Are shorter guys harder to take down?

[Robbocop]

i think if you let the shorter guy lock his arms around your waist, you're kind of fucked if you're not an absolute gorilla that can dig an underhook and break their grip.

also, shorter guys don't necessarily always have the lower center of gravity, you can also manipulate your center of gravity by gaining tons of weight. that's why sumo wrestlers are fatsos.

In Sumo there are no weight divisions though and no 265 pound limit so it makes it very hard to compare to modern MMA which generally isn't openweight and has a fairly low maximum weight limit for the HW fighters. If you are maximum 185 pounds (middleweight) or maximum 155 pounds (lightweight) it's not really viable to have a significant amount of fat on your frame to utilise.

 

[nostradumbass]

You kind of said it yourself in the OP, singles and doubles are harder to finish on short guys, upper body TDs from the clinch not so much. It's probably also a little tougher to grab a limb or a neck on short, stocky guys once you get them down. Islam did take Volk down in every round of the 1st fight, but Volk doesn't have much of a neck to grab to choke him.

 

[Pancake Sprawl]

In Sumo there are no weight divisions though and no 265 pound limit so it makes it very hard to compare to modern MMA which generally isn't openweight and has a fairly low maximum weight limit for the HW fighters. If you are maximum 185 pounds (middleweight) or maximum 155 pounds (lightweight) it's not really viable to have a significant amount of fat on your frame to utilise.

my point was gaining weight will lower your center of gravity, my example of sumo wrestlers being fat is just an example of how this works. i didn't say MMA fighters should gain 200lbs of fat.

 

[BoomStronk]

Myth or truth?

I’ve seen this come up over and over, especially in the talks about Topuria vs Charles and Topuria vs Makhachev. “Oh, short guys are super hard to take down”, “center of gravity this, center of gravity that”, and so on...

I can agree when we’re talking about those classic takedown entries that shoot straight for the legs, like single legs and double legs — yeah, being shorter probably makes it trickier. But does that really apply to every kind of takedown?

I’ve been doing Muay Thai for a few years now, and I’ve been learning judo for a couple of Months. And From what I’ve experienced with clinch-based takedowns, being shorter doesn’t really seem like an advantage. That whole “center of gravity” thing doesn’t really help when it comes to staying on your feet. Height makes it way easier to reach the right pressure points, break posture, and guide the opponent’s body to the ground. Controlling the elbows, controlling the head to steer the body, and setting up foot sweeps or trips, all of that feels way smoother when you’ve got the height advantage.

So talking about my own experience, i think that is a myth.

What you guys think about ?

I got my name,stump, from judo. As in, hard to move, like a stump. Its hard to say what's best - leverage or density

In judo, I think short and stocky is an advantage. In bjj tho, those short guys can have a real pr9glem fitting their opponents head/shoulder in their legs for a triangle. But if they get their little short legs in position around your neck, good luck powering out of that. Same with arm chokes. Taller , Bankier guys have more space to set up submissions but that same space can be used for defendung that submission.

I think there is definitely truth to the idea tho. Shorter stockier guys are harder to twke down in judo, and in wrestling.

As much as I dislike jones, this is a serious boost to his legacy, too. He's incredibly hard to take down and incredibly good at takedowns, despite being so lanky.

 

[Hassan Mouzine]

i dont know man.....jon jones is very very hard to take down.

it's not a wrestling match, it's mma. distance control is also important and it can be done by footwork, stance but also striking techniques. jones's reach, stance and various striking techniques from range and up close make it very hard to take him down. he will put a foot on your knee.......his hand in your face and even if you do get close to wressle.....he can wrestle too or throw elbows.

all those defences mentioned (including the wrestling) have to do, in part, with his length and reach advantage.

 

[colorles]

Myth or truth?

I’ve seen this come up over and over, especially in the talks about Topuria vs Charles and Topuria vs Makhachev. “Oh, short guys are super hard to take down”, “center of gravity this, center of gravity that”, and so on...

I can agree when we’re talking about those classic takedown entries that shoot straight for the legs, like single legs and double legs — yeah, being shorter probably makes it trickier. But does that really apply to every kind of takedown?

I’ve been doing Muay Thai for a few years now, and I’ve been learning judo for a couple of Months. And From what I’ve experienced with clinch-based takedowns, being shorter doesn’t really seem like an advantage. That whole “center of gravity” thing doesn’t really help when it comes to staying on your feet. Height makes it way easier to reach the right pressure points, break posture, and guide the opponent’s body to the ground. Controlling the elbows, controlling the head to steer the body, and setting up foot sweeps or trips, all of that feels way smoother when you’ve got the height advantage.

So talking about my own experience, i think that is a myth.

What you guys think about ?

You have it correct: for clinching and clinch based take downs, height is an advantage because with more height comes more leverage from the back and from the limbs; not to mention the potential of elbows in the clinch (think Johnny Walker vs Kalil Roundtree). Shooting for a take down on the other hand is more difficult on shorter but stockier men due to said lower center of gravity and shorter legs.

 

[mkt]

This requires the classic answer from academics (especially economics): all other things being equal, yes, shorter guys are harder to take down. Obviously, a short kickboxer who isn't very well rounded like Pat Barry doesn't have world class TDD. But he would've been even easier to TD if he were built like Kendall Grove or something.

 

[mkt]

i dont know man.....jon jones is very very hard to take down.

it's not a wrestling match, it's mma. distance control is also important and it can be done by footwork, stance but also striking techniques. jones's reach, stance and various striking techniques from range and up close make it very hard to take him down. he will put a foot on your knee.......his hand in your face and even if you do get close to wressle.....he can wrestle too or throw elbows.

all those defences mentioned (including the wrestling) have to do, in part, with his length and reach advantage.

See my post above. We can always find exceptions. Jones is a very unique breed who is a very good wrestler and very athletic (brothers played in the NFL). And he really knows how to use his long limbs and leverage well.

 

[Meathead Jock]

In wrestling they are harder to take down.

In fighting you get to use the length and reach to keep distance and strike as they try to enter your distance to where it's less of an advantage.

 

[Ube]

It’s not necessarily shorter guys, but guys with a low center of gravity for their height.

So if you have a long, big torso but short legs, it’s gonna be harder naturally to take you down because the other guy has to go lower to destabilize you or grab your leg but now has a lot of your upper body weight over him.

I’m kinda high right now so maybe someone can explain it better.

 

[colorles]

It’s not necessarily shorter guys, but guys with a low center of gravity for their height.

So if you have a long, big torso but short legs, it’s gonna be harder naturally to take you down because the other guy has to go lower to destabilize you or grab your leg but now has a lot of your upper body weight over him.

I’m kinda high right now so maybe someone can explain it better.

You are making perfect sense. That is why wrestlers typically have longer torse to leg ratios. Also, a longer back is a stronger back, provides more leverage.

 

[AmonTobin]

Judo trips work on all heights, don't they?

 

[TriangleMonkey]

Judo trips work on all heights, don't they?

The art of wrestling works on all heights too

 

[AmonTobin]

The art of wrestling works on all heights too

 

[TriangleMonkey]

Did Heath ever even wrassle’ tho?

 

[AmonTobin]

Did Heath ever even wrassle’ tho?

Tim Boetsch, my man.

 

[Orochimaru 大蛇丸]

This is the type of shit people who have never trained think about, everything is about a physical attribute, Khabib was good because he’s so strong lmao

Being a good wrestler makes you hard to take down

 

[TriangleMonkey]

Tim Boetsch, my man.

I’m a big fan of that gif by the way


But Tim couldn’t do that to any of the wrestlers he fought. Use a toss like that

Losses to Phil Davis, Munoz, Henderson, and Herman. All wrestlers that can nullify the Judo’s

 

[Stoic1]

Shorter usually means smaller and lighter. So any center of gravity advantage they might have is usually negated by strength

 

[PEDRO IVO RUSSO MIRANDA]

This is the type of shit people who have never trained think about, everything is about a physical attribute, Khabib was good because he’s so strong lmao

Being a good wrestler makes you hard to take down

Thats not the case bruh.
The #1 criteria will always be skill.

physical atributes bring natural advantages or disadvantages.
My point is exactly the opposite of what your saying, I'm literally pointing how you can take down shorter guys with other techniques besides single/double legs .