guess larry holmes was right

[devante]

Years ago he said he would use footwork and feints to control the dist against a grappler/ wrestler to stop him from a taking him down and b) allow him to ko the grappler. Many mma types and martial artist laughed, but years later it seems mr holmes was right; w/feints, footwork, and active hands (feet) u can neutralize a grapplers ability to find his range/close the dist or even set up for the shot/clinch.

silva did it to leben, no real sprawl or clinch def; just an ability to move backwards, laterally and at an angle to keep leben off balance and out of position to counter his shots or eff close the dist. So leben was constantly off balance out of position which resulted in him being picked apart and demolished.

Gsp dismantled hughes..using movement/angles and feints to handcuff hughes ability to time the strikes or even attempt them due to his inability to realize the feint or counter the strike, not to mention not eff set his feet and close the dist to get the clean shoot or clinch.
the leg kicks broke him down and opened him up for the high kick and punches.

not saying u can't have a well rounded game, u need to; but i think holmes was proven right by these last two fights esp the hughes fight where a guy who is almost worldclass in his wrestling tech and ability was shutdown by a less than worldclass striker w/good footwork off timing and feints

 

[vjvj]

True that footwork and feints are a big part of it, but you still need wrestling essentials to make it work. I'd say GSP's sub defense was a combination of footwork/feints AND proper wrestling defense (controlling the head, shoulders, sprawling the hips, etc.).

 

[devante]

i am not saying the other skills are not key; but people acknowledge the value of thse things, people have not respected the impact good footwork, angles and feints can have on a fight esp against a grappler.

i personnaly feel if more people dev this they would be able to apply their standup eff somewhat against grapplers and def against other strikers, even if the striker was better those things would allow u to be somewhat eff.

but i see ur point

 

[blanko]

gsp used footwork and feinting because he has a great takdown defence. The latter allows for the former.

 

[Sinister]

gsp used footwork and feinting because he has a great takdown defence. The latter allows for the former.

You're still on about that?

Footwork and feinting is footwork and feniting. NOT takedown defense. He defended precisely ONE takedown. If you're going to argue that Matt was gun-shy on takedown attempts BECAUSE of GSP's great takedown defense, okay. But GSP was not defending takedownS.

 

[krellik]

The problem here is that it is all about gameplan... Hughes sucked to be specific, a great grappler like Hughes not preasuring to get takedowns is just stupidity.

In the Monson fight we saw the oposite, someone to focused on the takedown not setting it up enough with striking.... Monsons best movements in the fight was propably when he tried to swing in the overhand a bit more agressive, I think he would have goten his takedowns from more agressive striking througout the fight.

 

[blanko]

You're still on about that?

Footwork and feinting is footwork and feniting. NOT takedown defense. He defended precisely ONE takedown. If you're going to argue that Matt was gun-shy on takedown attempts BECAUSE of GSP's great takedown defense, okay. But GSP was not defending takedownS.

Yes i am because people are forgetting what allowed GSP to use all of his striking tools in a striking situation against an inferior striker. His great takedown defence. Yes that's my point. I see so many strikers here just giving plain bad advice and throw out things like "why dont they just yada yada yada". As a person who started off with muay thai, i understand alot of footwork and feinting. But it's great takedown defence that forces your opponent to have to stand up with you, THEN and only then can you use stand up tools.

 

[blanko]

The problem here is that it is all about gameplan... Hughes sucked to be specific, a great grappler like Hughes not preasuring to get takedowns is just stupidity.

In the Monson fight we saw the oposite, someone to focused on the takedown not setting it up enough with striking.... Monsons best movements in the fight was propably when he tried to swing in the overhand a bit more agressive, I think he would have goten his takedowns from more agressive striking througout the fight.

hughes did not have a bad gameplan, it was what he was forced to do because of GSP's abilities. GSP is a strong ww like hughes who has amazing takedown defence, hughes and his corner knew that they would have to set up their takedowns with strikes. Also, let's not forget that hughes is not a "shoot in "wrestler, he likes to take people down from the clinch. That's why it was so important for him to establish some kind of stand up respect against gsp. People blame his corner but matt is just not a guy who likes to shoot.

 

[devante]

blanko i already acknowledged ur point on the all round skills and takedown def in my second post; but my point is people already give those things credit, how many people really acknowledge deft footwork or angles or feints as eff forms of takedown def.

not allowing someone to eff close, guage the dist or be in position to shoot or step in to a clinch is takedown def to an extent; it my not involve def the takedown (sprawl, reversal/etc). But it limits the grapplers ability to get comfortable or eff go for takedowns, it also makes them have to approach things diff to attempt the takedown (ie tryng to punch kick into range or open an opp up for takedowns w/strikes).

on a sidenote had matt had some decent standup def, feints headmovement footwork dist control he might not have gotten lit up; he might have been able to slip a punch and shoot on gsp, slip a punch and clinch up gsp. Or at least stay out of range of the leg kicks so that when gsp set his feet to close matt could have shot in ot clinched him up; his lack of these things def/feints/cost him as much as gsp grappling def.

hell if matt could correctly block a leg kick gsp whole game has to be adjusted cus alot of the opening he has just arent there.

 

[Sinister]

Yes i am because people are forgetting what allowed GSP to use all of his striking tools in a striking situation against an inferior striker. His great takedown defence. Yes that's my point. I see so many strikers here just giving plain bad advice and throw out things like "why dont they just yada yada yada". As a person who started off with muay thai, i understand alot of footwork and feinting. But it's great takedown defence that forces your opponent to have to stand up with you, THEN and only then can you use stand up tools.

But like I said, I think this is irrelevant when a person goes for minimal takedowns in a fight. If he goes for ONE takedown, it makes it difficult to argue it was GSP's takedown defense that allowed him to fight so well standing up. Case-in-point:

Also, let's not forget that hughes is not a "shoot in "wrestler, he likes to take people down from the clinch. That's why it was so important for him to establish some kind of stand up respect against gsp. People blame his corner but matt is just not a guy who likes to shoot.

This statement kind of detracts from your argument just a bit. Because here you're saying almost the opposite in that Hughes has to have good stand-up in order to grapple effectively?

Whether or not Matt LIKES to shoot I don't think is a proper reason for him NOT to shoot when he knows how. Especially as the calibur wrestler he is. From the moment he was getting hit (which was early in the fist round) on he had an obligation to no-longer stand and trade, but he did anyway and every time he shuffled forward slightly to attempt anything Goerge was too far away from him for it to be effective.

Now I know how adament you are about making sure people understand that grappling is necessary, TMA's don't work, yadda yadda, but please, let's refrain from calling good stand-up techniques good grappling defense. Or if you're going to make the argument that one was necessary to facilitate the other then let's at least do so on a bit better of an example because as I said, I only saw Goerge defend ONE takedown. If Matt had gone for takedowns as many times as Monson did against Sylvia I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

I think Matt just got hit, didn't think GSP had the ability to hurt him as much as he did, and didn't count on GSP's foot-speed. AFTER those things THEN I think takedown defense played a role on the occasion Hughes went for a takedown. Not takedown defense first, not in this fight.

 

[devante]

hey can we at least admit there is some validity to the statement made by holmes; that eff footwork can and will be a factor in def takedowns/preventing clinches... I understand the other side of it; but we have SEEN people use sprawls/etc to work to their feet or def or counter a takedown.

What we have not seen is people using intelligent footwork, lateral, circular movement, feints and dist control to..limit someones ability to eff close the dist, position themselves correctly, or setup a shoot/clinch.

im not talking bout cro cop or yves sprawling or mo smith def on the ground; i am talking about using the aforementioned approach strategy to take away ur opp ability to bring grappling into the mix.

Silva did it using angles, sidestepping, circular movement to keep leben from being able to get in range to use shots to setup clinch or takedown.. GSP did the same... So while i acknowledge ur point..acknowledge mine about the tech that helped him do what he did.

def a takedown is a sprawl/etc; takedown def encompasses not just def the actual takedown. but keeping the opp from eff being able to attempt or setup the takedown.

example if i am moving sliding sticking and moving my head/giving angles and my opp won't let his hands go, that is def..i keep him out of range/position to get off. Am i def punches no..but am i showing good punch def. YES...

WAS GSP DEF TAKEDOWNS FOR THE MOST PART NO, CUS HE ONLY DEF ON REAL ATTEMPT; BUT HE SHOWED EXCELLENT TAKEDOWN DEF CUS HE KEPT MATT OFF BALANCE OUT OF RANGE AND OUT OF POSITION CUS OF HIS FOOTWORK/ANGLES AND FEINTS.

is this agreed upon or is noone seeing where i am coming from

 

[blanko]

if you watch the fight you can cleary see that matt hughes was willing to stand with gsp and it was clear that it was the gameplan that matt and MFS drew up.

as for this:

Whether or not Matt LIKES to shoot I don't think is a proper reason for him NOT to shoot when he knows how.

randy is also a great wrestler, actually he is an amazing wrestler... How many times did he go for a shoot? Not many.

Now I know how adament you are about making sure people understand that grappling is necessary,

As a person who started off as a standup artist if we are talking about mma. Yes definately.

TMA's don't work, yadda yadda,

There are TMA's and there are TMA's. Muay thai is older than most so called "TMA"'s. But that's beside the point. Why would you even bring that up?

...but please, let's refrain from calling good stand-up techniques good grappling defense.

no let's see what i said:


"hughes did not have a bad gameplan, it was what he was forced to do because of GSP's abilities. GSP is a strong ww like hughes who has amazing takedown defence, hughes and his corner knew that they would have to set up their takedowns with strikes."

another example is Mir vs. Vera. Mir knew that vera would be hard to take down (vera's an extremely acommplised wrestler) so he knew that he had to set up his takedowns with strikes. Now why did they CHOOSE to stand up with GSP and Vera? Cus they knew that they would have to establish some kind of stand up game to be able to mix it up and take them down.

Or if you're going to make the argument that one was necessary to facilitate the other then let's at least do so on a bit better of an example because as I said, I only saw Goerge defend ONE takedown. If Matt had gone for takedowns as many times as Monson did against Sylvia I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

Monson had no choice but to try to take tim down. You can't compare those two fights becaus the two fighters have completely different skillsets. Vera, and GSP have are good/great wrestlers who have amazing striking. Also, don't forget that monson likes to shoot. Different wrestlers take down people in different ways. Matt hughes is more of a guy who likes to clinch. Surely he thought that he could hang with GSP standing or he would have shot.


devante,
you are right, if you can force your opponent to stand up with you and be oncomfortable then your stand up tools become that much more effective

 

[Gary Peters]

Depends on each individual's abilities. If Monson would have been able to close the gap and bearhug Sylvia, im willing to bet he would have taken him down sooner.

 

[vjvj]

"hughes did not have a bad gameplan, it was what he was forced to do because of GSP's abilities. GSP is a strong ww like hughes who has amazing takedown defence, hughes and his corner knew that they would have to set up their takedowns with strikes."

That's what I think happened, too. Hughes went in with the gameplan of setting up his takedowns with some striking. When he started losing the standup game, he went for the "Plan B takedown" (BTW I thought there were two takedown attempts, not one?) and when GSP defended as expected, Hughes was left not knowing what to do.

Keep in mind that Hughes' last fight was with BJ, who is also a bitch to take down without a proper setup.

Keeping with the original point of the thread, yes I think footwork does help the way you describe. Wrestlers need angles just like strikers do.

 

[aaron_mag]

I see so many strikers here just giving plain bad advice and throw out things like "why dont they just yada yada yada".

What bad advice are you seeing? And Why don't they throw a jumping back spinning hook kick when someone is going for the clinch?



Okay. I'll be serious for a second.

Takedown defense and good footwork are so interrelated that this is a chicken and the egg argument. I have a friend who wrestled since he was like 9 years old and has done a TMA since 9 (although he doesn't wrestle anymore because his competitive years with that are over). In high school he was in the state finals three years in a row. He is a good wrestler and good at the TMA we do (just a damn good athlete...I think I have an edge in standup...but on the ground I'm his bitch ).

Anyway I've seen him go against wrestlers who are bigger and stronger than he is and they can't seem to take them down. I've seen him land head kicks to people who should be able to get him to the ground. He is constantly telling me that, "A guy can't take you down unless he is in range for you to hit him. If they shoot from too far outside they are going to deal with a sprawl or a knee to the face..."

BUT, but, but, but...that is easier said than done. It works for him and he also is good at cutting angles and such to avoid the takedown.

For myself...I get grounded with all sorts of armspin takedowns, leg picks, all sorts of cheesy crap that won't work on him.

So is it that my footwork is bad in terms of standup in general (a distinct possibility) or that my grappling knowledge is not sufficient to apply my standup? Like I said...chicken and the egg stuff.

All I know is that I'm learning about grappling very slowly because I'm not a professional fighter like Crocop and GSP and only have so much time to devote to filling this gap in my knowledge...ha ha.

 

[aries]

You're still on about that?

Footwork and feinting is footwork and feniting. NOT takedown defense. He defended precisely ONE takedown. If you're going to argue that Matt was gun-shy on takedown attempts BECAUSE of GSP's great takedown defense, okay. But GSP was not defending takedownS.

:icon_surp Not sure what fight you were watching but I saw at least three legit takedown attempts (double legs) and one attempted clinch which considering this is Matt Hughes should really be considered a takedown attempt.

The fact that GSP is quick on his feet helped him avoid at least one of those takedowns, if not two. GSP was definitely defending takedown attempts in this fight.
However Matt was definitely engaging in too much stand up for his own good.

Keeping with the original point of the thread, yes I think footwork does help the way you describe. Wrestlers need angles just like strikers do.

I agree with this too. Its even harder to recover from a shoot attempt once your committed as compared to a strike.

 

[Sinister]

if you watch the fight you can cleary see that matt hughes was willing to stand with gsp and it was clear that it was the gameplan that matt and MFS drew up.

Gameplan or no Matt should not have been willing to stand-up the minute GSP was hitting and hurting him more times than not, which was early in the fight.

randy is also a great wrestler, actually he is an amazing wrestler... How many times did he go for a shoot? Not many.

And him NOT shooting was no excuse for getting KOd by Chuck.

As a person who started off as a standup artist if we are talking about mma. Yes definately.

Fine.

There are TMA's and there are TMA's. Muay thai is older than most so called "TMA"'s. But that's beside the point. Why would you even bring that up?

Because that's a horn you often toot.

hughes did not have a bad gameplan, it was what he was forced to do because of GSP's abilities. GSP is a strong ww like hughes who has amazing takedown defence, hughes and his corner knew that they would have to set up their takedowns with strikes.

Actually, if as your above-statement indicates, Hughes' plan was to stand and set-up takedowns with strikes, then that was indeed a BAD gameplan. It lost. It would have perhaps been more effective to attempt fast surprise takedowns via shooting, and were that the case I'd be more inclined to agree that it was GSP's amzing takedown defense that won him the fight.

But since that wasn't the case and this fight was mostly on the feet, I'm not inclined to agree with that becaust it's solely based on insinuation being that there were minimal takedown attempts.

another example is Mir vs. Vera. Mir knew that vera would be hard to take down (vera's an extremely acommplised wrestler) so he knew that he had to set up his takedowns with strikes. Now why did they CHOOSE to stand up with GSP and Vera? Cus they knew that they would have to establish some kind of stand up game to be able to mix it up and take them down.

Completely disagee. Mir/Vera was a totally different fight that didn't even go the same way. Mir was handling his own on his feet, and got beaten definitively in the clinch. Nothing to do with takedown attempts or not.

Monson had no choice but to try to take tim down. You can't compare those two fights becaus the two fighters have completely different skillsets. Vera, and GSP have are good/great wrestlers who have amazing striking. Also, don't forget that monson likes to shoot. Different wrestlers take down people in different ways. Matt hughes is more of a guy who likes to clinch. Surely he thought that he could hang with GSP standing or he would have shot.

Actually I can compare those two fights and you didn't really list much of a reason I couldn't aside from different skill-sets, which doesn't say a whole lot. Monson couldn't win on the feet. Matt couldn't win on the feet. Monson had no choice but to attempt takedowns, Matt eventually came upon the same point.

I think "likes" is a rhetorical term in competitive fighting. Who cares what you "like"...? If it doesn't work, then you adjust and do what you perhaps don't "like".

Not sure what fight you were watching but I saw at least three legit takedown attempts (double legs) and one attempted clinch which considering this is Matt Hughes should really be considered a takedown attempt.

The fact that GSP is quick on his feet helped him avoid at least one of those takedowns, if not two. GSP was definitely defending takedown attempts in this fight.
However Matt was definitely engaging in too much stand up for his own good.

I was watching Hughes/GSP. Note I was speaking specifically of takedown attempts GSP DEFENDED. He GOT taken-down once and Matt couldn't do anything with it. If he defended two, well alright, but I only remember one. So no, I still maintain he wasn't continually defending takedowns. Sorry.

But going back to this for a second:

Yes i am because people are forgetting what allowed GSP to use all of his striking tools in a striking situation against an inferior striker. His great takedown defence. Yes that's my point. I see so many strikers here just giving plain bad advice and throw out things like "why dont they just yada yada yada". As a person who started off with muay thai, i understand alot of footwork and feinting. But it's great takedown defence that forces your opponent to have to stand up with you, THEN and only then can you use stand up tools.

You know, I respect your opinion or what you feel you see, but I see grapplers doing the same shit. "Why don't they just take him down and sub him, I'll just take him down and choke him out." Now that it's becoming not-so-easy all I see is excuses rather than people giving credit to the skills that accomplished what they did. It's not grappling defense skills that make someone an effective striker, period. If my saying that offends or is disagreeable, so be it. But that's the dividing-line for me personally and I really don't care who it disagrees with and what experience they have.

I don't think great takedown defense necessarily forces a fight on the feet at all. Why? Because I've seen wreslters suffer the same fate as Matt simply because they don't know what to do when they get hit, and someone is too fleet-a-foot for them to even grab. They get hit, hurt, then start to come apart. And I, for one, think that had more to do with what made GSP effective on this occasion than his outstanding takedown defense. Anyone is free to disagree with me of-course, but that's as far as it'll go.

 

[Chris Kimmerly]

Yes i am because people are forgetting what allowed GSP to use all of his striking tools in a striking situation against an inferior striker. His great takedown defence. Yes that's my point. I see so many strikers here just giving plain bad advice and throw out things like "why dont they just yada yada yada". As a person who started off with muay thai, i understand alot of footwork and feinting. But it's great takedown defence that forces your opponent to have to stand up with you, THEN and only then can you use stand up tools.

Well in a sense the footwork and feinting is takedown defence, is it not? Sparwling is not the only takedown defence. A good sense of balance and a good centre of gravity to IMO is takedown defence.

 

[sweepsubmit]

Well i don't care to argue about the hughes/gsp fight but the fact is larry holmes would have been beat by any gracie at the time he said that. that does not take away from what he said, it does help but in the end you need wrestling in addition to what he mentioned.

 

[Sinister]

Well i don't care to argue about the hughes/gsp fight but the fact is larry holmes would have been beat by any gracie at the time he said that. that does not take away from what he said, it does help but in the end you need wrestling in addition to what he mentioned.

You have no Earthly clue what would have happened if a Gracie fought Larry Holmes. Please with that shit.