Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UFC Discussion' started by depassage, Apr 23, 2018.
Can we now agree that in most cases a good wrestler is superior than a good striker in a fist fight?
It’s not quite that simple. But if a striker does not have TDD, and sucks on the ground. He can be in alot of trouble.
But if he KOs the wrestler first. It’s not much of a problem.
The likelihood of a striker finishing a wrestler on the feet before being taken down is very low—no matter how skilled the striker is.
Beyond that, very few people have one punch/kick KO power, so that further lowers the striker’s chances.
As a rule, yes.
The strikers we've seen succeeding are the exception (Aldo, Conor, etc).
Was there ever really a debate? Since ufc 1 to today it's been 80% good wrestling getting by elite stikes. There's always a few exceptions like Anderson or aldo or Joanna but even then their successful ability to strike is because they leaned wrestling or bbj defense.
That being said everyone loves those 20% ko better.
If that's all they know then yes, the wrestler will be triumphant more often than not against a striker.
The wrestler is the apex predator.
If only there was a way to test the theory....
Wrestlng is way more important than striking in the cage thats no secret
Surprisingly the fighter who can force the fight where they want it to be will probably win.
It's really shocking I know.
Obviously. If you allow headbutts and knees to the head of a grounded opponent the wrestler wins 9 out of 10 times.
Unfortunately wrestling is very boring to watch and drives casuals (and a lot of hardcores) away from MMA.
I would say a good grappler
and yes, I tought this was clarified long ago. doesn't mean the grappler will always win though, and nowadays fighters are all a mix of both
if you are talking unidimensional fighters a good BJJ or submussion guy beats a wrestler most of the time, as shown in the early UFCs
the BJJ/submission guy is the apex predator and eats the wrestler for breakfast
For sure bro, 100%.
Stipe - D1 Wrestler
DC - D1/Olympic Wrestler
Whittaker - Striker, qualified to wrestle for australia in commonwealth games
Woodley - D1 Wrestler
Khabib - Freestyle Wrestler/Judoka/Samboist
Holloway - Striker
Dillashaw - D1 Wrestler
MM - Striker/well-rounded grappler, high school wrestler.
For sure the BJJ/submission guy is successful my dude. Maia almost won a round against Woodley. Wrestlers basically don't exist in the UFC, less than 100% of the champions have wrestling backgrounds.
all the guys you mention train submissions or BJJ as well
you put a wrestler without BJJ training and a BJJ guy you know who wins, if not check the first UFC's.
you guys are giving sub defence credit to wrestling while the fighters got those skills training aother fighting sports
submisison defense is not part of wrestling, sorry
in terms of offence, all those fighters have won at least a fight by sub (maybe not stipe) I don't think they learned that in wrestling classes
Wrestling base is the most important base. Obviously you crosstrain a little with BJJ, but it's been abundantly proven that wrestlers are the most successful fighters in MMA.
The pure vs pure argument is silly. I'm talking in the context of MMA obviously.
If the wrestler gets stuffed by a guy with TDD & superior striking he's equally fucked , I thought the Randy vs Chuck trilogy showed us that or even McWantA100Mil vs Eddie more recently , he knew there wasn't going to be a takedown & he was royal fucked .
I don't think it's only a little, and maybe you find it silly because it doesn't support your argument that wresltling is the be all end all of fighting (based on your "little" crosstraining argument)
I do not deny the importance of wrestling as a base, but I try not to overestimate it either.
Given that it's the base of 6/8 current male UFC champions (and the base of the #1 contender in one of the two that isn't), seems hard to overestimate the importance.