highthief

I'll give it a go, and by speaking as someone with an extensive background in boxing, may it will have some positive effect (or not):

1. Pot, meet kettle ...

2. There are two reasons for this in comparison to boxing. First, if you have a blue-chip boxing prospect, you give him guys you absolutely know he can beat for his first 15-20 fights. So people like Tyson, Ray Leonard, Ali, etc were virtually guaranteed a 100% winning percentage as they headed into their championship years. The same system does not (yet) exist in MMA - while smart fighters try not to get in over their heads too early in their careers, the luxury of fighting complete chumps, as Tyson et al had for their early years, does not exist. They will end up losing a couple of fights on the way up.

Second, and more critically, because one must learn to fight and defend against multiple styles, it is virtually impossible to be able to defeat every style every time. A given fighter might be well suited to crushing boxers and wrestlers, but is vulnerable to ji-jitsu, or vice versa.

Further, MMA relies on a wider array of physical skills than does boxing. To win at boxing, in addition to sound tactics, you are ideally a fast, strong, and long lasting puncher with the ability to take, block and slip a punch (especially slip and block). In MMA you need all those skills plus the same skills with your feet, with your core, and with your hands - or to put it another way, Floyd Mayweather would beat Ricky Hatton 10/10 based entirely on being Hatton's equal in terms of punching strength and general stamina, but his vast superior in terms of speed. Because of the greater dimensionality of MMA, such an advantage is not sufficient to guarantee victory. Their are multiple ways to win, even against an opponent who is, in raw terms, physically superior.

Anyway, that's it from me ...

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.