Why does fighters from wrestling background are more sought after in mma compared to other athletes from different discipline?

shorinryu86

Romans 6:23
Banned
Joined
May 7, 2025
Messages
378
Reaction score
174
Why does fighters from wrestling background are more sought after in mma compared to other athletes from different discipline?
 
Wrestlers more often than not have an advantage when it's actually MMA and not made up specific rules to favor the strikers.

So I guess that's one thing (if true) the UFC does right.
 
Why does fighters from wrestling background are more sought after in mma compared to other athletes from different discipline?

They are not sought after ?

It just American Wrestling is huge ...in America..and the UFC is an American company so in the sample size that is America ( the UFC largest demographic of viewers) them seeing wrestling being use in fights is more recognizable and appealing vs lets say an MMA promotion in thailand..where you would undoubtedly see more Muay thai based fighters then wrestling...

Its just one of the styles that more recognizable in the West or relatable .

But if you look at the roster my guess there's probably a pretty even spilt between wrestlers and strikers...if you remove other grappling styles...if not more strikers then just wrestlers
 
UFC rules favor Wrestlers... Pride , One, PFL don't let you lay on top of a guy for 4:50 before telling you to improve your position...


I gotta disagree..

1) Every fight starts standing, which means. Every round starts in the strikers realm theres never a round where wrestlers get to start in their realm.

2)Modern day fighters are well aware of wrestling unlike some fighters back in Pride FC days and it is much harder to take people down now, where as striking has always been effective, a flush shot to the chin is always gunna be effective not every takedown attempt is, although this is not a rule, my point is grappling is the much tougher aspect of MMA, so when a fighter does complete a takedown they should be given time to work on the ground or wear their Opponents down through control because there are no rules that force strikers to have to start on the floor ever or be reset on the ground when they are being timid or playing paddy cake with their strikes...while avoiding all grappling attempts or stifling the chances of progress grappling wise through "running tactics" ( i dont think theres a problem with movement to win fights im just pointing out the lack of penalty to do so when grapplers are penalized for "stalling")

I think the rules are set pretty even ...if not tilted slightly for strikers
 
For me... It's most likely due to career...
I believe i'm being pretty wrong on the next lines but...

Wrestlers seem to have a small career... I mean... They get titles, olympic aspirations but then... There's nothing more... It's either becoming a coach or going to WWE/do something else... That normally happens... Before the 30s (i could say even before 25).
For a striker... There's a lot more career options at the striking market... I mean, there's boxing, kickboxing, MT... So in other words, their career span is longer while being more profitable also.

I can take 2 examples for my post:

First is Alex Pereira, who fully joined MMA around 30s (his debut was before that but he did some more KB bouts before fully commiting into MMA).

Second is Tyrell Fortune, who joined MMA at around 23 ~ 24 after an extensive career in Wrestling.
 
Wrestlers more often than not have an advantage when it's actually MMA and not made up specific rules to favor the strikers.

So I guess that's one thing (if true) the UFC does right.
What MMA promotion favors strikers in terms of ruleset?
 
Wrestlers watch UFC and know they have what it takes to get involved once there’s no more wrestling in their lives

Now they have to find out which ones are ok getting punched in the face or not cause you cant have just wrestling
 
i think because it's harder to land a KO punch than it is to get ahold of someone and drag them down to the mat. you can get TDs all fight long but a KO shot isn't as predictable.

you see so many of those fights, where the striker keeps getting taken down over and over and knows there's no chance of winning a decision and so their only hope is to land the big shot - which they can barely even throw due to constantly having to defend against the takedown.
 
Wrestlers have nowhere to go once their collegiate/olympic careers die. So MMA is their only option outside of WWE, which isn't easy to get into at all.
 
I gotta disagree..

1) Every fight starts standing, which means. Every round starts in the strikers realm theres never a round where wrestlers get to start in their realm.

2)Modern day fighters are well aware of wrestling unlike some fighters back in Pride FC days and it is much harder to take people down now, where as striking has always been effective, a flush shot to the chin is always gunna be effective not every takedown attempt is, although this is not a rule, my point is grappling is the much tougher aspect of MMA, so when a fighter does complete a takedown they should be given time to work on the ground or wear their Opponents down through control because there are no rules that force strikers to have to start on the floor ever or be reset on the ground when they are being timid or playing paddy cake with their strikes...while avoiding all grappling attempts or stifling the chances of progress grappling wise through "running tactics" ( i dont think theres a problem with movement to win fights im just pointing out the lack of penalty to do so when grapplers are penalized for "stalling")

I think the rules are set pretty even ...if not tilted slightly for strikers
I dont get it sherbro, should fights begin on ground? Even in wrestling fights begin stand up no? Begining of the fight is really no mans land, you got to take yours.
 
This is misinformation. Stop being stupid
how-it-feels-when-you-meme.gif
 
Back
Top