[Eirikr]

In the last year it seems to me that there is increasing talk of the influence respective fighter's styles have in determining the outcome of a fight. A recent example which generated as much forum traffic as i've ever seen on Sherdog was the Liddell vs. Wanderlei fight. Don't turn this thread into yet another discussion of the obvious, that Chuck won etc etc. The point is that many said they predicted or in afterthought felt that Wanderlei lost ALSO because it was a bad style match up. Almost every discussion raises the style issue.
I agree for example that style-wise the matchup went against Wanderlei in his fight with Chuck. But why is style even an issue? Should we only have matchups where the styles don't conflict? Or the opposite?
Let's have them fight each other and that's that. This is a concern for the development of the professional sport, this style thing? Or is it a question of what the fan's want or perhaps they are intertwined.
Whatever the case I don't care about styles; they can clash and make it interesting. We've gone back to UFC 1 with this, i.e. People on sherdog are always screaming, "show me who's number one!!" If we want to see who is the best it has to be regardless of style,
making the discussion of style vis a vis the outcome mute. Otherwise we will have, "Chuck is number one in the world for lanky, back-bicycling strikers but Jardine is number one in hurdy-gurdy style." I'm being ridiculous to make a point but someone explain, without the venom usually spewed, why style shouldn't be discarded as forum fodder.

[mmanut]

Style match-ups are the reason that it's hard to ever get a #1 ranked fighter by consensus. Rampage, Wand, and Liddell make the perfect example. Rampage has trouble with Wand's style, Chuck has trouble with Rampage's, and Wand has trouble with Liddell's. There are too many different styles and weapons in MMA for most guys to be able to beat everyone in a division and it's the reason it's rare for a fighter to remain champion for a long period.

A rare case where this isn't true is with GSP at WW. Yes, he lost to Serra, and no I don't think it was a fluke because Serra intended to hurt him with that punch, but there still isn't a fighter at 170 that I would pick to beat GSP because he can do everything. If he faces a better striker than himself he possesses the wrestling and BJJ to nullify that and put them where they don't want to be. If he faces a better grappler he can use his wrestling to keep the fight standing. If he faces a superior wrestler, he'll probably have the BJJ game to reverse or submit him. He's like Fedor, he fits Bruce Lee's notion of being water. A completely well-rounded game is certainly the future of MMA and we'll see more of it, but for the time being, most guys have one weapon/style that they'll predominantly use which will continue to provide us with good and bad style match-ups.

[pjissaye]

good post

[Eirikr]

Originally Posted by mmanut

Style match-ups are the reason that it's hard to ever get a #1 ranked fighter by consensus. Rampage, Wand, and Liddell make the perfect example. Rampage has trouble with Wand's style, Chuck has trouble with Rampage's, and Wand has trouble with Liddell's. There are too many different styles and weapons in MMA for most guys to be able to beat everyone in a division and it's the reason it's rare for a fighter to remain champion for a long period.

A rare case where this isn't true is with GSP at WW. Yes, he lost to Serra, and no I don't think it was a fluke because Serra intended to hurt him with that punch, but there still isn't a fighter at 170 that I would pick to beat GSP because he can do everything. If he faces a better striker than himself he possesses the wrestling and BJJ to nullify that and put them where they don't want to be. If he faces a better grappler he can use his wrestling to keep the fight standing. If he faces a superior wrestler, he'll probably have the BJJ game to reverse or submit him. He's like Fedor, he fits Bruce Lee's notion of being water. A completely well-rounded game is certainly the future of MMA and we'll see more of it, but for the time being, most guys have one weapon/style that they'll predominantly use which will continue to provide us with good and bad style match-ups.

You make good sense, I also believe that GSP is a new generation of mma athlete and i have been calling Fedor, for a few years, not the best or ultimate mma fighter but the Prototype. Well roundedness is something that potentially though will flatten the fireworks in the octagon but then again even two very well rounded fighters will still have their body types and idiosyncrasies which are part of their "fighting character" or style. Perhaps eventually it will force fighters to take more chances (something dearly lacking in general) to counter the evenly matched skill set.

[mmanut]

Originally Posted by Eirikr

You make good sense, I also believe that GSP is a new generation of mma athlete and i have been calling Fedor, for a few years, not the best or ultimate mma fighter but the Prototype. Well roundedness is something that potentially though will flatten the fireworks in the octagon but then again even two very well rounded fighters will still have their body types and idiosyncrasies which are part of their "fighting character" or style. Perhaps eventually it will force fighters to take more chances (something dearly lacking in general) to counter the evenly matched skill set.

I don't think we'll ever see totally equal skillsets, there are just too many different fighting styles that you can incorporate and you can't possibly train them all at a high level. Like this for instance:

Two well-rounded fighters who are equally comfortable on the feet, wrestling, and with submissions. Fighter A trains Muay Thai for his stand-up, Greco for his takedowns, and BJJ for his submissions. Fighter B trains Western boxing for his stand-up, Judo for takedowns, and catch wrestling for submissions. They're both equally well-versed in these arts, so now we have a different sort of style match-up, in the sense that we're almost back to the early days of seeing which style is superior rather than who has the better skillset as we're seeing now.

Does Fighter A win the striking bout because his opponent lacks the counter for kicks and knees, or does Fighter B win the stand-up because his Western boxing style exploits the Muay Thai fighter's lack of punching proficiency (straight Thai fighters are known for lack of punching acumen due to the emphasis on inside fighting from the clinch as well as the arsenal of kicks)?

When they tie up in the clinch does Fighter A get the throw with his upper body clinches or does Fighter B negate the clinch with sweeps, trips, and hip throws? When it hits the mat does Fighter B take advantage by utilizing leglocks that are underutilized in pure BJJ or does Fighter A dominate due to the catch-wrestlers weaker guard?

See what I'm getting at? We're still talking about style match-ups, but in a very different manner. It's no longer a question of what piece of the puzzle a fighter lacks, but rather who trains the more efficient style and is more effective with it. There will be the rare occasion that two guys fight and they train the exact same disciplines, which will also be interesting, but I think we'll always have some sort of style match-up, regardless of the context in which the phrase is used.

[Captain Smoker]

Originally Posted by mmanut

Style match-ups are the reason that it's hard to ever get a #1 ranked fighter by consensus. Rampage, Wand, and Liddell make the perfect example. Rampage has trouble with Wand's style, Chuck has trouble with Rampage's, and Wand has trouble with Liddell's. There are too many different styles and weapons in MMA for most guys to be able to beat everyone in a division and it's the reason it's rare for a fighter to remain champion for a long period.

A rare case where this isn't true is with GSP at WW. Yes, he lost to Serra, and no I don't think it was a fluke because Serra intended to hurt him with that punch, but there still isn't a fighter at 170 that I would pick to beat GSP because he can do everything. If he faces a better striker than himself he possesses the wrestling and BJJ to nullify that and put them where they don't want to be. If he faces a better grappler he can use his wrestling to keep the fight standing. If he faces a superior wrestler, he'll probably have the BJJ game to reverse or submit him. He's like Fedor, he fits Bruce Lee's notion of being water. A completely well-rounded game is certainly the future of MMA and we'll see more of it, but for the time being, most guys have one weapon/style that they'll predominantly use which will continue to provide us with good and bad style match-ups.

Thats actually a bad example. because the liddell-wand fight was a war and as close as they get. The rampage-chuck was one sided both times. wand vs. rampage was a war but wand coming out on top both times by brutalization.

So basically...


Liddell>Wand


Rampage>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Liddell


Wand>>Rampage

[mmanut]

Originally Posted by Captain Smoker

Thats actually a bad example. because the liddell-wand fight was a war and as close as they get. The rampage-chuck was one sided both times. wand vs. rampage was a war but wand coming out on top both times by brutalization.

So basically...


Liddell>Wand


Rampage>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Liddell


Wand>>>Rampage

You're missing the point, it's the perfect example. They've all been champs and they all match-up differently with one another. As for Chuck/Wand being close, yes, it was, but it's also a bad match-up stylistically for Wand. He has a height/reach disadvantage and he fights best when he's smothering his opponent and working inside with wide hooks and knees from the plum clinch. Chuck is at his best when a fighter wades right into him throwing caution to the wind, so Wand is unable to do the things that make him so dangerous. When facing Chuck he has be more tentative, and his size disadvantage makes it harder for him to get inside where he wants to be. That's a bad style match-up, just not as bad as the other two I listed. Why isn't it as bad? For the reason that you stated, Wand was able to make a hell of a fight, do some damage of his own, and survive.

As for Wand/Rampage, it's obviously a bad match-up for Rampage. Rampage hates to be pressured and he doesn't fight well when he gets smothered, which is exactly what Wand likes to do. As soon as Rampage gets caught with a good punch or even flurried on, he covers up with the traditional boxer's defense and pulls back which gives Wand a perfect opportunity to clinch and knee. Of course Rampage is a very good wrestler and Wand has a comparitively weak takedown defense, but his defensive guard has for the most part nullified Rampage's GnP offense in both fights. Rampage can certainly take this fight if it happens again, but the advantage has to be given to Wand due to prior history and the styles concerned.

Rampage/Chuck is another fight that is a very bad match-up for one fighter. Rampage fights with controlled aggression which is Chuck's worst nightmare. In the first Randy fight, the Jardine fight, and both Rampage fights, Chuck lost because they pressured him just enough to keep him off rhythm and force him to attack. Chuck makes a lot of mistakes when he's forced to become the aggressor and it showed in all of these fights. Chuck also has a problem with fighters who throw faster, straighter punches than himself, something Rampage does to great effect. In both fights Rampage was able to get inside of his loopy hooks with straight shots down the pipe, and it paid big dividends in the rematch.

[Captain Smoker]

Originally Posted by mmanut

You're missing the point, it's the perfect example. They've all been champs and they all match-up differently with one another. As for Chuck/Wand being close, yes, it was, but it's also a bad match-up stylistically for Wand. He has a height/reach disadvantage and he fights best when he's smothering his opponent and working inside with wide hooks and knees from the plum clinch. Chuck is at his best when a fighter wades right into him throwing caution to the wind, so Wand is unable to do the things that make him so dangerous. When facing Chuck he has be more tentative, and his size disadvantage makes it harder for him to get inside where he wants to be. That's a bad style match-up, just not as bad as the other two I listed. Why isn't it as bad? For the reason that you stated, Wand was able to make a hell of a fight, do some damage of his own, and survive.

As for Wand/Rampage, it's obviously a bad match-up for Rampage. Rampage hates to be pressured and he doesn't fight well when he gets smothered, which is exactly what Wand likes to do. As soon as Rampage gets caught with a good punch or even flurried on, he covers up with the traditional boxer's defense and pulls back which gives Wand a perfect opportunity to clinch and knee. Of course Rampage is a very good wrestler and Wand has a comparitively weak takedown defense, but his defensive guard has for the most part nullified Rampage's GnP offense in both fights. Rampage can certainly take this fight if it happens again, but the advantage has to be given to Wand due to prior history and the styles concerned.

Rampage/Chuck is another fight that is a very bad match-up for one fighter. Rampage fights with controlled aggression which is Chuck's worst nightmare. In the first Randy fight, the Jardine fight, and both Rampage fights, Chuck lost because they pressured him just enough to keep him off rhythm and force him to attack. Chuck makes a lot of mistakes when he's forced to become the aggressor and it showed in all of these fights. Chuck also has a problem with fighters who throw faster, straighter punches than himself, something Rampage does to great effect. In both fights Rampage was able to get inside of his loopy hooks with straight shots down the pipe, and it paid big dividends in the rematch.

Good post. All i am sayin is that The wand-chuck fight wasnt convincing enough to tell me that chuck would easily win against wandy again. Look at both of there faces after the fight. But the rampage-chuck, rampage dominated both times. Wand-page, good fight, but both ended brutally for page. I was just thinking the paper-rock-scissors all have to be balanced. But i guess your just going by who won the fight.

Also, to sum up your rampage-chuck summarry into a shorter one.

Chuck is weak against a good boxer + good chin + good wrestler.

[mmanut]

Originally Posted by Captain Smoker

Good post. All i am sayin is that The wand-chuck fight wasnt convincing enough to tell me that chuck would easily win against wandy again. Look at both of there faces after the fight. But the rampage-chuck, rampage dominated both times. Wand-page, good fight, but both ended brutally for page. I was just thinking the paper-rock-scissors all have to be balanced. But i guess your just going by who won the fight.

Also, to sum up your rampage-chuck summarry into a shorter one.

Chuck is weak against a good boxer + good chin + good wrestler.

No, I'm not really just going by who won the fight, I'm going by whose style I think is superior in a certain situation. There are a lot of fights I can think of where a guy lost but I didn't think it was due to a style mismatch. But these three fights will happen the same way the more often than not because they are bad style match-ups for the guys who lost.

[Jimmy POP]

Style matchups are why I want to see Anderson Silva vs. Lindland.