Is reach advantage/disadvantage really that important?

The Invisible

Purple Belt
@purple
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
1,844
Reaction score
272
When you use it well, it is I think. But which fighter is a good example who almost Always has a reach disadvantage but still can get inside and out. Dillashaw?
 
Anderson Silva, GSP, Chuck Liddell, Jones - all really long reach.
 
It all comes down to whether or not the guy has the skills and fight IQ to use it properly.

If you're Jon Jones, yeah it's pretty important.

If you're Stefan Struve, not so much.
 
Is size that important? I've seen smaller fighters beat bigger fighters.
Is striking that important? I've seen worse strikers beat better strikers.
Is grappling that important? I've seen worse grapplers beat better grapplers.
 
An advantage is better than a disadvantage if that's what you're asking.
 
it's an aspect. as in, one of many. when utilized effectively it can be a huge advantage. not "is", but "can be".
 
Mousasi used it masterfully against Ilar Latifi. But for any kind of advantage, one will find examples of fighers who exploited it masterfully and others of fighters who were not helped by it at all.
 
this is why mike tyson was the greatest of all time. he was great even without having the biggest advantage you can have, a long reach advantage.
 
tumblr_n0tvw8uRul1sdqajoo2_400.gif

<mma4><mma4><mma4>{<BJPeen}
 
Ask Eddie Alvarez how did worked out for him against a guy with much better use of distance and longer reach.
 
It's a major advantage when you're talking about top notch fighters squaring off.

Every advantage counts when most other things are equal.
 
F*ck yes it is. If a 5 foot 5 guy sparred a 6 foot 5 guy, it would be glaringly obvious as to why reach was a huge advantage. If you can't hit a guy at a distance where they cannot hit you, that is an advantage....
 
If you're a Jones Hater, a disparity between reach advantage and disadvantage is extremely important.
 
Back
Top