Kickboxing or Muay Thai should in theory be more popular than MMA and Boxing? Why is it not?

23rd Century Sweetheart said:
I will speak from the perspective of a complete kickboxing casual. I literally only know of JWP, Mark Hunt, Ray Sefo, Psycho Suttie (because of lots of Pacific islanders around me) Takeru, Tenshin, Masato, Petrosyan and Raymond Daniels. As far as the Thai's go I only know of Samart, Saenchai and Buakuaw. Of course I know the guys who found success in MMA and came from kickboxing.

Anyway. Number one is I don't know which organisation to follow. I know of Glory, K1, Rising, ONE, Bellator kickboxing.. that's about it. It seems there were a bunch of older ones that died off. Spreading the talent across organisations makes me confused on the skill levels. It seems kickboxers are much more active but does that mean they're fighting cans half the time?

When I look at gyms around my area they seem to have k1 classes, MT, kickboxing... So many rulesets. That makes me question what other sports are considered kickboxing, e.g Karate under Karate Combat rules? Personally I'd want to follow the least restrictive one.

Most of all, Im not really used to 3 rounds of 3 minutes, my eyes/brain aren't quick enough to see the nuances or learn them. It honestly seems like dudes are just throwing most the time with no regards for gameplan, whereas there's breathing room in MMA, ring size contributes to this too. Obviously they are skilled because I'm familiar with Izzy, Overeem etc.
Click to expand...

Organisations to follow:
Glory and One FC I would say. If you have time you can of course follow the Japanese kickboxing scene with K-1, Rise and Krush but that's if you're interested in smaller weight classes in Japan. There are a lot of other local organizations (Enfusion, etc.) but if you want to keep up with the best of Kickboxing you can just stick to Glory and One FC and you have most of the top fighters there. If you want to watch kickboxing at its best then watch the old K-1, K-1 Max, It's Showtime and first few Glory shows.

Activity:
Kickboxers are not necessarily more active than MMA fighters, it really depends on the fighter but currently the big names of kickboxing fight as frequently as MMA fighters.

Forms of Kickboxing:
For the most part Kickboxing on this forum and in the media is K-1 rules kickboxing, meaning punches and kicks (including low kicks) but no elbows or throws, then depending on the organization there are different rules when it comes to grabbing an holding. If you look at gyms in your area and they differentiate K-1 versus Kickboxing it then usually means that kickboxing is "above the waist kickboxing" or as some some people call it American Kickboxing. That style doesn't have a pro circuit anymore.

If, as you say, you want to train in the less restrictive ruleset then that's Muay Thai (Thai boxing) and I'd say it's a different sport and martial art altogether. Here you can use elbows, clinch, throws etc. but the way it's trained, the stance etc is also different. And then if it's Muay Thai that you want to watch and keep track of then my recommendations in terms of promotions to follow and so on would also be different.
 
MMA is complicated in one way, but at the same time it's not. It's easily the combat sport most like real fighting while still obviously being a sport. While there is A LOT involved to learn and understand since there are so many aspects involved, it's also easy for casuals to watch BECAUSE it's so much closer to a real fight.

It's easy for most people to at least grasp who is winning most MMA fights. The problem with restricted striking sports is that they are so much more subjective in their rules and scoring. With the big gloves in boxing and kickboxing especially, they are the primary tool in blocking punches. People who don't know much about what's going on can easily miss details like that and think one fighter throwing a lot of volume is winning the fight, and not realize that they are mostly being blocked. The smaller MMA gloves require usually more detectable missed strikes, thus easier for newer viewers to tell what's going on.
 
randumo24 said:
MMA is complicated in one way, but at the same time it's not. It's easily the combat sport most like real fighting while still obviously being a sport. While there is A LOT involved to learn and understand since there are so many aspects involved, it's also easy for casuals to watch BECAUSE it's so much closer to a real fight.

It's easy for most people to at least grasp who is winning most MMA fights. The problem with restricted striking sports is that they are so much more subjective in their rules and scoring. With the big gloves in boxing and kickboxing especially, they are the primary tool in blocking punches. People who don't know much about what's going on can easily miss details like that and think one fighter throwing a lot of volume is winning the fight, and not realize that they are mostly being blocked. The smaller MMA gloves require usually more detectable missed strikes, thus easier for newer viewers to tell what's going on.
Click to expand...
Not sure that I totally agree with that, however the issue really is nobody is actually seeing Kickboxing to begin with. I seriously doubt the reason Kickboxing isn't as big as MMA is because people watched Kickboxing and didn't understand it. MMA has plenty of nuance and questionable/debated decisions.

I also question the general public's understanding of a "real fight" and question MMA being any more real than other combat sports. They are all confined to rules, and plenty of things that take place in MMA wouldn't be advantageous in "The Street" just like the other combat sports.
 
Snubnoze707 said:
Not sure that I totally agree with that, however the issue really is nobody is actually seeing Kickboxing to begin with. I seriously doubt the reason Kickboxing isn't as big as MMA is because people watched Kickboxing and didn't understand it. MMA has plenty of nuance and questionable/debated decisions.

I also question the general public's understanding of a "real fight" and question MMA being any more real than other combat sports. They are all confined to rules, and plenty of things that take place in MMA wouldn't be advantageous in "The Street" just like the other combat sports.
Click to expand...

Meh, most people in a 1 on 1 fight in a real life scenario with no training ends up with someone getting tackled. People throw shitty punches, and boxing has had so many famous mainstream athletes. Very few people know how to throw a proper kick, and the average person associates a kick with something like karate or Asians.

The reality of the situation is, if a person who doesn't watch combat sports sees a punch thrown, they might think of boxing because of all the famous athletes of the past. However, if they see kicks, they are going to think of martial arts due to all of the famous actors in movies. Especially since most people don't even know a proper enough technique to kick an opponent that would hurt the other person, outside of a shin kick or a groin shot lol.
 
randumo24 said:
Meh, most people in a 1 on 1 fight in a real life scenario with no training ends up with someone getting tackled. People throw shitty punches, and boxing has had so many famous mainstream athletes. Very few people know how to throw a proper kick, and the average person associates a kick with something like karate or Asians.

The reality of the situation is, if a person who doesn't watch combat sports sees a punch thrown, they might think of boxing because of all the famous athletes of the past. However, if they see kicks, they are going to think of martial arts due to all of the famous actors in movies. Especially since most people don't even know a proper enough technique to kick an opponent that would hurt the other person, outside of a shin kick or a groin shot lol.
Click to expand...
Plenty of "real" fights are strictly on the feet, and in a no rules situation going to the ground is a good way to get stomped out by someone else you aren't currently engaging. Throwing head kicks in the street isn't smart either. Methods of combat are purely contextual.

This sounds like you are just espousing your opinion of what you think people think based really on nothing. Kicks have been exposed to the west since the 60's, it's nothing exotic. Are you trying to make the case that since people can't detect the nuance in kicking technique that they don't watch Kickboxing? How would that be different from the general public's understanding of MMA, which also includes kicking?
 
Snubnoze707 said:
Plenty of "real" fights are strictly on the feet, and in a no rules situation going to the ground is a good way to get stomped out by someone else you aren't currently engaging. Throwing head kicks in the street isn't smart either. Methods of combat are purely contextual.

This sounds like you are just espousing your opinion of what you think people think based really on nothing. Kicks have been exposed to the west since the 60's, it's nothing exotic. Are you trying to make the case that since people can't detect the nuance in kicking technique that they don't watch Kickboxing? How would that be different from the general public's understanding of MMA, which also includes kicking?
Click to expand...

I specified a 1 on 1 fight scenario, because that is what every combat sport fight is. I'm aware that some people know how to kick, but more people associate them with action stars like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, or Chuck Norris.

The general public don't understand every technique in MMA for sure, especially when it gets down to BJJ. However, it's generally easier to tell in most fights for the average person to tell when someone is winning. Especially since part of the scoring in MMA has more aspects to it that reflect what person who looks like they are winning is usually winning the fight.
 
randumo24 said:
I specified a 1 on 1 fight scenario, because that is what every combat sport fight is. I'm aware that some people know how to kick, but more people associate them with action stars like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, or Chuck Norris.

The general public don't understand every technique in MMA for sure, especially when it gets down to BJJ. However, it's generally easier to tell in most fights for the average person to tell when someone is winning. Especially since part of the scoring in MMA has more aspects to it that reflect what person who looks like they are winning is usually winning the fight.
Click to expand...
Again, these are just your assumptions about public perception being passed on as fact with zero evidence to support it. You actually have no idea that people think those things, you just think people think those things.
 
I'd tend to agree with @randumo24 a bit here. Most casuals are not familiar with kicking as unless you've trained a martial art that involves kicking yourself people usually are a bit alien to it. I'm speaking on behalf of my friends who don't do martial arts. Boxing is easy to understand regardless of of much of it you've done yourself and it's been in our culture for a long time, and while MMA does have other complex elements like BJJ which the casuals might not understand it still has an appeal as a product because of how raw and "violent" people perceive it (small gloves, cage, ground and pound, perception of almost everything being possible to use, etc.).

The issue with kickboxing for most people is that it doesn't really have its own strong identity, it looks too much like boxing (in a ring, boxing gloves, etc.) except that the fighters tend be less skilled with their hands and just throw kicks in the mix. It's just not ingrained in the Western culture as a sport and it lacks in what can captive an audience in terms of rawness like MMA does.

I wish it wasn't the case but that's also the conclusion I've made when I speak with non kickboxing fans. The majority of people I know who watch and follow kickboxing or muay thai usually are people who train or have trained themselves.
 
MMA literally has kicking. I'm not buying this argument that somehow the exotic nature of kicking someone is what is holding Kickboxing behind LOL.

You don't need to understand the technical nuances of kicking to understand a shin going upside someone's head just like you don't need to understand the mechanical aspects of a punch that knocks someone out.

The problem isn't the public the problem is the promotions.

Glory didn't take off in the states because they did a shitty job (they couldn't even make us fans happy), and most people just flat out didn't even see their promotion or know of its existence. K-1 was on REGULARLY on ESPN2 in the early 2000's thanks to Scott Coker but that idiot Tanikawa pulled the plug on him and stopped allowing him to do it. The UFC then went on to do "The Ultimate Fighter" on Spike TV, which could have been K-1, then the UFC took off and filled that gap.

You guys are overly focused on sociology. These are failures by promotions and just bad luck in general.
 
Last edited:
Snubnoze707 said:
Again, these are just your assumptions about public perception being passed on as fact with zero evidence to support it. You actually have no idea that people think those things, you just think people think those things.
Click to expand...

Lol. You really shouldn't get all angry just because I present the truth. Just because there's no official survey to go along with it, doesn't make it less true. The majority of people don't even watch any combat sports, let alone a lesser watched one like kickboxing. The majority of people do watch movies, thus the associations with action stars. Not to mention, boxing has had its fair share of stars get main stream attention like Ali, Tyson, & even Foreman.

If you can't understand the impact of the influence that other aspects of the media have, then you won't be able to grasp the deeper concepts of the effects it can have beyond to these other sports here.
 
randumo24 said:
Lol. You really shouldn't get all angry just because I present the truth. Just because there's no official survey to go along with it, doesn't make it less true. The majority of people don't even watch any combat sports, let alone a lesser watched one like kickboxing. The majority of people do watch movies, thus the associations with action stars. Not to mention, boxing has had its fair share of stars get main stream attention like Ali, Tyson, & even Foreman.

If you can't understand the impact of the influence that other aspects of the media have, then you won't be able to grasp the deeper concepts of the effects it can have beyond to these other sports here.
Click to expand...
Explain to me how movie stars from 40 years ago are having a negative impact on the popularity of Kickboxing today. Why would it have a negative impact and why doesn't that negatively effect MMA as well? I'm not angry, you just aren't making any sense whatsoever. I've been debating this topic on this forum for over 10 years and you are presenting one of he weakest arguments. Somehow people don't want to watch kickboxing because kicks are difficult to comprehend and they saw a Chuck Norris movie in 1982? Huh?

I literally became a fan of Kickboxing because of "Bloodsport". People have literally became professional fighters due to the influence of movies. How is this bad for Kickboxing?
 
Last edited:
Snubnoze707 said:
Explain to me how movie stars from 40 years ago are having a negative impact on the popularity of Kickboxing today. Why would it have a negative impact and why doesn't that negatively effect MMA as well? I'm not angry, you just aren't making any sense whatsoever. I've been debating this topic on this forum for over 10 years and you are presenting one of he weakest arguments. Somehow people don't want to watch kickboxing because kicks are difficult to comprehend and they saw a Chuck Norris movie in 1982? Huh?

I literally became a fan of Kickboxing because of "Bloodsport". People have literally became professional fighters due to the influence of movies. How is this bad for Kickboxing?
Click to expand...

I never said it was bad for the sport. Movies do inspire some people to get into combat sports. This topic isn't about what isn't good or bad, it's just disparity of popularity. You are thinking from a limited perspective of people who watch combat sports on a regular basis and choose not to watch kickboxing. I'm talking about everyone from hardcores to casuals to even never watched.

There is also the difference in main stream stars that get attention that boxing has had for a long time, and that MMA has gotten with fighters like Lesnar, Rousey, & McGreggor. Main stream stars make a major impact on increasing a sport's popularity.

One other thing that helps MMA is that it incorporates all forms of martial arts. That gives more people a reason to watch and be interested in certain fighters.
 
Okay, so this is going to be a long one. Firstly, the nature of kickboxing as an art has nothing to do with why it is, or isn't successful. MMA was actually pretty boring back in the day, once the novelty of the old tournaments had worn off, but it still had a good enough financial backing to be successful. I'm going to limit this to making kickboxing popular in America, because I'd argue it's already popular in Europe, enough for Rico Verhoeven to have a model of him in Madame Tussaud's.

Boxing is a cultural cornerstone, it's a British sport and it has been in America since the colonial times, there is a lot of history there. MMA is a fad that took off and became a mainstay. When you think of MMA, you really think of the UFC.

Kickboxing on the other hand doesn't benefit from either of those fortunate circumstances, this means it doesn't attract much attention, henceforth poor revenue. Kickboxing doesn't make much money, which means that no one is going to make a large marketing investment to promote kickboxing to the masses, because the perception is it won't turn a profit. In reality with smart marketing and a decent enough budget, you could turn a profit on kickboxing, but investors are famously shrewd, it's the same reason that big budget movies today consist solely of pre-existing IPs like Marvel, Fast and Furious etc. instead of the many original ideas that you would get in the 80s like Back to the Future, Terminator, Ghostbusters, etc.

In terms of America, you also have the problem that America is basically an isolationist bubble. It takes culture and tradition from all across the world, but thinks that it invented all of it. America as a nation is very unaware of the outside world and is very reluctant to engage in professional sports with the outside world. If you're in Europe and you're a big football fan, you have the world cup and the euros, which are big international competition, where each nations team see's who is the best this year. In America, their version of footballs big event is the Superbowl, the culmination of a national football league, same with basketball, same thing with baseball etc.

Now, how this relates to kickboxing is, if you want it to be big in the states, you essentially need to play to a crowd that is only interested in seeing Americans succeed against other Americans, and Americans just aren't good at kickboxing. So how can we do it? Well... Americans aren't actually that good at boxing anymore either, as @Sinister pointed out a few years ago, Americans underperform in international amateur competition where they actually have to beat the best in order to win the trophies, but professional boxing is a hustle where you can manufacture a shiny undefeated record.

So in order to make kickboxing popular in America, you would need several decent American kickboxers (ideally some of african american or mexican american heritage, in order to attract the widest demographics possible), who you can build up with favourable match ups until they have something like 30 - 0 records, in order to 'fake' big payday matches between each other. You would also need a Dana White, or Bob Arum like figure who is able to finance a niche sport and market it properly and the key point here is you would need the illusion of American talent. They don't need to ACTUALLY be able to compete with Marat Grigorian, you just need the American crowd to think they can.

Now, in case you're worried I'm pulling stuff out of my ass, basically every I've said here also applies to Japan, a very isolated culture, like America and a country that actually did do this and was able to make kickboxing successful. In the case of Japan, they literally just straight up fixed fights in order to make kickboxing stars famous. Even before K1 was a big deal, we had a pokemon named after Tadashi Sawamura (Hitmonlee, if you're interested). It's popularity HAS waned over the years, but that has less to do with the public losing interest, and more to do with K1's inability to stay strong in the 2010s.

It might just not be possible in America at the moment, an effort like this wouldn't just take a lot of money, it would take years and even then, it might not pay off, no one can tell the future after all. MMA as a sport is about 30 years old, and with the right money I don't think it would take AS long as that for kickboxing to become popular in the US, but you're definitely looking at over a decade of work in order to make it happen. The presence of MMA should help, because kickboxing and muay thai are already parasitic towards MMA, with internet searches trending up with both sports as MMA became more popular. You just need someone rich enough to take the risk and not fuck it up.
 
Oh God... You guys make things way to complicated.

Kickboxing lacks two important things: promotion and stars.

& bareknuckle is the closest thing to a real world scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,715
Messages
55,436,514
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top