Compare Islam and Khabib as strikers

Söze Aldo

Brown Belt
@Brown
Joined
Jul 26, 2024
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
16,662
It still feels like Islam is somewhat living under Khabib's shadow. While he may not be quite as dominant a grappler as Khabib, it's fair to say his striking is on a whole different level compared to Khabib's awkward stand-up. Islam is a very technically sound kickboxer in an MMA context and actually poses a KO threat, which Khabib was never known for.


volkanovski-ufc.gif

stiopic-islam-makhachev.gif
 
yea, the evolution of Abdulmanap's pupils is very interesting. Islam is definitely a more active and technical striker than Khabib, but I don't know if I would say he is a more effective striker than Khabib.

Islam's purpose for striking like Khabib is as a means to get the fight to the ground. You can see Islam look to follow up nearly every strike by going for a clinch and takedown. Khabib's striking was mostly just relentlessly pushing forward daring his opponent to try to throw a punch so he could shoot under it and grab them.

Umar and Usman are that next step in the evolution, full-fledged strikers that can also drag and smesh if they want/need to.
 
Makhachev is more complete, unpredictable and fights more beautifully imo.

Everyone knows what Khabib is going to do for the whole fight.
 
Everyone knows what Khabib is going to do for the whole fight.
So what, it aint like they can do anything about it. Which is way more important.
 
So what, it aint like they can do anything about it. Which is way more important.
damn you are so sensitive about Khabib you felt the need to defend him from a regular comment lol
 
Yeah, Makhachev is more technically sound, but he does some have holes in his defense and footwork. Khabib has many holes in his defense, but his goal is non-stop pressure - which mostly always worked.

I feel like Khabib's striking was just a facade to invite clinching and grappling. Makhachev's striking, while good at times, is just that and nothing more. That isn't bad itself, but it isn't good enough to beat some of the better strikers in a full stand-up fight without the threat of his takedowns. Makhachev also has a problem where his striking and grappling aren't so intertwined, meaning that he can't easily switch from throwing to shooting/clinching against the cage very well.
 
Yeah, Makhachev is more technically sound, but he does some have holes in his defense and footwork. Khabib has many holes in his defense, but his goal is non-stop pressure - which mostly always worked.

I feel like Khabib's striking was just a facade to invite clinching and grappling. Makhachev's striking, while good at times, is just that and nothing more. That isn't bad itself, but it isn't good enough to beat some of the better strikers in a full stand-up fight without the threat of his takedowns. Makhachev also has a problem where his striking and grappling aren't so intertwined, meaning that he can't easily switch from throwing to shooting/clinching against the cage very well.
Tell me what fighter doesn't have holes in their game? Statistically speaking Mak is one of the best defensive fighters in UFC LW history, not just right now, but in the entire history of the promotion. People like to add qualifiers to diminish him and not give him his full credit.
 
Islam is a better striker than Khabib. He is somewhat forced to improve his striking. The game planning changes and people get better. Opponents hire people to break down the Dagi wrestling game and invite other good wrestlers from that region to train with them.
 
Makhachev is more complete, unpredictable and fights more beautifully imo.

Everyone knows what Khabib is going to do for the whole fight.
I think Khabib had better defense.. or opponents were scared to attack him because he was going to grapplefuck them.

Anyways... Khabib got touched less.
 
Islam probably has better stand up but you feel Khabib would dominate Islam in an MMA fight
 
Back
Top