[QUOTE=goju;992354]the mma gym i was at was heavily boxing oriented and they didnt tell us to change our punching style or that punching in these wide arching motion was the way you had to do it
of course you had to modify the boxing but this jsut meant adding thing to it like take down defense clinching etc etc
i recall it may have been nick or nate diaz talk about boxing in mma and he said that so many mma people are too busy running around just flat out saying something doesnt work instead of stfu and learning the technique and actually trying it out:D[/QUOTE]
I find this quote interesting. I am currently a submission grappler and I train at an mma gym. The guy who teaches the class is a bjj blackbelt who has fought mma and trains mma fighters. In class we always go over the moves from a pure grappling standpoint and then how the move has to be modified to be used in mma or just how to use it when striking is involved.
Goju, are you saying that your trainer uses a straight boxing methodology to teach striking with only adding some grappling defenses on top?
Speaking from the grappling point of view the footwork, timing and stances can change a lot as you transition from sub-grappling to mma
[QUOTE=m1k3;992375]I find this quote interesting. I am currently a submission grappler and I train at an mma gym. The guy who teaches the class is a bjj blackbelt who has fought mma and trains mma fighters. In class we always go over the moves from a pure grappling standpoint and then how the move has to be modified to be used in mma or just how to use it when striking is involved.
Goju, are you saying that your trainer uses a straight boxing methodology to teach striking with only adding some grappling defenses on top?
Speaking from the grappling point of view the footwork, timing and stances can change a lot as you transition from sub-grappling to mma[/QUOTE]
no they just blended the boxing stand up perfectly with grappling
obviously you have to add things to boxing to suceed in an mma type scenario
however they kept pretty much everything youll find in a traditional boxing gym they just expanded on it a it by adding other things instead of removing huge chunks of it
[QUOTE=m1k3;992375]I find this quote interesting. I am currently a submission grappler and I train at an mma gym. The guy who teaches the class is a bjj blackbelt who has fought mma and trains mma fighters. In class we always go over the moves from a pure grappling standpoint and then how the move has to be modified to be used in mma or just how to use it when striking is involved.
Goju, are you saying that your trainer uses a straight boxing methodology to teach striking with only adding some grappling defenses on top?
Speaking from the grappling point of view the footwork, timing and stances can change a lot as you transition from sub-grappling to mma[/QUOTE]
what a shock you train at an MMA gym that actually competes and trains good fighters..so do i and our veiws seem to be the same…makes you wonder about those on here saying something different from us doesn’t it?
[QUOTE=Frost;992378]have you watched the cro cop fight, he beat him sensless for all 5 rounds, rogers was kicking his ass… LMAO did you ven watch the fight?
yep and that power comes from sloppy boxing, imagine how good he would be if he followed your example and boxed properly:D[/QUOTE]
yes the only time fedor was dominant in that fight was when he took rogers to the ground and when he dropped him like a sack of potatoes at the end
i saw that fight the first it was aired rogers was controlling the stand up
same with arvolski his foot work and leaping in an out one twos were frustrating fedor until he decided he was ong bak thia arior and went for the leaping knee
Ha ha. Why is everybody that is quick to “defend” MMA sloppiness not defending it at all. It’s all “Well, you can’t compare it to a style that is more technical.” and the like. Why not though? Why is it that all styles can be compared to MMA and then deemed “unfit for fighting” but when one aspect of MMA is called sloppy, all of a sudden comparrisons are considered unfair. The arguement given is “MMA isn’t boxing, KB, MT, etc..” when it very much is.
It is a mixture of all of that and the way you know is that the fighters are constantly telling the viewer that. “I trained in (Insert style here) for x amount of years” and then the commentators will repeat that. The bell rings and everyone goes back to the school yard with sloppy haymakers. On the way down to the ring, the fighters will throw a few punches and elbows to let the crowd know that the battle is getting ready to start. However, half the punches they did, they won’t use and almost no one uses elbows at all.
One arguement was the wild haymakers are used to set up for grappling later. I suppose since they possibly dont train to strike someone when they are in “grappling” range, a straight punch when someone is at a perfect distance(and completely open I might add) makes no sense. I get that. I do. But why no elbows? Aren’t elbows used in MT(which is a part of MMA) when you are in the clinch in order to pummel/get out of it?
The Anderson Silva link was awesome but that itself is an unfair comparrision. If you were to get the majority of MMA stirkers(not BBJers that also strike, almost pure stand up fighters) they may never be able to compare to the technical striking and precision of Anderson Silva. Period. He is, right now, the best (in my opinion of course). If this discussion were to switch from “MMA striking sucks when compared to (insert style here)” and became “Standard MMA striking sucks compared to Anderson Silva”, would it be better received?
The bottom line is that the majority of MMA people have bad hands(and feet for that matter). Making excuses isn’t going to change that. So, with that solved, how would you guys change that? What styles do you think MMA fighters should focus on to be better fighters? What styles would you like to see used in order to make MMA more entertaining?
[QUOTE=Frost;992376]quite right they don’t spend hours on their stand up training at all:rolleyes: if only they had a traditional guy like you to show them ow its done:)[/QUOTE]
They don’t need me when they have you to apologize for their mistakes. There is nothing more pathetic than a grown man apologizing for another.
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;992385]They don’t need me when they have you to apologize for their mistakes. There is nothing more pathetic than a grown man apologizing for another.[/QUOTE]
as per usual you can’t fault the arguement as you have no frame of reference so you start the insults :rolleyes:
want to know what is really pathetic? a no name arm chair fighter afraid to give his fight record or school out who says its all done wrong but who can’t prove he has had 1 single fight or even beem in an MMA gym much less trained in one
[QUOTE=goju;992382]yes the only time fedor was dominant in that fight was when he took rogers to the ground and when he dropped him like a sack of potatoes at the end
i saw that fight the first it was aired rogers was controlling the stand up
same with arvolski his foot work and leaping in an out one twos were frustrating fedor until he decided he was ong bak thia arior and went for the leaping knee
lol yeah no thats not where is power comes from:D[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ittokaos;992384]Ha ha. Why is everybody that is quick to “defend” MMA sloppiness not defending it at all. It’s all “Well, you can’t compare it to a style that is more technical.” and the like. Why not though? Why is it that all styles can be compared to MMA and then deemed “unfit for fighting” but when one aspect of MMA is called sloppy, all of a sudden comparrisons are considered unfair. The arguement given is “MMA isn’t boxing, KB, MT, etc..” when it very much is.
It is a mixture of all of that and the way you know is that the fighters are constantly telling the viewer that. “I trained in (Insert style here) for x amount of years” and then the commentators will repeat that. The bell rings and everyone goes back to the school yard with sloppy haymakers. On the way down to the ring, the fighters will throw a few punches and elbows to let the crowd know that the battle is getting ready to start. However, half the punches they did, they won’t use and almost no one uses elbows at all.
One arguement was the wild haymakers are used to set up for grappling later. I suppose since they possibly dont train to strike someone when they are in “grappling” range, a straight punch when someone is at a perfect distance(and completely open I might add) makes no sense. I get that. I do. But why no elbows? Aren’t elbows used in MT(which is a part of MMA) when you are in the clinch in order to pummel/get out of it?
The Anderson Silva link was awesome but that itself is an unfair comparrision. If you were to get the majority of MMA stirkers(not BBJers that also strike, almost pure stand up fighters) they may never be able to compare to the technical striking and precision of Anderson Silva. Period. He is, right now, the best (in my opinion of course). If this discussion were to switch from “MMA striking sucks when compared to (insert style here)” and became “Standard MMA striking sucks compared to Anderson Silva”, would it be better received?
The bottom line is that the majority of MMA people have bad hands(and feet for that matter). Making excuses isn’t going to change that. So, with that solved, how would you guys change that? What styles do you think MMA fighters should focus on to be better fighters? What styles would you like to see used in order to make MMA more entertaining?[/QUOTE]
LMAO not another one, i gave 7 points as to why MMA striking is different to normal straight stand up and to why it looks different. Want to know why there are few elbows like in thai, try training those elbows when takedowns are aloud then you will know why
[QUOTE=Frost;992395]as per usual you can’t fault the arguement as you have no frame of reference so you start the insults :rolleyes:
want to know what is really pathetic? a no name arm chair fighter afraid to give his fight record or school out who says its all done wrong but who can’t prove he has had 1 single fight or even beem in an MMA gym much less trained in one[/QUOTE]
You are here to tell us how WC is wrong and I don’t see your fight clips, record, or name. I am still waiting for a reasonable justification for why sloppy, off-balanced striking is necessary for mma. Why don’t you put up a video to break it down for us?
[QUOTE=ittokaos;992384]But why no elbows? Aren’t elbows used in MT(which is a part of MMA) when you are in the clinch in order to pummel/get out of it?[/QUOTE]You’re confusing the skillset for the competition. MT and MMA competition rules are not the same.
The bottom line is that the majority of MMA people have bad hands(and feet for that matter). Making excuses isn’t going to change that. So, with that solved, how would you guys change that? What styles do you think MMA fighters should focus on to be better fighters?
Why is it so hard for people to accept that the competition rules change the expression of the component techniques?
What styles would you like to see used in order to make MMA more entertaining?
Cotswold shin kicking, Lancashire clog fighting, Drunken boxing, thumb wrestling.
[QUOTE=Frost;992399]LMAO not another one, i gave 7 points as to why MMA striking is different to normal straight stand up and to why it looks different. Want to know why there are few elbows like in thai, try training those elbows when takedowns are aloud then you will know why[/QUOTE]
yes but again why do you see guys in their with text book thai boxing, boxing etcetc?
hell most of the ufc champiosn now are crisp clean punchers
bj penn. gsp. anderson, lyoto
if they can do it why cant anyone else:D
sure you can argue they have a ground game so they dont have to worry about being taken down but so so should every other fighter as well
hell most of the ufc champiosn now are crisp clean punchers
bj penn. gsp. anderson, lyoto
if they can do it why cant anyone else:D
sure you can argue they have a ground game so they dont have to worry about being taken down but so so should every other fighter as well[/QUOTE]
Lets be honest here, What Lyoto does would drive ANY TMA ( Shotokan) sensei crazy.
Gsp has a core kyokushin and MT and while he has flashes of excellence in his strikes, they are NOT classical Kyokushin or MT and as for Anderson, his striking is superb, but is hardly “picture perfect” for a Thai fighter.
if we are gonna nit pick lets nit pick across the board.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;992405]Lets be honest here, What Lyoto does would drive ANY TMA ( Shotokan) sensei crazy.
Gsp has a core kyokushin and MT and while he has flashes of excellence in his strikes, they are NOT classical Kyokushin or MT and as for Anderson, his striking is superb, but is hardly “picture perfect” for a Thai fighter.
if we are gonna nit pick lets nit pick across the board.[/QUOTE]
yes but the point is look a their strikes you rarely see wide loopy attacks out of them and it doesnt seem to hurt them ( obviously since they are holding belts)
most people just have a hard time punching tighter and more direct for some reason
[QUOTE=goju;992408]yes but the point is look a their strikes you rarely see wide loopy attacks out of them and it doesnt seem to hurt them ( obviously since they are holding belts)
most people just have a hard time punching tighter and more direct for some reason
:D[/QUOTE]
Every time you critique “wide loopy punches” you make all the CLF guys wanna best your ass !
LOL !
