I had a whole long post to submit about 25 min. ago, but I accidentally hit "ctrl+w", and it totally cleared the thoughts I had put to type for the past 20+ min., and I'm abit distraught about that occurrence.
So, I'll just post what is most pertinent now, and the last vestige that I can currently remember of my forgotten post...
Strange Famous: You have a very noble, chivalrous to a fault, and yes, narrow-minded logic to how women are meant to be perceived in the athletic arena, and you also hold an unconvincingly-provincial stance on how a man is
supposed to fight. Sure, there are clear rules about how to do so in boxing, and whereas those restrictions are much more lax within the realm of MMA, there are definite and stop-gap measures in place to ensure that this brutal contest can be as safe and fair as possible. This is not only in order to ensure the longevity of the subset of athletes that have voluntarily sought to persue the pinnacles of what MMA has to offer, but to also legitimatize in the eyes of the media that this sport is legit, & indeed can minimalize the happenstances of foul play and forced luck. This sport is as serious any other you can name, perhaps moreso than boxing, baseball, basketball, etc., in which there have been numerous revelations of cheating scandals; and the idea that you still have to reach into the reservoir of your long-held notions & recollections of what was golden-age of boxing's popularity to still assist your arguments, it really unveils what your true motives are to continuing the debate. You are not ready to let go--boxing is on the decline, MMA is suddenly on the rise, and you feel the need to herald a sport that has not been as culturally-relevant in the past two decades as mixed-martial arts has proved to be, just to protect/promote something that was once your favorite venue of entertainment. Unless you can judge MMA on its own merits, and quit comparing it to the old days of boxing, and "wrestling actors", this congregation of contending approaches and counterpoints will loop incessantly and without end.
Mixed-martial arts did not sprout forth from boxing and/or primetime wrestling; it arose primarly from the Greco-Roman style of catch wrestling, and more relevantly, the UFC exhibition evolved from the vale tudo events promoted by a certain Mestre duo, the
Gracie brothers, and a similar occurrence which was happening in Japan that arranged the first formation of a tangible mma organization, called the 'Shuto' (sp?), both of which came into existence in-between the early 1920s up 'til the mid-1980s. MMA has no need, or honorific duty, to follow the formula in which you seem to attribute to boxing, a delusioned notion of 'a chivalrous bout among men to ascertain which is the best iron-fisted gentleman'. That is not how or why boxing was formed, it was rarely depicted in that fashion even in decades past, and it is as much a good, visceral and vicarious spectator sport as is now the UFC, Elite-XC, and the ilk--but the thrill is now being shared by the majority of the population, whereas you, now in the minority of those that still enjoy the spectacle of gloved fisticuffs, seek to disparage the image of what it has become just to save the face of a dwindling sport, your precious and glinted vision of what boxing is/was.
Don't knock the future just to recount the past--you end up getting left there yourself.