New MMA vs. Old MMA

Tough call. I mean, obviously it is always better to be a well rounded athlete. However, I think that it would depend on the strength of the fighter. You can be an extremely well rounded fighter, and get dominated by a guy, simply because he has better wrestling than you... or a great sprawl and better striking than you...ect....

So, it would depend on the individual and the match-up. In some cases, let's say that you are an average wrestler, with an average ground game, and average stand-up. You are going against a another guy who has some decent takedown defense and great stand-up but once he gets to the ground he is pretty defenseless. Now, training to be well rounded isn't going to help you that much, because it is going to come down to the fact that you can't take him down, and he is beating you on your feet. So, I think that training 95% of your time on takedowns, and ground action would work better to your advantage, than training in everything including all of the aspects of stand-up fighting, which you are already average at. If he is great at stand-up, you aren't going to reach his level through one training camp. So, it would be in your best interests to become as good as you possibly can, at the part of the game that he is most vulnerable.

Personally (if I was in the situation mentioned above), I would train only enough stand-up in order to jab my way in close for a takedown opportunity. In which case my part of the fight happens on the ground. If you put all of your time in on the ground work, and takedowns... then you have now made this a great fight. If you stay an average wrestler, who can't easily score a takedown against a guy with decent takedown defense.... then you are only going to get just good enough on your feet to get you knocked out when you try to strike with them.

If that made any sense at all... that is my opinion.


I think that if you have a guy who is decent at everything, but great at one thing... he usually beats a guy who is just good at everything. Because no matter what, he can normally force his will into the aspect of the game that he is great at, and the opponent isn't on a close enough level at that aspect to contend or counter. Then again it depends on the style match-up.... alright I am running in circles.

Then again... in the old UFC format, you never knew who you would be fighting in the next round of the tournament.., so I guess being well rounded would help more, because you never know what style you are facing, and would have to be able to adjust. What if you trained all of your time in wrestling, and you fight a better wrestler? You better be better on your feet, and be able to avoid takedowns... or work great off of your back.

So, I guess my answer is, in a tournament format, it would have been better to be well rounded, and in a one on one match-up like I mentioned above... it would be best to train according to your opponents weaknesses.

 

Very hard to answer. It should be both. Fedor shows how good transitions are important but he is really good at SAMBO which in its nature is transitional. But i know he doesn't train SAMBO every day, he does have isolated training.

In words of A + B + C, it hasn't advanced much at all. I don't think it advanced period. It's not a separate style. You still train individual arts but what has advanced is what arts and HOW you practice them. I'm sure in a future MMA will become and art of its own but not for many years.

 

Bah, I wrote a response, but I had misinterpreted what you wrote. So, um, I'll get back to you, hah.

 

Huge difference, MMA has proven to be a style in and of itself. Fighters are now taking full advantage of the transitions in fights, its the difference in many fights. Extremely highly regarded sport grapplers are getting out grappled by guys more acclimated to MMA fighting and conditioning. Ground and pound is also such a factor in todays MMA, and it is just not something you can duplicate in any other sport.

You need the individual aspects down, no question, but more than that you need your MMA down. Striking into takedowns (GSP vs Koscheck), Clinch and pound against the cage (Couture vs Gonzaga), and GnP on the ground are at least as important and usually more important than pure wrestling, pure striking, and pure submission grappling. Fighters like Frankie Edgar, GSP, Clay Guida, Gilbert Melendez, and Rampage are the best examples of the end product being much, much, more than the sum of its parts.

 

Beat Canadian BJJ/ADCC champ Mark Bocek by tko at ufc 73, was a little early stoppage, but Edgar was not going to be denied that night.

 

Same Mark Bocek who grappled BJ to a standstill in a seminar here (Toronto)

 

This is very true in some theoretical cases, but not others.

I think I can say definitively that if you have to be great at only one thing, be a great wrestler. Why? Because being a great wrestler gives you more control to put the fight where you want it.

Being a great striker does not mean you are necessarily great at takedown avoidance. Being a great fighter on the ground, being very adept at subs on the ground and positional dominance, is only great if you can get the fight to the ground, which a great wrestler can avoid.

A great wrestler is better at determining where the fight goes than a great striker or a great submissions guy. This is a wrestlers greatest asset, because wrestling doesn't as easily provide for finishes. GnPs work well enough for stopping the fight, but they don't have the same "I can end this fight any second" effect that subs or KO strikers have.


Of course every fighter should have a gameplan for their training based on their opponents strengths and weaknesses. It's still good to be well rounded though, it means you have a better chance of surviving in an unfavorable situation, also you can exploit any real lacking that your opponent may have.

I don't know who the opponent was, but Renzo Gracie fought a guy once beating the guy totally at the standup game. Renzo has excellent Ju Jitsu of course, but he knew his opponent also had excellent ju jitsu. Renzo knew he had only pretty good standup, but his opponent was seriously lacking in the standup game, so he beat the guy standing. Since he is a pretty decent overall fighter, while being amazingly great at ju jitsu, it was his lesser standup skills that won the match.

 

That's a really exciting prospect though, isn't it? An MMA style? Basically, by starting this organization to find out which fighting style was the best in a real fight, the UFC started the groundwork for CREATING the style that is actually the best in a real fight.

 

Thats fate isn't it? But I think you have to be middle class in every type of fighting (strike, clinch, ground), maybe you can't do that, but I think you have to try. Because to much attention what you are good at, makes you a specialist and when to specialist mett but one of them knows someting much better --> codeman99998 --> Renzo Gracie and the other dude.

 

The early days were more exciting and interesting for me personally. Obviously the early days ultimately proved that all things being equal, a more well-rounded fighter is typically going to beat a stylistically less well-rounded but otherwise evenly matched opponent. Progress, however - while inevitable, is not always very entertaining. I really liked the suspense and uncertainty that came with pitting top guys from disparate disciplines against each other. Now that it's one big homogenous cross-training blob (that sometimes translates into exciting fights, but with far less unpredictability and explosiveness than the old school), I feel MMA has lost its key selling point from the early UFC days - for me anyway.

 

Little. GSP trains seperately.

 

mma has turned into a martial art style like Jeet Kune do rather than the original event with martial artist from different back grounds.

 

He does do seperate training, as all fighters do, but since he lost to Serra he seems more commited to MMA style training rather than seperating the pieces, getting ready for his fight with Koscheck down at Jackson's.