How many players in boxing?

Answer 1

The sport, right now, is most popular in Europe and Japan but it is gaining increasing ground in the U.S. Also, the fact is that K-1 is a much larger fighting body than Pride or the UFC combined. K-1 champions make more money than UFC or Pride ones, across all weight divisions. K-1 I know, is bigger than the UFC and Pride put together, in Japan and Europe specially, its HUGE, however, it is not as big as Boxing was from the 30's to 60's. K-1 is rapidly gaining ground in the U.S., because a lot of people practice Martial Arts for one, so that alone secures an audience. First, second, kickboxers are respected and feared even by MMA fighters; there are guys out there in the world of kickboxing, that very rarely need to grapple. Many K-1 guys do train in grappling as a "backup" emergency thing but the majority of their fights in MMA runs, be it Pride or the UFC, are almost always won by knockout.

Back when it was "striking vs grappling," kickboxers generally gave a much better showing than all other striking Martial Arts. Jason DeLucia made a good showing for Kung Fu, at least until he got his arm broken and dislocated by Gracie. Except for Kickboxers, when DeLucia was up against other strikers, he dominated Kenpo and Karate guys. You can rent videos of classic UFC bouts from the 1990's; you will observe that kickboxers tended to hold their own, and sometimes even win, against hardcore grapplers. Although grappling holds the better win reccord over striking, the majority of grapplers had a terrible time with the kickboxers, specially the K-1 guys, most dangerous of all where the dudes who practiced Muay Thai. As a single style, Muay Thai has become the most respected and feared martial art in the worlds of K-1, the UFC AND Pride FC.

Anyway, moving on, while Muay Thai is certainly not the prettiest martial art to look at, not even the Katas in Muay Thai (yes, Muay Thai uses Kata, just like Karate and Kung Fu, and Tae Kwan Do), are that pretty too look at. Nevertheless the martial art has proven its effectiveness, and it will likely remain in the top 10 fighting styles even after an advanced computer simulation determines, mathematically, which are TRULY the best fighting styles. I can guarantee, Muay Thai will survive the weeding out process of computer sims. It won't be THE best, but it WILL be one of them.

As to how many people, I think overall, the world over there are only around 2 million, across all styles. By "style" I mean, not all kickboxing is Muay Thai; many people combine Tae Kwan Do with Boxing, or this style of Karate with this other style and so on and so forth. Kyokshin Karate is pretty popular, in fact a lot of top guys in the heavyweight division in K-1 are Kyokshin people. The whole thinking that "its the style not the person" and "it boils down to WHO WON, not the style....." comes from the success of top K-1 guys. I need to point out, many kickboxers who have met with success in MMA, they are not even the best at what they do; in fact, Mirko "Cro Cop" Phillipovic, when he entered MMA, his kickboxing career was actually on the downside, I think he was like, number 20 in the world or something. Even at "only" number 20, in the world of MMA he destroyed quite a few people, in both Pride AND the UFC. Okay more Pride; he was pretty "old" by the time he entered the UFC.

For opinions, solid opinions, on the differences between striking and grappling I strongly suggest you at least EYE this book, even if you read the opinions of only a few of them;

http://www.Amazon.com/Grappling-Masters-Jose-M-Fraguas/dp/1933901241/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239403999&sr=8-1

That is in fact the newer version, the one I read at Hastings in college was this one;

http://www.Amazon.com/Grappling-Masters-Book/dp/B001WWY8WQ/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1239403999&sr=8-4

No worries, I think they're the same work. Personally I prefer the one with Helio on the cover; I really don't like his son Rickson, I think the man is a coward. He says "I'm undefeated" when he picks and choses who he grapples, he's never taken on anyone "tough." His father Helio though, is as far from a coward as a man can be. Or was anyway (R.I.P.).

For a more informed and, for an expert opinion, on the differences between grappling and striking I strongly recommend that book. The Grapplers whose opinions and thoughts I read where;

1) Helio Gracie

2) Gogor Vochkagadga something or other, I can't spell or pronounce that. Why do Russians and other slavs have to have such difficult names!?

3) Rickson Gracie, I THINK he's in there somewhere.

4) Bas Rutten

5) Matt "the king of catch" Furey

6) Gene LeBell; sorry, couldn't leave him out.

I in fact read the whole thing, but those six are the ones I remember most.

Matt Furey stated, and what he said made sense I agree with him, that it all boils down to talent pool. You can not compare boxing of the golden age, to boxing now, because in the golden era of boxing, there were more men who did it. If you were a male in the 30's, 40's, or 50's, odds are you boxed. That is no longer true, and, although he was good for his time, Tyson in fact does not compare to the champs of old, the competition was more intense. Also, no, modern day heavyweights are not "bigger;" in the old days, men who were too big simply didn't make it. They were toppled by smaller men in the heavyweight division long before they even reached the top 10 some of them, where do you think the addage "size doesn't matter" comes from? It comes from old school boxing dude; sometimes you had weight differences as large as 60 lbs, a famous example is Dempsey vs Willard. You can not accuse the bigger guy of "taking it easy" either because, hey, if money is involved, size is HIS advantage and trust me, a big dude WILL use it if it means getting money. Against the likes of Dempsey though Willard bit off more than he could chew. Throughout the 30's to 60's, there were similar cases of what would today be considered light heavies toppling true ogres.

So, what this has to do with the difference of striking and grappling, sorry about that; you have a pool of 25 million prize fighters (boxing), vs a pool of 2 million (MMA). Sorry but, the top champs of the pool of 25 million, even though boxing is only a striking game, will outright destroy the top champs of the smaller talent pool. In Tyson's time, boxing was not as big as it was in the "old school" era but it was definitely bigger than it is now, and way bigger than MMA; higher standards, and higher pay, as Furey stated, means that a Mike Tyson in his prime would in all likelihood demolish the majority of MMA guys out there, and all he needs to do it, is his boxing skill, he doesn't need anything else. He's good enough at boxing, that if he was young and motivated again he'd destroy those guys.

Now, of course, if you have a pool of 25 million grapplers, and only 2 million Boxers, the opposite is true. That is why the majority of grapplers in that book all seem to be in agreement; it is indeed more the person than the style, how much work a person puts in, although, the most commonly held view, and I think you will agree most with Gene LeBelle's view, is that its both, its the style AND the person.

The reason the "best fighting style" can not be determined by people, is because even with fights to the death, there is STILL too much of an ability, and more important than that, work ethic difference. A psychotically fanatical Karateka for example, a beast who trains for 12 hours a day and has done so for the past 5 years, will DESTROY MMA guys. I men if he is training that hard he is probably on a different wavelength anyway in his brain, that alone makes him dangerous. It would make ME, dangerous, ANYONE. Sadly I'm not psychotic like that; wish I was though. Then NOBODY would mess with me! Probably wouldn't get laid either thought, I'd be too "creepy." Its a combination of work ethic (most important), "natural ability" (almost as important, although important if you're competing), and the style. Because those three factors are involved, its impossible to determine what the best fighting style is.

Only a computer simulation with a very advanced martial arts program, can guarantee two fighters are identical (literally, exact copies), the only thing different being, fighting style. The answer of which martial art is better, can only be answered mathematically, via advanced computers. The U.S. military has demonstrated that computer simulation can in fact not only accurately gauge a weapon's potential, in many cases sometimes the expectations are even EXCEEDED. Far from overstating, if anything, computer run mathematical based simulations, actually UNDERSTATE things. The martial art that survives computer simulations in the future, will the the world's number one, and I personally predict that the top 3, will all be Kung Fu styles.

Sorry, TMI (Too Much Information).

User:67.148.120.72747

Answer 2

There are only two fighters in a boxing match.

Answer 3

At least 450 people worldwide have died of boxing-related injuries in the past 50 years, according to the on-line Journal of Combative Sport --- more than 130 of those in the United States. No official agency tracks boxing deaths or debilitating injuries. They Predicted that there are at least 9,000 boxing matches every year.

Answer 4

The sport, right now, is most popular in Europe and Japan but it is gaining increasing ground in the U.S. Also, the fact is that K-1 is a much larger fighting body than Pride or the UFC combined. K-1 champions make more money than UFC or Pride ones, across all weight divisions. K-1 I know, is bigger than the UFC and Pride put together, in Japan and Europe specially, its HUGE, however, it is not as big as Boxing was from the 30's to 60's. K-1 is rapidly gaining ground in the U.S., because a lot of people practice martial arts for one, so that alone secures an audience. First, second, kickboxers are respected and feared even by MMA fighters; there are guys out there in the world of kickboxing, that very rarely need to grapple. Many K-1 guys do train in grappling as a "backup" emergency thing but the majority of their fights in MMA runs, be it Pride or the UFC, are almost always won by knockout.

Back when it was "striking vs grappling," kickboxers generally gave a much better showing than all other striking martial arts. Jason DeLucia made a good showing for Kung Fu, at least until he got his arm broken and dislocated by Gracie. Except for Kickboxers, when DeLucia was up against other strikers, he dominated Kenpo and Karate guys. You can rent videos of classic UFC bouts from the 1990's; you will observe that kickboxers tended to hold their own, and sometimes even win, against hardcore grapplers. Although grappling holds the better win reccord over striking, the majority of grapplers had a terrible time with the kickboxers, specially the K-1 guys, most dangerous of all where the dudes who practiced Muay Thai. As a single style, Muay Thai has become the most respected and feared martial art in the worlds of K-1, the UFC AND Pride FC.

Anyway, moving on, while Muay Thai is certainly not the prettiest martial art to look at, not even the Katas in Muay Thai (yes, Muay Thai uses Kata, just like Karate and Kung Fu, and Tae Kwan Do), are that pretty too look at. Nevertheless the martial art has proven its effectiveness, and it will likely remain in the top 10 fighting styles even after an advanced computer simulation determines, mathematically, which are TRULY the best fighting styles. I can guarantee, Muay Thai will survive the weeding out process of computer sims. It won't be THE best, but it WILL be one of them.

As to how many people, I think overall, the world over there are only around 2 million, across all styles. By "style" I mean, not all kickboxing is Muay Thai; many people combine Tae Kwan Do with Boxing, or this style of Karate with this other style and so on and so forth. Kyokshin Karate is pretty popular, in fact a lot of top guys in the heavyweight division in K-1 are Kyokshin people. The whole thinking that "its the style not the person" and "it boils down to WHO WON, not the style....." comes from the success of top K-1 guys. I need to point out, many kickboxers who have met with success in MMA, they are not even the best at what they do; in fact, Mirko "Cro Cop" Phillipovic, when he entered MMA, his kickboxing career was actually on the downside, I think he was like, number 20 in the world or something. Even at "only" number 20, in the world of MMA he destroyed quite a few people, in both Pride AND the UFC. Okay more Pride; he was pretty "old" by the time he entered the UFC.

For opinions, solid opinions, on the differences between striking and grappling I strongly suggest you at least EYE this book, even if you read the opinions of only a few of them;

http://www.amazon.com/Grappling-Masters-Jose-M-Fraguas/dp/1933901241/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239403999&sr=8-1

That is in fact the newer version, the one I read at Hastings in college was this one;

http://www.amazon.com/Grappling-Masters-Book/dp/B001WWY8WQ/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=office-products&qid=1239403999&sr=8-4

No worries, I think they're the same work. Personally I prefer the one with Helio on the cover; I really don't like his son Rickson, I think the man is a coward. He says "I'm undefeated" when he picks and choses who he grapples, he's never taken on anyone "tough." His father Helio though, is as far from a coward as a man can be. Or was anyway (R.I.P.).

For a more informed and, for an expert opinion, on the differences between grappling and striking I strongly recommend that book. The Grapplers whose opinions and thoughts I read where;

1) Helio Gracie

2) Gogor Vochkagadga something or other, I can't spell or pronounce that. Why do Russians and other slavs have to have such difficult names!?

3) Rickson Gracie, I THINK he's in there somewhere.

4) Bas Rutten

5) Matt "the king of catch" Furey

6) Gene LeBell; sorry, couldn't leave him out.

I in fact read the whole thing, but those six are the ones I remember most.

Matt Furey stated, and what he said made sense I agree with him, that it all boils down to talent pool. You can not compare boxing of the golden age, to boxing now, because in the golden era of boxing, there were more men who did it. If you were a male in the 30's, 40's, or 50's, odds are you boxed. That is no longer true, and, although he was good for his time, Tyson in fact does not compare to the champs of old, the competition was more intense. Also, no, modern day heavyweights are not "bigger;" in the old days, men who were too big simply didn't make it. They were toppled by smaller men in the heavyweight division long before they even reached the top 10 some of them, where do you think the addage "size doesn't matter" comes from? It comes from old school boxing dude; sometimes you had weight differences as large as 60 lbs, a famous example is Dempsey vs Willard. You can not accuse the bigger guy of "taking it easy" either because, hey, if money is involved, size is HIS advantage and trust me, a big dude WILL use it if it means getting money. Against the likes of Dempsey though Willard bit off more than he could chew. Throughout the 30's to 60's, there were similar cases of what would today be considered light heavies toppling true ogres.

So, what this has to do with the difference of striking and grappling, sorry about that; you have a pool of 25 million prize fighters (boxing), vs a pool of 2 million (MMA). Sorry but, the top champs of the pool of 25 million, even though boxing is only a striking game, will outright destroy the top champs of the smaller talent pool. In Tyson's time, boxing was not as big as it was in the "old school" era but it was definitely bigger than it is now, and way bigger than MMA; higher standards, and higher pay, as Furey stated, means that a Mike Tyson in his prime would in all likelihood demolish the majority of MMA guys out there, and all he needs to do it, is his boxing skill, he doesn't need anything else. He's good enough at boxing, that if he was young and motivated again he'd destroy those guys.

Now, of course, if you have a pool of 25 million grapplers, and only 2 million Boxers, the opposite is true. That is why the majority of grapplers in that book all seem to be in agreement; it is indeed more the person than the style, how much work a person puts in, although, the most commonly held view, and I think you will agree most with Gene LeBelle's view, is that its both, its the style AND the person.

The reason the "best fighting style" can not be determined by people, is because even with fights to the death, there is STILL too much of an ability, and more important than that, work ethic difference. A psychotically fanatical Karateka for example, a beast who trains for 12 hours a day and has done so for the past 5 years, will DESTROY MMA guys. I men if he is training that hard he is probably on a different wavelength anyway in his brain, that alone makes him dangerous. It would make ME, dangerous, ANYONE. Sadly I'm not psychotic like that; wish I was though. Then NOBODY would mess with me! Probably wouldn't get laid either thought, I'd be too "creepy." Its a combination of work ethic (most important), "natural ability" (almost as important, although important if you're competing), and the style. Because those three factors are involved, its impossible to determine what the best fighting style is.

Only a computer simulation with a very advanced martial arts program, can guarantee two fighters are identical (literally, exact copies), the only thing different being, fighting style. The answer of which martial art is better, can only be answered mathematically, via advanced computers. The U.S. military has demonstrated that computer simulation can in fact not only accurately gauge a weapon's potential, in many cases sometimes the expectations are even EXCEEDED. Far from overstating, if anything, computer run mathematical based simulations, actually UNDERSTATE things. The martial art that survives computer simulations in the future, will the the world's number one, and I personally predict that the top 3, will all be Kung Fu styles.

Sorry, TMI (Too Much Information).

User:67.148.120.72747

Answer 5

about 345.0000000000 people in the world do bxing i like it to soo its 346.0000000000

Answer 6

roughly 1,000 in the past 120 years.

Answer 7

LOTS!

Answer 8

a lot