On April 30 2006 12:12 pirate cod wrote: I'd say boxers would be best in street fights. Lets say a wrestler goes after Tyson who's style is to get inside and strike. One punch wrestler won't even see it he's knocked out.
Eh, which is why everytime a boxer has fought a wrestler, the wrestler has ended up taking the boxer down. Not much in the way of hip rotation when you're on your back.
Sure, if it's just any highschool wrestler I'd say Tyson.. But come on, it's Tyson. If you want to use Tyson as your 'average boxer' I say we use Karelen as your 'average wrestler'.
And obviously Muay thai would be better for a street fight since you get more techniques ie low kick, knee, elbow.
And following this logic MMA is even better since you get a combination of boxing, wrestling, muay thai, brazilian jiu jitsu as well as stuff from sambo and judo among others.
On April 30 2006 04:15 FrozenArbiter wrote: Eh, Crocop has perhaps the best takedown defence out of anyone, and some of the best grappling defence - he lost vs Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira by an armbar.
that's just one example, i saw a ufc match where a well-known grappler was up against a striker who employed good defence -- if a grappler is unable to gain a clearly advantageous position then he is screwed, they rely completely on being able to put their opponent in a decisively disadvantaged position.
imo a grappler who runs into an excellent defense is left out to dry against the striking abuse. imo grappling is like doing cheese on sc, if your opponent fails to defend then yes it is game-breaking, but if he does defend then you will get dominated in straight-up play.
Oh come on, don't be an idiot - that's just STUPID. Winning by submission is JUST as valid as winning by knockout.
If a fighter can ONLY grapple he's going to get obliterated by a striker with good grappling defence, if a striker can ONLY strike he's going to get obliterated by a grappler.
They both get dominated by someone who knows both (Fedor for isntance).
Saying you saw an UFC match where a well-known grappler failed to take his opponent down.. jesus.
Well, I saw a match where a well known striker failed to keep the fight standing and lost.
IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING, a striker relies entirely on being able to keep the fight where he wants it - standing. A grappler relies entirely on keeping the fight where he wants it - on the ground. A well rounded fighter couldn't give a damn.
Grappling is not anything like cheesing, grappling/striking = 50/50 of a good training.
Here's something for you to chew on; http://www.sherdog.com/stats/fightendings_ratio.asp Overall Finishing Method Statistics Percentage Submission = 46.31 Percentage KO/TKO = 28.12 Percentage Decision = 18.15 Other (Drawn, NCs, or Unknown) = 7.42
Although I'm not sure how up to date the stats are. Striking might be becoming more important in MMA, but it's just like in BW, you can't really on only one of the two - you need micro just as you need grappling. You need macro just as you need striking.
On April 30 2006 13:09 FrozenArbiter wrote: Oh come on, don't be an idiot - that's just STUPID. Winning by submission is JUST as valid as winning by knockout.
i agree it's valid, why are talking as if i said otherwise.. i said it's like cheese, i still think cheese is a valid win but it's like in hockey a team that relies on the powerplay and get's owned at even strength. being good on the powerplay is not a bad thing, it just means you rely on the other person making the mistakes to put you in an advantaged situation.
If a fighter can ONLY grapple he's going to get obliterated by a striker with good grappling defence, if a striker can ONLY strike he's going to get obliterated by a grappler.
They both get dominated by someone who knows both (Fedor for isntance).
well i'm talking about strikers who know how to defend against grappling, so i don't know why you even said this paragraph
Saying you saw an UFC match where a well-known grappler failed to take his opponent down.. jesus.
Well, I saw a match where a well known striker failed to keep the fight standing and lost.
i said the striker had exceptional defense, he knew the key points he had to defend in order to retain a reasonable position, and seeing as grappling relies on having an advantageous position the grappling became fruitless (basically as long as a striker doesn't make stupid mistakes then he will win the fight just like a power play team will lose to a well-disciplined even strength team)
IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING, a striker relies entirely on being able to keep the fight where he wants it - standing. A grappler relies entirely on keeping the fight where he wants it - on the ground. A well rounded fighter couldn't give a damn.
i am assuming that a grappling specialist or a striking specialist would be better at his respective specialty than the well rounded fighter would be, so he would have to target the specialists weakness (in other words he would give a damn). i think it's much better to be a striker with grappling defendability, as the attacking grappler expends much more energy than the defender (much like cheese in sc is a lot more risky than just playing straight-up)
Grappling is not anything like cheesing, grappling/striking = 50/50 of a good training.
cheese requires training... progamers use cheese in a very well trained level. i'm not at all saying grappling isn't a viable option, i just think a straight-up fighter has the odds in his favour if he knows how to defend against a grappler. a grappler can't *defend* against a striker, his trade is much more of an offense requiring specialty, the grappler *must* impose a handicap or he is fucked, that's why i see it as similar to cheese, the impetus is on the cheeser to cripple the straight up player whereas the only impetus on the straight-up player is to prevent himself from being crippled
Striking might be becoming more important in MMA, but it's just like in BW, you can't (sic) really on only one of the two - you need micro just as you need grappling. You need macro just as you need striking.
again i dont think you need to know how to grapple you just need to know how to defend against grappling so i dont think it can be compared to macro/micro
edit: jesus this is a huge post.. >.<
edit2: i skipped your part about the statistics because i rarely see a striker who has good grappling defense, so those statistics would have little bearing on our discussion
That must be why Crocop, the most standup oriented fighter there is in MMA today, trains in brazilian jiu jitsu.. Does he ever use it? Not often (well, not in an offensive way anyway). But does he know it? Yes. Is he a better fighter because of it? Yes.
Also, defending vs a takedown is part of grappling imo, and no matter how good your takedown defence or submission defence is, you might get submitted.
You talk about grappling as if it's some kind of unmanly way to fight, taking someone down and beating their head in/taking someone down and breaking their arm is no more or less offensive than trying to kick someone in the head etc.
Also, getting a takedown is no less skill based than landing a hit - you are not relying on mistakes from your opponent -_-
The part about a well-rounded fighter not giving a damn means he can have it either way - he's facing someone who is better than him at striking, he can choose to take him down, he faces someone who is better than him at grappling, he can choose to stand and deliver.
I'll just use Fedor as an example of that, he can stand, he can grapple. The reason you don't see a lot of amazing strikers with excellent sub/takedown defence is probably because it's not easy to do, and as has been pointed out, even when you do reach that point, you are still not impervious to grappling no more than you are to strikes.
On April 30 2006 14:34 FrozenArbiter wrote: That must be why Crocop, the most standup oriented fighter there is in MMA today, trains in brazilian jiu jitsu.. Does he ever use it? Not often (well, not in an offensive way anyway). But does he know it? Yes. Is he a better fighter because of it? Yes.
Also, defending vs a takedown is part of grappling imo, and no matter how good your takedown defence or submission defence is, you might get submitted.
sorry i wasn't clear, this is really what i meant by a striker with grappling defendability... and i agree 'you might get submitted' despite having good defence, i'm just saying the chances are lower seeing as it's easier to defend
You talk about grappling as if it's some kind of unmanly way to fight, taking someone down and beating their head in/taking someone down and breaking their arm is no more or less offensive than trying to kick someone in the head etc.
guilty as charged, i think grappling is to fighting what 'the trap' is to hockey in terms of manliness. i find it boring and turtlish.
Also, getting a takedown is no less skill based than landing a hit - you are not relying on mistakes from your opponent -_-
i agree it's a skill, never said otherwise, but you are relying on your opponent GIVING you something, it's like when strikers fight and one of the fighters has the longer reach, his opponent is now heavily relying on the long-reach guy to provide opportunites.. because if they just trade chances the small-reach guy will get dominated.. the impetus is definitely on the small-reach guy to outsmart his opponent rather than being able to simply accept the circumstances
The part about a well-rounded fighter not giving a damn means he can have it either way - he's facing someone who is better than him at striking, he can choose to take him down, he faces someone who is better than him at grappling, he can choose to stand and deliver.
I'll just use Fedor as an example of that, he can stand, he can grapple.
Well, I'll admit that I'm heavily biased towards grappling as I find it ten times more fun
What I don't see is how you are relying on your opponent to give you something any more than when you strike, you rely on your opponent giving you an opening, yes? You can set up your shoot with strikes/just shoot just as you'd try to find an opening to strike/just strike, no?
if the reach is different then yes, otherwise not really, did you see that forrest vs stephen bonner fight? they just hammered each other throughout the entire match, neither of them had a reach advantage so was no real searching for openings it was really just bashing each others bodys. of course there's always some strategy involved but not nearly as much as in grappling, two strikers with equal reach cant really defend against each other its mostly just who has the harder punches and the tougher chin. grapplers however MUST gain an advantageous (read: not equal) position in order to do any damage, this requirement just doesn't occur in equal-reach striking matches.
edit: i certainly think grappling deserves a lot of respect, grapplers are like the blob you keep throwing everything you have at it and it just latches onto you and shuts you down, and for a long time all i saw was striker after striker getting gobbled up by these barnacle-like grappling specialists. then like i said, i finally saw someone who was excellent at evading takedowns and never allowed himself to be put into a critical disadvantage and because the grappler was A) wasting mucho energy with his attempts and B) couldn't go toe to toe, he just got mashed up. i think it's hilarious, it's like the lion vs the mouse story. grappling is a great way to even up the odds if you are a smaller guy/worse striker, but my opinion is i hope that all strikers learn how to defend vs grappling and all these little tricky buggers quit the business. if you can't take/give punches then just don't fight, or go join a wrestling league, its boring as fuck watching people try to wrap themselves around their opponent like a boa constrictor.
On April 30 2006 17:40 a-game wrote: if the reach is different then yes, otherwise not really, did you see that forrest vs stephen bonner fight? they just hammered each other throughout the entire match, neither of them had a reach advantage so was no real searching for openings it was really just bashing each others bodys. of course there's always some strategy involved but not nearly as much as in grappling, two strikers with equal reach cant really defend against each other its mostly just who has the harder punches and the tougher chin. grapplers however MUST gain an advantageous (read: not equal) position in order to do any damage, this requirement just doesn't occur in equal-reach striking matches.
Two strikers with the same reach could have totally different striking capabilities. Reach is not always the determining factor although it could be. Sean Sherk who is 5'6" outstruck Nick Diaz who is 6'0". They are both good boxers, but Sherk just outstruck him with more heart, technique whatever it was. Igor Vovchanchyn 5'8" outstruck the much taller and undoubtedly stronger 6'3" Gary Goodridge in a fight I just watched. Igor had better striking and it was known before the fight. Gary's plan was to jab and work into a clinch position to deliver knees to his shorter opponent. Did you see 5'11" Rashad Evans dominate and knock down two times the 6'7" Brad Imes? The reason is because Rashad had better boxing. There is a huge difference in striking capabilities of two guys no matter what their reach, height or weight are.
ya read it within the context, FA said strikers need to look for openings just as much as grapplers do, and that's the statement i was addressing. nowhere did i say reach meant everything, but between two equally skilled strikers then a reach disadvantage would be the only real reason why a large opening would need to be found in order to stay in the fight
On April 29 2006 19:55 Servolisk wrote: What the hell is with the squiggly veins :o Never seen that except, quite commonly, on old people.
That's just zero fat on the bicep. You'll see it on old people because they lose all the fat (and muscle) over there so the veins become very defined. For most people working out, though, and trying to get big arms, you'll be bulking so you'll never see that.
But if you think those arms are defined, check out scott steiner's. You know they probably definitely use steriods, but still it's inspiring for all us body builders (not all wrestler's use them maybe possible !?!?!?)
EDIT: And if FrozenArbiter and A-game mix up any more fighting, hockey, and starcraft terms I'm going to kill both their families.
I must admit I've totally lost track - what is it we are arguing about again :D?!?
Anyway, the clinch is an equal position - a grappler can do damage from here, and if you want to count a takedown as damage (I can't see why not) then they can do it from standing up as well..
Your chance of defending vs something obviously goes up if you practice vs it - a grappler practicing standup will increase his chances of surviving long enough to get a takedown in the same way that a standup fighter practicing grappling will increase his chances of ever getting taken down.
I just think these elements should all work together, with nothing being particularily more important than the other..
EDIT: Wrote this post hours ago but forgot to post -.-
Anyway, grappling as in laying on top of your opponent doing fuck all... is boring.
Grappling as in Genki Sudo/Rumina Sato is art. Anyway, I think eventually there'll be no more strikers/grapplers there'll just be Mixed Martial Artists, perhaps with leanings one way or the other.
Rumina Sato Genki Sudo
This is probably why I like the lower weightclasses too - the bigger guys can't really do everything these guys can, makes it less interesting for me.
Also I say someone should make a bunker rush analogy (I would, but I fear -_- too much).
Haha wow I'm pretty impressed at the knowledge some ppl here have about fighting. I always wonder is it illegal in the UFC or other open fighting competitions to kick in the groin?
On an unrelated the note, the ads above says:
Master Gracie Jiu-Jitsu Tired of getting tapped? Learn the secrets of a BJJ Black Belt.
Frst time I see 'tapped' used in this context before -_-
And bTW Akebono is funny lol. I don't know enough about fighting and it's weird to see someone that huge get owned by a smaller guy like Gracie (not that Gracie is small, but he's smallER). He's like SNorlax.
I see FA spamming every martial art or fighting related thread.. I think he's secretly passonate about it.. Hence why he is improving fast with his protoss. He has the fighting spirit like no others..
On May 01 2006 02:19 1tym wrote: I see FA spamming every martial art or fighting related thread.. I think he's secretly passonate about it.. Hence why he is improving fast with his protoss. He has the fighting spirit like no others..
EPT
