UFC 79

Off Topic
101

Learning to be restricted to only being an orthodox or southpaw fighter is the hardest slowest way to learn. The fastest way to learn is to learn techniques on both sides. No wonder why so many fighters are so lackluster in stand up.

Everybody has a dominant side. It usually is the hand they write with. If someone writes with their right hand they ususally are going to be a right hand puncher. In addition to this if they are a right handed person their right leg is going to be their dominant leg.

The reason why you need to practice on both sides is because of side dominance. If you are right handed you will learn any punch or kick fastest on your right hand side. If a right hander can’t throw a technique effectively from their right hand side it is going to take them much longer to learn it with their left.

If you fight with your dominant hand in the rear you are going to be able to generate the most power on your punches, because you have your dominant leg driving the punch and you dominant hand delivering it. This is why boxers are orthodox or southpaw.

But this boxing concept is damaging to martial artists because the strongest kicks are lead leg kicks with the dominant leg. This is why the whole southpaw orthodox concept doesn’t apply to martial artists and is in fact sabotaging their fighting.

This is why you see so many mixed martial artists whose best kick is only a roundhouse with their right leg instead of something much more powerful like a side kick.

So fighting with a dominant hand lead or dominant hand in the rear should be something that is not a problem. Because a dominant hand lead allows other techniqus to come into play.

Also going to an open stance like Hughes did is a good defensive strategy. It makes it harder to get rear hand techniques in and you have your strongest side available for blocking and lead techniques. This is why GSP v Hughes 2 was such a standup fighting clinic while the third fight went to the ground.

102

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Learning to be restricted to only being an orthodox or southpaw fighter is the hardest slowest way to learn. The fastest way to learn is to learn techniques on both sides. No wonder why so many fighters are so lackluster in stand up.
[/quote]

A) I don’t know your credentials, and B) My own stand up training is relatively sparse. But out of the hundreds and thousands of muay thai, kickboxing, and boxing fights I have watched, I could probably count on my hand the number of fights where I witnessed a fighter successfully employ swapping up the stance and be effective. Name a great striker, any great striker, and I can tell you whether they are orthodox or south paw. I think you are wayyyy off here.

103

Yes boxers like to have dominant hand in the rear because they can get the most power that way because they have the dominant leg driving the punch and the dominant hand delivering it. Thats boxing.

Muay Thai’s main kicks is the round house or a rear leg knee. To get the most power out of that kick use your dominant leg. Which means dominant leg in the rear where it is also in a good position to drive elbows.

Just because the majority of fights you have seen all follow a certain pattern it doesn’t mean they are using the optimum methods. Most fighters just stand there and get hit.

With martial arts the most powerful techniques one can deliver are lead leg techniques from their dominant leg. If you can throw a good jab with your weak hand you should be able to throw an even more powerful jab with your stong hand. So what side they have forward shouldn’t be the huge problem it is for a lot of fighters.

Even if they are heavily dependant on one side for power, changing up sides should just mean that they are going be delivering different techniques.

I have techniques that I can do with my dominant side that I can’t do off of my weak side, but there is nothing I can do with my weak side that I can’t do with my strong side. In the last ten years the some of my biggest improvements I have made in my fighting is learning to do my best techniques off of my weak side.

Being able to work off either side is an important self defense principle also. If you get into a fight with multiple opponents you are going to have a hard time keeping your best side in the optimum position. Or if you get ambushed by one person you might not be given the chance to get your good side into the right position. Or if you were bare handed against a knife you might want to use a southpaw stance.

Even for fighters it can be a good strategy, because not everyone can handle southpaws as well as orthodox. So being able to switch sides is a good tool to have because you can test out your opponent to see if they can handle that and you can also bring in different techniques to see what they can and can’t handle.

104

Thanks for the explanation, I get what you are saying. I’ve always dug converted south paw’s in boxing because of the jab they can throw can really dominate a fight completely.

105

That’s right by having your dominant hand forward you are able to really work on lead hand punching like the jab and lead hook. Once you have an opponent hurt with a solid lead punch you can revert to a conventional stance and really turn on the aggression.

Also there is the concept of an open stance versus closed stance that comes into play. When both fighters are in an orthodox (or both in southpaw) stance, they are said to be in a closed stance. When one is orthodox and one is southpaw they are said to be in an open stance because of the gap that has opened between them.

It might not seem like much of a difference in distance but with striking the most important thing is the point of focus. You have to aim two inches past where you want your strike to go in order to get penetration with it. So opening the distance up with an open stance can break your opponents focus on their striking. This concept is called break focus. This is why infighting styles are so much more brutal than long range styles because the infigter is going to be closer to their point of focus.

Some good examples of the effectiveness of infighting range. Fightingirish26’s avatar, that short quick hook to the body took the other guy out.

Or if you watch the last big exchange Liddell had with Silva you will see Silva slip a short straight punch into Liddells left side. After that exchange Liddell slowed down considerably,kept his distance and bent over to his left a few times which is a clear sign he got hurt. The ring announcers thought he had punched himself out which I really doubt.

To me Chuck had the look of a guy who got hurt and was toughing it out because he didn’t want the other guy to think he was vulnerable. I wouldn’t be surprised if Chuck had some cracked ribs from that, the bending over to the side was a clear giveaway that he was trying to shake off something on that side. The keeping his distance was a good sign he didn’t want to get hit there again.

Another point on dominant side leads. For martial arts where kicking is used a dominant hand forward stance allows you to throw lead leg kicks with your strong leg. Some of those kicks are just brutal to be on the receiving of. Much more so than the Muay Thai roundhouse which so heavily favored by mixed martial artists.

106

BTW, I would looooove to see Chuck fight Dan Henderson next. I know it ain’t going to happen anytime soon because Dan’s dropping to 185 to fight Anderson Silva, but I’d still love to see it happen sometime soon. My money would be strongly on Henderson.

(Though I predicted Wandy would crush Chuck and was obviously wrong about that).

I might be in the minority but I’d also still like to see Rampage and Chuck fight again (a third time). If Chuck didn’t make that one mistake, which he fully acknowledges, in their last fight, that could’ve been a great, great brawl. Could’ve been a brutal 5-rounder. In hindsight Rampage still probably would’ve won because he’s just so much more well-rounded, but still, I think it would’ve been (and could still be) a hell of a fight.

107

Theoretically I understand what you are saying, though in reality it seems not to be the case in striking sports. Your self defense example though makes sense.

There are guys who have their dominant side forward like Jerome LeBanner and Oscar De LaHoya. They have excellent lead hooks and Jerome has demonstrated at times a devestating jab. Still they fight as either a southpaw(Jerome LeBanner) or orthodox(De LaHoya). As long as you get someone young and train them having their non-dominant hand back is not a problem, because they will be training that hand to be their power hand.

Jerome has an excellent left straight. De LaHoya though was known not to have a great right hand. In reality guys training to be pros spend years getting good enough on one side. Get some amateur fights(they still have alot of improvemet to make) then become pro. Then training camps involve training for their next opponent.

I knew a coach years back who thought that a guy switching alot is just using it as a crutch, they aren’t great at either side and need the deception. It does cause some confusion initially, but a good amateur or pro will break it down and use it as an oppurtunity. Step off to their left everytime they turn southpaw and throw a right straight for example.
Defensively stepping back into a southpaw to circle away from an opponent in exchange is an excellent(advanced) technique.

I think just training a guy to be good on one side ad teaching all the dynamics that come into play, plus coaching them to fight a southpaw takes alot of time. Teaching them both and making sure they are good enough to be pro would take much more time and it would be at a much later stage starting their career.
There are a few guys who do what you espouse, Musahshi comes to mind. He was very hard to hit, and he scored very well in his prime. Though it is a strategy of neccessity, he has no power with his hands. Standing toe to toe with guys like Ray Sefo and LeBanner saw him get blown out. I think being able to switch and fight with either side lends itself well to defensive fighters.

108

Is it just my imagination, or are the monthly UFC PPVs actually showing less and less of the fights on the card?

Between the ads for Rambo, UFC 80 and general fucking around, it seems like there’s less watchable material than there has been in the past. Whatever happened to replaying the earlier fights after the main event?

109

[quote]RagingBull wrote:
Is it just my imagination, or are the monthly UFC PPVs actually showing less and less of the fights on the card?

Between the ads for Rambo, UFC 80 and general fucking around, it seems like there’s less watchable material than there has been in the past. Whatever happened to replaying the earlier fights after the main event?[/quote]

The Manvel fight wasn’t supposed to be aired. I think the problem was some pretty lackluster fights on the prelim card (which sucks.) Believe it or not, I heard that Eddie Sanchez’ fight wasn’t the worst.

110

It’d take Koscheck vs. Sanchez or Monson vs. Silvia to beat Soa’s display.
Makes me embarrassed that my nation is associated with him.

111

[quote]RagingBull wrote:
Is it just my imagination, or are the monthly UFC PPVs actually showing less and less of the fights on the card?

Between the ads for Rambo, UFC 80 and general fucking around, it seems like there’s less watchable material than there has been in the past. Whatever happened to replaying the earlier fights after the main event?[/quote]

There were 6 fights shown, which is actually above the average of 5 lately. I would have much rather seen Desouza vs Canario plus another undercard fight than the crapass 15 minutes of Sanchez and Soa.

112

I’m starting to think the UFC just tends to put together largely piss-poor cards the great majority of the time. Often it’s just the main event and maybe the fight right under it that are of any interest at all. The organization has such a stellar overall lineup right now that I would think they should be able to put on cards where, say, at LEAST 4 out of the 6 fights are not just good but GREAT, STELLAR fights among really interesting fighters.

I also think that a lot of the fighters just fight far less frequently than they’re able to, and that if many of them fought, say, 2 additional times per year (beyond what they’re doing now), it would help the UFC put on more interesting cards.

I know I don’t know the logistics of every single situation (who’s injured, whose contract just expired, etc.), but they seem to do a lot (WAY too much) of “saving” fighters for some bigger, interesting fight that’s set to happen many months away. (And sometimes THAT fight then ends up getting blown apart for some reason – pre-fight injury, etc.).

I know this is TOTALLY hypothetical, and that there are logistics that preclude this SPECIFIC example, but just for the sake of argument, every card should be as interesting as, say, this:

Sylvia vs. Nog
Liddell vs. Shogun
Arlovski vs. Gonzaga
A. Silva vs. Henderson
GSP vs. Serra
Gomi vs. Penn

  • 1 or 2 undercard bouts with lesser-knowns

I know some people might say, “But then they’ll blow their whole wad in one night!” I would argue that the organization STILL has enough top talent to put on an equally interesting card 2 months later, and to continue to do so continually, if they work the combinations and permutations right (and have the top fighters fight more than just 2 or 3 times per year).

Am I nuts?

[quote]Donut62 wrote:
RagingBull wrote:
Is it just my imagination, or are the monthly UFC PPVs actually showing less and less of the fights on the card?

Between the ads for Rambo, UFC 80 and general fucking around, it seems like there’s less watchable material than there has been in the past. Whatever happened to replaying the earlier fights after the main event?

There were 6 fights shown, which is actually above the average of 5 lately. I would have much rather seen Desouza vs Canario plus another undercard fight than the crapass 15 minutes of Sanchez and Soa.
[/quote]

113

[quote]Damici wrote:
Am I nuts?
[/quote]

No. From a fan’s perspective, that is awesome. That is why all the hardcore fans loved Pride so much.

Unfortunately, UFC is all about the money. They are achieving the bare minimum to maximize profits.

114

Speaking of Gomi, he was in the crowd as a guest of Dana White and is in negotiations. I would love to see fights like Gomi-Huerta, what a slug fest that would be. BJ Penn giving him a life threatening beatdown once again would also be entertaining fare. Other than Sherk and BJ I think he could be a dominate force.

115

Otoko one of Grandmaster Tatsuo Shimabuku’s codes of karate states “The time to strike is when the opportunity presents itself”. In order to take advantage of an opportunity you need to be prepared for it.

I think what you are seeing is too much dependence on boxing coaches. Being able to work off of either side is not a crutch at all. It is versatility. There can be strategic reasons for having one side or the other forward. For a martial artist who is going to use hand, leg or grappling techniques what side they have forward is going to affect what they can do.

Hughes fighting in a southpaw stance put him in position to use his strong hand to slip past GSP’s lead and get to GSP’s back. That’s not a defensive move.

I am not saying that you have to be totally ambidextrious to the point of being able to do everything on both sides. However anything that you are going to do with your weak side you should have no problem quickly learning it on your strong side. Because this is how the human body works.

In fact learning something on your strong side will help you learn on your weak side, so it makes no sense to not do it. It is how you figure out what your true potential with a technique is. If you can’t generate power with a technique on your strong side you most likely won’t be able to do anything with it on your weak side either. Conversely if you are damn near killing people with a technique on your strong side but barely bruising with your weak side then you can take a look at what you are doing right with your strong side and use that to figure out what you are doing wrong with your weak side.

Sometimes you are going to have no choice in which side is facing your opponent. I’ve been hit so hard before it turned me. Or if you come out of a clinch you might not have your strong side in the right position. It doesn’t make any sense to train yourself to not be able to deal with it.

Also what if you get an injury like some broken ribs or a broken arm? You are probably going to want to protect that. Trust me if you have never been hit on an already broken rib, it is no fun. One of the first things you do to protect a broken rib is position yourself so your broken rib is as far away from your opponent as possible. Which might mean putting your strong side forward.

I think it is best to be like the Marines. The Marines, improvise, they adapt and they overcome.

116

[quote]Damici wrote:
I’m starting to think the UFC just tends to put together largely piss-poor cards the great majority of the time. Often it’s just the main event and maybe the fight right under it that are of any interest at all. The organization has such a stellar overall lineup right now that I would think they should be able to put on cards where, say, at LEAST 4 out of the 6 fights are not just good but GREAT, STELLAR fights among really interesting fighters.

I also think that a lot of the fighters just fight far less frequently than they’re able to, and that if many of them fought, say, 2 additional times per year (beyond what they’re doing now), it would help the UFC put on more interesting cards.

I know I don’t know the logistics of every single situation (who’s injured, whose contract just expired, etc.), but they seem to do a lot (WAY too much) of “saving” fighters for some bigger, interesting fight that’s set to happen many months away. (And sometimes THAT fight then ends up getting blown apart for some reason – pre-fight injury, etc.).

I know this is TOTALLY hypothetical, and that there are logistics that preclude this SPECIFIC example, but just for the sake of argument, every card should be as interesting as, say, this:

Sylvia vs. Nog
Liddell vs. Shogun
Arlovski vs. Gonzaga
A. Silva vs. Henderson
GSP vs. Serra
Gomi vs. Penn

  • 1 or 2 undercard bouts with lesser-knowns

I know some people might say, “But then they’ll blow their whole wad in one night!” I would argue that the organization STILL has enough top talent to put on an equally interesting card 2 months later, and to continue to do so continually, if they work the combinations and permutations right (and have the top fighters fight more than just 2 or 3 times per year).

Am I nuts?[/quote]

Yes and no (how’s that for an answer?)

I agree that the UFC could have more top stars on the same cards.

But, the last PPV had 2 big headlining fights and the “Stacked” card in July had 3 headline fights, plus Big Nog’s debut, so it does happen from time to time.

However, the UFC is all about maximizing profits, so they have to spread their top stars out b/c of the amount of shows they run each year.

If they only did PPVs, say every 3 months, then you’d see cards close to what you listed above. But there’s no way UFC will do that when they are getting over 300k in buys each month for cards usually sold on one fight. Factor in the marketing and pre-match hype on TV, and the UFC seems to have found a successful formula.

The one thing I will say is that for $40, they need to show EVERY FIGHT!

117

I just saw the GSP vs hughes fight, and to echo others, it was a flat out massacre.

Awesome.

118

I definitely see your point. One could argue that they might drum up a shitload more PPV buys (and more overall popularity and a bigger fanbase) if they put on really exciting, kick-ass cards consistently, but yeah, there’s definitely a point of diminishing returns as far as not wanting to blow more of your load than necessary each time. It would probably take a team of MBAs to do the financial projections and estimate where the ideal point on that supply/demand curve is for them, but I’d personally estimate that they’re not there yet.

The card that I listed for example was exaggerated, surely, but I’ve GOT to think that, with 250 or so guys under contract, as Dana states they have, including many of the top Pride fighters now . . . Jeezus, they’ve got to be able to fatten up the cards a LITTLE bit at least.

Just ranting. :slight_smile:

[quote]Djwlfpack wrote:
Damici wrote:
I’m starting to think the UFC just tends to put together largely piss-poor cards the great majority of the time. Often it’s just the main event and maybe the fight right under it that are of any interest at all. The organization has such a stellar overall lineup right now that I would think they should be able to put on cards where, say, at LEAST 4 out of the 6 fights are not just good but GREAT, STELLAR fights among really interesting fighters.

I also think that a lot of the fighters just fight far less frequently than they’re able to, and that if many of them fought, say, 2 additional times per year (beyond what they’re doing now), it would help the UFC put on more interesting cards.

I know I don’t know the logistics of every single situation (who’s injured, whose contract just expired, etc.), but they seem to do a lot (WAY too much) of “saving” fighters for some bigger, interesting fight that’s set to happen many months away. (And sometimes THAT fight then ends up getting blown apart for some reason – pre-fight injury, etc.).

I know this is TOTALLY hypothetical, and that there are logistics that preclude this SPECIFIC example, but just for the sake of argument, every card should be as interesting as, say, this:

Sylvia vs. Nog
Liddell vs. Shogun
Arlovski vs. Gonzaga
A. Silva vs. Henderson
GSP vs. Serra
Gomi vs. Penn

  • 1 or 2 undercard bouts with lesser-knowns

I know some people might say, “But then they’ll blow their whole wad in one night!” I would argue that the organization STILL has enough top talent to put on an equally interesting card 2 months later, and to continue to do so continually, if they work the combinations and permutations right (and have the top fighters fight more than just 2 or 3 times per year).

Am I nuts?

Yes and no (how’s that for an answer?)

I agree that the UFC could have more top stars on the same cards.

But, the last PPV had 2 big headlining fights and the “Stacked” card in July had 3 headline fights, plus Big Nog’s debut, so it does happen from time to time.

However, the UFC is all about maximizing profits, so they have to spread their top stars out b/c of the amount of shows they run each year.

If they only did PPVs, say every 3 months, then you’d see cards close to what you listed above. But there’s no way UFC will do that when they are getting over 300k in buys each month for cards usually sold on one fight. Factor in the marketing and pre-match hype on TV, and the UFC seems to have found a successful formula.

The one thing I will say is that for $40, they need to show EVERY FIGHT![/quote]

119

[quote]Or if you watch the last big exchange Liddell had with Silva you will see Silva slip a short straight punch into Liddells left side. After that exchange Liddell slowed down considerably,kept his distance and bent over to his left a few times which is a clear sign he got hurt. The ring announcers thought he had punched himself out which I really doubt.

To me Chuck had the look of a guy who got hurt and was toughing it out because he didn’t want the other guy to think he was vulnerable. I wouldn’t be surprised if Chuck had some cracked ribs from that, the bending over to the side was a clear giveaway that he was trying to shake off something on that side. The keeping his distance was a good sign he didn’t want to get hit there again.[/quote]

I remember that quite clearly and had thought that he was gassing too. I didn’t think it was from pain. Good point.

120

I think you’re touching on a good subject here…the UFC’s popularity appeared to level off in 2007, as PPV buys seemed to bounce all over the map; although even their lowest PPV still did over 200k (Frankin-Okami). I think fans have decided to just hold their money and spend it on the 2 or 3 cards they really want to see, as opposed to buying every PPV.

I think if they had more PPVs like the “Stacked” card; 2 title fights and 2 other top-tier fights, then they would see more people shelling out cash for the event.

You’re right though, with all the guys under contract, there’s no reason to not have more depth on their cards.

[quote]Damici wrote:
I definitely see your point. One could argue that they might drum up a shitload more PPV buys (and more overall popularity and a bigger fanbase) if they put on really exciting, kick-ass cards consistently, but yeah, there’s definitely a point of diminishing returns as far as not wanting to blow more of your load than necessary each time. It would probably take a team of MBAs to do the financial projections and estimate where the ideal point on that supply/demand curve is for them, but I’d personally estimate that they’re not there yet.

The card that I listed for example was exaggerated, surely, but I’ve GOT to think that, with 250 or so guys under contract, as Dana states they have, including many of the top Pride fighters now . . . Jeezus, they’ve got to be able to fatten up the cards a LITTLE bit at least.

Just ranting. :slight_smile:

Djwlfpack wrote:
Damici wrote:
I’m starting to think the UFC just tends to put together largely piss-poor cards the great majority of the time. Often it’s just the main event and maybe the fight right under it that are of any interest at all. The organization has such a stellar overall lineup right now that I would think they should be able to put on cards where, say, at LEAST 4 out of the 6 fights are not just good but GREAT, STELLAR fights among really interesting fighters.

I also think that a lot of the fighters just fight far less frequently than they’re able to, and that if many of them fought, say, 2 additional times per year (beyond what they’re doing now), it would help the UFC put on more interesting cards.

I know I don’t know the logistics of every single situation (who’s injured, whose contract just expired, etc.), but they seem to do a lot (WAY too much) of “saving” fighters for some bigger, interesting fight that’s set to happen many months away. (And sometimes THAT fight then ends up getting blown apart for some reason – pre-fight injury, etc.).

I know this is TOTALLY hypothetical, and that there are logistics that preclude this SPECIFIC example, but just for the sake of argument, every card should be as interesting as, say, this:

Sylvia vs. Nog
Liddell vs. Shogun
Arlovski vs. Gonzaga
A. Silva vs. Henderson
GSP vs. Serra
Gomi vs. Penn

  • 1 or 2 undercard bouts with lesser-knowns

I know some people might say, “But then they’ll blow their whole wad in one night!” I would argue that the organization STILL has enough top talent to put on an equally interesting card 2 months later, and to continue to do so continually, if they work the combinations and permutations right (and have the top fighters fight more than just 2 or 3 times per year).

Am I nuts?

Yes and no (how’s that for an answer?)

I agree that the UFC could have more top stars on the same cards.

But, the last PPV had 2 big headlining fights and the “Stacked” card in July had 3 headline fights, plus Big Nog’s debut, so it does happen from time to time.

However, the UFC is all about maximizing profits, so they have to spread their top stars out b/c of the amount of shows they run each year.

If they only did PPVs, say every 3 months, then you’d see cards close to what you listed above. But there’s no way UFC will do that when they are getting over 300k in buys each month for cards usually sold on one fight. Factor in the marketing and pre-match hype on TV, and the UFC seems to have found a successful formula.

The one thing I will say is that for $40, they need to show EVERY FIGHT!

[/quote]