How Much Can MMA Evolve?

[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
I don’t know about older boxers necessarily beating current champions (well, the best of the best current champions). As much as I dislike the guy’s management, Mike Tyson was a freaking demon. And then he ran into a guy named Evander Holyfield, and looked like a chump. But if you think Mike Tyson in his prime couldn’t give Ali or Foreman a run for their money, I think you’re smoking something, and as much as I like Marciano I think he’d have eaten Tyson’s right hook - right uppercut and ended up on the canvas in the first round. Boxing evolved, but some guys were so good that it took 20 years to find someone who had evolved past them.[/quote]

I agree with your first sentence. Older boxers do not necessarily win, but they don’t necessarily lose either. As to Tyson, I think he could cleanly beat Ali if he kept his head on straight, but the likelihood of being able to do that is slim. Tyson has the power, but Ali has a better chin. I think it would be a bloody, bloody war with an uncertain outcome.

Foreman crushes Tyson. Cus D’amato agreed with this assessment. It is a bad fight style wise for Tyson.

Tyson vs Marciano depends on the rules. You called it when you said Marciano hits the canvas. Thing is, I believe he gets up. Three knockdown rule and it is Tyson’s fight to lose. No three knockdown rule but todays doctors and ref looking out for fighter safety, pick’em fight. With 1950’s safety considerations Tyson would be mauled.

Marciano has the chin and conditioning to survive. He has more than enough power to hurt Tyson. He also fought with a much more liberal interpretation of the rules. I recal watching old tapes of his boxing show and listening to him point out all of the fouls. He referred to a headbutt as “saying hello to the guy”. The headbutts, elbows, and thumbs that were part and parcel of 1950’s boxing were foreign to Tyson. He never dealt with them, or needed them when he was in his prime. When he faced Holyfield he ran into a fighter who knew how to foul and make it look casual. Tyson got frustrated and melted down. Against Marciano that would be fatal.

Off topic to the current conversation but on topic overall - I was watching the first few UFCs from the early 90’s again and it’s amazing stuff. Commentators having no clue about certain styles/moves, referee completely missing tapouts to Royce, Sumo wrestlers losing teeth, no gloves, very few rules…it really has come a long way in terms of not only fighting disciplines but also, obviously, the ruleset.

However I can’t see it developing much further on a grand scale like Joe eludes to without the ruleset changing dramatically. We’ve kinda seen what works and does not work in combat, under those specific conditions, and aside from individual fighters broadening their martial base - what really can they bring to the table that hasn’t been seen already?

This reminds me of when Joe said, after GSP jabbed Kos around for 5 rounds, “Now we’re going to see a huge influx of fighters utilising the jab more!!” The guy tends to get excited ;p

If you haven’t seen the early ones though, check them out, very interesting to compare the differences to today’s game.

He knew how to bite an ear though lol. It’s kind of weird how this thread went from mma to boxing. No one is relating the other combat sports and their evolutions. How would Kimura fair against one of the top judokas of today? etc

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
I don’t know about older boxers necessarily beating current champions (well, the best of the best current champions). As much as I dislike the guy’s management, Mike Tyson was a freaking demon. And then he ran into a guy named Evander Holyfield, and looked like a chump. But if you think Mike Tyson in his prime couldn’t give Ali or Foreman a run for their money, I think you’re smoking something, and as much as I like Marciano I think he’d have eaten Tyson’s right hook - right uppercut and ended up on the canvas in the first round. Boxing evolved, but some guys were so good that it took 20 years to find someone who had evolved past them.[/quote]

I agree with your first sentence. Older boxers do not necessarily win, but they don’t necessarily lose either. As to Tyson, I think he could cleanly beat Ali if he kept his head on straight, but the likelihood of being able to do that is slim. Tyson has the power, but Ali has a better chin. I think it would be a bloody, bloody war with an uncertain outcome.

Foreman crushes Tyson. Cus D’amato agreed with this assessment. It is a bad fight style wise for Tyson.

Tyson vs Marciano depends on the rules. You called it when you said Marciano hits the canvas. Thing is, I believe he gets up. Three knockdown rule and it is Tyson’s fight to lose. No three knockdown rule but todays doctors and ref looking out for fighter safety, pick’em fight. With 1950’s safety considerations Tyson would be mauled.

Marciano has the chin and conditioning to survive. He has more than enough power to hurt Tyson. He also fought with a much more liberal interpretation of the rules. I recal watching old tapes of his boxing show and listening to him point out all of the fouls. He referred to a headbutt as “saying hello to the guy”. The headbutts, elbows, and thumbs that were part and parcel of 1950’s boxing were foreign to Tyson. He never dealt with them, or needed them when he was in his prime. When he faced Holyfield he ran into a fighter who knew how to foul and make it look casual. Tyson got frustrated and melted down. Against Marciano that would be fatal.[/quote]

[quote]Robert A wrote:
Foreman crushes Tyson. Cus D’amato agreed with this assessment. It is a bad fight style wise for Tyson.
[/quote]

Far be it from me to argue with Mr. D’amato. And I think you’re right, it’s a bad style matchup. Put Lennox Lewis in Tyson’s place, and (of course) I think you’d have some different fights, but some modern guys who aren’t regarded as “the greatest” could clearly hold their own with some guys who are.

I think the average high level amateur to low level pro (the rank and file) is a better boxer now though than they were then too. Yeah, those guys were tough, but from a conditioning and technique standpoint I think the average boxer today wins hands down.

As for the evolution of other styles, I just don’t know enough about them. I suspect that Kimura would be much more Ippon-focused than today’s Judoka, but that’s pure speculation. If so, his style would look very high-risk, high-reward compared to the points-focused fighters we’re used to today. In jiu-jitsu you certainly didn’t see Eddie Bravo type nonsense from Helio Gracie.

Regardless of the sport, I think there is always a slow drift towards taking advantage of the rules for a points win, rather than treating the sport as a “real” fight. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on the rules I guess. Olympic TKD? Worthless as far as I’m concerned, it’s like playing tag with your feet. K1? Good rule set, doesn’t encourage much passive/boring fighting. Regardless, fight sports seem to trend towards less “fight” and more “sport” as they evolve.

Any thoughts about BJJ, or sub grappling in general? How much has it moved forward since the first UFC, and since Arona took the first ADCC?

I think Kimura could do just as well today as in the past. He would have to adapt to a slightly different game, but I think he would be well capable of that.

I believe there was a bigger allowance for ne-waza (ground fighting) in Kimuraâ??s day and that was certainly one of his strengths. I think his favorite throw was o-soto geri (major outer reap/kickback throw) and that is still an allowed scoring technique (devildog_jim already pointed out how rule changes affect competition. With Judo the techniques that count towards scoring have changed several times, so that could really influence who is competitive with their skillset.). My belief is that he would quickly adapt to the grip fighting seen in Judo today as well (I am not a judoka or judo historian but my impression of watching older vs newer film is that grip fighting was not done in the past to the extent it was today.)

Maybe someone with more knowledge of Judo can jump in?

Regards,

Robert A

[quote]devildog_jim wrote:

[quote]Robert A wrote:
Foreman crushes Tyson. Cus D’amato agreed with this assessment. It is a bad fight style wise for Tyson.
[/quote]

Far be it from me to argue with Mr. D’amato. And I think you’re right, it’s a bad style matchup. Put Lennox Lewis in Tyson’s place, and (of course) I think you’d have some different fights, but some modern guys who aren’t regarded as “the greatest” could clearly hold their own with some guys who are.

I think the average high level amateur to low level pro (the rank and file) is a better boxer now though than they were then too. Yeah, those guys were tough, but from a conditioning and technique standpoint I think the average boxer today wins hands down.

As for the evolution of other styles, I just don’t know enough about them. I suspect that Kimura would be much more Ippon-focused than today’s Judoka, but that’s pure speculation. If so, his style would look very high-risk, high-reward compared to the points-focused fighters we’re used to today. In jiu-jitsu you certainly didn’t see Eddie Bravo type nonsense from Helio Gracie.

Regardless of the sport, I think there is always a slow drift towards taking advantage of the rules for a points win, rather than treating the sport as a “real” fight. Whether this is a good thing or not depends on the rules I guess. Olympic TKD? Worthless as far as I’m concerned, it’s like playing tag with your feet. K1? Good rule set, doesn’t encourage much passive/boring fighting. Regardless, fight sports seem to trend towards less “fight” and more “sport” as they evolve.[/quote]

I think the sport was better in previous eras, that’s when the sport was at its peak and trainers were really refining the craft. Parrying punches was actually taught then, fighters knew when and how to tie up, and the jab was used pretty consistently and effectively.

There have been fighters that take a lot of punishment in ever era, this one is no different. Boxing of the 1930s-1960s wasn’t all taking 2 shots to land 1. Some of the most technically brilliant fighters of all times came from that era and in my opinion the average fighter had better fundamentals. Boxing still hasn’t caught up to Charley Burley and he’s a fighter from the mid 1930s to 1950.

DID YOU SAY JUDO?

Kimura - has an edge over many of the modern Judokas on paper but new rules would kill him with boredom

he has
-far more experience with rougher rules
-higher rank with the least generational loss will explain

  • knockout power many many of his well documented bouts ended in opponents
    being thrown for ippon and being knocked out.

the generational - loss - maybe I am o.l.d, when speaking of Film and negatives in the pre digital
photography, generations referred to the how removed an example is from the original.
how many reprints, enlargements etc from one negative or from secondary or tertiary copies of that original negative.

the same for traditional MA’s we used to say there is Kodokon Judo and other Judo.
I went to a school for years, with a kodokon Sensei who while being very very ‘modern’
really discouraged any Gi’s that where not white.
his traditional methods gave me an excellent classic judo-
then I learned to break or fake the rules.

ok discourse ending back on topic.

In my little taste of competition- things like rules changes and evolution went hand in hand.
this is pre internet.
think about that , the only way to see what cubans did in the Judo room was to go , write a letter.
cut a deal get on a plane and go see it.
first hand then bring it back and spread the word.

the only way to see how the Former USSR trained was to go there , loose a few matches,
bring a carton of cigarettes and some us wrestling sneakers to trade for the chance to train.

now immigration rules are far far more open, and you can go watch instructional videos that are subtitled.

The world is flat.
technology and cash make it all equal.

And you don’t have to go far to get the first hand training.
but your shit might be watered down and have ‘generational loss’
a big deal in traditional MA but an advantage in MMA.

the world of ‘pro-MMA’ is flat.
Locker room chats, small shows, coming up together in the same gym,
people know what every one is doing.

ok this shit is becoming a book.

Rulan Gardner had the greatest upset in the history of Greco ever.
He beat the greatest- Karelin on a bullshit rule change.
in a no- score match after a time limit an actual clinch is
joined with the two competitors, and for a time limit you must hold the clinch.

what kind of bullshit is this- Rulon got Karelin to break the clinch.
winning the gold medal and being the best.

He also trained for those rules with a former national russian coach a greco clinch master.
and knew how to break them.
And he was a beast.

Powerlifting- some people say if your squat has 3 white lights
it was too deep and you left pounds on the platform.

well MMA is like that.

people need to ‘bend the rules’ more-
more daring weird shit or high risk moves.

I did well in college by learning how to cheat.
how to be a bully to force fouls, force stalling
force pacivity - I also did well enough cause
I was different enough. and I really had no hope of wrestling at that level
on my own.

I had a great greco game and a mean streak and after cutting a shit ton of weight
and winning an improbable wrestle off- I wasnt taking no for an answer.
unless they got me to fight their way - which was easy to get sucked into.
see Im not all that.

MMA you can do the same thing.

people show us flashes of the future-
not just ‘heart’

super slick submissions- Hazelnutt comes to mind
Petis crazy bounce of the cage to TKO henderson

Silvas crazy agility
or jones flat out silly silly throws and crazy strikes.

I think it takes less time for new things to be common.
MMA’s nomenclature is developing fast.

Sakuraba- or even Bas Or Frank Shamrock some early brazilian too Marcos Rua etc.
showed polish and flair far ahead of the curve.

Ivan Salaverry- kind of a nobody had
slick boxing and a great ground game - too bad age, and not training full time caught up.

basically what I am getting at are things like the internet
the lack of belts- in that you are no longer restricted to only one discipline
or restricted to learning moves in one particular order.

learning moves out of order is far far bigger then you think.
white belts usually never where allowed to practice many chokes or thanks.

I don’t think the ‘influx of NFL or Olympic Level’ athletes is going to change the game that much.
the whole point of BJJ is its for non athletes
and fighting to be honest does attract a derelict element that other sports don’t.
the pay days are not here and its too hard on the body- to do it from age 16 to 30
and not be just plain out too beat up to work.

while no longer being an insider- to the sport I have spent long long enough around
the kind of gym and training life that people have

I predict one or two crazy standouts who are just unstoppable and talented.
and I predict more and more ‘crazy shit’ seemingly minor evolutions
from fighters and trainers that flip the script.
becoming the norm.
what once was an exciting crazy approach will be a standard attack, defense etc

Bravo has done it a little , so have other camps in the way their vocabulary or lexicon of
‘moves’ develops

I predict that the game will get faster,
just as it does at each level of competition in my case HS, bullshit College, D1 NCCAA, minor club international junket does. or HS, College NFL - each increment gets faster.

I think some rule changes over time will open and close different windows of what is possible.

I should clean this up and be more concise

With so much of combat being opened up, MMA has turned into a game of chess. The best fighters aren’t going to be the strongest. They’re going to be the smartest. And noones going to be able to wrap their head around the entire game. The best anyone can do is internalize the principles and hope they make the right move.

On the subject of Fedor. He’s still the number 1 pound for pound. When GSP or anderson silva take hong man choi, come back to me and then we’ll talk. He lost his last 2 fights because he’s been focusing on his striking at the expense of his ground game. (which is retarded considering he’s already hitting people so hard he’s breaking his hands.) If he ditched his managers and did a 6 week camp at AKA he’d be better than he’s ever been.

I think the one thing that has made mma somewhat boring is most of the guys are at a high level sometimes fights become a stalemate. Less sweeps, less reversals, less subs, people less willing to engage their opponent on the feet. Everyone knows enough these days.

As someone alluded to earlier, this has also lead to the point fighting habits in mma. More of a sport, less of a fight. But, the current scoring system favors that style of fighting. Personally I would like to see somewhat heavier gloves used. Maybe that would encourage more striking. Less weighted scoring on takedowns if no damage is done or an attempt to improve position and finish the fight is made. I would also like to see the round system abolished. Judge the fight as whole and who does more damage and/or attempts to finish the fight. The 10 point must system in a 3 round fight makes no sense. It would be like if a football team scored 35 points in one quarter, and gets outscored 7-0 over the final three quarters. Should the team that scores 21 points win the game because they “won” 3 our of 4 quarters?

The statement on Fedor would most likely get you flamed to third degree burns on Sherdog. It seems most people either think he is the GOAT (which I do), or an overrated can crusher. Most seem to fall in the latter category, especially the TUF era UFC Bros (the same ones who still think Lesnar should be ranked the #2 HW). I put him ahead of GSP and Silva because they have never stepped in the cage with an opponent who had 50lbs or more on them, and finished them on top of that.

[quote]Sliver wrote:
With so much of combat being opened up, MMA has turned into a game of chess. The best fighters aren’t going to be the strongest. They’re going to be the smartest. And noones going to be able to wrap their head around the entire game. The best anyone can do is internalize the principles and hope they make the right move.

On the subject of Fedor. He’s still the number 1 pound for pound. When GSP or anderson silva take hong man choi, come back to me and then we’ll talk. He lost his last 2 fights because he’s been focusing on his striking at the expense of his ground game. (which is retarded considering he’s already hitting people so hard he’s breaking his hands.) If he ditched his managers and did a 6 week camp at AKA he’d be better than he’s ever been.[/quote]

[quote]Dre Cappa wrote:
Personally I would like to see somewhat heavier gloves used. Maybe that would encourage more striking. Less weighted scoring on takedowns if no damage is done or an attempt to improve position and finish the fight is made. I would also like to see the round system abolished. Judge the fight as whole and who does more damage and/or attempts to finish the fight. The 10 point must system in a 3 round fight makes no sense. It would be like if a football team scored 35 points in one quarter, and gets outscored 7-0 over the final three quarters. Should the team that scores 21 points win the game because they “won” 3 our of 4 quarters?
[/quote]

UFC was originally no-rounds, but the athletic commissions have forced them into using a round system. I wouldn’t be terribly upset about it (after all, guys tend to come out and work a little harder if you give them a bit of a breather), except that it ties in with the crappy scoring.

The football analogy is perfect, and that and the weight given to non-damaging takedowns and “control” is the primary reason wrestlers do so well. I don’t like cumulative-point scoring either though, it encourages rapid-fire points only moves to put a fight out of reach with no real damaging effect.

Would it be so hard to take all fights out to the 5-round championship length, and declare them all draws if no one can get a KO, TKO, sub, or stoppage? Plus, pay a bonus to the winner AND the loser in fights that finish (but more to the winner). Yeah, it’s a marketing ploy, but it shows that you’re serious about these being fights and not interpretive dance.

I’m not sure the gloves need to get too much heavier if you change the rules up enough. So long as they’re light enough to grapple, a guy can always do king of pancrase style palm heel strikes anyway, so excessive knuckle padding probably isn’t the answer.

Edit to add: I put control in quotes because what a UFC ref calls control I call an inability to break a stalemate. If all you can do is lay-and-pray, you’re not really controlling much, as your control is insufficient to actually inflict harm.

Good points devildog.

That would be alot more entertaining if fighters had to finish the fight or its a draw.

Tie it in with the purse and sit back and watch fights get crazy competitive.

The hunger isn’t there for some pro fighters nowadays.

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
The hunger isn’t there for some pro fighters nowadays.[/quote]

I disagree on this last one. There is hunger to win, and to keep winning, and to make a career out of it. You’d have to be a moron (or Tank Abbot, but I repeat myself) to want to get your head bashed in going for the KO when you could safely take it to a decision win instead.

I don’t blame fighters for playing to the rules to win, I blame the guys writing the rules and the refs who won’t stand them back up when it becomes a farce.

[quote]Dre Cappa wrote:
I think the one thing that has made mma somewhat boring is most of the guys are at a high level sometimes fights become a stalemate. Less sweeps, less reversals, less subs, people less willing to engage their opponent on the feet. Everyone knows enough these days.

As someone alluded to earlier, this has also lead to the point fighting habits in mma. More of a sport, less of a fight. But, the current scoring system favors that style of fighting. Personally I would like to see somewhat heavier gloves used. Maybe that would encourage more striking. Less weighted scoring on takedowns if no damage is done or an attempt to improve position and finish the fight is made. I would also like to see the round system abolished. Judge the fight as whole and who does more damage and/or attempts to finish the fight. The 10 point must system in a 3 round fight makes no sense. It would be like if a football team scored 35 points in one quarter, and gets outscored 7-0 over the final three quarters. Should the team that scores 21 points win the game because they “won” 3 our of 4 quarters?

The statement on Fedor would most likely get you flamed to third degree burns on Sherdog. It seems most people either think he is the GOAT (which I do), or an overrated can crusher. Most seem to fall in the latter category, especially the TUF era UFC Bros (the same ones who still think Lesnar should be ranked the #2 HW). I put him ahead of GSP and Silva because they have never stepped in the cage with an opponent who had 50lbs or more on them, and finished them on top of that.

[quote]Sliver wrote:
With so much of combat being opened up, MMA has turned into a game of chess. The best fighters aren’t going to be the strongest. They’re going to be the smartest. And noones going to be able to wrap their head around the entire game. The best anyone can do is internalize the principles and hope they make the right move.

On the subject of Fedor. He’s still the number 1 pound for pound. When GSP or anderson silva take hong man choi, come back to me and then we’ll talk. He lost his last 2 fights because he’s been focusing on his striking at the expense of his ground game. (which is retarded considering he’s already hitting people so hard he’s breaking his hands.) If he ditched his managers and did a 6 week camp at AKA he’d be better than he’s ever been.[/quote]
[/quote]
To be fair to dana white, even though the athletic commission forced the broken point system on the sport, he tries to incentivise the fighters but giving the submission and ko of the night. Although you’d think the terrible judgements would be enough. Joe rogan talked with ariel helwani about trying to work in a new scoring system but that’s ages away from happening.

On fedor: As far as GOAT, only time will tell. I think the assertion that he was years ahead of his time can be accepted as fact. Combat sambo very closely resembles modern MMA and he was a russian judo champion. (which he’d been training since he was 12) So when he got in the ring he was a a very well rounded fighter with a specialization in takedowns. It’s still really hard to tell exactly how much his skills have declined. The werdum thing was a stupid mistake, but the worst anyone can say about his last fight is that he got mounted by a 290 point BJJ blackbelt.

Jim,

After rereading my post, I can see I worded it incorrectly. I have no problem with there being actual rounds. I do believe a break in the action is warranted, as we have enough fighters that can barely make it through a fight without gassing badly. I simply meant that scoring rounds is arbitrary. When Pride had the uneven round lengths in 10 minutes then 5 minutes, overall damage was accounted for. A good example is the Jardine/Mousasi fight. Even given the excuse by his trainer that Keith is a “bleeder,” if you asked any fool off the street who won that fight without watching it but just looking at the fighter’s faces afterwards, I don’t think anyone would say Jardine won. But apparently meaningless takedowns are worth more.

I don’t know where the link is for the article, but one of my bjj instructors noted that Helio was saddened to see GJJ evolve into a sport. My point is what you mentioned, that if one fighter does not finish another fighter and it is a close fight, can you really say he won? BJJ was traditionally about survival. Even if you ended up on your back you could keep an opponent from killing or defeating you. Helio would also wear a much larger opponent down over time. Many of the top bjj guys in the world won’t set foot in a cage because the current rules favor wrestlers, takedowns and top position.

[quote]devildog_jim wrote:

[quote]Dre Cappa wrote:
Personally I would like to see somewhat heavier gloves used. Maybe that would encourage more striking. Less weighted scoring on takedowns if no damage is done or an attempt to improve position and finish the fight is made. I would also like to see the round system abolished. Judge the fight as whole and who does more damage and/or attempts to finish the fight. The 10 point must system in a 3 round fight makes no sense. It would be like if a football team scored 35 points in one quarter, and gets outscored 7-0 over the final three quarters. Should the team that scores 21 points win the game because they “won” 3 our of 4 quarters?
[/quote]

UFC was originally no-rounds, but the athletic commissions have forced them into using a round system. I wouldn’t be terribly upset about it (after all, guys tend to come out and work a little harder if you give them a bit of a breather), except that it ties in with the crappy scoring.

The football analogy is perfect, and that and the weight given to non-damaging takedowns and “control” is the primary reason wrestlers do so well. I don’t like cumulative-point scoring either though, it encourages rapid-fire points only moves to put a fight out of reach with no real damaging effect.

Would it be so hard to take all fights out to the 5-round championship length, and declare them all draws if no one can get a KO, TKO, sub, or stoppage? Plus, pay a bonus to the winner AND the loser in fights that finish (but more to the winner). Yeah, it’s a marketing ploy, but it shows that you’re serious about these being fights and not interpretive dance.

I’m not sure the gloves need to get too much heavier if you change the rules up enough. So long as they’re light enough to grapple, a guy can always do king of pancrase style palm heel strikes anyway, so excessive knuckle padding probably isn’t the answer.

Edit to add: I put control in quotes because what a UFC ref calls control I call an inability to break a stalemate. If all you can do is lay-and-pray, you’re not really controlling much, as your control is insufficient to actually inflict harm.[/quote]

for the first time in a very very long time. White people rule the heavyweight devision in boxing. not being racist. but the 2 top guys are both brothers and white. times have changed, since people always said blacks were superior in boxing. not anymore. lol.

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
for the first time in a very very long time. White people rule the heavyweight devision in boxing. not being racist. but the 2 top guys are both brothers and white. times have changed, since people always said blacks were superior in boxing. not anymore. lol. [/quote]

I don’t think color has anything to do with who is superior- it’s more a matter of what race makes up the lowest socioeconomic step on the ladder and who HAS to fight to get out the ghetto.

There are still very few white American fighters, but its not because there couldn’t be.

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
for the first time in a very very long time. White people rule the heavyweight devision in boxing. not being racist. but the 2 top guys are both brothers and white. times have changed, since people always said blacks were superior in boxing. not anymore. lol. [/quote]

List some athletes competing in the heavyweight division… Exactly.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
for the first time in a very very long time. White people rule the heavyweight devision in boxing. not being racist. but the 2 top guys are both brothers and white. times have changed, since people always said blacks were superior in boxing. not anymore. lol. [/quote]

I don’t think color has anything to do with who is superior- it’s more a matter of what race makes up the lowest socioeconomic step on the ladder and who HAS to fight to get out the ghetto.

There are still very few white American fighters, but its not because there couldn’t be.[/quote]

I actually think the most notable fact about the Klitschko’s are their levels of education. When was the last time legitimate world titles were held by Phd’s? I think the Klitschko’s are distinct not due to skin color, but because of education. I am at a loss to recall any other boxing champion with a doctorate.

[quote]devildog_jim wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
The hunger isn’t there for some pro fighters nowadays.[/quote]

I disagree on this last one. There is hunger to win, and to keep winning, and to make a career out of it. You’d have to be a moron (or Tank Abbot, but I repeat myself) to want to get your head bashed in going for the KO when you could safely take it to a decision win instead.

I don’t blame fighters for playing to the rules to win, I blame the guys writing the rules and the refs who won’t stand them back up when it becomes a farce.[/quote]

Fair point. Perhaps I worded it wrong. I think a lot of fighters are more worried about losing the fight than making the win a certainty. They’d rather take their chances with the decision than risk getting knocked out or submitted trying to finish the fight. Its the rules to blame. Like someone else said. Too much sport not enough fight.