How important is athleticism in the UFC?

[superpunch]

The technique/skill and or knowledge that is given to you by a coach is obtainable by everyone. If a coach is teaching a class of people the same thing, the same amount of knowledge can be acquired by everyone in that class. Even if some pick it up slower, they can eventually obtain the same amount of knowledge, they aren't limited. Everyone has the same ceiling because knowledge is something that is being passed on through teaching rather than something that is innate.

Athleticism however is something that is innate. Everyone has a different ceiling, because each individual human being is different. You can't teach Nick Diaz to be more athletic than GSP, no matter how hard Nick Diaz trains, he could never match GSP's athleticism. He can never be as explosive as GSP. But you can teach both of them the same amount of knowledge in terms of Martial Arts. If both GSP and Nick Diaz had the same coaches all their lives and the coach consistently taught them both the same exact thing until both got it down. All the knowledge/skills/technique taught from that coach can be passed on the both fighters. Now their ability to apply those skills would be separated by their innate differences.

We will have to agree to disagree because fundamentally, we don't agree.

The obvious refutation to this is Rousimar Palhares. Dude can not learn to not snap shit no matter what. Other guys won't be able to learn things more complex than that no matter how hard they try either.

 

[superpunch]

Even in your GSP/Diaz comparison this applies. Same way Nick can never out-jump or out-lift GSP, GSP can never out pace Diaz in a triathlon race, marathon race, cycling race etc

I actually think that GSP could out pace Diaz in triathlons, marathons, cycling, etc. if he trained for it.

 

[bad_k]

I actually think that GSP could out pace Diaz in triathlons, marathons, cycling, etc. if he trained for it.

It's possible, but fundamentally speaking athletes with big muscle mass like GSP would get out-paced by guys with a build like the diaz brothers in long endurance race.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

I am open to agree to disagree but at a fundamental level you are simply incorrect.

The technique/skills and knowledge that are given to you by a coach is absolutely NOT obtained and utilized equally to the same students that are being taught.

With your reasoning everyone in the same math class would get exactly same grades in tests if they put effort into it. This will never happen.

There is a thing called IQ and natural sense. Everyone will always be at a different level even if trained and taught under the same roof.

If you want to say athleticism can't be taught then neither can fight IQ and fight sense/awareness.

Even in your GSP/Diaz comparison this applies. Same way Nick can never out-jump or out-lift GSP, GSP can never out pace Diaz in a triathlon race, marathon race, cycling race etc

great take

 

[MMA4Life]

Looking at the Pettis V Ferguson match up i noticed a lot of guys giving Pettis a chance though Tony is clearly the better wrestler, Bjj guy, and Boxer.

I think What people are intrinsically seeing when watching Guys like Anthony Pettis, GSP, Demetrious Johnson, and others is that they seem to be able to meld their natural athletic gifts, fluidity of complex movements. into the three primarily used weapons that comprise MMA Wrestling, BJJ, and Muay Thai.

Now imo there are guys that have the tools like Machida, Wonderboy, Forrest griffin, Florian, Michael Bisping, all great champion fighters but lack athleticism.

Then there's guys like Travis Browne, Anthony Johnson, that have great athleticism but lack the tools.

then there's the unicorns your GSP, Bones, Anderson, guys that have very good athleticism and elite tool sets.

And now Conor a guy with elite striking, passable wrestling and BJJ. A goodish athlete with one elite aspect of his game kicking and punching.

thoughts.

who'd I forget?

Wonderboy isn’t fluid now. He is a graceful fighter if I’ve seen one. You have Wonderboy and Forest Griffin in the same sentence. Also GSP is GOAT status but his movements are a bit stiff and mechanical at times. Rumble seems to lack gas because of his frame and has made questionable decisions like when he wrestled Cormier in the first round. Watch Johnson’s highlights he has plenty of tools.

 

[1milman]

Athleticism alone is enough for top 10 in most divisions. Top 5 in HW obviously. UFC is primarily filled with D level athletes.

 

[Grr]

With the exception of Randall "Tex" Cobb, Larry Holmes was probably the less athletic of the two each time he fought. You know, the guy with 21 successful HWT boxing title matches.

 

[Timetravel_0]

I always underestimated athleticism until I went into the police academy. There were some really good athletes. I had to work really hard at building fitness and they just excelled at it effortlessly. Athleticism is important.

 

[613]

Now imo there are guys that have the tools like Machida, Wonderboy, Forrest griffin, Florian, Michael Bisping, all great champion fighters but lack athleticism.

How the fuck is Machida not athletic? He was so explosive in his prime

 

[613]

Athleticism is highly overrated and is clearly not the main priority in all combat sports.

Do you think Muhammad Ali was the best boxer of all time because he can run faster, jump higher and lift more weights than anyone else in his weightclass?

Let this sink in

Muhammad Ali is not a good example to use. He had really poor technique, but was arguably the fastest HW of all time and could move around the ring like no one else

 

[613]

RJJ says otherwise

RJJ is not close to the best boxer ever though

 

[Spitfire3000]

A-level athleticism is the most important trait imo

It's not even the most important in NFL and NBA. James Harden and Steph Curry are middling athletes not just for the NBA but period. Leveon Bell is one of the least athletic starting RBs. Skill is always the most important.

 

[Takamine86]

I am open to agree to disagree but at a fundamental level you are simply incorrect.

The technique/skills and knowledge that are given to you by a coach is absolutely NOT obtained and utilized equally to the same students that are being taught.

With your reasoning everyone in the same math class would get exactly same grades in tests if they put effort into it. This will never happen.

There is a thing called IQ and natural sense. Everyone will always be at a different level even if trained and taught under the same roof.

If you want to say athleticism can't be taught then neither can fight IQ and fight sense/awareness.

Even in your GSP/Diaz comparison this applies. Same way Nick can never out-jump or out-lift GSP, GSP can never out pace Diaz in a triathlon race, marathon race, cycling race etc

Technique/skills and knowledge if obtained are all the same thing. If the coach teaches everyone to throw the jab, he taught everyone the same thing. The difference of the utilization of that knowledge is separated by the users innate abilities. Meaning, if fighter A and fighter B both learned to throw the same jab but fighters A's jab is more crisp, that doesn't mean they were taught different knowledge. The application of that knowledge is different but the knowledge itself is the same. What makes fighter A's jab more crisp is there two different individuals throwing the jab, these are physical differences (two different human beings with different physical attributes), not a difference of knowledge.

It is possible for everyone in a class to score a 100 on the same test. My reasoning isn't to say everyone can get the same results with the same effort, I never said that. What i'm saying is knowledge itself isn't exclusive to anyone, it can be told to everyone therefor everyone can have it. Some can learn faster than others yes, but the fact remains everyone can score a perfect score on the same test if they obtain the same knowledge. That is the difference between Athleticism and skill/technique(knowledge). You CAN teach everyone to score a 100 on a math test but you CAN'T teach everyone to run a 4.4 in the 40 yard dash.

Fight IQ can be taught, its knowledge, professional fighters learn to fight. GSP learned to fight with a high fight IQ. Mayweather learned to fight with a high fight IQ. Fight sense/awareness however delves into physical senses (hearing, seeing, feeling, reacting, reflexes). These are physical and yes, they cannot be taught the same to every fighter. Some fighters will always have higher ceiling for fight sense/awareness/reflexes than others. It is innate.

If GSP trained he could indeed compete with Nick Diaz in a triathlon. He is a better athlete, has a higher ceiling, and conditioning can be improved. He would need to lose a lot of muscle mass in order to do so though.

 

[gevoudane]

Whats you definition of athleticism?

 

[grimballer]

Considering that most ufc fighters are d level...

Not so much

 

[L0ki]

Looking at the Pettis V Ferguson match up i noticed a lot of guys giving Pettis a chance though Tony is clearly the better wrestler, Bjj guy, and Boxer.

I think What people are intrinsically seeing when watching Guys like Anthony Pettis, GSP, Demetrious Johnson, and others is that they seem to be able to meld their natural athletic gifts, fluidity of complex movements. into the three primarily used weapons that comprise MMA Wrestling, BJJ, and Muay Thai.

Now imo there are guys that have the tools like Machida, Wonderboy, Forrest griffin, Florian, Michael Bisping, all great champion fighters but lack athleticism.

Then there's guys like Travis Browne, Anthony Johnson, that have great athleticism but lack the tools.

then there's the unicorns your GSP, Bones, Anderson, guys that have very good athleticism and elite tool sets.

And now Conor a guy with elite striking, passable wrestling and BJJ. A goodish athlete with one elite aspect of his game kicking and punching.

thoughts.

who'd I forget?

There's something really off with that list.

Part of athleticism is cardio.

Showtime and Rumble don't have good athleticism. Humble has power but they both have terrible cardio.

Athleticism is defined as "strength, fitness and agility", so cardio is definitely part of fitness.


Overall, it's very important.

Bas said "if you get a guy in good shape with not a lot of skill and a guy with skill who is not in good shape, the person in good shape has a good shot".



Live example: I was able to decision a guy in BJJ who had a blue or purple belt while I was a white belt because the guy was out of shape.

The match was boring as fuck and I wasn't able to get anything off except TD's but it was enough to get our coach yelling at him that he was going to lose the decision during the match.

 

[aus101]

It’s important but fight athleticism requires strength, power, endurance and toughness, so simply being fast twitch or coordinated won’t cut it. Being a physical beast though, now that’s an advantage.

 

[bad_k]

Technique/skills and knowledge if obtained are all the same thing. If the coach teaches everyone to throw the jab, he taught everyone the same thing. The difference of the utilization of that knowledge is separated by the users innate abilities. Meaning, if fighter A and fighter B both learned to throw the same jab but fighters A's jab is more crisp, that doesn't mean they were taught different knowledge. The application of that knowledge is different but the knowledge itself is the same. What makes fighter A's jab more crisp is there two different individuals throwing the jab, these are physical differences (two different human beings with different physical attributes), not a difference of knowledge.

It is possible for everyone in a class to score a 100 on the same test. My reasoning isn't to say everyone can get the same results with the same effort, I never said that. What i'm saying is knowledge itself isn't exclusive to anyone, it can be told to everyone therefor everyone can have it. Some can learn faster than others yes, but the fact remains everyone can score a perfect score on the same test if they obtain the same knowledge. That is the difference between Athleticism and skill/technique(knowledge). You CAN teach everyone to score a 100 on a math test but you CAN'T teach everyone to run a 4.4 in the 40 yard dash.

Fight IQ can be taught, its knowledge, professional fighters learn to fight. GSP learned to fight with a high fight IQ. Mayweather learned to fight with a high fight IQ. Fight sense/awareness however delves into physical senses (hearing, seeing, feeling, reacting, reflexes). These are physical and yes, they cannot be taught the same to every fighter. Some fighters will always have higher ceiling for fight sense/awareness/reflexes than others. It is innate.

If GSP trained he could indeed compete with Nick Diaz in a triathlon. He is a better athlete, has a higher ceiling, and conditioning can be improved. He would need to lose a lot of muscle mass in order to do so though.

Not sure if you disagreeing just for the sake of having a debate but you are factually incorrect bro.

You can NOT teach everyone to score a 100 on a math test. Human biology and history disagrees with you. 100% of the human population will not become a rocket scientist and have an average of 200 IQ no matter what kind of education and system you put the society under.

You are somehow saying not everyone can be Usain Bolt (Athleticism) but everyone can be Albert Einstein (Intelligence,skills etc).

Your example of teaching someone a jab is too juvenile of a comparison, sure any beginner can learn and obtain the knowledge of how to throw a jab correctly but not everyone will understand the depth of how to use the jab correctly in striking exchanges. (Sense,timing, awareness)

EVERYONE can be taught and trained to be more athletic and improve their techniques/skills, but not everyone will reach the same levels in both categories. This is just a fact bro.

 

[Takamine86]

Not sure if you disagreeing just for the sake of having a debate but you are factually incorrect bro.

You can NOT teach everyone to score a 100 on a math test. Human biology and history disagrees with you. 100% of the human population will not become a rocket scientist and have an average of 200 IQ no matter what kind of education and system you put the society under.

You are somehow saying not everyone can be Usain Bolt (Athleticism) but everyone can be Albert Einstein (Intelligence,skills etc).

Your example of teaching someone a jab is too juvenile of a comparison, sure any beginner can learn and obtain the knowledge of how to throw a jab correctly but not everyone will understand the depth of how to use the jab correctly in striking exchanges. (Sense,timing, awareness)

EVERYONE can be taught and trained to be more athletic and improve their techniques/skills, but not everyone will reach the same levels in both categories. This is just a fact bro.

Ok, I see. The problem you are having is you are equating "knowledge" and "intelligence". They aren't the same thing. So you think I am saying everyone can be as smart as Albert Einstein if I say everyone can score a 100 on a test based on acquired knowledge. Let me be clear, I'm not saying everyone can be as smart as Albert Einstein, but yes I am saying everyone can score a 100 on a math test because knowledge can be passed on to anyone, it isn't exclusive to anyone. I'll explain the difference.

Knowledge is a collection of skills and information a person has acquired through experience. This is information that can be given to anyone. Its not exclusive to anyone, it is information. That is what an MMA coach or Boxing coach gives to his students. He gives them knowledge of Martial Arts.

Intelligence is the ability to apply that knowledge, that is different. That is not the same as knowledge itself. We can't all be as smart as Albert Einstein no, but we can all learn from Albert Einstein. What Albert Einstein learns, he can pass that knowledge/information to others. That is what an MMA/Boxing coach does, he passes on his knowledge/information.

Once you understand the difference between knowledge and intelligence, everything I said in my previous post should make more sense.

 

[Dirge]

Looking at the Pettis V Ferguson match up i noticed a lot of guys giving Pettis a chance though Tony is clearly the better wrestler, Bjj guy, and Boxer.

I think What people are intrinsically seeing when watching Guys like Anthony Pettis, GSP, Demetrious Johnson, and others is that they seem to be able to meld their natural athletic gifts, fluidity of complex movements. into the three primarily used weapons that comprise MMA Wrestling, BJJ, and Muay Thai.

Now imo there are guys that have the tools like Machida, Wonderboy, Forrest griffin, Florian, Michael Bisping, all great champion fighters but lack athleticism.

Then there's guys like Travis Browne, Anthony Johnson, that have great athleticism but lack the tools.

then there's the unicorns your GSP, Bones, Anderson, guys that have very good athleticism and elite tool sets.

And now Conor a guy with elite striking, passable wrestling and BJJ. A goodish athlete with one elite aspect of his game kicking and punching.

thoughts.

who'd I forget?

What makes you say Tony is a better BJJ guy?

Pettis submitted Melendez and Benson Henderson. In fact he is the only guy who submitted Melendez and one of only two guys to submit Henderson.

I'd put those two sub wins against anyone Ferguson has submitted.

I'd say Pettis is better on the ground. Tony has the edge is wrestling for sure though and probably a much better chin.