Conversely, you could be terrible at all of those but if you have skill and heart, you can succeed. An extreme example is Roy Nelson.
You can't play in the NFL without physical attributes, which is why a combine is useful. MMA doesn't require the same level of physical talent (outside of cardio) but requires other attributes that are harder to measure.
Not sure I agree that MMA doesn't require the same sort of physical talent as NFL. I've heard a lot of boxing guys say that one reason heavyweight boxing is in such a parlous state is that guys with the right dimensions for heavyweight boxing and who are exceptional athletes get channelled towards the NFL.
Most top HWs come from countries where they don't even watch American football, let alone play it. So i doubt this is true.
A superior athlete with top-notch skill has an advantage over an average athlete of similar skill. MMA is a sport in its infancy, so listing guys who were good in the past doesn't disprove the need for both athleticism and skill.
2. In the USA, athletic big guys used to box, but now they gravitate towards football and basketball.
Conversely, you could be terrible at all of those but if you have skill and heart, you can succeed. An extreme example is Roy Nelson.
You can't play in the NFL without physical attributes, which is why a combine is useful. MMA doesn't require the same level of physical talent (outside of cardio) but requires other attributes that are harder to measure.
Not sure I agree that MMA doesn't require the same sort of physical talent as NFL. I've heard a lot of boxing guys say that one reason heavyweight boxing is in such a parlous state is that guys with the right dimensions for heavyweight boxing and who are exceptional athletes get channelled towards the NFL.
Most top HWs come from countries where they don't even watch American football, let alone play it. So i doubt this is true.
Wouldn't that bolster my point? ie Latin America and Russia don't have lucrative sports that are tailor made for guys that are natural heavyweights.
Football is about more than just running and tackling. Like MMA, there is a skill component. There are guys with amazing combine numbers who wash out of the league because they can't read what's happening on the field fast enough.
Skill is more important, but the better athlete wins if both fighters have roughly equal skill.
At equal weight and body dimensions there is no difference between strength and skill. The athlete with better gym numbers has greater skill at the gym lifts. If their skill on the mat was the same their athleticism would be too all else being equal physically. Deciding the winner would come down to some other element like tactics.
Royce beat the more athletic Ken Shamrock at UFC1. Ken then improved his skill and 'won' a lopsided 'draw' at UFC5. Later, Royce came out of retirement and fought Matt Hughes, who was arguably more skilled and certainly more athletic.
Is there a real difference between skill and tactics?
419 - 1. A superior athlete with top-notch skill has an advantage over an average athlete of similar skill. MMA is a sport in its infancy, so listing guys who were good in the past doesn't disprove the need for both athleticism and skill.
2. In the USA, athletic big guys used to box, but now they gravitate towards football and basketball.
1) The "all else being equal" type arguments don't really hold water for me. If all else is equal then any advantage - skill, athleticism, mindset,etc - could prove the difference. I think a small advantage in skill can offset a large advantage in athleticism.
2) Few of the great HWs were ever that big because the endurance demands favoured lighter fighters. Besides, boxing is an international sport whereas basketball and American football are essentially American sports. I don't think any trend in a single country can take the blame/credit for global trends.
When MMA was in its infancy, some guys had much better access to skill training than others. Now that access to quality skill instruction is more available, the better athletes are rising to the top. There isn't as much of a skill gap.
HWs are bigger than the other classes, and how many American HWs have won Olympic gold in the past 20 years?
419 - Royce beat the more athletic Ken Shamrock at UFC1. Ken then improved his skill and 'won' a lopsided 'draw' at UFC5. Later, Royce came out of retirement and fought Matt Hughes, who was arguably more skilled and certainly more athletic.
Is there a real difference between skill and tactics?
Is this a reply to me?
If so I don't see how it relates to my post. Ken and Matt were not the same weight and body dimensions as Royce. I.e. all else being equal.
Leigh - High athletic performance doesn't correlate anywhere near as closely to MMA as it does to NFL. The top MMA guys are undoubtedly athletic but they all beat bigger, stronger guys.
The best you can do is have minimum thresholds but they'd be pretty low. How much can Anderson Silva bench? What is Cain Velasquez's max pull ups? What is John Jone's squat? I'm sure they can do respectable numbers but nothing like NFL athletes. I mean sure, if you can't do one single pull up, you're not going to cut it but its not like you need to be a super athlete.
Power at threshold is about the only physical attribute that is a prerequisite. I reckon all the champs could put out at least 2.5 watts for every kg of bodyweight and maintain it for half hour. Considerably more in the lower weight classes.
I agree the correlation isn't as high with MMA as it with NFL (even within NFL I'd guess it varies quite a bit by position). Isn't a lot of the progress since ufc 1 down to the increasing athleticism of the top mma fighters?
As for Jones I think he's probably the best case study of how natural athleticism can make a difference (I don't think it's a coincidence that both of his brothers play in the NFL). Brock Lesnar had a decent run in the HW division mostly on the basis of his strength.
If you were to take say 1000 12 year olds and get them to do a half dozen tests (vertical jump etc.) you'd have a pretty good idea which of them would likely develop into good mma fighters if they applied themselves.
I think you'd be surprised.
Bas Rutten was a weak and sickly 12 year old who only got into training because he was bullied so much. BJ Penn was notoriously bad at training and i doubt he scored particularly well in his vertical (you didn't mention any other tests). Joe Calzaghe (i know he's a boxer, but i think the point stands) was bullied as a kid and was physically weak before he got into boxing. Even as an adult he wasn't very muscular and i doubt his vertical was at all impressive. Roy Nelson looks like his vertical would barely break double digits. Royce Gracie was neither strong nor explosive. Anderson Silva only became dominant in his 30s and again i doubt he would score much better than many other MMA athletes that he would destroy in a fight.
The list could go on.
I know this isn't really the point of your text but wasn't there a video that went viral of BJ jumping out of a swimming pool onto to the side of the pool?
That would indicate to me that he prolly has or had a decent vertical jump.
You could include others, such as mental strength etc, but the point is, skills pay the bills. You could tell that a guy who has poor cardio is unlikely to be successful but apart from that, the skill component overwhelms just about everything else.
i gotta agree with this...
i think one thing to remember that in MMA, skills are so much more varied than in many other sports... it's not just a matter of boxing, kickboxing, wrestling and BJJ, but things like footwork, clinch work, top game, guard game, etc etc...
as complicated as each individual combat sport is, MMA is exponentially so...
419 - When MMA was in its infancy, some guys had much better access to skill training than others. Now that access to quality skill instruction is more available, the better athletes are rising to the top. There isn't as much of a skill gap.
HWs are bigger than the other classes, and how many American HWs have won Olympic gold in the past 20 years?
I don't see how either of these points address anything i've said.
