max holloway has shown again jiu jitsu has major flaws

[Alcibiades007]

I often wonder what would happen if we saw a legit Olympic caliber wrestler cross-train in BJJ, and achieve a high level black belt game. That would be seriously scary imo.

Abdulrashid Sadulaev is only 22 and good friend with Khabib. If starts training in BJJ, he'll be a dominant force in the UFC.

 

[bambammccoy]

Pure BJJ guys would be super well served to cross train in wrestling.

They have great ground games, but todays fighters have much evolved TDD.

I often wonder what would happen if we saw a legit Olympic caliber wrestler cross-train in BJJ, and achieve a high level black belt game. That would be seriously scary imo.

Daniel Cormier has his black belt and his wrestling and BJJ show in his fights for sure. It took the greatest fighter of all time to give him an L.

I'm not sure where Cejudos BJJ is and not sure if he is pursuing a traditional rank.

 

[Ling Ling]

Your questioning and what you deduct from answers are simply ridiculous.
do you make up shit as you go?

I mentioned the stand up while I was speaking about BJJ, not wrestling.

And wrestlers are more comfortable standing than BJJ guys.
For Wrestlers can take other fighters down or press them against the cage.
BJJ fighters need to keep the fight on the ground to be effective.

LOL at your logic. My questioning and what I deduct from answers are simply ridiculous ? YOU stated the following :
"Heh, you miss the point.
BJJ is "not relevant" because literally EVERYONE trains it.

Besides, wrestling has always been the most favored aspect of MMA. The rules helps it tremendously.
Just think about it for a second:
If there's not enough action on the ground, they stand up fighters.
If there are no action on the standup, they don't put them on the ground."
I simply pointed out that the rules don't favor wrestlers and that your "evidence" that they do, namely this assertion:
"Just think about it for a second:
If there's not enough action on the ground, they stand up fighters.
If there are no action on the standup, they don't put them on the ground."
proves the exact opposite of what YOU are asserting as evidence that the rules favor wrestlers. You yourself state that " if there (sic) are no action on the ground, they don't put them on the ground" That doesn't prove the rules favor wrestlers, in fact quite the opposite.
So now you declare that wrestlers don't care if they are stood up because they can just take their opponent back down or push them up against the fence.
There are so many levels of stupid to your theory. You act as if a wrestler can just effortlessly take someone down over and over when we have seen many times that this is not always the case. You also seem to think a fighter who favors Jiu Jitsu can't push someone against the fence which is also not true.
I have wrestled, studied Jiu Jitsu, and am a capable striker and I can assure you that wrestlers do in fact care if they are stood up when they have the fight on the ground. It takes alot of energy to secure a takedown and the opponent that can't get up himself shouldn't be given a free escape.
The only one making shit up as they go along is you, as demonstrated by your preposterous statement " Besides, wrestling has always been the most favored aspect of MMA. The rules helps it tremendously.
If there's not enough action on the ground, they stand up fighters.
If there are no action on the standup, they don't put them on the ground."
Sherdog gonna Sherdog.

 

[Mmaprovost]

Jon Jones: outwrestles Olympic caliber wrestlers

Submits black-belts

Where can I get some Dbol?

 

[Shaddows]

Kid, first of all, learn to quote. It helps.
Let me show you how it is done, because it is obvious you are not smart enough to do it yourself.

I simply pointed out that the rules don't favor wrestlers and that your "evidence" that they do, namely this assertion:
"Just think about it for a second:
If there's not enough action on the ground, they stand up fighters.
If there are no action on the standup, they don't put them on the ground."
proves the exact opposite of what YOU are asserting as evidence that the rules favor wrestlers. You yourself state that " if there (sic) are no action on the ground, they don't put them on the ground" That doesn't prove the rules favor wrestlers, in fact quite the opposite.
So now you declare that wrestlers don't care if they are stood up because they can just take their opponent back down or push them up against the fence.

As I said, you are far too excited and is not smart enough to understand what was said.
If you are comparing a BJJ fighter and a wrestler, you are blatantly wrong in claiming a wrestler will be as unhappy as a BJJ fighter would to be stood up.
For everyone knows that wrestling is the main form of controlling where the fight takes place.

If you compare the ability to take down from a pure BJJ fighter to the ability of a wrestler, you can't EVER claim the BJJ will have easier time taking fighters down.
For the same way that BJJ is better on the ground than a wrestler, wrestling is better suited to control where the fight takes place than BJJ.

There are so many levels of stupid to your theory. You act as if a wrestler can just effortlessly take someone down over and over when we have seen many times that this is not always the case. You also seem to think a fighter who favors Jiu Jitsu can't push someone against the fence which is also not true.

The only levels of stupid here are you citing "not always the case" when you should know very well that it is most likely the case.
That means the times where this is not the case are called exceptions. And if you have to point out that there are exceptions, that means you know what I said is the rule.

I have wrestled, studied Jiu Jitsu, and am a capable striker .

Right. As anyone in sherdog, you are the typical 7 foot male who would become effortlessly UFC champ if you cared to try, right?

I can assure you that wrestlers do in fact care if they are stood up when they have the fight on the ground. It takes alot of energy to secure a takedown and the opponent that can't get up himself shouldn't be given a free escape..

And here you go, with some fucking common sense, but failing miserably to notice you don't contradict me at all with what you wrote.

Because I never said a wrestler would be happy to be stood up. But he has better tools to take someone down than a BJJ guy. That is all I inferred on my previous post. SOmething that is vastly common sense.

The only one making shit up as they go along is you, as demonstrated by your preposterous statement " Besides, wrestling has always been the most favored aspect of MMA. The rules helps it tremendously.
If there's not enough action on the ground, they stand up fighters.
If there are no action on the standup, they don't put them on the ground."
Sherdog gonna Sherdog.

And as such, you ranted and ranted but said NOTHING that contradicts me.
And it all seems because you got triggered by me saying wrestling has the advantage.
Sorry, but claiming because YOU don't think so is just stupid. build an argument then we talk.
So far you got nothing.

 

[Ling Ling]

Kid, first of all, learn to quote. It helps.
Let me show you how it is done, because it is obvious you are not smart enough to do it yourself.



As I said, you are far too excited and is not smart enough to understand what was said.
If you are comparing a BJJ fighter and a wrestler, you are blatantly wrong in claiming a wrestler will be as unhappy as a BJJ fighter would to be stood up.
For everyone knows that wrestling is the main form of controlling where the fight takes place.

If you compare the ability to take down from a pure BJJ fighter to the ability of a wrestler, you can't EVER claim the BJJ will have easier time taking fighters down.
For the same way that BJJ is better on the ground than a wrestler, wrestling is better suited to control where the fight takes place than BJJ.



The only levels of stupid here are you citing "not always the case" when you should know very well that it is most likely the case.
That means the times where this is not the case are called exceptions. And if you have to point out that there are exceptions, that means you know what I said is the rule.



Right. As anyone in sherdog, you are the typical 7 foot male who would become effortlessly UFC champ if you cared to try, right?


And here you go, with some fucking common sense, but failing miserably to notice you don't contradict me at all with what you wrote.

Because I never said a wrestler would be happy to be stood up. But he has better tools to take someone down than a BJJ guy. That is all I inferred on my previous post. SOmething that is vastly common sense.



And as such, you ranted and ranted but said NOTHING that contradicts me.
And it all seems because you got triggered by me saying wrestling has the advantage.
Sorry, but claiming because YOU don't think so is just stupid. build an argument then we talk.
So far you got nothing.

Your basic premise is completely flawed.

Heh, you miss the point.
BJJ is "not relevant" because literally EVERYONE trains it.
Besides, wrestling has always been the most favored aspect of MMA. The rules helps it tremendously.
Just think about it for a second:
If there's not enough action on the ground, they stand up fighters.
If there are no action on the standup, they don't put them on the ground.

You claim that the rules favor wrestling and the example you use to advance your argument is backwards and is an example of a rule that favors strikers. You're seemingly so invested in this idea you can't admit you're wrong and just want to try and demonstrate that you are more intelligent than me. You fail on all counts. Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.

 

[Shaddows]

Your basic premise is completely flawed.

You claim that the rules favor wrestling and the example you use to advance your argument is backwards and is an example of a rule that favors strikers. You're seemingly so invested in this idea you can't admit you're wrong and just want to try and demonstrate that you are more intelligent than me. You fail on all counts. Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.

Yep, like you.
You failed to counter anything I said.
Your only point was : I am a wrestler, I know BJJ and am a great striker! I know!

Well, you don't.
And your illusion was destroyed at the second you can't back it up with proper arguments.

Please tell me how a BJJ fighter has less issues taking a fighter down than a wrestler.

I am waiting.

 

[Ling Ling]

Yep, like you.
You failed to counter anything I said.
Your only point was : I am a wrestler, I know BJJ and am a great striker! I know!

Well, you don't.
And your illusion was destroyed at the second you can't back it up with proper arguments.

Please tell me how a BJJ fighter has less issues taking a fighter down than a wrestler.

I am waiting.

Your creating a strawman argument. My assertion has always been that your premise that the rules favor wrestlers, and specifically the examples you used are illogical and that the argument you put forth undermines your own position. For review you stated

Besides, wrestling has always been the most favored aspect of MMA. The rules helps it tremendously.
Just think about it for a second:
If there's not enough action on the ground, they stand up fighters.
If there are no action on the standup, they don't put them on the ground

I then replied with this

Your own explanation undermines your theory that the rules favor wrestlers.
"If there's not enough action on the ground, they stand up fighters.
If there are no action on the standup, they don't put them on the ground."

So YOU stated that "If there's not enough action on the ground, they stand up fighters. If there are no action on the standup, they don't put them on the ground "
That's an argument YOU advanced to support your assertion that the rules favor wrestlers.
It's my position that that exact reasoning shows the rules favor strikers not wrestlers.
Fights start standing every round, separations occur when a fighter has another trapped against the cage, or underneath them on the ground. Under no circumstances do they ever force people not engaging on the feet to clinch, grapple, or go to the ground. I could go on and on but the point is made.
I never mentioned Jiu Jitsu in the original response but since you ask the following

Please tell me how a BJJ fighter has less issues taking a fighter down than a wrestler.
BJJ fighter is allowed to use all of the same techniques as any other fighter to get a takedown and some are quite good at it. The fact that so many are not is there own fault. If your art requires you to get the fight to the ground then you should be damn good at doing so. If you're not then that's your fault. However that argument is your strawman. My point has always been that your statements in support of how the rules favor wrestlers are flawed and do not in fact lend support to your premise. You can huff and puff all day and try to assert your superiority however you wish but it doesn't take away from the fact that my assertion is correct. The fact that you say

Besides, wrestling has always been the most favored aspect of MMA. The rules helps it tremendously.
Just think about it for a second:
If there's not enough action on the ground, they stand up fighters.
If there are no action on the standup, they don't put them on the ground.

is a ridiculous example to use to support your assertion that the rules favor wrestling. It's your right to think whatever you wish and it's clear to me at this point that you are not so smart in your analysis so I'm done here. Have fun kid.

 

[Shaddows]

Your creating a strawman argument. My assertion has always been that your premise that the rules favor wrestlers, and specifically the examples you used are illogical and that the argument you put forth undermines your own position. For review you stated

I then replied with this

So YOU stated that "If there's not enough action on the ground, they stand up fighters. If there are no action on the standup, they don't put them on the ground "
That's an argument YOU advanced to support your assertion that the rules favor wrestlers.
It's my position that that exact reasoning shows the rules favor strikers not wrestlers.
Fights start standing every round, separations occur when a fighter has another trapped against the cage, or underneath them on the ground. Under no circumstances do they ever force people not engaging on the feet to clinch, grapple, or go to the ground. I could go on and on but the point is made.
I never mentioned Jiu Jitsu in the original response but since you ask the following

Funny.
You still didn't post any real argument besides claiming you disagree.
But I now see you might really be a wrestler, hence why you are to mad I pointed out the obvious.

Yes, the standing up rule helps strikers along with wrestlers. But it helps them more than BJJ practitioners.
But you fail to notice that Wrestlers are better suited to take down strikers and to keep the fight standing against BJJ practitioners. Isn't that so?
So your disagreement is just an asinine disagreement, coming from your biased view of "no, they are not helping ME" when you do know they do.

What I am saying is simply common sense.
The no kick/knee on downed opponent help wrestlers (and BJJ practitioners).
The standing up helps wrestlers (and strikers).

One thing you are missing though: I am not saying this was done dishonestly. It is just the FACT that Wrestling is the one in between, so they dictate where the fight takes place, which means they can use those rules to their benefit more than let's say a pure BJJ fighter would benefit from the standing up rule. Even if he is at the bottom. Because the ground is their world. And they would most likely stay on the ground (and reverse the position) than be stood up and have to spend energy taking people down.