Heavyweight Champions--Who would be the best in MMA? [Archive]

McGrain

07-08-2007, 09:54 PM

I guess most people are going to pick Jeffries here.

I'd pick Marciano. He's mentally so attuned to the task at hand that the change wouldn't hurt him as much as the others. He never gives up and his head is hard. Plus he has real power.

The only thing would be he may not pick up any grapping skills.

But that COULD be true of any of them, even Jeffries and Johnson.

Russell

07-08-2007, 09:59 PM

Johnson would be like Quinton Jackson in MMA. Big, unbelievably strong black guy wrestler type. :)

McGrain

07-08-2007, 10:00 PM

Johnson would be like Quinton Jackson in MMA. Big, unbelievably strong black guy wrestler type. :)

Yeah, he would be good.

Bad_Intentions

07-08-2007, 10:28 PM

Throw McCall in there.

If you gave him rudimentary grappling skills, what's anyone going to do to him?

He's quite large for MMA on the whole, and with smaller gloves his powers going to be pretty scary.

I'd throw Jerry Quarry in there too. Hardcore scrappy mother fucker.:rofl

Duodenum

07-08-2007, 10:44 PM

Dempsey did wrestle, as well as streetfight, and compete in bare knuckle fisticuffs. It's well known how, when he was desperate for money, Jack would go into saloons and announce "I can't sing, and I can't dance, but I can lick any SOB in the house!" If his challenge was accepted, bets would be placed. He rarely lost these barroom brawls. (This is part of his mass appeal; the fact that he could do it in the ring as well as the street.)

Jim Corbett beat the shit out of Joe Choynski in streetfights, before he kayoed him in the ring. (This was before Choynski trashed Jack Johnson in three.) Corbett might be a dark horse candidate. Foreman had superhuman strength. (Considering how easily he shoves around hulking growth substance enhanced bodybuilder types like Holyfield and Morrison with boxing gloves on, what would happen if he was wearing equipment that enabled him to grip his opponent?)

Russell

07-08-2007, 10:49 PM

:rofl

That's funny... why?

Lostmykeys

07-09-2007, 02:41 AM

I wanna see that young gorilla like Foreman get his hands on someone in MMA.

TBooze

07-09-2007, 03:12 AM

Weird question: If you could match every heavyweight champion from Sullivan to Lewis in an MMA tournament (allowing them a few weeks between each "round" to recover) which fighters would be most likely to come out on top....

...and why?

Whoever they want to be sucessful, it is not real;)

TBooze

07-09-2007, 03:27 AM

WTF are you even talking about? Was that a joke or what?

Vince McMahon scripts it my friend, otherwise it would be very boring;)

McGrain

07-09-2007, 05:15 AM

Vince McMahon scripts it my friend, otherwise it would be very boring;)

Even watching DRUNK, STUPID big guys fight is never "boring".

fists of fury

07-09-2007, 05:25 AM

Tough to say, because we don't know how they would adapt to grappling.

I'd favour the strong, rugged fighters over those who boxed and moved. Guys like Frazier, Marciano, Jeffries, Tyson, maybe Sullivan, maybe Liston...those types of fighters. They have a lower centre of gravity than the tall fighters like Lewis, Ali and Klitschko and that surely could only help defending against takedowns and that sort of thing.
I think they'd make naturally better wrestlers too. I can only assume a Jeffries, Frazier or Marciano would have a more natural aptitude for grappling than an Ali or Holmes, based on strength and more of a willingness to fight in the trenches.

That's my 2c anyway.

KTFO

07-09-2007, 06:17 AM

'88 Tyson.

cross_trainer

07-09-2007, 10:21 AM

Vince McMahon scripts it my friend, otherwise it would be very boring;)

You're thinking of professional wrestling.

TBooze

07-09-2007, 10:32 AM

You're thinking of professional wrestling.

And this MMA, UFC whatever rubbish...

cross_trainer

07-09-2007, 11:07 AM

And this MMA, UFC whatever rubbish...

It is, however, a legitimate contest rather than performance entertainment.

Have you ever seen Pride FC in Japan? Until recently (they were bought out by the UFC) they provided very high-quality and professional MMA contests--which they could afford to do because they have a huge fanbase over there.

A few of their better fights and highlights:

tjD8yLh9B4w

X8ZA5Wr8W7Q

[a7aCz1EtPs0/YT]

[YT]C5I_uMO_3XY

B-XnkgwUcL4

o9KVHfEqXb4

(in the above, you can see him disposing of a professional wrestler who foolishly thought that MMA is an exhibition rather than a sport)

UpWithEvil

07-09-2007, 11:22 AM

Regarding PRIDE FC, PRIDE is actually a pro-wrestling organization, but one that specializes in legitimate matches, not worked bouts. PRIDE's matchmaking, for example, is straight out of the pro-wrestling handbook, with charismatic, interesting fighters fed a few tomato cans to build up their reps before being vaulted into big-money matches against established stars. PRIDE also sanctions "freakshow" matches, which, while entirely legitimate from the sporting standpoint, would nonetheless never be allowed by American sanctioning bodies.

Stonehands89

07-09-2007, 11:24 AM

Dempsey is intriguing.

I would suggest that you want to go for what you know in any combat situation. A boxer needs to emphasize punching. The guys who have nuclear blasts and are naturally aggressive, not deliberate would do better.

Tyson springs to mind. I think that the problem with boxers in such contests is that they are not used to a guy rushing in so low and they freeze up or try to fend them off with outstretched arms. At best they back up and punch those "get off me" punches. All wrong. If Tyson just spent time catching guys coming in low/shooting in with short uppercuts and hooks I think he'd kill some of them.

There's always a window against the wrestler. It's brief, but it's there. The boxer has to find it and then shoot withouth hesitation and with confidence.

cross_trainer

07-09-2007, 11:24 AM

TBooze

07-09-2007, 11:29 AM

True, but legitimate is the key word here.

It seems some what disturbing, I am not really into gay porn.;)

UpWithEvil

07-09-2007, 11:30 AM

True, but legitimate is the key word here.

Sure, but this is a point that shouldn't be overlooked. PRIDE is (was) every bit a pro-wrestling promotion. The only difference between them and, say, the WWE is that PRIDE books legitimate bouts almost exclusively (but not 100%).

TBooze

07-09-2007, 01:44 PM

Some would say they're not into pillow fights between two angry grown men, which is what boxing looks like to the untrained eye. If you think MMA is scripted you're quite ignorant, boxing is way more scripted with all the fixed fights and robberies ,etc.

Boxing does not involve two men in their underwear rolling around the ring.

Do not get me wrong, if you like that sort thing, good on you (damn you for causing the floods in this country;) ), you cannot help being who you are, hey I get my jollies from seeing a man get KO'd that is morally in society a lot worse.

TBooze

07-09-2007, 02:02 PM

So you're just as ignorant as the rest of em eh? Since when are these guys in their underwear? I take it you think real wrestling is gay? Brazilian jiu-jitsu and judo are all gay just because they're not boxing?

There are martial arts with great traditions that go back 1,000 of years, and there is what they call 'Sports Entertainment' that does have a pseudo homoeroticism about it and attracts a lot of males aged 15 to 35 as followers. I am not a qualified Psychologist so I guess I should not jump to conclusions!;)

cross_trainer

07-09-2007, 02:14 PM

There are martial arts with great traditions that go back 1,000 of years, and there is what they call 'Sports Entertainment' that does have a pseudo homoeroticism about it and attracts a lot of males aged 15 to 35 as followers. I am not a qualified Psychologist so I guess I should not jump to conclusions!;)

Not this again. :patsch

We're not gay for watching MMA (nor gay at all, for that matter).

It's the first true arena for reality testing of martial arts since the wrestler/jiujitsuka matches of the 19th century...or Greek Pankration, if you want to go back that far. In only a decade, it has done away with most of the "pressure points", "deadly ninja strikes", etc. that have plagued the martial arts for most of the latter half of the 20th century, and emphasized testing of techniques in an "alive" manner.

By lessening the chances that questionable "masters" will be sending their students into dangerous situations with useless techniques, it's performed a great service. And it's finally been regulated as a true sport, further creating a neutral competitive format to test various styles.

...and it also provides us the opportunity to ask interesting questions like, "Would Jim Jeffries have beaten Ali in an MMA match?" and have a reasonably good chance of getting the correct answer. ;)

Sakura

07-09-2007, 03:24 PM

Vitali Klitchko...heavyweight- and kickboxing champion..can use also his legs and block kicks

Sakura

07-09-2007, 03:57 PM

Can he defend a takedown though? In K-1 that would probably be the correct answer, but not really MMA.

His not a wrestler, but i think his big size can give him some help. Personally, i dont think any heavyweight champion that i know, really knows what the do when you go down.

Doppleganger

07-09-2007, 05:40 PM

There are martial arts with great traditions that go back 1,000 of years, and there is what they call 'Sports Entertainment' that does have a pseudo homoeroticism about it and attracts a lot of males aged 15 to 35 as followers. I am not a qualified Psychologist so I guess I should not jump to conclusions!;) Your attitude towards MMA seems typical of the boxing fan who is igonrant about MMA and who feels threatened by the popular rise of PRIDE, K-1 and now the UFC.

As for which HW champion would do best (other than the earliest ones who incorporated some wrestling into their training) I think it's really difficult to say. I don't think it's as easy as saying that the shorter champions (Tyson, Marciano) with lower centres of gravity would be more successful as that suits some techniques but not others. Fighters with longer arms and legs (Holmes, Lewis) would have more potential leverage on the ground. We don't know how flexible each champion was either, which could be significant.

One area that is particularly important in MMA is conditioning. Therefore champions who were well conditioned and had good stamina would have an advantage. For this reason someone like Lewis in MMA would be more likely to cut to say 220 rather than bulk up to 240+. Carrying extra weight around would not be a great tactic.

TBooze

07-09-2007, 06:08 PM

Your attitude towards MMA seems typical of the boxing fan who is igonrant about MMA and who feels threatened by the popular rise of PRIDE, K-1 and now the UFC.

Do not need the pseudo homoeroticism for that (although it doers work as people reflect and are really uncomfortable with them words; so much for living in a modern Society...)

The truth is Wrestling has been going in this form for a hundred years, and it has lived in harmony with boxing. If people want to change its name, then come back in 120 years when like boxing it has had at least three shows virtually every single day for that entire period and I will call it boxings equal;)

Popularity wise, boxing is unlikely to reach its peaks in the 50s and again in the 80s. I'm alright because I was the in last generation to experience a boxing boom, so there will probably always be fans of the sport either older or the same age as me, and my decent knowledge of sport pretty much stops post 97/98 anyway.

cross_trainer

07-09-2007, 07:14 PM

Do not need the pseudo homoeroticism for that (although it doers work as people reflect and are really uncomfortable with them words; so much for living in a modern Society...)

The truth is Wrestling has been going in this form for a hundred years, and it has lived in harmony with boxing. If people want to change its name, then come back in 120 years when like boxing it has had at least three shows virtually every single day for that entire period and I will call it boxings equal;)

Popularity wise, boxing is unlikely to reach its peaks in the 50s and again in the 80s. I'm alright because I was the in last generation to experience a boxing boom, so there will probably always be fans of the sport either older or the same age as me, and my decent knowledge of sport pretty much stops post 97/98 anyway.
:huh

The small shorts are to facilitate movement and prevent a guy from getting a good grip. Little different from boxing trunks...except recently, when the trunks have become more like skirts.

I might add that boxing evolved from MMA (Petter, Passchen, Figg) and remained pretty MMA-ish for the next century and a half. And I agree that the two will easily coexist...but why the hostility toward it?

rekcutnevets

07-09-2007, 09:43 PM

You would probably have to be gay, in order for MMA to look gay to you. I've never been turned on watching MMA, but it sounds as though some on here have. I don't think there is anything wrong with your feelings. If you are gay, then so be it. I won't make fun of you for it.

I also won't make fun of you for getting turned on when two guys are fighting. All of those rolling around, and little shorts comments, make some seem like MMA has a different type of effect on them.

It's time to stop hating people who like members of the same sex, and it's time for people that are gay to stop hating themselves for it.

rekcutnevets

07-09-2007, 09:51 PM

This isn't a former heavyweight champion, but James Warring.

Warring fought in a mma contest, when it was still a tournament format, in the mid 90s. He made it to the finals. That is the best of any pro boxer I know of doing in mma.

I think the contest was called WCC. He lost rather quickly to Renzo Gracie. I have never looked to see if any footage is on youtube.

UpWithEvil

07-09-2007, 09:57 PM

Warring fought in a mma contest, when it was still a tournament format, in the mid 90s. He made it to the finals. That is the best of any pro boxer I know of doing in mma.

Please note that Waring fought in a special "strikers division" that limited the amount of time youcould spend on the ground before being reset on the feet by the referee. Renzo Gracie, his opponent in the finals, came out of the "grappler's division".

TBooze

07-10-2007, 04:00 AM

:huh
I might add that boxing evolved from MMA (Petter, Passchen, Figg) and remained pretty MMA-ish for the next century and a half. And I agree that the two will easily coexist...but why the hostility toward it?

Boxing became a stand out art on its own; Figg was indeed an expert with a sword and cudgel, before putting bareknuckle exibitions into his traveling show.

Wrestling was allowed above the belt under Broughton and London prize rules, but since Queensberry Rules (1867) that has not been the case.

Pro wrestling like you have said will co-exist with boxing.

bigG

07-10-2007, 06:06 AM

jeremy williams...excellent judo background.....

rekcutnevets

07-10-2007, 07:25 AM

Then Jeremy Williams should do it. Judo guys don't do as well as bjj guys, but he would not have near as much to learn. There are a lot of similarities in the offense he know, it is the defense he would have to learn a bit in. Still, he has a jump on Mercer.

rekcutnevets

07-10-2007, 07:34 AM

When I said "should do it," I meant career wise. His days of earning any kind of big money at heavyweight is over. If he can win in mma, then it makes sense for him to change to that career.

cross_trainer

07-10-2007, 09:26 AM

Boxing became a stand out art on its own; Figg was indeed an expert with a sword and cudgel, before putting bareknuckle exibitions into his traveling show.

He also engaged in "all in" wrestling contests very similar to those "Ring Buch" mentions. I would consider Broughton the first true fisticuffs champion.

Wrestling was allowed above the belt under Broughton and London prize rules, but since Queensberry Rules (1867) that has not been the case.

As late as the 1890's really. If you look at LPR, it's essentially that era's MMA, since other than standup wrestling and boxing little else in the way of martial arts were familiar in England.

Pro wrestling like you have said will co-exist with boxing.

What would it take to convince you that MMA is not fake, not "gay", and a legitimate sport? If your requirements are doable, I shall be glad to attempt it.

TBooze

07-10-2007, 10:00 AM

What would it take to convince you that MMA is not fake, not "gay", and a legitimate sport? If your requirements are doable, I shall be glad to attempt it.

I'm 33 now, maybe if was 15 you could persuade me of its values, but I still watch it occasionally, the old Undertaker still going I noticed!;)

cross_trainer

07-10-2007, 10:02 AM

I'm 33 now, maybe if was 15 you could persuade me of its values, but I still watch it occasionally, the old Undertaker still going I noticed!;)

:lol:

Well, you're tenacious...I give you that.

UpWithEvil

07-10-2007, 10:16 AM

Boxing fucked itself up good and proper. MMA will be bigger than boxing in 10 years, and still in 100 years.

cross_trainer

07-10-2007, 10:21 AM

Boxing fucked itself up good and proper. MMA will be bigger than boxing in 10 years, and still in 100 years.

I would suspect the opposite--that it will run out of momentum, just as kickboxing in the 70's and 80's did. It has only been big for a few years, whereas boxing has a historical anchor in our culture.

Stonehands89

07-10-2007, 12:21 PM

I would suspect the opposite--that it will run out of momentum, just as kickboxing in the 70's and 80's did. It has only been big for a few years, whereas boxing has a historical anchor in our culture.

Absolutely. And it is unlikely that anyone in the MMA will stand out for long. To wit: Liddell who was KOd with a right hook from an orthodox position of all things. Street fights are like that -there is too much to look out for and aggression is the single most important factor in it. In boxing, it is not aggression that usually tells the difference, it is skill.

Boxing is specialized... and therefore dominance can be established easier because you don't have to worry about feet and legs and knees and elbows.

MMA is more primal and Darwinian... but boxing combines that with skill specialization and science. I see chess in boxing -but not in MMA.

Doppleganger

07-10-2007, 05:03 PM

Boxing is specialized... and therefore dominance can be established easier because you don't have to worry about feet and legs and knees and elbows.

MMA is more primal and Darwinian... but boxing combines that with skill specialization and science. I see chess in boxing -but not in MMA.
I'm not so sure I agree with you on this. MMA is specialized, except you have to be specialized in 3 different areas. I know this is slightly a contradiction but I mean that you need to have good skills in stand-up, clinch and groundwork in order to successful. There is undoubtedly chess in MMA. If you have 2 guys who are excellent on the ground you will see a lot of tactics involved in trying to get good position and get submissions. It's not just about throwing your opponent on the deck and battering the shit outa him, although sometimes that does work. MMA is no more primal nor Darwinian than boxing IMO.

As for MMA going the way of the Kickboxing craze I'm not so sure. MMA via the UFC in particular has the advantage of modern media and exposure, which just wasn't there back in the 70's or 80's. UFC shows are getting sold out here in the UK, possible because of the hype but also because there are fewer and fewer boxing shows being put on. Other than those shows in Europe, UFC is free over here and that is another factor for its increased take-up. Remember when boxing was free too and along came pay-per-view and changed the landscape forever. This will probably happen with syndicates like the UFC but in the meantime the momentum is growing.

McGrain

07-10-2007, 05:09 PM

Boxing is specialized... and therefore dominance can be established easier because you don't have to worry about feet and legs and knees and elbows.

But there are more nuances. That is to say a 15 degree turn to the left on the back heel can spell disaster in cutting of the ring (or failing to) and cost you a round. You have to worry about that. This is not as important in MMA in its current form. In my opinion you have MORE to worry about in boxing at the highest level.

MMA is more primal and Darwinian... but boxing combines that with skill specialization and science. I see chess in boxing -but not in MMA.

Not more, for me, but as much. Basically what is primal within the fighter, and certainly what is Darwinian is destroyed in training (though elemements of both are certainly tapped.

I see chess in neither bro.

McGrain

07-10-2007, 05:11 PM

This isn't true at all. MMA involves all forms of useful combat coming into one to see who is the most well-rounded and who can utilize rtheir strengths the best. There is a lot more involved in MMA than boxing. Boxing may be a more aesthetically pleasing sport when done at it's best, but MMA can be as well.

I don't agree with the highlighted part at all Sweet Pea...but then we've had this before, way back when I first joined.