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 think you have to take some of the "I was terrible at sports and bullied" stories with a grain of salt.
Alternatively, strategy is the overall plan and tactics are the methods used to achieve specific tasks. In the MMA context, fighter A's strategy may be to take the fight to the ground, because fighter A believes he has an advantage there. The tactics used by fighter A will likely include closing the distance, various takedowns, passing the guard, etc.
Is there a real difference between skill and tactics?
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 think you have to take some of the "I was terrible at sports and bullied" stories with a grain of salt.
As opposed to trusting the opinion of a stranger over the internet?
Not being able to use a tactic because one isn't as skilled suggests there isn't a difference. You could say skill is the ability to use a tactic against a resisting opponent, but that doesn't mean there is a real difference between the two.
Military perspective, tactics are a set of proven principles I.e. a double leg takedown if hit properly is a very high percentage takedown, if it isn't hit properly then it is not. I believe that sets tactics and skills apart.
Again flanking in a battle is proven as a very good manoeuvre tactically speaking but if the men involved in the flank do not posses the skills to accurately shoot the enemy then the flank being a sound tactic is useless.
I would say skills and tactics are different, but if you we're to say it you should word it as your tactics need to be based off of your skill set.
In military terms tactics are what you use on the battlefield to win the battle, while strategy is how you conduct the campaign and what goals you are trying to achieve. In MMA terms i think they are effectively the same thing.
Skill = relative ability to implement a tactic or set of tactics against a resisting opponent
Using MMA as an example, a strategy could be ground and pound, which would consist of several tactics, including different takedowns. Skill would be actually putting the other guy on his back and hitting him until the fight is stopped.
Successful fighters are trained athletes who are far more skilled, and are also in better physical condition, than the average cubicle worker. That doesn't mean the guy who benches more will automatically win, but let's not pretend that being stronger and having better cardio isn't an advantage, assuming the match-up is competitive skill wise.
