Lately, there's been a profusion of boxing versus mixed-martial arts debates circulating around the sports world. As a die-hard fan of neither, I am largely disinterested when debating the merits of the two sports.
Prior to writing this article, though, it dawned on me... what exactly are Hodes and I debating? Is it which sport requires the most athletic prowess? Is it which one is more of sport? After some thought, I came to the conclusion that it is not either of these, but rather, as ESPN would put it, which sport is more "Now."
Upon first glance, one could certainly make a case for MMA -- the sport has exploded onto the scene, riding the coat tails of the vicious yet oddly unassuming Chuck Liddell.
The sport is extremely entertaining, as well -- watching Liddell pounce around the ring and then mutilate an opponent with a fury of punches to achieve victory provides fans with a tremendous amount of temporary entertainment and excitement.
On the other hand, I have found one primary reason why boxing is still more "Now" than mixed-martial arts. First, the sport lacks the veritable history that boxing, to say the least, has. Considering I deemed this argument a question of "Now" about 50 words ago, readers are probably scratching their heads and trying to muster an explanation for why my first point emphasizes boxing's place in sports lore. I'll tell you why. The sport's rich tradition and multitude of recognizable famous athletes buttresses boxing's case against MMA for one primary reason. As a result of said historical clout, boxing is much better understood and analyzed.
When debating the merits of current fighters, boxing experts need not look only to the present, comparing contemporary fighters but also to the past.
It's easy to see that evaluating the merits of the jab, an up-and-comer in the boxing world will benefit from taking a look at the greatest jabber of all time, Muhammad Ali.
Experts on mixed-martial arts have significantly less "material" to use to properly frame their analysis. As a result, at least for the time being, experts on MMA will be wanton for the tools necessary to generate interesting and "complete" debates.
I'll admit, mixed-martial arts, and in particular it's most popular league, UFC, is an extremely tough sport -- one that takes an incredible amount of versatility, endurance and athletic ability. However, boxing stands toe-to-toe with mixed-martial arts on all these fronts, and, as I said, it's has a much sturdier historical "base" that gives experts far more substance to generate more pristine, informed discourse when comparing the cream of the crop in their sport.
Lastly, I'll leave my loyal toe to toe readers with a quote from Sugar Ray Leonard himself: "Boxing is the ultimate challenge. There's nothing that can compare to testing yourself the way you do every time you step in the ring."
Though Sugar Ray certainly wasn't considering the merits of mixed-martial arts when he uttered these timeless words, can we really question the merits of the sport he speaks of in favor of an upstart, just recently popularized sport. That's a rhetorical question.
