Its crazy that the common mma breakdown doesn't get into striking match ups

Bangkok ready d1

Banned
Banned
Joined
Oct 31, 2019
Messages
5,957
Reaction score
5,759
Its usually about who is the better striker ( which usually just means who is flashier and more orthodox) and them they talk about if the ground game changes anything for the worst striker.
They rarely talk about how the striking styles of each fighter match up, so when we see jan beating izzy on the feet, khabib beating mcgregor on the feet and etc we are lead to belive thats because of the takedown thread, which its part truth, but the fact that jan striking was the worst match up possible for izzy ( which can be seem in other izzy fights like vettori) was never brought up.
Right now this is the most unspoken part of mma breakdowns
 
Its simple. Most “mma guys” might know of the intricacies of grappling but know jack shit about the intricacies of striking
 
Its simple. Most “mma guys” might know of the intricacies of grappling but know jack shit about the intricacies of striking
Correction: Most "mma guys" know jack shit about grappling or striking, but think they understand grappling because they can identify the names of positions.
 
Correction: Most "mma guys" know jack shit about grappling or striking, but think they understand grappling because they can identify the names of positions.

well, thats why i said “might”.
 
Back
Top