[xinster]

Standup in general in MMA is hard to judge whether its good or not. It is a pretty complete sport, so if you were to compare it to similar sports, they would all be pretty similar. The variance in rules isn't very significant either, whereas you could compare differences between Judo and Greco-Roman or sub wresling BJJ. When you compare it to standup sports, it is logical to assume MMA standup would make compromises to defend against the shot or the greco clinch. I think a good strategy to analyze this development is to seperate each part of the standup, and get into the specifics part by part.

What COULD be improved. what must be compromised. how to improve xx.



One of the criticisms is the pugilism. Guys who have success with their hands- Wanderlei Silva, Chuck Lidell. Great knockouts from both, Wanderlei more with his knees, but still he experiences quite a large amount of success from his hands. At the very least, he will use them to setup the deadly clinch.

But both of them have some horrible form. Chuck has natural KO power sure, but how can he be so accurate and be so technically weird? Wanderlei obviously is a haymaker machine. Part of why they land shots is probably because of bad footwork/ boxing D on their victims. But still, the jab is underutilized, Rich Franklin is showing success with it while still maintaining good takedown D.

I know you might think "Don't fix it if it aint broke" but MMA is newer than boxing. Boxing is the most tried and true for hand-combat...I mean...that's the point...use your hands. There are obvious flaws in the standup of MMA, and i think it is plausible that many of them are unncessary compromises. To think otherwise, basically would be saying the standup of MMA has no more evolution, it is perfect. Boxing has been around for a long fucking time, and it was around for quite a while without the jab, which is now, well you know. MMA has quite a long way to go before it reaches perfection.

Originally Posted by xinster

When you say the boxing in mma is shitty, and still developing, what do you see as the most lacking part of most mma standup? I mean, i see the standup as the whole witht he clinhcing in kicks to be ok, but they gotta give up alot of shit because they dont want to be taken down.

I think a post on this would be good do it I back you
I think MMA stadup is bad because alot of fighters sacrifice to much power and accuracy to supposedly avoid takedown which is ok in some ways but look at Rasheed Evens he never gets taken down and lands hard shots very well. Also they throw wide punches supposedly to avoid takedown well wide punch makes you more off balance and gives you less chhance of firing combo if they shortened up punches there is more chance of 3-5 punches landing instead of missing with haymaker. Also short punches are faster and more crisp. Ask KK about how much my half power punches hurt he got knocked down everytime i threw on and and it landed because they come from nowhere and land with 5 times as much force as a wide shot.[/quote]

i made this thread so some of the more experienced guys in the more specific fields of the components of MMA could contribute some of their inputs. Wrestlers, Boxers, MT, TMAers.

I know bas doesn't believe in the jab for MMA but i don't believe it. He's old school, he's a great fighter sure. But there has to be ways to use the jab without fear of getting taken down. Randy v. Couture 1. It's probably footwork, but i'll let a pro/ammy fighter say what's what.

I don't include BJJ in this discussion because BJJ geared toward MMA is progressing just fine. There doesn't need to be a discussion because we already have No-gi and MMA-geared bjj instructors who are mapping the game

[Harajuku]

Originally Posted by xinster

Standup in general in MMA is hard to judge whether its good or not. It is a pretty complete sport, so if you were to compare it to similar sports, they would all be pretty similar. The variance in rules isn't very significant either, whereas you could compare differences between Judo and Greco-Roman or sub wresling BJJ. When you compare it to standup sports, it is logical to assume MMA standup would make compromises to defend against the shot or the greco clinch. I think a good strategy to analyze this development is to seperate each part of the standup, and get into the specifics part by part.

What COULD be improved. what must be compromised. how to improve xx.



One of the criticisms is the pugilism. Guys who have success with their hands- Wanderlei Silva, Chuck Lidell. Great knockouts from both, Wanderlei more with his knees, but still he experiences quite a large amount of success from his hands. At the very least, he will use them to setup the deadly clinch.

But both of them have some horrible form. Chuck has natural KO power sure, but how can he be so accurate and be so technically weird? Wanderlei obviously is a haymaker machine. Part of why they land shots is probably because of bad footwork/ boxing D on their victims. But still, the jab is underutilized, Rich Franklin is showing success with it while still maintaining good takedown D.

I know you might think "Don't fix it if it aint broke" but MMA is newer than boxing. Boxing is the most tried and true for hand-combat...I mean...that's the point...use your hands. There are obvious flaws in the standup of MMA, and i think it is plausible that many of them are unncessary compromises. To think otherwise, basically would be saying the standup of MMA has no more evolution, it is perfect. Boxing has been around for a long fucking time, and it was around for quite a while without the jab, which is now, well you know. MMA has quite a long way to go before it reaches perfection.





I think a post on this would be good do it I back you
I think MMA stadup is bad because alot of fighters sacrifice to much power and accuracy to supposedly avoid takedown which is ok in some ways but look at Rasheed Evens he never gets taken down and lands hard shots very well. Also they throw wide punches supposedly to avoid takedown well wide punch makes you more off balance and gives you less chhance of firing combo if they shortened up punches there is more chance of 3-5 punches landing instead of missing with haymaker. Also short punches are faster and more crisp. Ask KK about how much my half power punches hurt he got knocked down everytime i threw on and and it landed because they come from nowhere and land with 5 times as much force as a wide shot.

I think Chuck's boxing is not very good(relatively). It is better than than his opponents. Usually much better than his opponents. Rampage's boxing is as good(or better), so Chuck had no advantage.
Some people say that they are sacrificing technique in order to defend against takedowns. I do not think they are sacrificing technique, they just are not very good. Their footwork is non-existant. When people say footwork alot of people think it is dancing around all over the place. Footwork should allow yourself to be in position to throw punches while putting yourself in position not to get hit, the footwork can be very subtle. Then combine it with upperbody movement and experience.
GUys picking up mma in their twenties and train boxing for their stand-up are just not going to be very good.
For example late starters in boxing, McCline, Rahman, Michael Grant. They trained only boxing, became quite good after several years. When they came up against competition that had extensive amateur experience, and started young they got dismantled. It depends on your standards. I believe in excellence, the highest standards. If you take that perspective then you can see how "good" somebody is. It isn't to discredit, nor in regards to　mma does it mean that they cannot be successful fighters.

[krellik]

Two things I believe...

For a jab to be effective it needs to be a power punch that actually does some damage. It can still be a jab but it needs to be damaging. Otherwise the risk/reward ratio just doenst add upp with the clinches and doubles....

And about the fact that the standup is "bad" or "sloopy" has a hell of a lot to do with the fact that a huuuge part of the defensive "shield" (the gloves) are removed, so it is beneficial to just simply bomb away when you are standing up since some of it will be slipping in....

Then of course we have skill diferences that may make some fighters reckless when fighting certain fighters who have whery little standup... Like when Wand faces one of many fighters with "low" standup he just bombs away on them and takes the victory (since they dont got a defense to it), which obviously is a good gameplan in that scenario... But when he faced Crocop he played a much tighter game which was a wise gameplan when facing Crocop.... ...


Personaly I believe that a tight compact standup is the future of mma but still...

[blanko]

you have to take account of takedowns when you talk about mma, chuck's punches are looping because the smaller gloves allow penetration into the opponent's guard unlike the bigger boxing/kickboxing gloves. Wand a "haymaker machine"? If anything he is a counterpuncher, and his stand up was good enough to survive and not get knocked out against Cro Cop and Mark Hunt. Two extermely accomplished strikers.

[blanko]

let's just put it this way, Chute box started off as a muay thai school. It's roots are in striking and their coaches "tweaked" their striking for mma. It's not like they started off as a bjj/wresting camp like BTT or team quest. What i am tryingn to say is, there is a reason why these strikers hit the way they do.

[xinster]

he doesn't counterpunch with jabs and straights, alot of the shit is haymakers that are way wider than chuck's

[JohnnyBuddha]

I was thinking about this a while back. I think boxing/standup needs to be adjusted for MMA.

You talk about Liddell--I feel he's made some great adjustments to fit MMA, specifically in his stance. His stance is low with a wider base. This helps with 2 things: one is that it makes him much harder to take down. Two is that it gives him much more power (sacrificing speed and footwork). I can remember a few other fighters with such a wide base/crouched stance but can't remember who right now.

I also think the jab is damn important. If you watch Nate Quarry before getting knocked the hell out by Franklin, you'll see him pawing his jab out with absolutely no effectiveness. Franklin walked RIGHT THROUGH it and knocked him the fuck out. I've been impressed by GSP's jab lately, and he uses it with good footwork (like Harajuku?) said--he jabs hard while moving left to right, forward and backwards, and his punches are short and crisp.

Just some random opinions on the topic.

[nopardaid]

In boxing you can stand there and take shot after shot after shot, because of the big ass gloves, try that in MMA. MMA'ers stand further away from thier opponent until it's time to attack, because of the high risk for KO, takedown, clinch. In boxing it is the opposite, go forehead to forehead, look down, throw punches for however many rds. All they have to worry about are punches so they can be more focused on that, needless to say you can't do that in MMA. I hear these posts from time to time on here and it just never sinks in with some people, if you want to watch "technique" watch boxing.
What is the goal when Chuck or Wandy fight? to knock their opponent out, while not getting knocked out, do they do that, hell yeah, you can't argue with results. I don't care about the process, just the end result. So who cares whether or not they follow pugilistic rules and styles, not me.

[xinster]

Originally Posted by nopardaid

In boxing you can stand there and take shot after shot after shot, because of the big ass gloves, try that in MMA. MMA'ers stand further away from thier opponent until it's time to attack, because of the high risk for KO, takedown, clinch. In boxing it is the opposite, go forehead to forehead, look down, throw punches for however many rds. All they have to worry about are punches so they can be more focused on that, needless to say you can't do that in MMA. I hear these posts from time to time on here and it just never sinks in with some people, if you want to watch "technique" watch boxing.
What is the goal when Chuck or Wandy fight? to knock their opponent out, while not getting knocked out, do they do that, hell yeah, you can't argue with results. I don't care about the process, just the end result. So who cares whether or not they follow pugilistic rules and styles, not me.

no...no...you didn't get it..

[anvar]

striking for mma is different then striking for thai boxing...there are many techniques you need to change and even ones you can't use. The biggest technique that most striking only guys mock is the "sloppy hooks" but they are AWESOME for mma to avoid a takedown!