i did a thread like this in the grappling section, i basically stated grappling was like baseball, because its really tech based; in that no amount of phys ability will get you anywhere of not if you don't have fundamentals (allround or specialized at the very least). Also its very meticulous and is something that can be done much later in life than other high impact sports; its also the sport where you can have totally non gifted guys routinely outlast and outperform much more gifted guys based on guile, experience and technique.
as far as striking-
i would say it compares to football, both are high impact; even if you do everything right you can and still will get hit, it's inevitable. In both sports athleticism can really overcome technique in many instances; not saying tech isn't needed, esp at the higher levels where athleticism is high. But at the lower levels, even w/poor tech and a lack of experience a striker can be effective and so can a football player; why because soo many people play it and there are so many levels at which it can be played.
Also and this is what drove it home for me, in football; esp college, you can dev schemes or systems to make up for weakness in certain athletic areas or to make up for differences in tech mastery; it allows you to maximize an athletes skills and what they can do, an limit their vulnerability by not putting them in position to be beaten. The spread off is an example, it can make a tech inferior but athletically gifted qb into a national champion, by simplifying the attacks and allowing him more space to use his athleticism and more time to make simple reads because of the def being spread out. Yet at the highest level, those things work in situationally; because all the guys at that level have comparable athleticism, but more importantly the majority of them have the position specific skillsets to counter and def. Which basically renders the phys ability of the qb moot; because he isn't capable of creating on the fly or just outrunning any and everyone he faces. The same goes for linemen who don't know how or can't eff run the pro style blocks; so they can use a particular offense to take adv of their quickness and agility, masking their lack of strength or tech in orthodox blocking. An much like in striking, certain coaches get players who fit their system, not necessarily are the best at that position; example certain boxing coaches only work w/guys who have certain attributes that will allow them to p/up the intricacies of their system. Some coaches work w/guys w/great handspeed, footspeed and body control; some like durable/conditioned guys. An the same in football, some coaches like mobile qb's, some like pocket guys w/quick release; in the case of receivers some prefer possession guys w/good blocking skills, and so on.
in striking, you can scheme a guy. Even if he is better, if you have the right phys skills and a good enough coach; you can come up w/a strategy that can overcome his superior tech and physical ability, ex-montell griffin schemed against roy jones jr in the first fight and on the football side the giants schemed against randy moss in the superbowl. Or better yet the miami dolphins essentially dominating teams w/superior talent using a scheme; the wildcat, but not that said scheme has begun to be figured out to a degree, they are now 0-3. Same thing w/roy jones jr, or maybe naseem hamed would be the best example...or evans schemed liddel, griffin schemed jackson and so on.
also-in football they have types of players who fit guys who strike, wether it be mma or pure striking; example-chad pennington/kenny florian, game managers won't lose a game, but lack the phys ability to win it for. Both are technicians and make very few mistakes; but due to below avg abilities, can never take full adv of that intellect and mastery, what is worse these guys can't turn things around (i.e. you build a lead, they will make it respectable;but still lose [dolphins v colts 09-florian v penn 09] Just an example. Then you have guys like a vy/reggie bush/mike vick; guys w/base level skills, who have outstanding athletic gifts which allow them more success even in light of glaring mistakes, that usually aren't taken adv of until facing really schooled and phys capable opp [rashad evans is the best example, see what he did to salmon, liddel, griffin and what happened when he faced machida; an the same goes for the ballplayers who crushed phys limited guys or tech limited guys, but got exposed when facing the best and the numbers show it vince young/mike vick poor completion numbers and interceptions and reggie bushes terrible ypc avg, an lack of all round eff as a rb)
finally-much like football, striking is a copy cat thing; most people run the same general off/def, an in striking (esp mma) most people do things one certain way. There are a few mavericks who have success; but due to their lack of championships or consistency in performance over the long haul, people choose to ignore or downplay the eff of their style. Example-teams that are a pass dependant team, teams that play poor def, teams that depend on wildcats or spread/no huddle/ shotgun off. In mma you have the holy trinity, boxing-kb-mt that are more prevalent than tkd, jkd, kyokushin, shotokan, etc; or even in boxing, where the majority of guys generally prescribe to the same overall approach to it.
thoughts/opinions
thoughts/opinions
as far as striking-
i would say it compares to football, both are high impact; even if you do everything right you can and still will get hit, it's inevitable. In both sports athleticism can really overcome technique in many instances; not saying tech isn't needed, esp at the higher levels where athleticism is high. But at the lower levels, even w/poor tech and a lack of experience a striker can be effective and so can a football player; why because soo many people play it and there are so many levels at which it can be played.
Also and this is what drove it home for me, in football; esp college, you can dev schemes or systems to make up for weakness in certain athletic areas or to make up for differences in tech mastery; it allows you to maximize an athletes skills and what they can do, an limit their vulnerability by not putting them in position to be beaten. The spread off is an example, it can make a tech inferior but athletically gifted qb into a national champion, by simplifying the attacks and allowing him more space to use his athleticism and more time to make simple reads because of the def being spread out. Yet at the highest level, those things work in situationally; because all the guys at that level have comparable athleticism, but more importantly the majority of them have the position specific skillsets to counter and def. Which basically renders the phys ability of the qb moot; because he isn't capable of creating on the fly or just outrunning any and everyone he faces. The same goes for linemen who don't know how or can't eff run the pro style blocks; so they can use a particular offense to take adv of their quickness and agility, masking their lack of strength or tech in orthodox blocking. An much like in striking, certain coaches get players who fit their system, not necessarily are the best at that position; example certain boxing coaches only work w/guys who have certain attributes that will allow them to p/up the intricacies of their system. Some coaches work w/guys w/great handspeed, footspeed and body control; some like durable/conditioned guys. An the same in football, some coaches like mobile qb's, some like pocket guys w/quick release; in the case of receivers some prefer possession guys w/good blocking skills, and so on.
in striking, you can scheme a guy. Even if he is better, if you have the right phys skills and a good enough coach; you can come up w/a strategy that can overcome his superior tech and physical ability, ex-montell griffin schemed against roy jones jr in the first fight and on the football side the giants schemed against randy moss in the superbowl. Or better yet the miami dolphins essentially dominating teams w/superior talent using a scheme; the wildcat, but not that said scheme has begun to be figured out to a degree, they are now 0-3. Same thing w/roy jones jr, or maybe naseem hamed would be the best example...or evans schemed liddel, griffin schemed jackson and so on.
also-in football they have types of players who fit guys who strike, wether it be mma or pure striking; example-chad pennington/kenny florian, game managers won't lose a game, but lack the phys ability to win it for. Both are technicians and make very few mistakes; but due to below avg abilities, can never take full adv of that intellect and mastery, what is worse these guys can't turn things around (i.e. you build a lead, they will make it respectable;but still lose [dolphins v colts 09-florian v penn 09] Just an example. Then you have guys like a vy/reggie bush/mike vick; guys w/base level skills, who have outstanding athletic gifts which allow them more success even in light of glaring mistakes, that usually aren't taken adv of until facing really schooled and phys capable opp [rashad evans is the best example, see what he did to salmon, liddel, griffin and what happened when he faced machida; an the same goes for the ballplayers who crushed phys limited guys or tech limited guys, but got exposed when facing the best and the numbers show it vince young/mike vick poor completion numbers and interceptions and reggie bushes terrible ypc avg, an lack of all round eff as a rb)
finally-much like football, striking is a copy cat thing; most people run the same general off/def, an in striking (esp mma) most people do things one certain way. There are a few mavericks who have success; but due to their lack of championships or consistency in performance over the long haul, people choose to ignore or downplay the eff of their style. Example-teams that are a pass dependant team, teams that play poor def, teams that depend on wildcats or spread/no huddle/ shotgun off. In mma you have the holy trinity, boxing-kb-mt that are more prevalent than tkd, jkd, kyokushin, shotokan, etc; or even in boxing, where the majority of guys generally prescribe to the same overall approach to it.
thoughts/opinions
thoughts/opinions
