You Would have a point, if he wasn't going va a monster wrestler like Maynard. Ryan was just not suit to beat him at that game, he'll most people thought he would've lost this fight, becuuse we all knew there was zero chances he was going to take Maynard down. Did he look good? Nop. But I understand he had to win this fight. Let's see how he does when he faces a striker with no such a stepper wrestling background...
The thing is though, if you start making exceptions for one guy, it gets easy to start making exceptions for a lot more.
Chris Weidman got knocked the fuck out by a classic Yoel 'sandbag then explode in rd3' Romero feat, but he still had the right idea to threaten and pursue takedowns, regardless of the fact that the guy he was shooting after what might quite literally be the best pure wrestler in the whole ufc. He played to his strengths and that set everything else up because its mixed martial arts. Like the old saying goes; he was winning until he lost.
And you know, Gray Maynard is certainly not a bad fighter; but he also isn't exactly the first name you think of when you think of 'top wrestlers in the ufc'. If Gray Maynard is the point where you decide that your train comes to a stop on that front, well, you may as well accept now that you'll never be a contender.
If you want to have consistent success against a wide range of top opponents with a wide range of specialties, to borrow a phrase from GSP, you need to 'use the best weapon'. If another guy can beat you with your best weapon, chances are he can beat you trying anything else too. Sometimes a better fighter is just plain better, and because of that, its foolish to try and base a game plan around something like that. If you adopt a losers mentality, then naturally you'll be a loser. Big dogs don't game plan to 'counter' the big dog, they game plan to
be the big dog.
Consistently successful guys are specialists at 'controlling the variables'. In the mma context, that basically translates into control over 'phase shift'; ie, taking down, preventing taking down, cagework, riding, escapes, et cetera.
Practical example: in mma perhaps the number one way to punish someone stepping into you with strike is the counter double. Its money even if your game plan is primarily to strike. See for instance Donald Cerrone vs Jake Ellenberger; jakes money shot, like a lot of wrestleboxers, is the overhand right. But every time he committed to throwing it, Cerrone would change levels and put him on the canvas. He stopped throwing his overhand, and then without his lynchpin Cerrone picked him apart on the feet.
In the fight Hall did not demonstrate if he had any tools to punish someone who simply steps in on him, which is a bit of a red flag. More than that, he actually folded, quite literally that is, under Maynard's pressure. He basically relied on Gray's fear to engage with him on the ground, which can get him beat up against talented and hungry contenders who wont have that same hesitance.
In the end it comes down to a question of optimization; if one were to wish to become a champion using the sort of strategy we saw, you would have to, both, be able to out strike the top striking specialists,
and out grapple the top grappling specialists,
while they also have the advantage of top position.
Aint nobody got time fo that.
