|
Strange, wtf?
Do we really have to do this again?
Being on your back in an INTEGRAL part of MMA. Until you understand this FUNDAMENTAL truth, don't bother lecturing us on cowardice vs. "manliness." You simply refuse to understand the sport.
Wrestling takes TONS of skill. And MMA fights are no more a lottery than boxing matches are. There are no reigning champions in lotteries. The same person doesn't win the lottery over and over again. Two people are going at it using their wits and skills. More often that not, the best fighters rise to the top of the heap. That's called fighting. It's a sport. Look it up.
Your statement that "MMA has no history" is meaningless. It hasn't been popular for as long as boxing has, for one thing, but once it has, then I guess it will have some history. Are you seriously arguing against something's validity simply because it hasn't been popular for long enough? What about the recession? Is that real? How long has it been going now? Long enough to be considered real?
You can keep your boxing history, because that's all it is: ancient history. The heyday of boxing is over, all the stars are gone, the majority of quality fighters are gone (there are a few shining exceptions, of course), and the old pay-per-view king has been replaced with a newer, more talented, more exciting champion: MMA. That's just the way it is.
What really bugs me about your confused stance is this: I enjoy boxing, and watch it often, and really wish there were more interesting fights out there. Fact is, there just aren't nearly as many as in MMA. MMA is STACKED with good fighters and good fights.
And training for two months won't even get you a second look on The Ultimate Fighter tryouts, much less a win in the octagon/ring. Ray Mercer should have taught you that.
__________________
Bad Luck City
|