Anderson’s used sweeps, sidekicks, brazilian kicks, teeps to face, he IS a southpaw iirc… etc… he’s notorious in sparring for transitioning between stances (really typical muay thai stuff… double jab backwards, step backwards (turn the corner) to conventional stance (left) jab, use that back step to rebound, and then jump in and low kick.
other than axe kicks… you’re describing Anderson silva.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
otoko wrote:
In regards to striking I would like to see someone whose skill level is so high that guys can’t come-up with a game plan for him. A guy who can make adjustments in round, not needing a rigid gameplan. Not dogmatic in that his striking is only Muay Thai and boxing.
Someone who just doesn’t have one pattern of striking. If his jab isn’t working he could drop his left arm and start up-jabbing. Shoulder rolling right hands while countering with right uppercuts inside. Then go back to being aggressive pumping in double jabs.
Not just teeps and low kicks. Axe kicks, sweeps, side-kicks, brazilian kicks, front kicks to the face. He can step back into southpaw and counter with his left. Strike going forward, going back.
The thing is though, that even if someone could switch up styles during a fight, and use different techniques, this still would not mean that you couldn’t use counter strategies to beat them. There is NO fighter alive (or that has ever lived) who’s offense cannot/could not be neutralized and who’s defense cannot/could not be exploited.
Strategy doesn’t only come down to what types of techniques someone throws or what types of defensive movements they use (though those do play some role obviously). There is more to it than that, it’s more about understanding the opponent’s strengths/advantages and then knowing how to neutralize it/them. If you can figure that out it doesn’t matter what techniques they throw/how they defend. [/quote]
I don’t disagree with you.
Though what you are saying and what I meant in my post is slightly different.
I think alot of fighters have a “style”. Thus the saying styles make fights. They then come up with a gameplan to neutralize their opponents strengths and exploit their weaknesses. Though this does not mean they are using any skills beyond what they are currently capable of doing. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this, and it is shown to be successful most of the time.
What I am trying to say is that even a simple technique like a jab has many different variations and uses. Some guys use it to keep their opponent away, you can use it to set up other techniques, use it to close the distance. You can throw it going forward or back, from your waist. Though many fighters don’t have the ability to utilize it in all its variations. I don’t think that is a strategy, that is just a mastery of a skill. Then you use that skill to execute your gameplan. The more limited the skills your opponent has the easier it is to exploit his weaknesses. You know he is going to do something based on his previous fights. A gameplan is going to be much more difficult to formulate and execute effectively if your opponent has an extremely high skill level. Maybe he likes to pressure and fight coming forward, pumping in his jab. But he realizes it is not working since his opponent has prepared for that. SO he sits back and decides to try to counter. Throws his jab from the outside, throws it from his waist so he can get his opponent to throw a right hand, to come to him.
Which all just means he is probably just an all-time great fighter.
Yes Xen, Anderson Silva. I was going to mention him in my original post, but since he doen’t throw axe kicks…
You don’t know what axe kicks mean to me
great post^ maybe we can start a petition for axe kicks?
[quote]Xen Nova wrote:
great post^ maybe we can start a petition for axe kicks?[/quote]
He has got to throw one before he retires! Then my life will be complete.
[quote]Xen Nova wrote:
lets be honest here the next evolution in MMA striking is called STRAIGHT PUNCHES[/quote]
Blasphemy!
Those Miura throws are amazing to watch. It boggles my mind that many people can’t see the difference between the crude trips and throws that many fighters currently use and throws by someone like Miura. He makes it look absolutely effortless.
As to Xen’s comments about traditional MA striking and Tai Chi making a comeback, I disagree. Moves like roundhouse kicks and spinning backfists are fun little gimmicks, but traditional boxing/kickboxing/muay thai will continue to be the bread and butter striking arts.
Many TMA’s are more theory based and have little, if any, live sparring that is suited for MMA. TKD-mostly point sparring, no punches to head. karate-no punches to head, point system. ???tai chi???-this art is derived from grappling, but in its current state I see virtually no practical use for it. Kung fu-little live sparring. etc…
[quote]chitown34 wrote:
karate-no punches to head, point system.[/quote]
uh…uh…uh…no. Not really point system.
The difference between a martial art and a sport is that martial arts follow a philosophy and have deep roots in cultures and history.
I’ve watched some MMA. Seems like alot of it charging and just swinging. A more technical approach would be nice.
[quote]otoko wrote:
I don’t disagree with you.
Though what you are saying and what I meant in my post is slightly different.
I think alot of fighters have a “style”. Thus the saying styles make fights. They then come up with a gameplan to neutralize their opponents strengths and exploit their weaknesses. Though this does not mean they are using any skills beyond what they are currently capable of doing. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this, and it is shown to be successful most of the time.
What I am trying to say is that even a simple technique like a jab has many different variations and uses. Some guys use it to keep their opponent away, you can use it to set up other techniques, use it to close the distance. You can throw it going forward or back, from your waist. Though many fighters don’t have the ability to utilize it in all its variations. I don’t think that is a strategy, that is just a mastery of a skill. Then you use that skill to execute your gameplan. The more limited the skills your opponent has the easier it is to exploit his weaknesses. You know he is going to do something based on his previous fights. A gameplan is going to be much more difficult to formulate and execute effectively if your opponent has an extremely high skill level. Maybe he likes to pressure and fight coming forward, pumping in his jab. But he realizes it is not working since his opponent has prepared for that. SO he sits back and decides to try to counter. Throws his jab from the outside, throws it from his waist so he can get his opponent to throw a right hand, to come to him.
[/quote]
Right, and that pretty much is what I was talking about.
There are some quite high level strategies out there where it really doesn’t matter what “style” someone uses, all that matters is that you can neutralize their advantages.
It doesn’t really matter if someone throws their jab from their hip or their jaw, or if someone likes to counter or lead, or they prefer striking or grappling. As long as you figure out what makes them effective at doing those things (or what advantage(s) they have), and then how to take that away from them you will immediately be fighting a lesser opponent.
Even someone who was say equally good at leading and countering (which is extremely rare, if it even exists) is still effective due to an advantage that they have. An example of an advantage might be speed, or reach, or size, conditioning, skill, etc… It is this advantage which makes what they do effective.
For example, let’s say that someone’s advantage was speed (which many believe to be the hardest advantage to deal with), it wouldn’t really matter if they chose to lead or to counter, what makes their leading/countering effective is their speed. Now if you can figure out a way to smother their speed, suddenly their leading/countering won’t be nearly as effective.
I’m talking about high level strategies like “Set-Point Control” and “Controlling Distance” (which I know a lot of people talk about, but not that many that I see fully understand), which are not dependent upon how your opponent throws their techniques, or if they like to lead or counter.
Though yes, other strategies like the “5 ways of attack” from JKD are also quite effective if applied properly and yes, will be dependent upon your opponent’s “style”. But even then, everyone will have a “natural” type of reaction if something is too sudden, or if they are caught mentally/physically off guard. You need to have time, and be able to keep a fairly calm mindset, to think in order to be able to change “styles” of defense.
Here is John Graden briefly talking about “Set-Point Control”:
There are a couple other components to “set point”, such as mindset, and being in a strong defensive position (though in MMA that isn’t all that relevant). But, if you can learn how to prevent someone from getting set, then you will basically nullify just about any potential advantages they might have.
[quote]chitown34 wrote:
As to Xen’s comments about traditional MA striking and Tai Chi making a comeback, I disagree.[/quote]
When tf did I say that?
My examples were moves that we consider low percentage (Flying omaplata’s and shit). My point was that as skill level increases there’s going to be a rise in technical ability that allows guys to pull off crazy shit like flying triangles as takedowns, spinning back kicks (cung le), or unique strategies from arts that DO have ‘sparring’ like the JKD attack-by-draw stuff.
Hell I’ve seen anderson silva use wing chun style trapping in sparring (ill look for the vid). I’m not saying that we’re going to see guys using pushhands… but i think that things that are low percentage aren’t going to be so low percentage anymore. flying armbar might start being a legit technique.
[quote]Xen Nova wrote:
chitown34 wrote:
As to Xen’s comments about traditional MA striking and Tai Chi making a comeback, I disagree.
When tf did I say that?
My examples were moves that we consider low percentage (Flying omaplata’s and shit). My point was that as skill level increases there’s going to be a rise in technical ability that allows guys to pull off crazy shit like flying triangles as takedowns, spinning back kicks (cung le), or unique strategies from arts that DO have ‘sparring’ like the JKD attack-by-draw stuff.
Hell I’ve seen anderson silva use wing chun style trapping in sparring (ill look for the vid). I’m not saying that we’re going to see guys using pushhands… but i think that things that are low percentage aren’t going to be so low percentage anymore. flying armbar might start being a legit technique. [/quote]
More palm strikes while in mount…does that fit in??..lol.
I can only hope.
watches old pancrase vids
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I also haven’t seen a single strike, or style of striking in MMA that is more effective for MMA than what is taught by good kickboxing/boxing (or even some karate) coaches. [/quote]
That’s the thing though, we haven’t seen it yet. The striking in MMA HAS to be diffrent than boxing/kickboxing because your range/rhythm are COMPLETELY diffrent. In one you can fine-tune your defenses to just worry about strikes, in the other, you need to worry about clinches, takedowns, ect.
I agree witht you that most MMA striking is sloppy hooks and brawling, but their are a few technicians. I think that in the future instead of cross training with boxing or Muay Thai, people will be training in…MMA striking.
Masukazu Imanari the ASHIKAN JUDAN (in English, tenth degree blackbelt in leglocks).
A flying frontkick, a jumping axe-kick into flying armbar all in less than 30 seconds.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Corrosion wrote:
I think part of the future of MMA will be the evolution of it’s striking. Right now fighters are still figuring out what works best and using techniques from other disiciplines that may not “flow” with the other aspects of MMA. I think eventually MMA fighters will develop their own unique stand-up style that will be even more distinct from kickboxing and boxing.
Hmmm…you know, I actually don’t agree with this at all. TBH a lot of MMA fighters are very sloppy in their striking. There is a lot of swinging style punches (which are not as powerful, nor as hard to counter, or as fast or powerful as straighter line punches) due to a general lack of striking fundamentals, not because swinging style punches are better for MMA.
I also haven’t seen a single strike, or style of striking in MMA that is more effective for MMA than what is taught by good kickboxing/boxing (or even some karate) coaches. Joe Lewis was doing “Superman” punches (or jumping/flying straight rights) long before MMA was around, yet you hear people saying that this strike was invented by MMA fighters.
Striking is about physics and correct body mechanics. The optimal ways of striking have long since been honed and cataloged.
Now defensive movements do change somewhat in MMA due to the smaller gloves. But even then, the most effective methods/movements are still only slight adjustments from what one would use with larger gloves on. [/quote]
Amen. I hate watching MMA because the striking is overwhelmingly sloppy… it’s as if they ignore the fact that boxing has already figured out exactly how to deliver the strongest, fastest, most powerful punch.
Part of this, I understand, is because they can’t spend years just studying striking- there’s a lot more on their plate. I’m just surprised they’re not better, because… well, I’d think it would help. Just a little.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
I’ve watched some MMA. Seems like alot of it charging and just swinging. [/quote]
This post strikes me as ignorant. For a guy who felt the need to correct a misconception about Karate, you’re sure playing the bull in the china shop about MMA.
Edit: For the post just above me. The “more on their plate” is during the fight as well. You can’t strike the same when you have to defend the takedown.
[quote]No-Gi wrote:
blazindave wrote:
I’ve watched some MMA. Seems like alot of it charging and just swinging.
This post strikes me as ignorant. For a guy who felt the need to correct a misconception about Karate, you’re sure playing the bull in the china shop about MMA.
Edit: For the post just above me. The “more on their plate” is during the fight as well. You can’t strike the same when you have to defend the takedown.[/quote]
I used to think that because they have to defend takedowns that the striking would be different. I don’t see that as a good reason why many fighters have mediocre technique. Guys like GSP and Anderson Silva have great technique. SO there isn’t really any excuse I think.
In regards to defense with smaller gloves yes mma is different.
I think that we will see more fighters like Anderson and GSP in the next generation and beyond.
I still don’t quite understand why many of the current fighters’ striking technique and skill is not improving. They must be working on it. Anderson Silva has improved a lot compared to when he fought Mach Sakurai for his Shooto belt. Bj Penn, GSP have also improved their striking. not coincidently they are all great fighters.
So is there some limiting factor in why the majority have not been able to do so? Is a fighter great because he continually improves his skills, or can only great fighters continually improve, meaining it is talent? Desire?
IN my personal experience (in reagrds to striking) I have come accross fighters who need to be told everything. They need someone to tell them if their technique is correct. They don’t really have an awareness of their body. And they don’t quite seem to care that much about doing it perfectly all the time. They are not very pro-active in learning, though they like to fight of course. These poeple seem to have a ceiling. More rare are the people who can figure out technique just by seeing it once or twice and when they practice they just know when they have done it perfectly or not. They keep working on like a craft perfecting it.
I do think starting late has something to do with it, but that will be less a factor for future generations.
[quote]Xen Nova wrote:
lets be honest here the next evolution in MMA striking is called STRAIGHT PUNCHES[/quote]
THANK YOU! I’m a boxer/kickboxer/MA’ist transitioning into MMA and i cant tell you how many times i destroy kids standing up by just throwing fast straight punches, double jabs (real double jabs not jabs that look like im turning a crank or something) and up jabs too. granted as a whole the people i fight arent all that developed, but still i could see this working later on as well.
[quote]3rdegreebyrne wrote:
Xen Nova wrote:
lets be honest here the next evolution in MMA striking is called STRAIGHT PUNCHES
THANK YOU! I’m a boxer/kickboxer/MA’ist transitioning into MMA and i cant tell you how many times i destroy kids standing up by just throwing fast straight punches, double jabs (real double jabs not jabs that look like im turning a crank or something) and up jabs too. granted as a whole the people i fight arent all that developed, but still i could see this working later on as well.[/quote]
You mean you actually view the jab as a punch and not flailing it around to hopefully distract for you SSL5 destroyer photon punch???
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
3rdegreebyrne wrote:
Xen Nova wrote:
You mean you actually view the jab as a punch and not flailing it around to hopefully distract for you SSL5 destroyer photon punch??? [/quote]
Yes as a matter of fact. I really amazed on a regular basis when i deal with fighters, or people who just watch fights, who immediately turn their nose down at me whenever I say I’m a huge proponent of boxing punching styles for MMA. They’re like “boxing!?!? i also thought that was such a simple fighting style, kinda pansy in its own right. I mean 12 oz gloves? only punches? come on!” or “Dude your gonna get taken down if you throw like that!” Ya I would like to see someone try and take me down after getting a stiff double-jab right hand combo to the face and have my hands return to guard before they even think of launching there shitty flail jab opener into a double leg.
I mean seriously why would the art that’s been around for hundreds, even thousands of years, and utilizes only punches not have already mastered the art of punching? I mean come on we’re MMA guys, we’re EXTREME.
Rant over.
Edit: @ No-GI, have you ever fought a truly effective counter-puncher? Everyone says you’ll get taken down easier, but with EASY and MINOR adjustments to the boxing stance you remedy this added risk. I don’t know how people have arbitrarily formed this opinion, because when was the last time you saw a boxer fight a wrestler - some early edition of the UFC? Show me a few good examples of some MMA fighters with good boxing stances and who actually know what take down defense IS get dominated because of take downs, and I may give some credence to this myth. One other thing - boxing teaches you to utilize your range. I.e keeping more distance between you and your opponent when striking making it more difficult for people to shoot on you.
[quote]Corrosion wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
I also haven’t seen a single strike, or style of striking in MMA that is more effective for MMA than what is taught by good kickboxing/boxing (or even some karate) coaches.
That’s the thing though, we haven’t seen it yet. The striking in MMA HAS to be diffrent than boxing/kickboxing because your range/rhythm are COMPLETELY diffrent. In one you can fine-tune your defenses to just worry about strikes, in the other, you need to worry about clinches, takedowns, ect.
[/quote]
No, it doesn’t have to be different. People train in boxing/kickboxing/Muay Thai (and there is a lot of similarities between those arts) because they have honed the striking arts down to their most basic, effective form. The best strikers in the world are those who specialize in striking combative arts (like the above mentioned arts).
Also, like I’ve said, people have been mixing arts for longer than the UFC has been around. The best guys still will tell you that boxing/kickboxing/MT are the best arts as far as striking goes whether you are talking about from a purely striking context or from a MMA context. And the prevalence of those arts and their effectiveness within MMA should also be a good indicator as to how effective they are.
Heck, my instructors train for real (and have been mixing arts and studying arts like Jiu-jitsu, kickboxing, wrestling, etc… for 30+ years each). They’ve been in countless actual fights involving weapons, multiples, people hopped up on drugs (along with all of the possible things an MMA fighter has to deal with), and they will tell you that the most effective strikes still come from boxing/kickboxing/MT (and they’ve trained in just about everything out there).
[quote]
I agree witht you that most MMA striking is sloppy hooks and brawling, but their are a few technicians. I think that in the future instead of cross training with boxing or Muay Thai, people will be training in…MMA striking.[/quote]
Yes, there are a few technicians. And what backgrounds do they almost always come from? Striking arts such as boxing/kickboxing/MT. Anderson Silva, MT background. Cro Cop, dutch kickboxing background.
Most MMA fighters still have a long way to go in terms of learning everything that they can from boxing/kickboxing/MT before they need to start worrying about developing their own striking art.
I’m not saying that training the transitions between the arts, or slightly modifying stance or which techniques they favor isn’t a good idea. But the best guys out there all seem to find a lot of benefit to still training in the individual arts as well.