Ok, so I read about the first UFC back when it first happened and then bought the first few UFCs on video.
It appeared that BJJers, or at least grapplers, were the most successful fighters in these events.
I also got a few other Vale Tudo events from the mid 90's which confirmed the same thing.
Fine. Then I didn't see any more UFCs or really any more events until I recently got all the Prides. Seeing Silva, Cro Cop, Fedor, Igor etc made me realise what I thought was conventional wisdom had gone out the window. The (primarily) grapplers are not dominant any longer. Big news to all you guys I'm sure.
So someone please fill me in regarding the current conventional wisdom for who has the upper hand in MMA.
Primarily strikers (with good takedown defence & sub defense) or primarily grapplers (with basic striking)?
Or is it even?
The really succesfull MMA fighters today can do both, tying striking and grappling together.
NOG VS CROCROP
NOG VS SAPP ( WELL MAYBE SAPP SHOULDN'T COUNT )
RANDY VS CHUCK
DIAZ VS JACKSON ( NOT WELL KNOWN FIGHTERS BUT REALLY A GOOD FIT FOR THIS THREAD)
RANDY VS RIZZO X2
IT'S HARD TO SAY WHEN YOUR BIASED.
BUT MY TRAINING MAKES ME BIASED.
"The really succesfull MMA fighters today can do both, tying striking and grappling together. "
Yeah I KNOW that!
You have to do both.
But fighters generally have a speciality. Igor, Vanderlai (yeah I know he's a BJJ BB), Fedor, Cro Cop - all strikers mainly, right?
Bustamente, the Nogueiras, Sperry - well, all the BTT - they're mainly grapplers doing some MT and boxing on the side.
Interesting, Bigkiller, interesting...
VITOR29
I GUESS THE MULTIPLE SLAMS AND TOP MOUNT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. STILL RANDY IS PRIMARILY A WRESTLER LIKE THE THREAD ASKS.
-----------------------------------------------------
AND YES YOU NEED ALL 3 PHASES TO BE REAL SUCCSESSFUL NOWADAYS. BUT THE THREAD ASKED WHAT WAS A BETTER PRIMARY WEAPON?