UFC fights don't have the same rewatchable value as boxing does.

You could watch Tito-Vargas, Chico-Castillo 1, Hagler-Hearns...blah blah blah...numerous times.

I've never seen ONE MMA fight that you would want to look at a second time other than just the KO highlight.

Discuss.

 

Trolling.

 

how so? It's a matter for discussion...

 

I'm not a fan of mma..but anything with Fedor Emelianenko i enjoy...even when he dominates(almost always) it looks great...artistic...

 

What was better between the Mayweather-DLH card and the Rampage-Liddell card?

:dunno:

 

I agree for the most part.
But, It depends which fights you are watching. I can watch the Crocop/Fedor fight many times over. As well as many other action packed fights with lots of striking. Fights that end up on the ground that mainly end up as grappling matches can get boring and not worth watching again.

Then again not all boxing matches are worth watching again. "Spinks/Taylor" :shit:

 

Karo Parisyan/Diego Sanchez is a good one.

 

Mayweather vs. DLH....easy...

 

I think overall MMA losses in this spot. A great boxing match is better and easier to rewatch than any MMA fights IMO. MMA has other advantages, that is not 1 of them though.

 

Yeah I heard the UFC fights ended too quick or weren't competitve.

I did see the Mayweather-DLH card and I can honestly say it was not very good at all, the best fight on that card was Bautista-Medina.

 

Me too. Not even close..

 

Anyone who can honestly say they'd sooner re-watch the Mayweather-De La Hoya card, obviously isn't a fan of BOTH sports, which kind of ruins this thread. Because if you even have a passing interest in MMA, you would pick this weekends card over that over-hyped, under fought, "super-fight".

 

Nick Diaz-Takanori Gomi is re-watchable.

Overall, that entire card was much better than UFC 71, IMO.

 

Agreed, that was a hell of a card. (If you're alluding to Pride: Second Coming)

 

BTW, concerning the Gomi Diaz fight, does anybody know why the result was overturned?

 

Marijuana.

 

Thanks.

 

Agree with the title of the thread... I think the nuances of boxing make it somewhat rewatchable while in MMA it seems the results are the most important thing.

 

Which card was better to watch with a group of friends, I saw Mayweather-DLH with some friends from here and we chatted through the undercard, I mean we only really started giving our immediate attention when things got heated during Bautista-Medina, but between the KD's and when either was hurt, it just didn't grab our attention that much, the actual Main event we were on the edge of our seat for no reason, it was failure
I didn't hear too many good things about the Rampage-Liddell card as a whole, I heard the PPV lasted about half the time it was supposed to go, I heard there was an early stoppage in a couple of the fights and a decision among the rest. So just going by these 2 cards one Boxing and one MMA, which was better to watch with some fellas?

 

I watched the De La Hoya v Mayweather fight @ an absolutely packed bar down here...and I paid hardly any attention to any of the fights, bar the main event. And that was only because I had money riding on it. Andrew and I were talking about the football most of the time and the spectacular form of the Tigers. :bears:

That fight never excited me one bit. From the time it was signed, to the day of the fight. Nothing.

 

Just shut up! You're little more than an internet troll, a mere extension of guys like Rubio and for such a person I find you to be far too opinionated.


If you prefer to REwatch guys grappling on the floor, sudden knockouts and ground and pound over a fascinating tactical struggle between two highly skilled boxers...then that's your affair...but don't try to assert that yours s the only correct stance.

 

EXACTLY!! Very well articulated! :clap:

 

Also agreed with the thread title. I'm certainly more of a boxing fan than an MMA guy, but i'm not one of the haters. If you want to argue about the direction of both sports, the value of their PPV's or any other subject between the two it's a separate argument.

I have enjoyed a lot of MMA fights. One could even argue that they hype surrounding the "next big match" in UFC rivals boxing in terms of hype and anticipation.

However in pure terms of rewatchability, it's not as good as boxing. That's certainly one area the sweet science has an edge.

I've got to know some big MMA fans (and yes the numbers are growing), but not one of them has any kind of collection. Yeah i know the sport doesn't have the history and so on, but we're talking huge fans that don't have a single fight recorded. Even when they order a PPV event they don't bother. When i was 15 years old I recorded fights on the old HVS and watched them multiple times.

MMA makes for some great highlights (boxing even moreso IMO) but great boxing matches are timeless.

 

Uh uh uh, I already pulled that card on you, Venus. Nice try though.

You call it "fascinating". I call it boring, predictable and completely uninspiring. It was the biggest bomb of a 'superfight', since...well...for a long time.

 

good point. and i agree. and i was thinking the same thing actually, as i comtemplated whether or not to record saturday's show. i recorded it just to be safe, but once it was over i realized i'd never watch it again.

 

Remember now, you're asking boxing fans what they think. Do this on an MMA board and watch the response turn 180. I'm amazed at the ignorance in general of both camps.

 

Flawless! :clap:

 

I've already addressed that in my post. Naturally if you bring it up in an MMA forum you'll get different responses. People will often take it as simply being antagonistic and will autmatically take the opposite side.

I still stand by what I posted.

 

I'm sure you do, Sour Mash, but that antagonistic side is about 75% of those that chime in here. Venus and RJ being the most obvious.

 

Maybe so, but the crux of my post is nonethless true and you know it.:bears: