Better Bang For Your Buck: Boxing or UFC?
|Kid isn't old enough to drink. But he's old enough to turn pro.|
The kid is immensely cocky, tiny - would you believe 5-foot-4 and around 118 pounds? - and has the world by the short hairs. You'll want to hate him, but you'll wind up loving him. Here, read for yourself.
Yanez fights as a pro for the first time Friday night at AAC. I'll be there. You?
If you haven't noticed, boxing needs charismatic up-n-comers like Yanez. The sport isn't dead, but it's on life support. From what I can tell, UFC/MMA has boxing's sweet science in an arm bar.
Have you seen a UFC fight? Better yet, when's the last time you attended a boxing match?
Boxing's golden age of Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns and Tyson has gone the way of 8-tracks and stewardesses. Quick, name the heavyweight champion of the world.
Trick question, because there are four of them. Two are named Klitschko - Vitali and Wladimir. The other two? Ruslan Chagaev and Nicolay Valuev. Where's Rocky when we finally need him?
While boxing drowns in a confusing bowl of WBC/IBF/WBA/WBO alphabet soup, UFC seems to be overtaking poker as America's latest sports fad. I watched a fight recently - St. Pierre over Penn - and, I admit, thoroughly enjoyed it. As opposed to boxing, there are countless avenues to victory. Less slugging; more strategy. Boxing always looks to me like the strongest, longest dude will win. But UFC looks like when you used to wrestle your brother in the back yard. Rules? Pffffffft.
It got me to wondering, who would last longer: A UFC fighter in a boxing match? Or a boxer in a UFC fight?
Sorry, Luis. Gimme the UFC fighter.