Boxing more dangerous than mma

[Kickboxer101]

So you often hear the argument boxing is actually more dangerous than mma due to repeated blows to the head where as in mma you have more options so take less head shots. Honestly I disagree with that. Yeah you may not take as many punches to the head but you still take knees to the head, kicks to the head, elbows to the head, getting slammed on your back or neck or head, getting your limbs yanked and possibly broken, getting choked unconscious and getting your legs wrecked with kicks.

Now that's not me hating on mma I'm a huge fan of the sport and owns hundreds of ufc events on DVD but it is more dangerous than boxing In my opinion. I personally feel that line was just said to try and get approval for mma back in the day because In theory it makes sense your not getting punched as much so people who aren't properly aware of mma will believe that

 

[drop bear]

Broken arms are probably less dangerous than brain damage.

 

[Tez3]

Broken arms are probably less dangerous than brain damage.

Agreed. The point is that in boxing even the sparring is to the head. Strikes to the head don't have to be hard to cause damage, the brain bounces off the skull however soft the blow. The boxer's main target is to the head, yes there are body strikes but they will score less and won't KO hence all the head strikes. In MMA there are far less head strikes because there are so many other targets to go for, there is also submissions which don't involve striking the head. One of the main problems in boxing is the 8 count where a concussed fighter can, if he gets up, carries on fighting thus compounding the damage to the brain.
In MMA you 'may' get strikes to the head as the OP, in boxing you will be taking head blows.
Getting slammed on your back is actually unlikely to hurt much because, you know, you learn to breakfall! Broken limbs are actually rare, getting choked unconscious doesn't hurt at all, it's called a choke but actually isn't a 'choke'.

It's good being a fan but I think you should educate yourself about MMA before making wild surmises about the dangers.

 

[mograph]

Hm. Not sure.
Study: MMA brain injury risk higher than boxing

Same study, different news outlet:
MMA fighters suffer traumatic brain injury in almost a third of professional bouts: study

One on boxing:
Boxing's History with CTE

TBI in general:
TBI: Get the Facts | Concussion | Traumatic Brain Injury | CDC Injury Center

Quote from the National Post link, referring to the U of T study:
"It is among the first scientific reviews of MMA’s concussion-related dangers, as other contact sports increasingly focus on the head-trauma issue."

 

[Ironbear24]

I honestly think the heavier the gloves the more dangerous it is. More weight being pressed into your skull is never a good thing.

 

[mograph]

I honestly think the heavier the gloves the more dangerous it is. More weight being pressed into your skull is never a good thing.

That might not make much of a difference. From the link below: "... it is the changes in
acceleration to the head as a whole that tears the blood vessels, not the impact with the glove."
As far as I can tell, they're talking about contrecoup injuries, which happen when the brain is injured by bouncing around inside the head.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...D0A4F7A?doi=10.1.1.110.6345&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

[Tez3]

MMA fighters take less blows to the head during training. All blows to the head cause some damage, American football and rugby are more dangerous than MMA because of the frequency of their playing. An MMA fighter doesn't fight every week. The heavier gloves do allow harder hitting which does result in the brain hitting the skull harder and it may well mean the brain moving more backwards and forwards which is what causes the damage. As I said the 8 count in boxing is unsafe, in MMA when you go down you are out.
There is no sport that is 100% safe, you weigh up the risks and you take your chance. If you spar light contact with head shots however light you still rattle your brain around causing damage, you don't even have to compete. There are less head strikes in MMA comps and training so yes MMA is safer than boxing but there are always risks.

 

[drop bear]

Hm. Not sure.
Study: MMA brain injury risk higher than boxing

Same study, different news outlet:
MMA fighters suffer traumatic brain injury in almost a third of professional bouts: study

One on boxing:
Boxing's History with CTE

TBI in general:
TBI: Get the Facts | Concussion | Traumatic Brain Injury | CDC Injury Center

Quote from the National Post link, referring to the U of T study:
"It is among the first scientific reviews of MMA’s concussion-related dangers, as other contact sports increasingly focus on the head-trauma issue."

I had a quick look. And i think the study is a bit wrong.

If you disallowed standing counts in boxing you would have more tkos but because they rest a guy long enough to fight after he has gone stankey leg. The fight continues.

So boxers are taking the dame damage but then fighting on.

 

[mograph]

There is no sport that is 100% safe, you weigh up the risks and you take your chance.

I'd rather risk a busted knee on the squash court (yes, I wear goggles -- a full visor, actually) than a TBI in the ring.

 

[Skullpunch]

I personally feel that line was just said to try and get approval for mma back in the day because In theory it makes sense your not getting punched as much so people who aren't properly aware of mma will believe that

Actually, the time when this argument was made most often was back when they had no gloves, which seriously limited punches to the head, which made the "mma is safer" argument 100% true at the time. It's not until the boxing commission insisted on adding gloves and wrist wraps in order to make it more entertaining (although they said it was to make it "safer" even though it had the exact opposite effect).

Fewer punches also limits your ability to set up kicks to the head and obviously it severely limits GnP. All of these factors point to NHB (but not MMA) being much, much safer than boxing, at least from a brain damage standpoint.

Now joint damage, on the other hand…MMA's definitely worse when it comes to that for what should be obvious reasons.

 

[Tez3]

I personally feel that line was just said to try and get approval for mma back in the day because In theory it makes sense your not getting punched as much so people who aren't properly aware of mma will believe that

I think this is a rather silly statement in that you are calling MMA people liars and non MMA people stupid. 'Back in the day', when would that have been then?
You need to understand the damage a strike to the head causes, you need to understand that boxing punches cause more damage because of the wrapped hands enable a harder punch which causes more movement of the brain and you need to understand how boxers train then you need to understand MMA. In fact just learning about these sports would be in order because I really dislike being called a liar.

 

[JR 137]

While the immediate head trauma is a concern (just got punched in the head once and KOed), it's not the main and only concern. The concern is the repeated lighter head shots having a cumulative effect.

To put it in a more understandable way... take a soccer player. They typically don't get concussed by heading the ball. Doing it over and over again over the course of a long career has a pronounced effect. This was the same reason for a push for amateur boxing to get rid of head gear (I think they eliminated it, but don't hold me to it). This is also an argument with boxing gloves vs bare knuckle. It's not the single blow (although that's obviously important), it's the lighter repeated stuff that goes asymptomatic.

The brain constantly gets jarred around slightly, and there's no symptoms. Over the course of years of this, and it all adds up. Memory lapses, mood swings, depression, suicidal thoughts and acts, etc. are all symptoms of the repeated trauma.

Is it worse to get a concussion from a single blow or have the cumulative effect of slight unnoticed trauma? There's no way to scientifically be definitive. In order to test it scientifically, you have to intentionally subject your subjects to head trauma, and eliminate any outside factors. Impossible and unethical to do. All we can do is study when it happens and theorize. And there's too many outside factors involved to make an undisputed statement.

To say one is safer than the other with certainty is impossible. Not to mention that people are discussing (unintentional) different risk factors/types of trauma. Is it safer in the short term (less KOs) or the long term (less instances to problems in 10, 20, 30+ years after ceasing competition and training)? Defining what you're looking at will help answer some questions, but not definitely. Perhaps when technology increases we'll have a more definitive answer.

 

[Tez3]

This was the same reason for a push for amateur boxing to get rid of head gear (I think they eliminated it, but don't hold me to it).

They have got rid of head guards in men's amateur but not women's. Go figure.

The cumulative effects of punches to the held are always going to be more for boxers than MMA people, for some MMA fighters who fight amateur rules there are no strikes to the head whatsoever, wheras amateur boxers take strikes the same as the pros. Boxers spar repeatedly with punches to the ehad, however light, MMA fighters spar with strikes to the head far less often. Calling MMA people liars though is lazy thinking on the part of the OP.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

They have got rid of head guards in men's amateur but not women's. Go figure.

I had no idea that they made this distinction. What was the reasoning behind it? I can't imagine any actual logical argument to take head guards out from one gender but not the other.

 

[Tez3]

I had no idea that they made this distinction. What was the reasoning behind it? I can't imagine any actual logical argument to take head guards out from one gender but not the other.

Who knows! The AIBA is a law unto itself. Before the London Olympics we had to fight to allow female boxers to wear either shorts or skirts when they'd said the females must wear skirts, they allowed shorts only after a massive email campaign which I'm proud to say I contributed to. The rules regarding head guards for women are also that they are put on in the ring 'so that the spectators can see they are females fighting'. It's a rule that is too stupid to actually warrant a comment.
AIBA CONFIRM RIO 2016 OLYMPIC GAMES WILL BE HEADGUARD-FREE FOR FIRST TIME IN 32 YEARS - AIBA

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Who knows! The AIBA is a law unto itself. Before the London Olympics we had to fight to allow female boxers to wear either shorts or skirts when they'd said the females must wear skirts, they allowed shorts only after a massive email campaign which I'm proud to say I contributed to. The rules regarding head guards for women are also that they are put on in the ring 'so that the spectators can see they are females fighting'. It's a rule that is too stupid to actually warrant a comment.
AIBA CONFIRM RIO 2016 OLYMPIC GAMES WILL BE HEADGUARD-FREE FOR FIRST TIME IN 32 YEARS - AIBA

Well, that's just plain stupid!

 

[KangTsai]

I think boxing is generally more susceptible to competitors having severe head injuries because of the option to continue the fight after a knockout. If you give up on your first knocking down, you lose, so I think boxing's rules generally encourage fighters to risk serious injury, contrary to MMA rules where fights are ended immediately on the first knockout.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I had no idea that they made this distinction. What was the reasoning behind it? I can't imagine any actual logical argument to take head guards out from one gender but not the other.

Because the research on the relative risks was conducted on men. In the absence of scientific data on women's risk they defaulted to keeping the status quo.