquished by rank nor achievement, everyone's able to put their view in here, and you decided to put your opinion, and you're getting sliced into pieces, and then to say "you don't know the position of the people you're ranting at". Honestly, I don't give a slightest who you are, because imo, and from the other posts I've read, you aren't that significant.

Quote:

you don't have much logic or thoughtfulness in your posts,


Oh, says you who don't even argue in a sensible fashion, instead resorts to changing of subject, invalid examples, personal claims of glory, and the usual "You don't understand" "I hang around pros".

FYI, I might be younger than you, but I know pro-boxers that fights in Lumphini and Rajadamnoern, and I rarely claim "I hang out with pros, so you wouldn't know" because frankly, I'm not a prizefighter. You however, seeing as you don't like teaching full-contact sparring, categorize yourself with Pros who fights for a living. You're the one with little to no logic.

Quote:

but you I do not enjoy because you are rude


I don't enjoy your stubborness either, because frankly, I've proven my point enough times to make an encyclopedia cry, along with other member's posts to prove you so wrong, you might end up crying in the shower because your world is disintegrating due to your believes being ripped apart a bunch of forum-members. Feels uncomfortable doesn't it not being on top and teaching, but instead being questioned and told you're wrong.

Another note, English isn't my first language, so if I do seem to be rude sometimes, it mostly accidental, but if someone provokes me enough to start being rude seriously, you'll notice a change.

-Taison out
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/25/07 12:01 PM

Quote:

"you don't know the position of the people you're ranting at". Honestly, I don't give a slightest who you are, because imo, and from the other posts




OK maybe we can chalk some of this up to lauguage and translation.

In this example I am not speaking of my personal postion, I am speaking of the "postion" or argument I am making.

My point was you claimed I said no training and ranted agaisnt that position or argument, when in fact I had said with training.

So the point is you are ranting quite fiercly and you don't even have the facts straight.

Also let me clarify that the "pros" I know are in the football world not the UFC, though I have met a few I wouldn't say I know them personally.

I am willing to chalk this up to misunderstanding lets see how things go on other discussions.

On this matter I have my opinion, the facts in my view support what I believe, in others views they do not.

Honest people can have honest dis agreements.

Time to bury this dead horse, it'stinkin up the place.
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/26/07 01:25 AM

Whatever, I'm bored arguing with a guy that has literally no logic whatsoever, and doesn't know what he's talking about.

FYI "you don't even have the facts straight". Wrong. I do, you however, don't. Wait... You don't have ANY facts whatsoever. Figures.

I'll let some other mod argue with you, I've had enough. Enjoy your day, because I am.

-Taison out
Posted by: Tom2199

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/26/07 09:39 AM

I used to argue like that with one of my friends i just don't bother anymore

by the way he was and still is completely illogical
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/27/07 02:03 AM

How do you put up with him??

I'd repeatedly stab my eyeballs with a pen if I had a friend like this in real life.

-Taison out
Posted by: JasonM

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/27/07 11:17 AM

Speaking of Mayweather and his comments on MMA. Did yall hear Din Thomas tell Mayweather to bring it?
Posted by: silenthand

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/27/07 12:38 PM

Here is Dave Doyle's blog for Foxsports on this issue...



Floyd Mayweather apparently got one look at Ultimate Fighting Championship lightweight titlist Sean Sherk and decided he wanted nothing to do with mixed martial arts.

The newly crowned WBC 154-lb. champion talked a lot of smack about MMA leading up to his fight with Oscar De La Hoya.

But UFC president Dana White, Zuffa LLC co-owner Lorenzo Fertitta, and Sherk, the UFC's 155-lb. champ, showed up at the MGM Grand looking to give Mayweather the chance to put his money where his mouth was.

And the Pretty Boy changed his tune. According to the Web site FightNews.com, Mayweather, using former Nevada State Athletic Commission chairman and current UFC employee Marc Ratner as an intermediary, signaled he wanted to make peace with the UFC.

"I apologize to the UFC, sometimes we say things that we shouldn't have said and I'm man enough to admit that," said Mayweather. "I apologize to the Fertittas, Lorenzo and Dana White. I respect MMA fighters and what they do in the UFC. I have no plans of fighting in mixed martial arts."

While Mayweather left the MGM Grand a winner last week, it appears the sport of mixed martial arts was the biggest beneficiary of last week's hype.

The bulk of the coverage leading up to the Mayweather-DeLaHoya fight prominently mentioned MMA's encroachment on the boxing market.

True, some of the coverage was lowlighted by tired clichés from the usual suspects, but the joke is on them. It became painfully clear last week the only people left who still cling to "these are just bar brawlers" nonsense are: 1. Old-school boxing types, who are understandably protective of their favorite sport; 2. Journalists who are completely out to lunch on the topic; 3. Attention seekers in various media platforms who are simply out to get a reaction.

There has been a shift in sports fan opinion on combat sports. The average fan now understands that top-notch MMA fighters have athletic credentials that match those of the top athletes in any sport, even if some in the media still don't get it.

Saturday night's fight card was a case study in why MMA is succeeding where boxing isn't.

The main event was a good, but not great, technical fight. But the real telling aspect was in the second fight from top. A pair of featherweights that your average sports fan couldn't name to save their lives, Rocky Juarez and Jose Hernandez, slow danced for 12 rounds before Juarez took the decision.

Half the crowd at the MGM Grand hadn't arrived yet. The half that was there never at any point indicated they had the slightest interest in the match. HBO signaled its disinterest in its own second-billed attraction by running a long, rambling interview with Larry Merchant and Floyd Mayweather Sr. during the fight.

Viewers paid $54.95 for that?

Contrast the Juarez-Hernandez scene to UFC 68 in Columbus on March 3, where all 19,000 fans at Nationwide Arena were in their seats in time for the opening, non-televised preliminary fight, and stayed with the action for four hours, through all nine matches. Or UFC 65 at Arco Arena in Sacramento last November, where the sellout crowd of more than 15,000 popped for the transitional ground work as much as the KO kicks.

The question that remains unanswered: What would happen if Mayweather did tangle with Sherk?

No one is questioning what would happen if they met in a boxing ring under boxing rules. Sherk's background is amateur wrestling. Even the most complete MMA fighter isn't spending any more than 25 percent of his time on his boxing game. Mayweather would own Sherk under boxing rules.

Under MMA rules? Well, for one thing, Mayweather's track-meet style wouldn’t win him points in the UFC. Among MMA scoring criteria, judges are supposed to base their decisions on aggression and octagon control. For another, there is the sheer difference between a ring and a cage. There are no rope breaks to be had in MMA. If you get cornered and taken down, you have to fight your way out. That's not Mayweather's style.

There have already been a couple glimpses at what would be considered boxer vs. martial arts style fighting, and neither made boxing look good.

One occurred all the way back at UFC 1 in 1993. Art Jimmerson was a light heavyweight with a solid record of 29-5 when he squared off against Royce Gracie. Gracie needed all of 2:11 to pick Jimmerson apart. From that point on, Jimmerson went 4-13 in his boxing career. Word got around boxing quick to stay away from UFC.

OK, maybe Jimmerson isn't a big enough name to impress you. How about Muhammud Ali, then?

Back in 1976, Ali took on wrestler Antonio Inoki in Tokyo. They went 15 rounds before the fight was ruled a draw. Inoki spent most of the fight on his back in a basic jiu-jitsu defensive posture and repeatedly kicked at Ali's legs. Ali's punching was useless, as he threw just six punches the entire fight.

It was a dreadfully boring exhibition by all accounts. But no less an authority than Thomas Hauser reported in his definitive biography Ali that Inoki did so much damage to Ali's legs, that Ali had to be hospitalized with blood clots and extensive muscle disrepair. Promoter Bob Arum went on to speculate the beating helped speed up Ali's in-ring decline.

So there you have it. Three decades before MMA stole boxing's thunder and 17 years before Gracie burst onto the scene, the greatest boxer of all-time could do nothing against a professional wrestler who used defensive martial arts tactics that were primitive by the standards of today's MMA.

Maybe Mayweather knew what he was doing, backing off from his trash talk against UFC.
Posted by: Tom2199

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 05/28/07 10:02 AM

Quote:

How do you put up with him??

I'd repeatedly stab my eyeballs with a pen if I had a friend like this in real life.

-Taison out




small doses
Posted by: Raul Perez

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 06/03/07 09:10 PM

Quote:

Quote:

You have demonstrated that , presently, you don't have a lot of proof for or against your claim. So there is little point in furthering it until you get some.





Actually, I think the most important stat I can state is simply the magnitude of potential is so much higher in Pro Football, it would be extraordinary that a small population of athletes found in MMA would produce the same caliber, mathematically it would be like winning the lotto.

But we have done this dance long enough, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, there are currently several washed up athletes trying to compete in the MMA, most of them have very limited training, certainly not years of study.

Let's see how they do and we can re visit this topic then.

We are all just too stubborn to change our minds, anyway.




Johnnie Morton got Knocked the F&*^$# out!

So much for that theory....

http://www.lockflow.com/viewtopic.php?t=6882

oh... and refused to take a urine test afterwards too:

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news.asp?n_id=7753

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 06/04/07 01:43 AM

Full video of that fight.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x25mj2_k1-dynamite-bernard-ackah-vs-johnni
Posted by: Kimo2007

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 06/04/07 12:22 PM

Quote:

So much for that theory....





Why cause a guy with 2 months training in MA doesn't win?

The fact that he got a pro fight in 2 months says a lot about the sport.

My point has always been caliber of athlete, and UFC 71 did a lot to make me even more sure of my position.
Posted by: Dauragon c mikado

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 06/04/07 12:50 PM

Why do you keep on talking?
Posted by: Tom2199

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 06/04/07 05:28 PM

says a lot about the sport yeah...

like there are different classes of the sport, amateur, pro-am, professional. Just like any other sport?

someone from a NFL background with media press coverage and such will obviously be thrown in at the deep end (hes a super talented athlete right?). Thats the way the world works and unfortunately thats why he got ko'd, welcome to the world of fighting. Time to start talking to fighters training like a fighter and stop thinking like an NFL player is the only way hes ever going to be any good.
Posted by: Dauragon c mikado

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 06/04/07 08:07 PM

Am I the only one who sees the redundancy of all this?
Posted by: Taison

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 06/05/07 06:07 AM

Am I the only one that's starting to feel Deja Vu around here? Like after 11 pages, it'll go back to page 1 again?

-Taison out
Posted by: Dauragon c mikado

Re: Floyd Mayweather on MMA - 06/05/07 09:27 AM

That's my point!