When Daniel Cormier says the UFC is “more fun” than boxing, it isn’t noise. It’s a judgment on what he believes modern fight nights actually deliver.
Cormier was responding to Shakur Stevenson’s suggestion that the UFC could never be boxing. He sided with Joaquin Buckley during a back-and-forth that also drew in Terence Crawford and argued that today’s boxing doesn’t consistently deliver the kinds of events he grew up watching.
He referenced the eras of Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, the Four Kings, and Lennox Lewis as benchmarks. He also pointed to Canelo Alvarez vs. Crawford, saying it “felt like a big event,” but added that when Crawford controlled Canelo, “it’s just not that fun.”
Then he left no room for interpretation.
“Whereas when you get to the UFC, it’s more fun, it’s more exciting, and it’s just better… We aren’t boxing. The UFC’s better. That’s just the goddamn truth.”
What Cormier Is Really Measuring
This isn’t just about nostalgia. It’s about tempo — and that’s where the comparison tightens.
Cormier wants nights that feel urgent. He wants visible intent. He wants finishes, exchanges, and momentum shifts. When a fighter like Crawford puts on a composed, controlled performance, some viewers see mastery. Others see a lack of chaos.
That tension isn’t unique to boxing. It exists in every combat sport — including the UFC. Dominance can be impressive. It can also quiet a crowd, whether it happens in the center of a ring or on the canvas against the fence.
Structure Shapes The Experience
Boxing is three-minute rounds of stand-up combat. If action stalls, it is separated. If someone goes down, the fight resumes on the feet. Every exchange happens upright.
MMA operates differently. Grappling is central. A fighter can secure a position and hold it. That control can stretch for minutes at a time.
That’s where the “more fun” argument becomes subjective.
If a round contains four minutes of mat control with limited damage, is that automatically more exciting than sustained stand-up exchanges? It may be technical. It may be effective. But it mirrors the same control dynamic Cormier criticizes in boxing.
But excitement is about what unfolds before the viewer, moment by moment.
The UFC’s structural advantage isn’t guaranteed action. It’s centralized control. One promotion controls the belts, the matchmaking, and the promotional direction. That consistency creates clarity — but it doesn’t eliminate long stretches of positional dominance inside the cage.
Boxing, by design, is promoter-driven rather than league-driven, and it has never operated under a single centralized structure.
Fragmentation can delay big fights. It can complicate narratives. But it doesn’t eliminate drama inside the ropes.
Nostalgia Doesn’t Decide The Present
Every era remembers its wars and forgets its chess matches. The 70s and 80s produced classics, but they also produced tactical battles that required patience to appreciate.
Devin Haney pushed back, arguing that Cormier conveniently skipped over the Floyd Mayweather era — a period that produced some of the biggest events in modern boxing history.
However, Crawford’s control of Canelo isn’t proof that boxing lacks excitement. It’s proof that elite fighters can impose control. The UFC has its own versions of that dynamic when wrestlers dictate terms for long stretches.
Both sports produce brilliance. Both produce control.
Cormier is entitled to believe the UFC feels more exciting. That’s his perspective. But when judging what is “more fun,” it’s worth separating brand consistency from in-ring rhythm.
Enjoyment will always be personal. But when the standard is constant excitement, the comparison tightens — and the ground game becomes part of the same tempo debate Cormier aimed at boxing.
About the Author
Phil Jay is the Editor-in-Chief of World Boxing News (WBN), a veteran boxing reporter with 15+ years of experience. He has interviewed world champions, broken international exclusives, and reported ringside since 2010. Read full bio.