Why doesn't Mayweather fight McGregor in a MMA fight?

Money May is smart and has the golden rule on his side.. he who has the gold makes the rules.

That Neanderthal Conner Mac better be happy he was able to earn some real money, crumbs from sir may's table.

Slow bloke wrote:

Because Mayweather is a coward.

Not even close. That's like saying why didn't Usain Bolt compete in the decathlon. Bolt likely wouldn't make it out of the first day (High Jump). Mayweather can box but he has never done any of the other aspects of MMA. McGregor had boxed at an amateur level and MMA involves some boxing moves so he was at least somewhat prepared before the contract was signed. Mayweather would have to learn the non-punching part of MMA which could take a long while at a competitive level.

Plus - The fight only started to come about because McGregor never was going to get a decent sized payday in MMA. Boxing Mayweather was the only way he'd get it and Mayweather needed to be offered enough to do it. Remember Mayweather was retired and the only way he was going to do it was to be paid $100M+

boxing is the better sport

realreal wrote:

boxing is the better sport

Yes boxing=running

MMA = triathlon

Slow bloke wrote:

Because Mayweather is a coward.

No, because boxing is a subset of MMA while MMA is a superset of boxing. It would take Mayweather longer to get sufficient training time for MMA than it would for McGregor to do boxing.

This is no different than McGregor stepping onto the mat against the top judoka, given that judo is a subset of MMA. A proper subset can contain one element, so yet, the set of disciplines that only includes one, namely judo, is a subset of MMA.

lol subset. Ok mma is a subset of war. No missles, bullets, or bayonette. No weapons. So what?

Boxing is better. It takes a better athlete.

markschultz25 wrote:

Slow bloke wrote:

Because Mayweather is a coward.

A proper subset can contain one element...

Yes for your boxing and MMA comparison, no for your set theory:

A proper subset B of set A is any set that includes only elements of A, such that A includes at least one element that is not included in B. A proper subset can certainly include more than one element.

If set A includes a, b, c, then set B containing (also) a, b, c is a (not proper) subset - this is counterintuitive but allows us to define (not proper) subsets while remaining ambiguous with respect to identity (that is, whether or not A = B).

but if A includes a, b, c, then B which includes a, b is a proper subset, even though it includes more than one element.

Done on phone - sorry for ugly presentation.

Prediction - boxing will outlast MMA.

MMA has 10 to 15 yrs left then dies out like kick boxing, or flying balloons around the world, or the 8 track.

It's a fad.

How is boxing better when a boxer would lose to an MMA fighter 99% of the time in the real life situation they're sports simulate; a fight.

Set theory ftw wrote:

markschultz25 wrote:

A proper subset can contain one element...

Yes for your boxing and MMA comparison, no for your set theory:

A proper subset B of set A is any set that includes only elements of A, such that A includes at least one element that is not included in B. A proper subset can certainly include more than one element.

If set A includes a, b, c, then set B containing (also) a, b, c is a (not proper) subset - this is counterintuitive but allows us to define (not proper) subsets while remaining ambiguous with respect to identity (that is, whether or not A = B).

but if A includes a, b, c, then B which includes a, b is a proper subset, even though it includes more than one element.

Done on phone - sorry for ugly presentation.

Nothing I said is incorrect. I said a proper subset CAN contain only one element, not MUST contain one element. I participated in MathLeague and Math Olympiad in high school and scored a 17 out of 100 on the Putnam exam my senior year of college. I'm no lightweight when it comes to math okay?

Conor "Humble in Defeat " McGregor

I like MMA.

In many ways it's more difficult than boxing. For example, a boxer just - a big just - has to defend himself against fists coming his way, but an MMA fighter has to defend against fists, elbow, legs, knees and take downs.

I would say that MMA will only get more and more popular.

Portsea57 wrote:

I like MMA.

In many ways it's more difficult than boxing. For example, a boxer just - a big just - has to defend himself against fists coming his way, but an MMA fighter has to defend against fists, elbow, legs, knees and take downs.

I would say that MMA will only get more and more popular.

Well, no sh** Sherlock. Of course a sport that requires knowledge of more disciplines will be harder than one that requires one discipline....

If a hypothetical sport combined the elements of soccer and football, it would be more difficult than soccer or football alone.

markschultz25 wrote:

Portsea57 wrote:

I like MMA.

In many ways it's more difficult than boxing. For example, a boxer just - a big just - has to defend himself against fists coming his way, but an MMA fighter has to defend against fists, elbow, legs, knees and take downs.

I would say that MMA will only get more and more popular.

Well, no sh** Sherlock. Of course a sport that requires knowledge of more disciplines will be harder than one that requires one discipline....

If a hypothetical sport combined the elements of soccer and football, it would be more difficult than soccer or football alone.

Really? Is the decathlon ( 10 events) "harder" and than an Ironman triathlon ( 3 evens?)

I did say that MMA is more difficult in many ways, BUT not ALL WAYS!

Because Mayweather is no damn fool, like he pointed out after the fight (although he was talking about coming out of retirement to earn a few easy hundreds of millions).

It was Connor who said he'd step into a boxing ring and take down the best boxer of the past 2 decades. Mayweather never said he'd get into the octagon and start submitting champions left and right.

It was never about who is the better fighter. It was who is the better boxer. McGregor wanted to challenge a (retired) boxing champion. He got schooled.

He got a lot of cash too, so good for him.

runrincerepeat wrote:

realreal wrote:

boxing is the better sport

Yes boxing=running

MMA = triathlon

boxing = true cross country (or fell running) not a golf course

MMA = color run

grantd the MILFs are more lubricious at the latter

runrincerepeat wrote:

realreal wrote:

boxing is the better sport

Yes boxing=running

MMA = triathlon

Brownlee is better than Farah

But seriously, why the analogy? Running is more 'pure' than triathalon like boxing is to MMA? No, there is nothing natural or pure about two men fighting with pillows strapped to their hands and seperated by a referee every time they clinch (after about 5 seconds of throwing punches at each other), or were they are instantly disqualified if they kick or grapple. The Ancient Greeks had a form of MMA (Pankration) at their Olympic Games, not boxing - a Victorian sanitized and formal 'gentleman's' version of fighting.

If you told a messenger in ancient times to tell the nearest city of an impending Persian invasion, you would see the messenger run like Mo Farah. If you told an unarmed Greek fighter in ancient times to fight an unarmed Persian soldier, you'd see something like two MMA fighters in the Octagon, definitely not Floyd Mayweather in a boxing ring.

markschultz25 wrote:

Nothing I said is incorrect. I said a proper subset CAN contain only one element, not MUST contain one element. I participated in MathLeague and Math Olympiad in high school and scored a 17 out of 100 on the Putnam exam my senior year of college. I'm no lightweight when it comes to math okay?

I'd guess you were a math minor. Kinda sounds like something one of them would say.

Well, regarding modern boxing. The introduction of the Queensberry Rules did "improve" the sport.

Did make it more skilful and more entertaining.

Bareknuckle fights would descend into crude mauling matches once hands were broken.

It's not by accident that MMA fighters wear gloves.