Thread: mma striking - "bad" or simply modified?

hey guys, long time lurker first time poster. with that said, i'd like to discuss something that i think is holding mma back.

i think this is an important topic because a lot of people are getting the idea that your MMA athlete is a jack of all trades, and outside of his main specialty, is using a bastardized form of the other martial arts.

you get this a lot from the boxing guys the most it seems.

1) stance - i think this is pretty self explanatory. no, you're not gonna see the most traditional stance and why should you? judging distances is totally different now that you've got things like the take down to worry about or the clinch, and you can't just put weight on your front leg or you'll be leg kicked to death. just look how drastically different things are when you just have kicking involved minus all the other elements

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVi9LdfHkBA

2) gloves - if you look at the punching output between the two sports you'd be amazed at the disparity. boxing matches regularly feature HUNDREDS of punches thrown, while MMA might just have dozens. wearing the baby gloves make flash knockouts much more common, and so things are much more STRATEGIC.

3) Ring movement - someone tell me where you'll EVER find a boxing match this dynamic where the whole ring is utilized like in first GOMI vs AZEREDO fight. the thing was so back and forth and sublime at the same time. it was FORM and CHAOS.

here's just a short clip, can't find the whole fight

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1q...mi-vs-chute-bo

that's all for now.

my bad, here's the full fight for the second link

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xff...s-luiz-azeredi




edit: not sure that's the full fight either :P

I'll be honest I'd never seen that fight. Great action. I'm sure Von will have his own opinion on this matter. The defense in boxing doesn't directly correlate. Where boxers often parry and cover up to block punches this doesn't work very well in mma due to the size of gloves. Bobbing and weaving isn't effective due to knees and kicks. You have to alter the stance somewhat to be able to check leg kicks and defend takedowns better. Fighting from the clinch is a big change as well. These are just a few instances of differences between traditional boxing and mma striking. Now the offensive side of the is still different but not as much. It is true that in the past many MMA fighters punches had very poor technique and to certain extent you still see alot of the ground fighters who need to spend more time w/ their boxing coach. That being said the margin for error in MMA is much smaller than in boxing. Boxing is a long run and MMA is a sprint. Boxers talk alot about getting into a rhythm and setting things up. MMA striking isn't as technical and the penalty for making a mistake is much more dire. That being said we've seen fghters like Chuck/Shogun/AlexEmelianko have shown an array of very effective striking styles that are very different from what boxing fans would call "world championship" material but none the less have proven very effective.

is the first video not working for anyone else?

Originally Posted by VanChilds

I'll be honest I'd never seen that fight. Great action. I'm sure Von will have his own opinion on this matter. The defense in boxing doesn't directly correlate. Where boxers often parry and cover up to block punches this doesn't work very well in mma due to the size of gloves. Bobbing and weaving isn't effective due to knees and kicks. You have to alter the stance somewhat to be able to check leg kicks and defend takedowns better. Fighting from the clinch is a big change as well. These are just a few instances of differences between traditional boxing and mma striking. Now the offensive side of the is still different but not as much. It is true that in the past many MMA fighters punches had very poor technique and to certain extent you still see alot of the ground fighters who need to spend more time w/ their boxing coach. That being said the margin for error in MMA is much smaller than in boxing. Boxing is a long run and MMA is a sprint. Boxers talk alot about getting into a rhythm and setting things up. MMA striking isn't as technical and the penalty for making a mistake is much more dire. That being said we've seen fghters like Chuck/Shogun/AlexEmelianko have shown an array of very effective striking styles that are very different from what boxing fans would call "world championship" material but none the less have proven very effective.

out of those three guys, i consider shogun and fedor to be what i call REAL mixed martial artists.

a lot of guys have their bread and butter, like say striking or submissions, and use all the other forms as simply defense or set ups for their main technique. You'll notice that chuck will never ever try to take someone on the ground, or how Nog will ALWAYS go for a submission, even if it means eating kick or knees to the head.

Fedor and Shogun transition beautifully. Watch shogun take arona where as SOON as the fight hits the ground he's already trying to submissions, rather than just trying to stand up or survive and weather the storm. he's ALWAYS defensive. same can be said of Fedor.

First of all I've never thought of Fedor as a striker with great technique albeit great results. He has good power and awesome hand speed, but he seems to overwelm opponents more than using a specific technique or style. I really look at the guy as a ground fighter with good striking. I don't think its fair to fault Chuck or Nog for their fighting styles. Chuck's ability to keep fights standing and bring a fight back to its feet are a testament to his wrestling. Yes the last thing I'd expect is to see Chuck attempt a sub, but why go away from your bread and butter. You wouldn't ask a boxer to slug on the inside or a puncher to box on the outside. To me much like in boxing quite often the winner in MMA is the fighter that can impose his style on the other. Chuck is successful b/c he is usually the better striker and can typically keep the fight standing.

In my honest opinion, the majority of it... just plain BAD. Very sloppy.

Van's gonna give me crap here.... but IMO the guys who are best at it are generally the most successful fighters... CroCop, Liddel, Sylvia, Fedor (becasause he hits SO freakin hard). And when you watch Randy v. TSylvia, Randy looked like a great boxer....slipping, bobbing, weaving. And watch Nick Diaz. He's the perfect example of a guy who sets us his ground game with simple but very effective stand-up... short, accurate punches..NO haymakers...and the beauty is that he's about the only guy in all of the MMA world who uses the jab, and boy does it work. He picked apart Neer and Gomi like they were little kids, and he destroyed R Lawler the same way... with one clean shot...not too hard...just short and on the button by setting it up with the jab. Nick is the only guy I've ever seen in MMA use a REAL 1-2, and use it effectively.

after thought...

another guy who's developing GREAT stand-up/boxing is NOG. Awesome...another example of a guy who doesn't swing for the fences, but rather picks his guy apart slowly but surely with controlled punches.

well not to much crap Von but a little...I'm not going to argue that the better your standup is the better your going to be. Take down defense has overcome the dominance seen by wrestlers in the previous years so all MMA fighters at least for the time being better be able to stand and fight. But I've seen you reference Chuck's punches as looping and sloppy. So which is it? Are his punches looping sloppy or is his wide punching and use of timing and odd angles simply a augmentation of traditional boxing counter punching to mma striking? C'mon Von, Fedor's punching is sloppy. Yes he hits like a mule and yes he has very fast hands but there isn't alot of technique there. Yes, Randy did utilize some strong boxing techniques, but it is much easier to use boxing techniques against a fighter that barely uses kicks/knees/takedowns. I think we can all agree that his style for the Sylvia fight wouldn't be as effective versus Nog/Fedor/CC or even arlovski. Tim is good at fighting tall and punching but he isn't going to attempt a takedown and he isn't going to use kicks other than leg kicks. I do agree Nick does utilize a jab better than most MMA fighters. His large reach adv on opponents helps this to though. Nick also uses alot of wide looping punches albeit in a more offensive version compared to Chuck's counter punching style. In the end I think in MMA there is a bigger onus on the physical attributes of boxing than technique. I think power, handspeed, balance, chin, reflexes and footwork are more important than great technique in MMA.

After all we've argued back and forth, Vanman, I've come to a conclusion....

Boxers, IMO, still reign supreme P4P... but the guys that would give them the toughest time... ie, the most lethal of all fighting methods AFTER boxing is, plain and simple, GR wrestling.

Aint it ironic that both are predominantly western arts....

Chuck's punches ARE a bit sloppy, but compared to the rest of the MMA world, he still excels. He's another guy who doesn't close his eyes and swing for the fences. And so are fedor's. But again, he hits so hard and seems to land more than his opponents so somewhere alonfg the line he developed a style that works for him.

too tired for now... have to hit the sack. lol.

Hello all,first time to the site and new member.
about the whole pro boxers vs. MMA fighters,I'll love to see for myself and find out!
Both have strong reasons why they would be better!In my opinion,teaching some one to spraw would be easier and faster than to teach someone to be a great boxer!If you have noticed theres been alot of MMA fighters that started out as stand up fighters and quickly became good and even great at there take down defense.(Chuck for instance)I'm surprised that there isn't more pro boxers getting into MMA.I'm definatly not knocking MMA,I love watching it more than anything.(including Boxing)

any way I'm excited to be part of this form and look forward to the great views all of you have!

Hey, welcome, and cc. Ageed. But get ready to argue this point to the death with VanChilds! lol.

Originally Posted by pdubulous

Hello all,first time to the site and new member.
about the whole pro boxers vs. MMA fighters,I'll love to see for myself and find out!
Both have strong reasons why they would be better!In my opinion,teaching some one to spraw would be easier and faster than to teach someone to be a great boxer!If you have noticed theres been alot of MMA fighters that started out as stand up fighters and quickly became good and even great at there take down defense.(Chuck for instance)I'm surprised that there isn't more pro boxers getting into MMA.I'm definatly not knocking MMA,I love watching it more than anything.(including Boxing)

any way I'm excited to be part of this form and look forward to the great views all of you have!

Well to start off Howdy and Welcome
now...Chuck does have a background in Kempo, but he was also a top HS and college wrestler. So although he does have a striking background he came into MMA w/ a strong ground background. But hey when you hit like a mule who needs a ground game My argument that Von mentioned is this: the margin for error, the fact that some of boxing's most basic techniques don't transition well to mma and the emphasis on more physical attributes versus technical in MMA has lead me to believe that although a boxer will bring a strong skill set simply being a good boxer wouldn't mean he could compete at a world class level in MMA. Maybe it's my own bias but I tend to feel it takes a little longer than a few months to be able to have a good enough ground game to compete at a world class level in MMA. The idea that you could give any world champion boxer a few months of takedown defense/sub work/kick defense and he could beat the top MMA champs in the world is not something I prescribe to. Anyway I can go on and on as I'm sure you will see. Glad your here and glad that this forum is growing. Munky/Von/Heavy and I already know each others response to just about everything.

I think what I see most of in MMA is arm punching and/or punching off and transfering momentum to the backfoot a lot. With 4 oz gloves you don't need that huge follow through if you're on the button and you can't follow through a right hand in MMA like you do in boxing because, in boxing if your opponent slips the punch, you tie up or reposition yourself. In MMA, you're on your back.

Just my opinion.

I was watching friday night fights last night and it really is amazing how much better boxers are with their hands...vs those chumps on TUF 5... did you se them doing punch outs on the bag? AWEFUL. MMAers tend to go for big looping shots...the one punch KO. It doesn't work that way. But Van has had an impact on me because I'm starting to see and understand his point that you can "box" quite as comfortably in mma because of the threat of the take down. I'll now admit, there's some truth to that. But my counter argument is that it all starts with the hands, and with such grreat hand speed and accuracy and the mma'ers inability to elude those punches, it makes getting the take down very difficult. That'w hy as a BASE system, boxing is it, IMO, followed by good ald fashioned wrestling... or judo if you have the money to spend on it! Parysian is awesome. love watching him. Anyway, Trigg once said that it would only take fedor about 2minutes to take down tyson and beat him up. sure, fedor eventually could take down tyson, but you have to consuider how much damage tyson would do in those first two minutes. A ton...maybe even enough to preclude the takedown more often than not.