[quote]JustDrag wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
I think it would be a cool reality show…
Big guys vs. little guys.
I guarantee there are tons of little guys who think they are badass cause they know martial arts and plenty of big guys who think they’re badass because they can throw serious iron around.
Put em in a ring and let em prove who’s right.
That’s a great idea. I’d pay to see that event but we’d have to see it several times to get a proper sample of fighters in order to draw any conclusions regarding size, strength, technique, etc.
I don’t care for weight class in the first place. The argument usually is, all things being equal, the larger man will usually win. Well, let’s see it. Let’s see a Gracie take on Thor, the 330 pound former fullback who just completed his last cycle of roids and has a black belt.
If Thor can bench 560 raw and the fighter can’t bench 1/2 that then I’d like to see how technique can be used to trump power. Thor could pass the guard by using strength and technique. My nephew is 11 and rather strong for his age but when he tries to put an arm bar on me I can resist with strength alone. I use this as an analogy to a large man versus a small man relative to strength. It’s not the best analogy but I thing it’s a start.
I’d rather know that I can deal with 400 pounds on most lifts (getting there thanks to Metal Militia and Westside) so if I have to defend myself or someone else I can deal with the attacker as most guys are under the 300 pound range.
On the other hand if 150 pound McBlack Belt can hit Thor in the throat then I don’t care how much weight he can press. That’s how technique can trump strength. On that ninja strike, watch as he had to line up befor the strike. In a real fight there is movement and no rules. Not that MMA fighters are not tough, don’t get me wrong, but there are still rules in those contests. On the street I can go for your eyes, fish-hook you, shank you or whatever.
If a black belt has never been but with a blade before in a fight, then it’s reasonable to assume that he may freeze up at the sight of his own blood. If his brain shuts down then he’s cooked.
What do you all think of the mental part of fighting? I’ve seen some guys melt larger guys just because they had rage in their hearts.
[/quote]
The question isn’t wether or not strength is important. It is. Otherwise their wouldn’t be weightclasses. It’s more a question of what’s the cost/benefit analysis of a fighter chasing huge gym numbers. For a fighter wouldn’t the time needed to build a 500 bench press be better spent rolling, sparring or working on things like technique and conditioning? Is the possible increase in size worth moving up a weightclass? The last thing you want to do as a fighter is be pumped up, out of your weightclass and fighting against guys who are naturally bigger and stronger then you are.
Strength is an important foundational quality but it’s only one piece of the complex puzzle of building a fighter. Speed, stamina, agility, technical ability are all as important as strength. Technical ability probably more so. Bob Sapp, Ron Waterman, Kevin Randleman, Jimmy Ambriz, Mark Kerr. I have seen to many big strong guys in MMA who do well against guys they can manhandle quickly but are in trouble if they face a guy who can neutralize or outlast their power.
Athletecism trumps pure strength in most sports other then powerlifting or weightlifting. It’s not just a matter of how much force you can apply it’s also a matter of how fast you can apply it. I’m pretty sure a heavweight boxer can hit much harder and much sharper then a heavyweight powerlifter even though the powerlifter benches more and the boxer probably doesn’t even know what his max bench is.
The diffrence is that the boxer has trained his body to produce force at a much greater rate of force development when he punches then the powerlifter who has trained his body to produce maximal force which takes much longer(in an athletic perspective). Same with grappling. I am fairly certain that Matt Hughes could manhandle a bigger (untrained) man just because of his technical superiority and because he has conditioned his body to deal with the rigors of a continuous bout of isometric pushing and pulling that is grappling.
I also think you misunderstand what is meant buy technique being used to beat a stronger opponent. It’s not about super secret ninja death touches or punches to someones throat or other vulnerable areas. It’s about using angles (as in striking) or leverages (as in grappling)to neutralize or overcome an opponents advantage. If an armbar is applied correctly I don’t care how strong you are it’s goning to be hard to escape because my hips are always going to be much stronger then your bicep. That is technique.
There is something to be said for brute strength though. I have found myself in situations over the years that if I wasn’t 6ft4 and 250 lbs I could have gotten hurt.
[/quote]
But seriously, don’t worry about which is better- build both.