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

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


  • Total voters
    57
Dern is about the best there is in BJJ. But she sucks on the feet, and can’t wrestle for shit. That’s why she got smoked in her last two fights.

I’d rather be well rounded. That way you’re theoretically not in deep shit no matter where the fight goes. And if your opponent is horrible at defending an aspect that can be your path to victory.
 
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.

Pereira is a 2 div world champion in kb, he's already an exception in his own specific discipline.
 
Looking across history it's clearly master of one style, and at least competent at the others. The vast majority of great fighters have fallen under this.
 
Master at one makes you be like big nog. Jack of all trades is Forrest Griffen…

I’d rather have the big nog approach.

Or master of one is Rousimar Palhares and Jack of all trades is GSP.
 
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.
I think if you're superb at a particular offensive aspect of MMA, and just decent at everything else, you can become champ. Francis would seem to be proof of this. That said, it's probably better in general to be well rounded.
 
Volk vs Topuria was a good example.

Jack of all trades looked weak vs an exceptionally powerful boxer with decent grappling.
 
It's almost equal. The generalist might lose to a specialist sooner or later, the specialist might lose to a generalist sooner or later.

But I'm learning towards a mastery of one skill (assuming they have a decent foundation in all aspects)
* It's fun
* Sometimes you get away with stuff cause opponents fear your mastery of one skill. Like wrestlers with rudimentary striking who can land really easy clean strikes just cause their opponents were so focused on takedown defense
 
Last edited:
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.

Hmmn Nick finished his career being unable to win fights unless they fell into his game. there's some irony here.
 
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 specify the aspects with clear delineation. 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.

Very good is two times above than above average imo. Good and than Very good.
 
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.

Above Average is more like 6/10. Very good is 8/10.
 
Very good is two times above than above average imo. Good and than Very good.

Hmm. Interesting. Since we're talking hypothetical characters I'm going to use the Dungeons & Dragons character attribute system to answer this question. A notional fighter's performance in the cage would be determined primarily by his Strength, Dexterity and Constitution attributes. If he is an excellent trash talker with high Charisma, he has a chance to get inside his opponent's head but this effect should be relatively minor, perhaps imparting a +1 to initiative if anything.

So "master" rating would signify an 18 in that attribute, imparting a +3. If assigned to Strength, that fighter would receive +3 bonus to THACO as well as damage to melee strikes. Dexterity bonus would improve their Armor Class making them harder to hit and Constitution bonus would impart additional hit points per level. Since this is unarmed combat, weapon mastery is not a factor and we will presume none of the combatants are of the Mystic class.

And regardless of each combatant's fighting style, Wrestling Rating will factor heavily, which is the sum of Strength and Dexterity bonuses if any, plus proficiency bonus if trained in athletics or acrobatics.

Merely "Above Average" would signify an ability score between 13 and 15, imparting a +1 bonus, while "Very Good" signifies 16-17 and meriting +2 bonus.

So the match up can be quantified. Total attribute bonus for master with two above average attributes is +5. For Strength, Dexterity and Constitution all "above average" for +2 bonus each, imparts total +6 bonus across all physical attributes. Charisma-driven trash talk impact may move the needle but for simplicity we will presume that is a wash. So ceteris paribus, I believe a notional fighter with 16 scores across all physical abilities would likely be favored in unarmed melee combat over the other. However, a Monte Carlo simulation may be required.
 
Last edited:
I never said nor mentioned a fighter so it sounds like you should figure that out for yourself ;)
“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 this is your opinion, but have no examples to support it?
 
As with everything it depends on the man,and how good he is at implementing what it is he's good at,wether it is one or several things it doesnt matter.
 
“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 this is your opinion, but have no examples to support it?
This is clearly a serious topic for you.

GSP
Frankie Edgar
Cain Velasquez
Mighty Mouse
DC
RDA

Lesser examples.
Rory MacDonald
Gegard Mousasi
Genki Sudo
Chris Lytle
Kenny Florian

There You Go GIFs | Tenor
 
Back
Top