Is being the "better" striker overrated?

[jeremyemilio]

I'd say "kinda" in MMA in general and "yeah" in UFC but it's really a complicated matter. Btw, if the judging has changed in the UFC then correct me. I did catch an event which took part in Europe (Ukraine maybe?) and the judging seemed less messed up IMHO.
Saying Khabib is "outstriking" others is wrong and we've seen that before in these parts. It's the TD threat that keeps some fighters from striking in their full potential. If M. Ali is tied on a chair and I start hitting him am I really outstriking him? Some fighters get a lil bit "tied up" by the TD threat, that's all.

Okay... but it's worth remembering that Frazier beat Ali, and Ali is the far superior striker. Frazier won by making it messy, getting in his face, and walking through Ali's punches at distance to land hard shot of his own from in the pocket. Some people might say that's just a different style of fighting, and still a demonstration of better striking, but the truth is, the only reason Frazier was able to do that is because he was tough as shoe leather. It's not like it hadn't been tried on Ali before.

 

[Frode Falch]

Depends. So far this young sport has gone forward in a sinus curve.

You got longer periodes where the ground fighters are at the top, then you get a periode where the strikers are at the top.

Probably gonna be like that for a while.

 

[Sparky]

Since the term 'better' in this case is subjective it can very well be the same os effective.

I did not see what I wanted from Till tonight. He treated Woodley like he was just any fighter when Woodley is not and a special game-plan was needed. I waned to see feints like Holloway or Machida- trying to work some riddum. To take away the charges there needs to be leg kicks and body shots in the first. We did not see a technical striker in Till tonight.

 

[jojoRed]

Basically, what you are really saying is that having great variety in your strikes is less important than having one or two really reliable weapons.

It's like brother Naz said to Badr Hari about the Klitschkos "We've got these two brothers sitting over in Europe and all they've got is an old shotgun. But as soon as you are on their front porch, they blast you through the door. Now, you've got an entire arsenal, but while you are thinking about whether to use the AK47, the assault rifle or the bazooka, the burglars have already cleaned out your house."

I agree. Getting your jab, cross, hook + footwork to elite level is more important than learning tornado kicks.

More or less yeah, having that one weapon that cant be stopped even when you know its coming like Twood's blast overhand, Khabib's grappling or Conor's left is more important than most other shit, because theyre effective. Theyre more exciting to watch and make a difference in fights against anyone.

 

[AWilder]

Thats exactly what I mean, effectiveness should equate to being better and not just by being "more skilled". I also gave examples of strikers that are "better" than Conor because theyre more diverse, flashy, etc whatever, but he's more effective and thus should mean he's better.

But measuring effective striking can really only be done on a fight by fight basis. For example: Barboza was a very effective striker vs Terry Etim, but couldn't get anything going against Kabib.

 

[jojoRed]

Anderson Silva is a once in a generation type talent. He's an outlier.

 

[HI SCOTT NEWMAN]

And another thing.. I really think kickboxers have really bad striking in MMA. Yes I know about greats like Cro Cop, but look how many supposed great kickboxers have been knocked out cold by sloppy over hand rights in UFC. I remember when Pat Barry came to UFC and Rogan was going hysterical, making him out to be some striking God, I never forget it... and look how many times Pat got knocked out cold in UFC by wrestlers and BJJ guys.

 

[Verace]

Theres striking defense and offense.

I feel like 99% of the people, me included, only consider offense when talking about this

 

[jojoRed]

And another thing.. I really think kickboxers have really bad striking in MMA. Yes I know about greats like Cro Cop, but look how many supposed great kickboxers have been knocked out cold by sloppy over hand rights in UFC. I remember when Pat Barry came to UFC and Rogan was going hysterical, making him out to be some striking God, I never forget it... and look how many times Pat got knocked out cold in UFC by wrestlers and BJJ guys.

Thats a case of their skillset not translating well with smaller gloeves etc. You got two balloons protecting you, in KB so you develop techniques with the balloons.

But measuring effective striking can really only be done on a fight by fight basis. For example: Barboza was a very effective striker vs Terry Etim, but couldn't get anything going against Kabib.

Kind of yea, but it can also be a case of rock > scissors or in this case Khabib's striking being more effective than Barboza because of his trump card.

So the notion of WB being a better striker is flunked after getting booped on the feet 3/4 times against Woodley, so Woodley is the better striker in my opinion.

 

[CPH]

People put too much weight in credentials, black belts, world champions, undefeated in all sound good before the fight but time over and over have proved it doesn't always translate

I don't agree with this statement or the spirit of the thread. These credentialed strikers usually DO outclass the less credentialed standup fighters, with the occasional fail. This is the perfect example of people not seeing the big picture.

Yes, an aging Hunt has gotten KOed by a couple of bigger, younger strikers, but look at how his fights usually go. Same with JJ - Rose beat her, sure, but she has made everyone else look like an amateur. I could go on and on..

(legit) Credentials matter. No one is bulletproof, however.

 

[Bowel-forged Stool]

The reem has basically always been the "better striker" and has had his fair share of brain trauma. I think you may be onto something op

 

[AWilder]

Thats a case of their skillset not translating well with smaller gloeves etc. You got two balloons protecting you, in KB so you develop techniques with the balloons.


Kind of yea, but it can also be a case of rock > scissors or in this case Khabib's striking being more effective than Barboza because of his trump card.

So the notion of WB being a better striker is flunked after getting booped on the feet 3/4 times against Woodley, so Woodley is the better striker in my opinion.

I see what you are saying but I guess it really comes down to rulesets. WB is a great striker in striking competition and would probably destroy Woodley in karate/kickboxing/etc. but in MMA his striking isn't nearly as effective as the sum total of woodleys striking+grappling+wrestling tools. But just because kabib outstruck Barboza doesn't mean he is the better striker, kabib was able to come pletely nuetralize Barboza and Barboza failed to make any adjustments (still going for those kicks after being mauled ), and I think this is all really a case of us trying to overanalyze MMAth

 

[Mga223]

Woodley outclassed your boy Till because he’s simply that great. No need to overanalyze.

Woodley is better in every facet of MMA.

Better striker won.

 

[jojoRed]

I see what you are saying but I guess it really comes down to rulesets. WB is a great striker in striking competition and would probably destroy Woodley in karate/kickboxing/etc. but in MMA his striking isn't nearly as effective as the sum total of woodleys striking+grappling+wrestling tools. But just because kabib outstruck Barboza doesn't mean he is the better striker, kabib was able to come pletely nuetralize Barboza and Barboza failed to make any adjustments (still going for those kicks after being mauled ), and I think this is all really a case of us trying to overanalyze MMAth

Thats what I mean though, "better" striker in MMA is Woodley, in this case, and Khabib, because this is a different sport to KB.

We have to look in context to the sport aswell. Woodley is the better MMA striker because he's more effective even though outside of it, he probably isnt, ie KB.

 

[mortal]

Okay... but it's worth remembering that Frazier beat Ali, and Ali is the far superior striker. Frazier won by making it messy, getting in his face, and walking through Ali's punches at distance to land hard shot of his own from in the pocket. Some people might say that's just a different style of fighting, and still a demonstration of better striking, but the truth is, the only reason Frazier was able to do that is because he was tough as shoe leather. It's not like it hadn't been tried on Ali before.

You're catching me off-guard here since I haven't done my homework on that fight. Because of that, you have a point here. I have to say though that, to call a striker "better" than his opponent, I expect him to eventually do the required damage. If you're a striker and your opponent walks through your strikes, are you doing what you're supposed to? If yes, is that enough? If no, could you be better that night?

Just my thoughts but your argument is more educated on this example.

 

[scytheavatar]

Ill give some examples, no one will deny WB's striking instincts, diversity is far superior to Woodley's

What is "striking instinct"? Because Woodley's striking is basic but far and away the best of the division. He is the best counter puncher, reads his opponents like a textbook and knows how to bait his opponents into making mistakes. And he has top tier power + speed in his striking to boot.

 

[jojoRed]

What is "striking instinct"? Because Woodley's striking is basic but far and away the best of the division. He is the best counter puncher, reads his opponents like a textbook and knows how to bait his opponents into making mistakes. And he has top tier power + speed in his striking to boot.

What you just described.

The timing, knowing what to do and when without much thought, setting it up. Noticing the tiny gap in opponents defence and reacting instinctively etc.