MMA vs Traditional Boxing Which is the Best?

Question

I have done tkd for several years and have just started mma and was wondering what everyone thinks is better and better to know in a fight

Answer 1

MMA is a far superior form of defense, and incorporates boxing into the mix too. Since street fights are very unpredictable, going in with something so mechanic like boxing will most likely see you fail. With MMA, you have the ability to adapt to any situation, from Ju-jitsu on the ground to a combo of arts such as kickboxing and standard boxing on the feet.

Answer 2

In theory, MMA is better.

Answer 3

I think this all depends on the practitioner, really.  A really good boxer will take out a mediocre MMA guy, same goes the other way around.  It's like any athletic endeavor, talent + time = competence.

Answer 4

MMA clear.

Answer 5

Depends on the practitioner and how experienced and skilled they are.

Better still, avoid fights altogether, that's the best form of self defence.

Answer 6

any martial art is better than boxing any day.

Answer 7

MMA and my prime example is in boxing

when you dodge punches you go back forward side to side, head movements

and duck

if you duck in MMA you put yourself in line for a kick or a knee to your face

this is why in MMA most boxers would get knocked out

Answer 8

First let me say that OpinionatedKitty made a great point in that 95% of fights are avoidable and how to respond to a life-threatening situation.  Do not forget than virtually EVERY unsanctioned, unplanned fight IS a life or death situation.  the Human body, with no protective equipment, can be extremely fragile, and death or permanent disability can happen!  The wild haymaker, broken bottle, or discarded chair are all equally capable of killing you, and you dont know if when you get into a "real life" fight that your assailant is gonna stop hitting you after you quit fighting back.

That being said, however, too many people fail to realize that boxing is a martial art.  look up the definitions.  But MMA doesnt translate well to a "real fight".  It's training certainly does, and how you can incorporate it, no different than TKD or boxing, or even wrestling.  In a threat environment, normally the first effective single blow landed determines the fight, and generally speaking, a well aimed punch to the nose or strong quick kick to the abdomen will take the fight out of the average joe and allow you to safely escape.  In a threat environment, it will certainly allow you to use a few effective follow up strikes if this hasnt incapacitated your attacker.

Any person who trains in any martial art has a huge advantage over someone who doesn't, plain and simple.  It's not about the technique, but the training.  Training develops instincts so that you react differently in stress situations, and thats where responsibility comes in. If you are a trained fighter and you provoke or dont do everything in your power to prevent a fight with an untrained person, you lack honor.

Two trained fighters are both going to go to revert to training, but you will probably never have to fight a trained fighter in a "real" fight.  You two are both smart enough (hopefully) to realise the huge repurcussions of a bare knuckled fist on a bony face, which will almost always result in a nasty cut and possibly a broken hand.  So your training now is probably sufficient for the ever elusive real fight.

Several years ago, I worked security at a large night club, and in almost every situation, I could have performed my job without hurting the person needing escorted out.  For a whle my ego caused me to force a situation so that I could beat up the idiot in question.  This isnt to say I was a "super bada$$" just that I had all the advantages, except maturity.  Im not proud of it, and I learned the hard way that it really doesnt make you any better.  When you are drunk, facing a trained fighter, there really isn't a whole lot thats gonna help you out. Hope this helps.

Answer 9

Basketball or hockey, which is the best?

They're both sports.

This kind of question arises from the misconception that street fights and ritualized one-on-one fighting are more or less the same thing. They're not. Street fights are often won by the bigger sociopath: The guy who's willing to go further faster. There are no guarantee of one on one involvement, that there will be no weapons, and a lot of those MMA take-downs you wouldn't want to try on asphalt.

Martial arts for street fighting? Remember that old joke about bringing a knife to a gunfight? It fits. Self-defense is a much wider issue. Once you leave the world of schoolyard fights, most people try not to engage in that sort of thing. It's antisocial behavior and cops typically arrest the winner - because he's usually the instigator. (i.e. assaulter). There's no glamor or glory in it. It's antisocial behavior, plain and simple.

Let's look at the situations in which you would use this in a "real" fight. 95 percent of the time, you're in an avoidable "honor" type of situation. Some drunk in a bar makes a comment you don't like, you're involved in a fender-bender and heated words get exchanged, etc.. The fact is none of these are self-defence, some guy looks at another guy funny, etc... None of these are actual self-defence situation. And the courts will see it as such. Ritualized combat in these instances are crimes, plain and simple.

The other five percent is where you would be legitimately justified in defending yourself, i.e. facing a criminal assaulter who is giving you no choice. In that case, you'd have to be crazy to just stand there and fight him till submission. He's a criminal: You don't want to engage in fighting with him! And he doesn't want to fight you either. He'll take the nearest object and bash your head in if he has to and so should you. This is the type of situation where you shouldn't be fooling around trying to prove how good you are at unharmed combat: Get out whichever way you can and go back to a crowded place. You have absolutely nothing to prove to a criminal assaulter.

In any case, what you see in both boxing and MMA is still bound by rules which makes it very different from any "real life" scenarios. It's not all about techniques. Reality is much wider than the techniques of unarmed combat between two individuals.

Street-smarts is a much better long term investment than any set of MA skills.

Answer 10

They are different sports so its a matter of opinion, but I look at it this way, A very good MMA fighter could be a pretty boxer with no extra training. However a very good boxer would be a terrible MMA fighter with no extra training.

On top of that best way to not get hurt in a fight is to go to the ground and hold the person till they quit, throwing punches without gloves will get you broken hands at the least, and boxing doesnt train you for the ground.

Answer 11

people are saying some true things and getting mixed up on others.

1-1 MMA beats boxing hands down.

But boxing comes back into its own when you consider 99% of fights are 1 punch affairs anyway. Some a*****e at a party, some bum asking for money, some drunk thug in a night club, some bully at school whatever.

Most such 'street fights' are started and ended with the one punch and boxers both throw and block it the best.

Also for multiple opponent affairs the best bet is to hit the first guy and run...boxing wins again.

This is why boxing, not MMA was taught to most soldiers back in the old days.

MMA beats boxing but for most scenarios boxing will do and is simpler to learn.