[JudoChop!]

People are always talking about bad "match ups". Two fighters who are good, but are a bad "match up" and thus will not be a good fight.

Or people give Chuck shit because he fights "wrestlers" who are a bad "match up".

While I get what people are saying, Im wondering if we should really care about "match ups". This is MMA! There are many ways to win a fight. If Chuck is such a great puncher, and Tito is a wrestler and is a bad "match up" for Chuck shouldnt it be Titos job to rely on his other MMA skills to beat Chuck? If he cant then he is not a better fighter.

Isnt the whole goal of MMA to be well rounded and do whatever it takes to win?

Doesnt discrediting a victory because of a poor "match up" take away from what MMA really is?

[Iron Blade]

The whole foundation of mma is based on matchups, so yes they do matter.

[JudoChop!]

What I was trying to get at (and I didnt do a very good job) is shouldnt we try to head away form that whole type of thinking. I thought fighters were supposed to be well rounded these days.

I understand that people will have strengths and will rely on those strengths most of the time. But in situations where your strengths might be negated you have to adapt. And alot of fighters do not, so they lose. But people say "well it was a bad match up to start".

Example:

Sean Sherk (Im from MN so of course Im a Sherk nutthugger) relies heavily on GnP. But when he fought Nick Diaz a taller bigger fighter he had a hard time taking him down. So he had to rely on his hands. Most of the fight was a boxing match, which Sherk won. He adapted for that fight and went away from his bread and butter.

A tall lanky puncher like Diaz is a horrible match up for a guy like Sherk, but he adapted and got the victory. If more fighters would work on every aspect of their game we wouldnt have to use the bullshit line hes a bad match up.

[samianssi1]

Match ups do matter, but this whole situation of Chuck getting easy matchup is just bs from pride lovers that cant make any smart argument why Liddell is not #1.

[Le Tigre]

I don't think it ever discredits any wins. I doubt you will read any of the faithful Chuck followers taking away either of his wins over Tito.

It isn't a bad "match up" for Chuck, it is a bad "match up" for Tito. It is Tito who can't take down Chuck, he also can't beat Chuck standing. So it is Tito who is in the bad "match up".

"Match ups" matter because as everyone says it is styles that make fights. It is just something you can use to predict what happens. Same with any other sport.

For instance, Jacksonville vs. Colts from this season. The Colts couldn't stop the run game, Jacksonville has a boulder of a running back named Maurice Jones Drew. The Colts offense would have to be perfect against the Jacksonville average defense to make up for their (Colts) own lack of defense. What happened was the Jaguars ran over 200 yards on the Colts, thus winning the game. So that was a bad match up for the Colts. Any team with a great running game was a bad match up for the Colts. But nowadays Bob Sanders is back and he makes their run defense better than average so now that necessarily isn't a bad match up anymore.

[omfOdin]

Originally Posted by JudoChop!

What I was trying to get at (and I didnt do a very good job) is shouldnt we try to head away form that whole type of thinking. I thought fighters were supposed to be well rounded these days.

I understand that people will have strengths and will rely on those strengths most of the time. But in situations where your strengths might be negated you have to adapt. And alot of fighters do not, so they lose. But people say "well it was a bad match up to start".

Example:

Sean Sherk (Im from MN so of course Im a Sherk nutthugger) relies heavily on GnP. But when he fought Nick Diaz a taller bigger fighter he had a hard time taking him down. So he had to rely on his hands. Most of the fight was a boxing match, which Sherk won. He adapted for that fight and went away from his bread and butter.

A tall lanky puncher like Diaz is a horrible match up for a guy like Sherk, but he adapted and got the victory. If more fighters would work on every aspect of their game we wouldnt have to use the bullshit line hes a bad match up.

The bad match up line is clearly not bullshit. As you said, different people will have different strengths. Generally speaking, fighters tend to have much more experience in one aspect of the fight game than the others due to where they got their start. All other skills play catch up from that point on. It is very unlikely that someone would be able to work their grappling and striking to the point where the two are equal. There will always be a weakness.

[Snapp]

Originally Posted by samianssi1

Match ups do matter, but this whole situation of Chuck getting easy matchup is just bs from pride lovers that cant make any smart argument why Liddell is not #1.

Coming from the guy who thinks tim Sylvia is #1. Bwahahahahahahaha


Anyways, calling Chuck a bad match up for Tito, is just another way of saying that Chuck's style is gonna really be hard for Tito to beat.

Its not that people "care" about match ups, its just a way to talk about fights that will be harder for one fighter than another due to styles. Styles make fights, and some styles are better to beat others.

[vectorwega]

I don't know of a sport where matchups are more critical than MMA.

[SalamandraNinja]

While saying that Tito would win if he wasn't a bad matchup for Chuck would not only be somewhat of a lie, and would be somewhat irrelevant... matchups do matter. It's more because recently, the only people he's been fighting have been people who he matches up well against. It's a legitimate concern, of how he would do against people who aren't necessarily good matchups for him. People like Wandy and Rampage. This is MMA, it should be wondered how well rounded Chuck really is.

[Thenovemberistx]

Pointless nonsense.

Why bother making this thread?