Why striking (stand up) loses to wrestling more often than not

[spacetime]

I would agree that the bolded points favor grapplers. I feel like the underlined points tend to or arguably benefit strikers just as much if not more. As to what's left:

Open gloves do not necessarily benefit strikers (although for some things such as trapping and people not being able to cover up they do) however to not have open gloves would essentially nerf grappling altogether. Vaseline is the same, MMA started and should at least mimic a street fight, I don't have stats but i'm guessing most fights don't have competitors covered in some sort of lube.

Limited ground time is also pretty silly for mma, so you're gonna stand people up mid RNC?

The starred point, also does slightly help strikers too. I believe the rule was implemented to stop wrestlers wall and stalling by grabbing the cage and having a near unbreakable clinch.

Edit: this thread is pretty silly, also TS implying wrestlers are only dominant because of attributes such as strength is pretty offensive towards grapplers too.

Why is the thread silly? I put forward a very logical argument as to why wrestlers are more likely to win. You are welcome to refute it. Which of my points do you wish to dispute? The part about grapplers is true, since their specialization is on the grund, but you have to get there first... And wrestlers are superior at that.

 

[snowbro]

here are the current champs...

Heavyweight Fabr

 

[roventu]

here are the current champs...

Heavyweight Fabr

 

[aries]

It's pretty obvious isn't it? Grappling is one of the easiest ranges to get into and the hardest to leave (despite the differences between pure striking sports and MMA). In striking sports we see how a fighter can tie up an opponent who is getting the better of him to effectively avoid any damage and how easy it is for them to do so. Using a clinch game an inferior boxer can really nullify even the best boxer if they just were allowed to hold indefinitely (sort of how Klitschko is allowed to operate).

Now add to that in MMA a wrestler can take them down from the clinch or by attacking the legs, then gain superior position on the ground where it's easier to control and dominate a non grappler. So all you have to do is teach them how to enter the grappling range safely, which most pretty much do instinctually anyway as they are using to changing levels and clearing the opponents line of defence i.e. hands, arms and head. If a bit of light gnp is the only damage that happens in a round then the wrestler is always going to be able to beat the striker.

 

[aries]

here are the current champs...

Heavyweight Fabr

 

[Sinister]

It's pretty obvious isn't it? Grappling is one of the easiest ranges to get into and the hardest to leave (despite the differences between pure striking sports and MMA). In striking sports we see how a fighter can tie up an opponent who is getting the better of him to effectively avoid any damage and how easy it is for them to do so. Using a clinch game an inferior boxer can really nullify even the best boxer if they just were allowed to hold indefinitely (sort of how Klitschko is allowed to operate).

Now add to that in MMA a wrestler can take them down from the clinch or by attacking the legs, then gain superior position on the ground where it's easier to control and dominate a non grappler. So all you have to do is teach them how to enter the grappling range safely, which most pretty much do instinctually anyway as they are using to changing levels and clearing the opponents line of defence i.e. hands, arms and head. If a bit of light gnp is the only damage that happens in a round then the wrestler is always going to be able to beat the striker.

I'm going to take exception to the clinch being a tool for "inferior" boxers, especially considering that you list one of the most dominant HW Champions ever just after. People don't have to like it, but not knowing how to break and overcome a fighter who grabs a lot is part of boxing, and if someone doesn't know that then it's they who are inferior. John Ruiz was arguably one of the worst jab-and-grab guys ever, but he was also a HW Titlist who made fights difficult for anyone who didn't know how to neutralize that. Vernon Forrest beat Shane Mosley in his prime that way, but to say Forrest was "inferior" is incorrect, as he NEVER lost to Mosley in the 4 times they met in the Amateurs, and he came closer than anyone else to knocking him out before he got old.

 

[PivotPunch]

here are the current champs...

Heavyweight Fabr

 

[shpboris]

I'm going to take exception to the clinch being a tool for "inferior" boxers, especially considering that you list one of the most dominant HW Champions ever just after.

IMO, Klitschko is getting away with what he does partially because of the judges in Europe.

When he fought Jennings in US, the judge didn't allowed any of that crap and Wladimir had to fight a totally different fight. Also, I don't know why, but his clinching style is really ugly compared to other fighters who used clinch a lot - like Hatton, Hopkins, Ruiz.

 

[PivotPunch]

IMO, Klitschko is getting away with what he does partially because of the judges in Europe.

When he fought Jennings in US, the judge didn't allowed any of that crap and Wladimir had to fight a totally different fight. Also, I don't know why, but his clinching style is really ugly compared to other fighters who used clinch a lot - like Hatton, Hopkins, Ruiz.

You mean referee. Wlad has referees from all over the world reffing his fights and always the biggest names but he always picks guys who let him do his thing and obviously not guys like Steve Smoger.

Wlad clinches the way Ali did not the way Hopkins does. Hopkins is a GREAT infighter he holds and hits and only clinches at the end of attacks or in certain situation he normally only holds with one hand or clinches ashortly, let's go and hits - repeat.

Same with Hatton and even Ruiz could fight on the inside when he wanted.
Wlad clinches purely defensively unless him ragdolling you and leaning on you and draining you counts as being offensive. it's smart though.

I think you cna dare to say even of an ATG like Wlad that he is a super poor infighter like possibly one of the very worst infighters of any top 10 fighter in any division. Unless his wrestling stuff counts.
Chambers threw him to the ground when Wlad leaned on him and countered Wlad's greco roman ish wrestling tactics with real double leg TDs, Samuel Peter hammered Wlad to the back of the head and was overall strong and rough on the inside and haye milked it a bit, let himself drop to the floor and wanted the ref to do something whithout having to carry Wlad's weight.

All 3 things work dpeending on the ref but you gotta do something at least if you can't get a ref who punishes Wlad like Jennings did then you gotta figure something out yourself.


It's also funny how their tactics (Peter, Chambers and haye) basically described their boxing styles and characters.

Peter aggressive with force, Cahmbers smart but also physically and haye simply smart and opportunistic

 

[shpboris]

You mean referee. Wlad has referees from all over the world reffing his fights and always the biggest names but he always picks guys who let him do his thing and obviously not guys like Steve Smoger.

Wlad clinches the way Ali did not the way Hopkins does. Hopkins is a GREAT infighter he holds and hits and only clinches at the end of attacks or in certain situation he normally only holds with one hand or clinches ashortly, let's go and hits - repeat.

Same with Hatton and even Ruiz could fight on the inside when he wanted.
Wlad clinches purely defensively unless him ragdolling you and leaning on you and draining you counts as being offensive. it's smart though.

I think you cna dare to say even of an ATG like Wlad that he is a super poor infighter like possibly one of the very worst infighters of any top 10 fighter in any division. Unless his wrestling stuff counts.
Chambers threw him to the ground when Wlad leaned on him and countered Wlad's greco roman ish wrestling tactics with real double leg TDs, Samuel Peter hammered Wlad to the back of the head and was overall strong and rough on the inside and haye milked it a bit, let himself drop to the floor and wanted the ref to do something whithout having to carry Wlad's weight.

All 3 things work dpeending on the ref but you gotta do something at least if you can't get a ref who punishes Wlad like Jennings did then you gotta figure something out yourself.


It's also funny how their tactics (Peter, Chambers and haye) basically described their boxing styles and characters.

Peter aggressive with force, Cahmbers smart but also physically and haye simply smart and opportunistic

Nice post - especially about Wlad's wrestling )) I agree with most of it ...

About his clinching - besides that it is purely defensive (which is the biggest thing I dislike), there are other problematic things. Wlad sometimes ends in such weird situations that I have never seen in boxing. Say, he is leaning with his elbow on opponent's neck, while both his feet are in the air ... i mean , WTF ???? I have never seen Ali or Ruiz do crap like that. About Ruiz - I actually liked his style. Same with Hopkins, Hatton or Molina. But Wlad's case is really hard to watch )))

 

[shpboris]

I think you cna dare to say even of an ATG like Wlad that he is a super poor infighter like possibly one of the very worst infighters of any top 10 fighter in any division. Unless his wrestling stuff counts.

Chambers threw him to the ground when Wlad leaned on him and countered Wlad's greco roman ish wrestling tactics with real double leg TDs

Those ^ are funny quotes - I definitely remember that Chambers fight ))))

 

[WrestlinganJudo]

- A wrestler wins by a poor takedown. Any takedown is a win. No matter how you do it, get the striker to the ground and he's fried against a legit wrestler

- A striker is 9 times out 10 largely inferior in strenght to that of a wrestler. Get in close and you will get taken down once he grabs on to you.

- a striker needs a knockout blow or he's screwed. It's a lottery. The same cannot be said of the wrestler. A mediocre takedown is still a takedown. The wrestler can also fail and attempt again, and again.. If a striker hits but doesn't effect the wrestler, he can get taken down = over.

- A wrestler has superior conditioning to a striker.

I wrestled a very long time. There are plenty of successful wrestlers that were not super strong. They maybe strong compared to the average guy but some of them are not as strong as you think they are.

I beat people stronger than me easily on a regular basis and was beaten at the national championships each time by a weaker person.

On stamina I bet there are plenty of strikers that have as good or better stamina than some wrestlers.

There are plenty of wrestlers that would have been at the very top but they had the stamina to do one match per day. In tournaments where they might have to wrestler several times a day many would lose to a guy they would normally beat.

I would like to say wrestlers are amazing athletes but not all of them are.

Part of the problem when grapplers and strikers go against each other is you can't do things the same way. Wrestlers have to take more off an upright stance against a striker and they need to not do some of the moves they would do against another wrestler.

The boxer has to make changes as well. Strikers can certainly take out grapplers.

The problem is that grapplers practice both on there feet and on the ground. Striking sports is almost all on the feet.

Once a striker with no grappling skills in on the ground he is in trouble. A striker does not need to learn all of grappling to beat grapplers, he needs to learn to stay out of there game.

Wrestlers are not supermen.




























l

 

[Sinister]

IMO, Klitschko is getting away with what he does partially because of the judges in Europe.

When he fought Jennings in US, the judge didn't allowed any of that crap and Wladimir had to fight a totally different fight. Also, I don't know why, but his clinching style is really ugly compared to other fighters who used clinch a lot - like Hatton, Hopkins, Ruiz.

Refs in Europe always look the other way with holding. Micky Van was like the worst ref ever at mediating dirty inside fighting during Hatton's bouts. But still, that Wlad is even capable of fighting a different fight and winning again speaks to that it's not just a symbol of inferiority. Sucking in one dimension and being inferior are different things.

 

[shpboris]

Refs in Europe always look the other way with holding. Micky Van was like the worst ref ever at mediating dirty inside fighting during Hatton's bouts. But still, that Wlad is even capable of fighting a different fight and winning again speaks to that it's not just a symbol of inferiority. Sucking in one dimension and being inferior are different things.

Yes, agree ... Also looking smooth and being effective are two different things. So despite Klitschko's fights are ugly I still think he is fighting in a very smart way ...

Too bad that there is nobody in HW division with 1/100 of Hopkins' skill and physical ability in the clinching game ...

 

[shpboris]

Epic moment )))

 

[spacetime]

I wrestled a very long time. There are plenty of successful wrestlers that were not super strong. They maybe strong compared to the average guy but some of them are not as strong as you think they are.

I beat people stronger than me easily on a regular basis and was beaten at the national championships each time by a weaker person.

On stamina I bet there are plenty of strikers that have as good or better stamina than some wrestlers.

There are plenty of wrestlers that would have been at the very top but they had the stamina to do one match per day. In tournaments where they might have to wrestler several times a day many would lose to a guy they would normally beat.

I would like to say wrestlers are amazing athletes but not all of them are.

Part of the problem when grapplers and strikers go against each other is you can't do things the same way. Wrestlers have to take more off an upright stance against a striker and they need to not do some of the moves they would do against another wrestler.

The boxer has to make changes as well. Strikers can certainly take out grapplers.

The problem is that grapplers practice both on there feet and on the ground. Striking sports is almost all on the feet.

Once a striker with no grappling skills in on the ground he is in trouble. A striker does not need to learn all of grappling to beat grapplers, he needs to learn to stay out of there game.

Wrestlers are not supermen.




























l

You can beat physically stronger wrestlers than yourself, because you are yourself a wrestler. A striker is not a wrestler by any means. What you just wrote means nothing in this context.

 

[aries]

I'm going to take exception to the clinch being a tool for "inferior" boxers, especially considering that you list one of the most dominant HW Champions ever just after. People don't have to like it, but not knowing how to break and overcome a fighter who grabs a lot is part of boxing, and if someone doesn't know that then it's they who are inferior. John Ruiz was arguably one of the worst jab-and-grab guys ever, but he was also a HW Titlist who made fights difficult for anyone who didn't know how to neutralize that. Vernon Forrest beat Shane Mosley in his prime that way, but to say Forrest was "inferior" is incorrect, as he NEVER lost to Mosley in the 4 times they met in the Amateurs, and he came closer than anyone else to knocking him out before he got old.

I wasn't saying for an instant clinching is just a tool for inferior boxers, but I'm saying it can be a great equalizer. Just like when Amir Khan gets caught in close range, he can't in fight for shit so he just clinches and nullifies his opponents who have the decided advantage in close. It works really well.

Wladimir is clearly not inferior to any of his opponents but someone like Potvetkin who likes to come inside with head movement and work on the inside can be completely shut down when Wlad just clamps on every time he gets inside and leans down on his shorter opponent. Hence Potvetkins possible advantage in close is completely nullified and used against him as Wlad tires him out by making him carry his weight. Wlad is the better boxer overall but I don't think he is better than Povetkin on the inside and he was well aware of that fact.

 

[spacetime]

I wasn't saying for an instant clinching is just a tool for inferior boxers, but I'm saying it can be a great equalizer. Just like when Amir Khan gets caught in close range, he can't in fight for shit so he just clinches and nullifies his opponents who have the decided advantage in close. It works really well.

Wladimir is clearly not inferior to any of his opponents but someone like Potvetkin who likes to come inside with head movement and work on the inside can be completely shut down when Wlad just clamps on every time he gets inside and leans down on his shorter opponent. Hence Potvetkins possible advantage in close is completely nullified and used against him as Wlad tires him out by making him carry his weight. Wlad is the better boxer overall but I don't think he is better than Povetkin on the inside and he was well aware of that fact.

What the fuck does this discussion got to do with my thread about striker vs wrestlers?

 

[WrestlinganJudo]

You can beat physically stronger wrestlers than yourself, because you are yourself a wrestler. A striker is not a wrestler by any means. What you just wrote means nothing in this context.

I was responding to two things you said.

You said wrestlers had better stamina and more strength. That is not always true.

- A wrestler wins by a poor takedown. Any takedown is a win. No matter how you do it, get the striker to the ground and he's fried against a legit wrestler

- A striker is 9 times out 10 largely inferior in strenght to that of a wrestler. Get in close and you will get taken down once he grabs on to you.

- a striker needs a knockout blow or he's screwed. It's a lottery. The same cannot be said of the wrestler. A mediocre takedown is still a takedown. The wrestler can also fail and attempt again, and again.. If a striker hits but doesn't effect the wrestler, he can get taken down = over.

- A wrestler has superior conditioning to a striker.

Being a wrestler does not mean you have better conditioning or stamina than a striker. Having better conditioning is a function of working on conditioning. A striker can have just as much conditioning as a wrestler.

Being a wrestler also does not make you stronger, training makes you stronger.

If a wrestler works hard at having stamina and strength he can have but so can strikers. The only problem is every hour working on stamina and strength is one less hour working on technique. The trick is finding the right balance.

 

[spacetime]

I was responding to two things you said.

You said wrestlers had better stamina and more strength. That is not always true.



Being a wrestler does not mean you have better conditioning or stamina than a striker. Having better conditioning is a function of working on conditioning. A striker can have just as much conditioning as a wrestler.

They have superior conditioning in wrestling, which is all that matters. Besides, there are plenty of strikers in traditional martial arts with overall poor conditioning.