Now hear me out before reacting to the title. Time and time again we see in MMA, that the "better" striker getting beat on the feet. Isnt being the more "effective" striker more beneficial? Ill give some examples, no one will deny WB's striking instincts, diversity is far superior to Woodley's, and yet he got dropped 3/4 times and took a beating on the feet. Woodley's striking was more "effective". Same thing with Till. Theyre "better" strikers but he's more "effective" and thus effective > better. Ill give more examples below. Now even if we apply this to say, Khabib, whose striking seems rudimentary, he seems to outstrike "better" strikers on the feet, has better defence on the feet etc. Against guys like Al, Barboza etc. We all know in a boxing/kickboxing type situation, he's far outmatched but he's a more "effective" striker than the all of his previous opponents. Now these guys mentioned above have another dimension which allows their striking to be so effective, and thats their wrestling/grappling. But the same thing could be said about strikers aswell, everyone knows Conor has a left hand, but its the most "effective" weapon in MMA in terms of standing up. I know a lot comes with that left like the measuring of distance, instincts, timing, power and speed, but lets be reductionist for a moment. Guys like WB, TJ have more weapons and are more diverse strikers, but theyre not as effective. Does that mean theyre better strikers? I dont think so, because "effectiveness" is more important than being "better". TL;DR Having "better" striking isnt the advantage, having "effective" striking is & that "better" striking should mean more "effective" in mma. EDIT: A lot of fans equate "better" to being diverse, having slick movement etc. Its essentially a catch-all term in mma.