is it better to be well rounded or specialised in one aspect of mma?

is it better to be ok in every aspect off mma like the so called new breed, or be great in one aspect and pick up what you can then take it from there like a lot of the older fighters that have been in the game for a while

 

There should be a base MA that you're already good at. Then you learn other aspect of other "common" MA being used in the sport

 

I think its best to be as well rounded as possible but wrestling seems to be the best base to go into MMA.

 

Better? Of course
More entertaining? Questionable... especially depending on the fighter.

I honestly miss the days when specialist vs specialist fights were of the norm.
Sonnen & Maia comes to mind

 

It's good to be well rounded, it's a must to be truly successful. However it's even better to have a skill that you excel at that most of your opponents can't match either. GSP had his wrestling, Anderson his Muay Thai , etc.

 

All of the ATGs/GOATs are well rounded non specialized fighters. Fedor, GSP, Jones are all about as balanced fighters as you could ask for.

Even Anderson Silva who is primarily a stand up guy is very multi dimensional, someone who is well versed in all styles of striking(Boxing, Muay Thai, Traditional Martial arts). Pretty much nobody can pinpoint his style of striking because he really doesn't have one, he just does as he pleases.

 

Better to be great at everything

 

Well rounded,

Being able to take your opponent where he is least comfortable is the best way to beat them.

 

Good question I think both ways have found success for example- Fedor, and GSP were very well rounded but many good fighters like Werdum BJJ - , Weidman wrestling, Machida - Karate and Jacare BJJ have added to the one area they excelled in and really have done well

 

Just look at the current champions

 

This makes me think of before the GSP/Diaz fight where GSP said, "I'll take the fight where he's at his worst." And Diaz responded, "I'll fight him where he's his best." Or something along those lines.
Totally sounds badass
But yeah....
Doesn't win UFC titles.

 

Rogan's mythical generation of fighters who "trained only MMA" has I'd say been rather a damp squib, almost all of the guys at the top of the sport still have backgrounds in other sports/MA's.

Part of the issue is I'd say the age someone starts training, MMA isn't something that many people will take up in their youth where as sports like Judo, Karate, Wrestling etc are and this gives much longer for devolpment.

Another part I'd say is that the current training environment in MMA is really designed for guys who've come from another MA and want to round out there skills. The likes of Rogan might claim MMA training is trimming the fat down to what works in the sport but I think the reality is that its also trimming more advanced techniques because fighters are having to learn in a much shorter time scale.

You have a handful of people in MMA who either trained multiple arts pre MMA or came to the sport young enough to devolp who show really advanced games in multiple areas but most people still tend to depend on having an advanced aspect to their game they had an existing background in and then simplified skills in round out the rest of their game.

 

If you did boxing and wrestling as a kid you cant really go wrong in my opinion.

 

I'd say it's best to come in with being specialized in one aspect and then build around that and improve your weaknesses to the point of being "well rounded."

Anderson with his Muay Thai

Ronda with her Judo

GSP/Jones with their wrestling

etc

 

I believe personally that it is best to have one really good skill and rounded out secondary skills.

Such as a striker who evolves great TD defense and sub defense. Or a BJJ who develops great standup and takedowns.

Being a jack of all trades won't probably get you far in the UFC as there are guys with legit world class striking and Wrestling and BJJ. You need to have at least one primary skill that you are great at with some well rounded secondary skills.

 

Look at the current champions. More than half were high level wrestlers.

Wrestling will always be king because you dictate where the fight goes. Getting beat on the feat? Take it down. Getting beat on the ground? Keep it standing.

Not to mention things like weight cutting and how that directly translates to mma.

 

well rounded

 

i think an alternative way to look at this question is to use the ufc champs as a reference.

ufc champs share common characteristics and traits:

1. ufc champs begin their mma careers already having a specific skill that they excel at such as an olympic medal in judo, black belt in bjj, ncaa division one wrestler, etc.

2. ufc champs have extensive competition experience before beginning their mma careers.

3. ufc champs continuously improve by adding more skills to their mma fighting capabilities.

this approach may not be suitable for all, but i would at the very least, take it into consideration.

 

well rounded, there is no question about that.

 

I'd agree with specialist, but in the right field- striking or wrestling. A specialist BJJer (IMO) doesn't translate well because their speciality is easily avoided unless they develop legit wrestling too. A striker starts in his strength, and a wrestler chooses where the fight takes place.

You want to have a strength that can be imposed over your opponents- personally I think Machida has the best prototype- elite striking with well rounded TDD, as well as a background to allow him to take his opponent down.

Elite striking is the best background IMO, as long as you have the aptitude to develop great TDD to go with it, that way you never worry about the ground aspect and can focus entirely on the standup game.