Wrestler vs striker, always bet on the wrestler still?

CM Punk got beaten by Mike Jackson, so I am not too sure.
 
Chuck and Mirko wouldn't last in today's MMA.

Jiu-jitsu is still the best base for MMA, followed by wrestling, followed by Muay Thai, followed by boxing. We are in the midst of a boxing evolution in MMA, which I believe will bring the final major evolution of the sport into the fold over the next decade or two.

However, while grappling is the base and most important, it's no longer the indicator to someone's skill level because it's virtually a requirement to have it in today's MMA. Striking is the indicator, and it's why the best fighters in every division are pretty much the best strikers.
Wrestling > jiu jitsu for mma by far. Jiu jitsu fighters are known for having shitty takedowns (barring Maia - who actually bothered to learn some wrestling). Jiu jitsu is useless if you can't engage in it.
 
Wrestling MMA has changed. Everyone is too well rounded now for so many guys to just dominate a fight purely with their wrestling. Even the wrestlers that are successful, like Khabib, have incredibly diverse and well rounded games, with world class BJJ/grappling to boot..
Isnt Khahib sambo?
 
Wrestling > jiu jitsu for mma by far. Jiu jitsu fighters are known for having shitty takedowns (barring Maia - who actually bothered to learn some wrestling). Jiu jitsu is useless if you can't engage in it.

Nope, jiu-jitsu is the base of MMA. However, like striking now, wrestling is more critical to success at the top level. That's because any wrestler with semi-competent sub-defense is most likely going to win. Thus it's probably more beneficial to train wrestling more than jiu-jitsu, but not over it.
 
Chuck and Mirko had incredible TDD. Hell, Chuck was an NCAA wrestler iirc.

There's no such thing as a striker or wrestler anymore. Just fighters who prefer one or the other. But many MMA experts do say that wrestling is the best base to start training in MMA.


jeah because it gives your safety in a importand area in a fight.
whittaker is a wrestler as well but hes a striker in the cage.
 
lol, nope.
Well if you didn't already know that then it's your lucky day cause I'm in the mood to educate

- Both Chuck and Mirko had some of the best TDD in MMA history
- Neither Chuck nor Mirko were helpless on the ground
- Both could offensively grapple if they had to
- Both had as good or better hands
- Chuck had an iron jaw and wouldn't get rocked by pillow fists
- Neither would Mirko for that matter
- Mirko had the best kicks in MMA history
- Both had better cardio
- Neither cut massive weight to pick on manlets

I'd give Canor the edge in selling a fight and maybe... I dunno... footwork?
 
Well if you didn't already know that then it's your lucky day cause I'm in the mood to educate

- Both Chuck and Mirko had some of the best TDD in MMA history
- Neither Chuck nor Mirko were helpless on the ground
- Both could offensively grapple if they had to
- Both had as good or better hands
- Chuck had an iron jaw and wouldn't get rocked by pillow fists
- Neither would Mirko for that matter
- Mirko had the best kicks in MMA history
- Both had better cardio
- Neither cut massive weight to pick on manlets

I'd give Canor the edge in selling a fight and maybe... I dunno... footwork?


Seems like a lot of incorrect opinions, and not enough facts. lmao
 
Other than chuck and mirko I think its safe to say that conventional wisdom is to always bet on the wrestler in a matchup.of pure styles. Are there any other strikers you can think.of that you would favor over any wrestler they face.
Wanderley Silva vs Saku. Unfortunately Saku, who was my favorite fighter always lost to him.
 
It depends what type of wrestler he is. If he's slow and doesn't really have a shot. I would go with the striker.
 
Anderson SIlva (on his days).

It highly depends on the stricker and the wrestler.
If it is someone like Conor or SIlva (who has showed the ability to hurt wrestlers coming in), then strikers.
But if it is volume punchers (not KO artists), then bet the house on wrestlers, for the strikers are in for a long night.
Except Conor has never hurt any wrestler "coming in". He only hurt the stupid ones who wanted to strike with him.
 
Well that's enough feeding the troll for me today

Yeah, because you can't refute it. You think that flat footwork, and lobbing slow reaching hooks is going to impress me? Why, because it was the "golden era"? Don't even get me started on Cro-Cop. Take your box-sets and stolen Blockbuster tapes and throw them in the trash where they belong.
 
Other than chuck and mirko I think its safe to say that conventional wisdom is to always bet on the wrestler in a matchup.of pure styles. Are there any other strikers you can think.of that you would favor over any wrestler they face.


chuck's background was wrestling so not really a good example. He didn't use it for takedowns (although he did take wandy down once) but more to supplement an awesome sprawl. He also was able to get up from virtually any takedown.

Mirko developed a great sprawl over time surprisingly enough.

I would say a top BJJ guy with great striking would be dangerous to pure strikers (guys like the Diaz brothers) but most of the wrestlers have trained heavily in defending against subs from the bottom.

Silva comes to mind but he ultimately lost to a wrestler and very nearly lost to Sonnen, a wrestling focused guy.

Maybe Wanderlei in his primer? He literally buzzsawed rampage before he could get taken down. Mind you the roids were strong with him.
 
Back
Top