Aren't "reach advantages" misleading?

Doesn't matter if everything else is virtually identical.
 
understanding distance trumps reach. Ask Stef Struve


hqdefault.jpg
 
kibz said:
Typically it’s not overrated. Ask Jon Jones opponents.

But your reach is as advantageous as your opponent is skilled in controlling the range and sliding in and out closing distance with accurate powerful strikes (eg Garbrant, McGregor, Cormier, Hunt).

Reach combined with your ability to control the range with offensive threats is dangerous. Again, Jones is a good example...Gus slightly less, but still good....but on the far end you have fighters like Struve.
Steven Struve has all the reach in the world but sucks at controlling the range so he gets folded up against skilled fighters who can close the distance AND have power (e.g., Hunt).
Click to expand...

yes and his height and reach had nothing to do with him knocking out stipe.
 
Footwork & Head Movement > Reach advantage > Stand and bang > Doing fuck all
 
Being tall "enhances" your reach.

You can take two guys with similar wingspan, the one who is significantly taller and has a longer neck will be harder to reach with punches. Their jaw is further away from their hand (despite similar reach). Lots of tall boxers tend to stretch their arms out and lean back to avoid punches. It makes more shitty fights, which is why HW boxing is so abysmal right now.
 
You're as long as you want to be, you just have to believe!
 
The Pied Pooper said:
Guys, come on. The current method of measuring reach is insensitive. Reach should be recorded by what reach the fighter identifies with, that way nobody will have to feel like they aren't being accepted for who they are on the inside. And guys, what's on the inside is what really matters.
Click to expand...
Artem approves this post. Chu chu motherfuckers!
 
The further away stuff matters most with equally tall fighters. Some tall fighters have short reaches for their length, but their length allows them to strike from further away anyways. Easier to lean back, turn their longer bodies to extend punches, and kick without having to trade. So yeah, it's often misleading.
 
Blanqa Blanqua said:
No, but dude looks like a tank. Heavy Weight?
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Dude was UFC LW champion and also fought at WW when LW division was mothballed. He fought Hughes and GSP at WW and BJ at LW. tiny T Rex arms though.
 
Ufc regularly changes fighter's stats to troll us
 
weakandweary said:
Isn't reach measured between outstretched finger tips?

A fighter with a reach of 70" compared to 72" is given "a two inch reach advantage".

But the advantage should be how much further away a fighter can stand from another and still land a strike, right?

That would mean you have to think about HALF the reach. So in the above example the fighter with the longer reach should only be able to stand 1" further away and land a strike, not 2".

I guess I'm missing something?

Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...

You are not missing much.
But the problem for them is saying someone got a half an inch advantage doesn't sound as great as doubling it and making it seems like insurmountable advantage....

I take these measurements with the same grain of slat than the weight they put there...
that's the weight they weighed over a day ago, while dehydrated.
They should give the weight before they go to the cage.
THAT would give you a better understanding of who is "bigger".
 
Yeah, stats aren't always accurate but having reach is a big advantage if you learn how utilize it.
 
terriblemovie said:
Being tall "enhances" your reach.

You can take two guys with similar wingspan, the one who is significantly taller and has a longer neck will be harder to reach with punches. Their jaw is further away from their hand (despite similar reach). Lots of tall boxers tend to stretch their arms out and lean back to avoid punches. It makes more shitty fights, which is why HW boxing is so abysmal right now.
Click to expand...
Does that mean USADA could consider Conor's "Lifts" as PEDs? He needs to be careful IMO
 
weakandweary said:
Isn't reach measured between outstretched finger tips?

A fighter with a reach of 70" compared to 72" is given "a two inch reach advantage".

But the advantage should be how much further away a fighter can stand from another and still land a strike, right?

That would mean you have to think about HALF the reach. So in the above example the fighter with the longer reach should only be able to stand 1" further away and land a strike, not 2".

I guess I'm missing something?

Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...
Actually you can have shorter arms and a longer reach.
 
Dorkman said:
It can be misleading too. I have a reach equal to my height, but my shoulders are quite wide which is more of that reach than it is for most peoples build so i'm rocking some t-rex arms. Not quite artem lobov level t-rexin though. If they're going to measure reach they should honestly measure the length of the arm individually. Simple finger tip to finger tip measurement dosen't really say a lot.
Click to expand...

Shoulder width matters, though. You generally throw punches at the head. And the head is in the middle of your shoulders, not at the end of your arm.
 
height is often overlooked when it comes to reach. A fighter that is a few inches taller will have more actual reach than someone who has slightly longer arms, yet is shorter.
 
How about actually measuring fighters reach 1st?

Those numbers are as reliable as their height
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,697
Messages
55,435,582
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top