Or if you're just kinda dumb.

Yes, boxing does put on some very good fights. At least, it does in the Main Event, with boxers that have already established themselves as the world's best.

But the undercards? The up-and-coming boxers? They are rarely even worth watching. The fighters and promoters pick and choose those early fights to try to manufacture undefeated records to build themselves up.
How many undercard fights would you put in your list of best boxing matches of 2012?
Now answer the same question of MMA fights.

What happens if a boxer loses one of his first three fights? His career is probably over before it started.

In the MMA? That guy turns into Anderson Silva or Chuck Liddell. The difference? In the MMA, the fighter (typically) doesn't choose their own fights. And that means the fights are more competitive, because they're organized by people who's priority is putting on good fights, in order to earn more money for the organization, instead of hyping up an individual (to earn more money for that individual). It's still a system run by greed, but one system is inherently more beneficial to the audience than the other.

Yes, boxers make more money when they hit the big time. But again, that goes to the above. In Boxing, time and effort go into hyping the individual, above the sport as a whole.

I agree that both sports CAN be awesome. But boxing frustrates me so much more, because the fighters and the promoters have final say on which fights they take.


And as far as UFC, Bellator, K-1 etc.. that's besides the point. The point is, each of those organizations puts on the best fights they can, pitting evenly matched fighters together. They aren't (usually) concerned with building up a fighters record by giving him easy fights.