What is greater in wrestling, technique or strength?

5 years of consistent training? in WRESTLING id say the big guys will still whip him but in jiu jitsu my money is on the skinny kid every day of the week.

 

Well, in wrestling strength and technique kind of go hand-in-hand. It's kind of a freaky thing as to why wrestlers are so damn good.

They learn amazing control technique but that technique and it's application is amazingly good at producing absolutely sickening core strength. I'll never, ever forget the first time I tried to grapple with a wrestler (who, go figure...was shorter and smaller then me). I couldn't believe it... Picking me up, slamming me despite being in lockdown and...****!

Wrestlers are freaks...I wish to **** I did wrestling instead of basketball.

 

Actually, for the huge part of it, it was his technique that did it.

The part that very few people seem to understand is that they're directly related. Practicing wrestling technique is directly tied to your core body strength and overall strength level. Why? Because the techniques themselves promote such strength. The techniques by themselves often work simply because they're effective...but when done over and over and over and over again...****! It's really not shocking at all that the strongest individuals in every single weight class in MMA are wrestlers. It's a consequence of the techniques they practice.

(Just as a note, I was helping him train for an upcoming fight he had, so I wasn't going 100% on my bottom game, but no way in hell did I even remotely expect him to be that strong. It really is one of those things that you can't quite grasp until you try it yourself. Just go to your local high school...ask to go against the best wrestler they have (and again, this is just the local level...nevermind the best of the best at a national and international level!) and you'll be on your ass faster then you can blink and you won't believe what the **** is happening...) Could I have submitted him? Yeah, probably...but I was moreso trying to make him work on positioning in that drill. I just got him in a lockdown which is to be expected if someone ties him up while he's in guard...and damn that hurt! And what's so freaky is that it seemed so damn effortless to him...he's a 155'er and I was around 184 at the time...

 

Well, they're pretty much the same thing in a very loose sense. It's all grappling.

Some forms of wrestling use "submissions", such as catch/submission wrestling. But wrestling focuses alot more on getting a dominant position and maintaining control and forcing the other guy into bad positions.

Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is alot of the same, but it's being able to survive and win regardless of what's happening. On your back? No problem. Want to sweep so you're on top and your attacker is on the bottom? Easy game (assuming your attacker isn't trained). It has an emphasis on position and control from all positions as a means to minimizing danger and getting an end game control (submission/choke).

The overall techniques are vastly different. They're similar in their approach, but in the end, a wrestler (with just wrestling) is almost always susceptible to submissions. A BJJ fighter can adapt to the strength and control of a wrestler and find an opening to lock up a submission, even if severely undersized. (See Royce Gracie vs. Dan Severn...took awhile, but Royce eventually locked Dan in a triangle choke despite Dan being on top for nearly 20 mintes!) Now, will it always be the result? No. But the huge majority of the time, if you factor in relative skill levels...

 

I really dislike wrestling and wish it had never become a core part of MMA. :yep

This dislike dates back to fights in my younger days, where nobody could stand up with me despite having height and weight advantages, but all the varsity wrestler dudes (even smaller ones) would have me down almost instantly and start to pull their pretzel-making octopus crap. :!: It also just isn't aesthetically pleasing for me to watch compared to boxing, MT, and BJJ.

So I'd agree that it's a little from column A and a little from column B as someone more or less said above...also that the one (application and repetition of technique) influences the other (core strength) over time.

 

If you're advocating that strength is greater then technique then I'd say you're incorrect.

I'd say relative technique beats relative strength (my own phrasing).

If 9/10 guys can get you in a headlock...and you can escape it...that says that they suck at putting people in headlocks...or they're not doing it right.

We've seen time and time again, through the use of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and other grappling based arts that a significantly outsized and weaker individual can succeed in a combat scenario against a much stronger and physically larger opponent. It's not his strength that's doing it.

 

Again, you have to go back to my phrase.

Relative technique beats relative strength.

Basically what you're saying is parallel to an example I use all the time to kind of use an extreme to prove the phrase.

You could have a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu black belt who is a midget and you could have the World's Strongest Man who knows nothing about technical fighting...simply knows to grab, squeeze and punch... Because he is so freakishly strong and because the other guy is at such a disadvantage, it's going to be the strength that wins out.

Now, if you take a reasonably strong brazilian jiu jitsu black belt and put him in a fight against the worlds strongest man, I'll take the Jiu Jitsu fighter every single time.

Keeping it relative is important. First, a 12 year old kid isn't going to be an expert. And he's also not going to be even remotely as strong as someone like Brock Lesnar. So, again, you have an extreme and nothing relative. (Also making note of the fact that Brock Lesnar is as strong as it is because of his wrestling technique)

The best way I can think to explain it is using a basic number example:

Let's say you have two guys, and their total number adds up to 10. And you can have either 0-10 in strength and 0-10 in skill. But, ultimately the number must add up to 10.

If you put a 10 in strength up against a guy who is 10 in skill but correspondingly 0 (or even a fraction in strength), the guy who is stronger is going to win. It's simply a function of relative usefulness. You can't execute a guillotine choke without having some semblance of strength.

Now, what we can say, with almost a certainty, is that if you have a guy who is 8 parts skill and 2 parts strength against a guy who is 8 parts strength and 2 parts skill...the guy who is more skillful is going to win most of the time. Maybe not all of the time due to simple variance, but it gives the guy with the most relative skill the greatest chance at success.

The biggest disadvantage for smaller guys who are skillful is when the big guys who are obscenely strong start to suppliment that strength with technique. Then you're basically...well, you can fill in the blank.

Hope that makes sense.

 

Watch Marcelo Garcia rolling with Andre Arlovski.

Garcia is outweighed by 70lbs and he badly tools Arlovski. Who is no slouch.

 

Just depends how good your tecnique is. Is your tecnique good enough to match somebody seriously twice as strong as you?
Also on the other side...Are you so super strong that you match somebody who has a lot more experience?

I try to do both. People usually get one or the other. Either there some skinny kid over my boxing gym with great skills talking about "I fight for points" or some meathead at my gym who's stiff as a board, and can barely walk.

 

5 years of technical training then I think technique would win however facing a 6'3, 280 pound individual would be insane strength difference and very risky. However a 17 year old weak kid then I don't know.