As an ex boxer and martial artist I completely disagree with this statement.
Without wanting to go into my own credentials (let's just say I'm very familiar with both), fair enough. But this is eveyrthing that backs up my "in theory" qualifier:
First, by simple definition, MMA has more dimensions because you are able to do more things. It is more complex since you can do everything you can do in boxing times 10. Can you knee in boxing? Can you elbow? Can you throw someone to the ground?
Also, in Boxing, you only have to worry about being punched.
In MMA, you have to worry about being punched, kicked, elbowed, kneed, body slammed, taken to the ground, submitted, and or any combination of the above.
If MMA was realised to its full potential as a sport, there would be many more dimensions to it than boxing. As it is, not in the slightest. In MMA we have essentially two types of fighting: stand-up and ground, with lots of different martial arts in between. Wrestling vs jiu-jitsu, judo vs BJJ, roughly American-style boxing vs muy thai, kickboxing etc. There's not much besides that. Where the difference comes in is how proficient each fighter is in each area, with the aim to be a jack-of-all-trades (Anderson Silva) rather than a master of one (Cro Cop). Simplified for the sake of time, but representative.
In boxing there is so much more to look out for. Defensive boxing, for instance, is an art unto itself. There's been a lot of MMA interest in Floyd Mayweather because of his defensive supremacy, but this I think displays ignorance of just how good this artform can get. Compare, if you will, the poetry of body movement that was displayed by Pernell Whitaker, the other truly great boxer since the days of Sugar Ray Leonard, to the relatively clumsy ducks of, say, Anderson Silva. Within defensive boxing we again have different styles: the shoulder roll as performed by PBF, the peek-a-boo employed by Miguel Cotto. We have outside fighters who like to get defensive or guys who don't mind defending on the inside. Some outside fighters are counter-punchers, who employ check-hooks, others are jabbers. We have inside sluggers or inside swarmers, straight punchers, and mid-range boxers. There are, as in MMA, strategists, blood-and-guts fighters and guys who simply fight to thier strengths. But the main difference is the "boxing" in MMA doesn't have nearly this depth, and even with the extra ground and striking elements added hasn't got the history or weight to make it up.
Expanding on that, boxers have had a long time to get good at this. A long time. Styles have gone in and out of fashion over this period and training techniques have improved. As I understand it, boxers generally train longer and harder than MMA fighters, and this is believeable when you consider the currently more high-tech facilities available and the major factor that is the greater emphasis placed upon weight differences in boxing. You'd be hard-pressed to find an MMA fighter who moved up and down in weight as constantly and as impressively as a Roberto Duran. Even Manny Pacquiao has taken on divisions that should be beyond his natural physical range. In addition to that, boxers are generally fighting longer than MMA guys. Cro Cop was washed up at 32, Wanderlei considered past his prime before he was 30, Big Nog peaked around 30, and so on. Weight and age and how the fighters adapt is a larger dimension in boxing, where guys regularly fight on until they're pushing 40, than in MMA which only has Randy Couture to show for that sort of freakish longevity. And even then, Couture was slapped around twice by a mere one-dimensional out-of-shape counter-puncher like Chuck Liddell before he toppled a crippled Tim Sylvia.
Which also brings up the point about prestige and records. The UFC Heavywieght title is undoubtedly a joke, but even the most respectable title in MMA cannot hold a candle to its boxing counterpart. Not simply due to the massive difference in time-spans, but also the comparatively unimpressive records of the "top" UFC guys. Lesnar, Sylvia, Arlovski, Mir would all be curtain-pullers in boxing with those records, Lesnar probably not even that.
This is not a slur against MMA, simply an acknowledgement it, being a much younger sport, has a long way to go, as well as something of a fight back against the asinine suggestion I keep hearing that boxing is encorporated into MMA, ostensibly proving the latter's superiority.
You are way off base here. On the surface, it looks like the MMA guys aren't that good of boxers, but that isn't the case.
It is. I'm actually looking forward to any cross-over fights that occur under boxing rules, because you take the best from MMA, put them in a boxing ring and they will get knocked out. I guarantee you.
In professional Boxing, you use 10 ounce gloves. In a sense, you have two volleyballs on the ends of your fist increasing the volume by over 200%. This does a lot of things. Distributes the force over a larger area (making it harder to knock someone out). It also makes it way easier to block and protect your face and body.
In MMA you use 4 ounce gloves which only increase the volume of your fist by 40%. Boxing defenses DO NOT WORK in MMA. In boxing, you simply lift your hands to the sides of your face to protect about 80% of your head. In MMA, lifting your hands to the sides of your face only protects 30% of your head. Hands can still sneak right through. And since more force lands with a punch, it is a lot easier to knock someone out in MMA than in Boxing.
This argument could only be put forward by someone who was ignorant of boxing defence. In any case, I'm well aware of the difference in gloves. What people who knock MMA for being more dangerous due to the lighter gloves fail to take into account is the fact you cannot hit as hard as if you are wearing 10 ounce gloves without breaking your hand. Defending is, on the surface, easier due to the percentage of face covered in boxing, but also far, far more vital. In spite of this, MMA fights are ended after two or three undefended strikes, whilst as many as thirty could conceivably be thrown in boxing due to the surface area factor. Yup, you have more limbs to worry about in MMA, but more devastating strikes in boxing (with the exceptions of the very rarely seen muy thai jumping knee or kickboxing head kick, neither of which make many appearances these days).
As for the ground game.
MMA fans have grown with the sport and now have come to realize it. In fact, many times you will here louder cheers for the ground game than stand up.
The cool thing is that MMA keeps evolving as these fighters figure out more submissions, more submisison defense/counters, more counters to the counters.
In one of the recent fights, I saw someone get out of a rear naked choke. It was amazing, the crowd went wild.
I'm more than aware this is a matter of taste, but as I said, it is generally acknowledged that stand-up fights are more exciting. As a ground-fighter myself I can appreciate the intricacies but find a brawl far more interesting to watch than your standard ground-and-pound.
