I don't think boxing is ineffective, but we all just witnessed the
inherent problem with detached striking: no matter how proficient of a
striker you are, you run the risk of being "caught". Now, unless you've
got a cranium like Mark Hunt, maybe taking that risk isn't such a good
Jens' boxing skills looked incredible. Watching how smooth he was and
relaxed was a thing of beauty and he was totally out boxing Gomi.
However, Gomi was bigger and stronger and it only took one clean
Mino's boxing skills were much better than Fedor's, but he couldn't
land anything cleanly (not sure why he didn't throw the right more) and
Fedor delivered some serious damage with poor boxing skills.
Silva and Hunt... this is what happens when you're striking with a
bigger and stronger (and better) striker. Silva got fucked from taking
hits. Randy's comment about "You'd see the fastest double leg..." were
pure words of wisdom.
It seems that detached striking lacks one very essential element that is
the bread and butter of BJJ: Positional Dominance.
I'm not talking about "striking" in general, I'm just talking about
Randy isn't the greatest striker in the world but because he's a genius
with positional dominance, his "dirty boxing" puts him in a position
where he can safely deliver strikes and has very little risk of getting
If Randy were to stand and trade with a better boxer, he'd run the risk
of getting caught with one shot, and that's all it takes. So he fights
smarter and uses position.
It's much easier to observe on the ground as it's very difficult to get
"caught" from a superior ground position, but "attached striking"
seems to offer the same advantages. Detached striking does not.
Of course you still have to be "better" to utilize the position, but I think
working until you get the position first is much less risky than trying to
land a KO (and stand the risk of getting KO'd).
Just a thought.
zhoo-zhitsu! zhoo-zhitsu! zhoo-zhitsu!
Yea, if jiu-jitsu had nuts... i'd hug them.