Couture Trounces Tony at UFC 118-- But Does This Solve the MMA/Boxing Debate?

Last night's UFC 118 was a lop-sided affair -- especially in regards to the two co-main events.

BJ Penn had to concede a reluctant changing of the guard with his second loss in a row to Frankie Edgar and, as to be expected, Randy Couture overwhelmed James Toney within seconds, ending their over-hyped match-up.

The question is: did Couture versus Toney solidify one combative sport's dominion over the other? In my opinion no -- and I say this as a fan who now prefers MMA over boxing. Simply put, it's a case of hype and context.


Here's the most popular argument for MMA's supremacy, as elicited from its enthusiasts:

Boxing, though important, is a single element of MMA and therefor is too one-dimensional on its own. It limits the combatants ability to use all potentially available tools by focusing on one -- which is why pure boxers cannot thrive in high level MMA competitions.

And precisely why James Toney didn't have a chance against Randy Couture and was rightly humiliated.

The argument, though understandable from a MMA perspective, makes a contextual error. It begins with the presupposition that MMA is superior and then argues for dominance from that starting point. We do this all the time in every day life, but it's difficult to establish a fair, unbiased way of evaluating both sides of a supposedly objective comparison.

What the argument also fails to acknowledge is that, if reversed, the opposite appears to be true as well. Because of boxing's singular focus, a top-level MMA fighter -- exhibiting great overall skills -- would not find the same level of success in elite boxing competition.

Meaning, if Randy Couture stepped into the ring for 12 rounds with James Toney, he would face the same humiliation Toney did last night. In fact, I'd wager if it was one of those 3 round knuckle-dusters a-la the old Butterbean days, the result would be similar.

Why? Because the exceptional refinement that comes from training exclusively in one discipline (in this case boxing) cannot be achieved in multi-faceted MMA. It is a singular, pure focus on one element, and the result is a form of excellence that cannot be duplicated.

MMA demands an overall skill set that pushes its athletes to peak condition, but never requires that they be outstanding in one particular aspect. Not at the same level boxing requires. Pure Jiu-Jitsu alone won't cut it. Neither will wrestling or Muay Thai or Karate. No matter how excellent one is at them.

Of course, it helps to be outstanding in one discipline, but this is more for corollary reasons. One can adapt into MMA training with greater ease, having a solid base in a related discipline. Thus the high rate of fighters transitioning to MMA. But this doesn't mean their transition is easy, or even compatible.

Think of figure skating and hockey. Both require reasonably similar footwear, medium (ice), and discipline. But notice how athletes can't jump readily from one to the other -- at least not at the same level of prowess they may command in their native practice.

This isn't an indictment of MMA by any means -- remember, I prefer it to boxing on most days. What this is is a reason why the two sports should be left alone. They truly are apples and oranges and can coexist quite nicely.

In actuality, the Couture-Toney bout was one of media hype and misinformed bias. It made money because there are people foolish enough in both camps to think it could answer an unnecessary, silly question.

In some ways it would have been nice to see Toney knock Couture out, just for the pure absurdity of it. But that was never going to happen. Last night Couture was smart enough (unlike Tim Sylvia) to play to his opponents weaknesses -- which were virtually in every other discipline.

And the result was a mild amount of drama that could never have possibly lived up to the hype.