Is it better be exceptional in fact a master in one aspect of MMA or very good in all aspects of MMA?

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

What do you guys think of this?

You pick what aspect of MMA you are a master at. And if you are a master at one aspect, you are just above average when it comes to other aspects of the game.

I'm leaning towards very good in all aspects.

Just to clarify it through numbers.

10 - Master
9 - Excellent
8 - Very Good
7 - Good
6 - Above Average
5 - Average
4 - Below Average

 

[VinceArch]

I'm of the opinion that one can be exceptional in all areas. It's just a matter of putting the time in but that doesn't mean it will translate to automatic success.

 

[Davidjacksonjones]

In MMA am leaning towards very good in all aspects.

 

[Killroy]

You will probably get in the UFC if you're a master in one aspect but I don't think you're going to get very far once the competition gets stiffer.

 

[El Fernas]

Pereira, exceptional standup striking, 2 titles in 2 divisions, 2 divisions in KB, as long as they are competent enough they can make it work, i mean, have to be competent enough and more of a terror with their main tool so they earn some respect from the opponent.

 

[World eater]

Well, both work. At what weight class? LHW doesn’t have a lot of grapplers at the top, so being a top striker is better than being well rounded. But generally speaking, most long reigning champions (goats) were well rounded, so that should be the right answer.

 

[DarthChen731]

"Exceptional in fact a master"

 

[dildos]

Master at one makes you be like big nog. Jack of all trades is Forrest Griffen…

I’d rather have the big nog approach.

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

I'm of the opinion that one can be exceptional in all areas. It's just a matter of putting the time in but that doesn't mean it will translate to automatic success.

So who was this mythical fighter that is exceptional in all areas?

 

[Fedora Millionankles]

Pereira, exceptional standup striking, 2 titles in 2 divisions, 2 divisions in KB, as long as they are competent enough they can make it work, i mean, have to be competent enough and more of a terror with their main tool so they earn some respect from the opponent.

Alex is a beast but he has yet to face a true grappler. Izzy and Jiri, who are not a grapplers, took him down and kept him there.

 

[Taric]

The GOATs were all masters of one art, and good to very good at everything else.

Khabib, Anderson, GSP, etc were all arguably the absolute best at one specific talent. When you are literally the best at an individual martial art it makes your opponent unable and unwilling to attempt to use that martial art against you.

 

[ChickenBrother]

What do you guys think of this?

You pick what aspect of MMA you are a master at. And if you are a master at one aspect, you are just above average when it comes to other aspects of the game.

I'm leaning towards very good in all aspects.

Voted master in one area but the premise needs clarification. Your OP offers the choice of being master at one aspect but "just above average" at other aspects. Isn't "above average" the same as "very good?" Poll would be more meaningful if it was 1) Master at one thing + average at everything else or 2) Very good (above average) but not master at everything.

To avoid ambiguity, you should also delineate the aspects clearly. Does "wrestling" include TDs, TD defense AND top control? If so, guys like Khabib have shown that's all you need as long as you are at least average at everything else. Guy like Aldo was a striking master but also had god-tier TD defense which enabled him to keep it standing and be dominant. Does that count as master at two aspects or one? If you're a striking master but have shit-tier wrestling (both TDs and TD defense) like Anderson Silva, you need at least very good grappling to survive and be dominant.

 

[Ozze]

Being exceptional in one area (11/10) and above average (7/10) in others I think is better than being just good (8/10) in everything.

 

[IndyCovaHart]

One trick pony only works for so long just ask Murko

 

[Skarsgard]

It depends on how good you are at the other areas. The success of Spong vs Poatan.
I'd take a solid gatekeeper who is good in every area like Magny or Miller over a specialist like Askren or Njokuani.

 

[El Fernas]

Alex is a beast but he has yet to face a true grappler. Izzy and Jiri, who are not a grapplers, took him down and kept him there.

Yes, but he is competent enough to survive there, hence the 2 titles, probably un a bit of a tailor made division at MW, but the man beat the guy that wrestlefucked Adesanya in Blachowicz, he should be a prime victim on the ground, but no one has capitalized on this.

 

[Bowel-forged Stool]

I’ll take master of stand n bang via KO

 

[surgeyou1]

You have to have something that sets you apart from the rest. And then design your style to get to those strengths.

Just being well rounded for the sake of it doesn't mean much if you don't have any advantages anywhere.

 

[Theynevergoeasy]

Be prime Fedor

 

[Black Blood]

It really, really depends on the fighter. In general you wanna be well rounded...

I may be misquoting here, but Nick Diaz once said that he'd rather fight a generalist rather than a specialist, because if a specialist can keep you in his game, you're fucked.