Quote:
Originally Posted by Bargey
Its obvious that having a good clinch is important but TS doesn't even distinguish between the Greco Roman clinch or the thai clinch. The difference between those two and what you do with those two is like apples and oranges.
However it is not nearly as important as its made out to be otherwise the fighter with the better clinch would win 90% of the time. Only we have fights just some big ones i can think of like:
Penn-Hughes
Liddell-Couture 2&3
Liddell-Ortiz
Fedor-Randleman
Rampage-Wand 3
Crocop-Wand 2
Crocop-Barnett
Randleman-Crocop 2
Vera-Jardine
In these fight the fighter with the better clinch on paper got there asses kicked. Some even used their clinch to seemingly great effect such as Randleman-Fedor but it meant nothing coz without the jits or the striking the clinch means nothing. Not to mention how many fights in which the clinch is hardly used and is a non-factor. Check ufc 92 for proof.
Notice who the 3 best in the world are p4p? Fedor, BJ, Anderson. They don't care where the fight goes and they hardly bother clinching because they are all great grapplers and strikers. Only fight I can really think of where a big effort to clinch was made was Anderson's thai clinch v Franklin 1 - but did he really need to?
|
Well untill i say thai clinch, just assume i'm talking about greco roman clinch.
All three said fighters are good in the clinch, Sambo which has a lot of judo in it is clinch fighting. BJJ which starts on the feet and uses the clinch for a lot of throws to gain superior position, and muay thai has an emphasis on clinch fighting.
You clinch those dudes 9 time out of 10 they'll get out of it because they are better at the clinch.
