TTT for a great thread.
Lemon-It's funny, but you have no idea how much the topic of striking in a clinch comes up. I have no problem because of the nature of the way I train and fight. It comes down to mechanics and integration. I do one art that encompasses everything. However, most MMAs do a few different arts and try to make them work together with vaious degrees of success. For example, a typical MMA might learn Greco clinch techs, boxing for hands, Muy Thai for kicks, wrestling/judo for throws or takedowns, and BJJ/Catch/Sambo for the ground. The problem is that most guys are in one mode or another. When they are clinching, they are not hitting. When they are kicking, they are not punching. When they are throwing, they are not grappling. Most learn the different aspects of fighting in a exclusive way. The trick is to integrate everything and make the most of ALL of your opportunities. It is not as simple as it sounds.
e.kaye makes some excellent points. But it could well go the other way too, one could be well rounded, but never really excel at one thing. Kind of like (no offense to anyone) some students of JKD.
Point taken. In another thread I made the point that after a bunch of training it would become apparent what you are good at. The original question was, "should I picj a technique and try to master it?" I said that you never know what you will excel at, so just let it evolve. Being well rounded is important, but so is having something or a few things you can do really well.
Wanderer makes a good point. Too many MMA schools are popping up everywhere and they attempt to teach everything. In reality people just end up mediocre at everything.
I think one should really MASTER a particular fighting art that they excell at. I mean know it, in and out! Make it part of you.
Once you have accomplished this, THEN move on to crosstrain and supplement your training. But always keep your "core" art as your core.
I think Bustamante, Nogueira, and the BTT are an example of having a core art, and working on the other stuff to complement it. Everyone knows you must be well-rounded, but knowing a little of this, a little of that, isn't as effective as having a serious strength area.
The Chute Boxe Team is another example of this, it's just they are more strikers.
I agree with you Ekaye, thats why i think that the SBG has it down. Sure they dont have UFC champs, but for self defense and MMA i think they know where its at. Obviously they are good at marketing to lol but they got the right idea i think.
They learn BJJ and Greco and boxing etc but they INTEGRATE it from day one. BJJ is practiced with and without striking (Very important IMO) and i see great grapplers like Ze Mario and Andre Pedereinis fighting dull fights and not doing much damage (depends which fight of Zemarios, apparently his last fight was murder!) coz they work for half guard (eg against Uno) then side control, then establish themselves THEN hit, then lose it, then start working for it, so the whole match is them working but not striking, sure they arent getting hurt but i think they have sport BJJ inbred. Meanwhile Uno is hitting from every position (NINJA IS A BRILLIANT EXAMPLE OF THIS TO) upsetting the BJJ guys strategy (who is still dominating positionally) and at the end of the fight who looks worse!?
Then a younger guy like Vitor that isnt wired yet, comes along and demolishes guys like Tre Telligman and John hess, from the same control positions in under a minute. There are other examples of this i just cant think of any. I think if u see newer blackbelts and even higher colour belts that arent inate "sports " grapplers u can see the difference.
I think the same is with wrestling etc and the different "ranges" (i am NOT a JKD guy :) u need to practice them with striking and without WHILE u are learning. Another EG is Tito as opposed to Randleman, look at the difference in their clinch! Tito doesnt ride the clock. its not entirely randlemans fault, old habits die young!
Thats why whilst i am a relative begginer in boxing, i am already trying to intergrate my thai boxing background (which is limited) and greco experience, before i become a "Boxer" as opposed to a fighter (able to adapt to all situations). Boxing on its own can still do well, but i consider myself an "artist" and i like to have a full palet (albeit of useful stuff! nothing airy fairy)
Sorry for the babbling :)
ttt
ttt
LEMon-you have ttt twice, but I am not sure what you are looking for. Your last post asked no questions and begs no comment. Anything specific you want to discuss?
Great thread! I haven't seen the fight, but i am interested i knowing what combo it was that Louis used against Walcott in the rematch to knock him down.
he KO'd him using a left hook right hand over and over about 4 times in a row lightning quick.
no just a great thread :)
Cool.
I think alot of guys use too much of a sprawl to defend takedowns. If you are new to wrestling and have seasoning fighting on the feet it can be very hard to take weight off of the front leg. Often a guy gets so worried looking for a shot he does not pressure a guy enough and abandons basics which require weight on the lead leg, namely the jab.
A good alternate to a full sprawl is dropping the knee of the lead leg to the floor when a guy shootsw and meet him in a position similar to a shot yourself. First time I ever saw this used was by Ken Shammie against Fugita (sp?); results of the fight notwithstanding Shammie was able to pressure the hell out of Fugi and be quite aggressive while fending off takedowns at the same time. I started using this and it is very good for applying pressure on guys shooting doubles and singles.
Often rather than sprawling you end up in an upper body clinch with the guy, though this has risks itself, you can dirty box some and knee to keep the guy on the defensive. The full sprawl is good, but a good wrestler who chains takedowns (see Linland) can remove the effectiveness of sprawling in a hurry, and the main thing is to be truly ready to sprawl you have to be on the defensive rather than pressuring the guy; and this will only serve to strengthen a guy confidence. The longer he is able to stand around without getting hit, the more his courage will grow.
I dont know if there is a technical name for the knee down defense Shammie was using, maybe someone could expound on it? It is a perfect takedown defense for an aggressive stand up fighter, in that it allows you to be aggressive, not that it is fool proof.
"basics which require weight on the lead leg, namely the jab."
That is true for conventional boxing. If you look at plates of old bare knucle boxers most of their weight was on the rear leg as they had to deal with throws(but not leg kicks). PS-It is still possible to punch effectively without weight on the front leg.
Having said that, I agree that the sprawl is not the only defense and the one you describe is not bad. There are several other ways to meet a shoot attempt. The problem is that "conventional" wisdom is often not challenged or questioned. The sprawl is a great wrestling technique because there is no striking in wrestling and many other options are similarly banned. Since in an MMA environment, you can hit the guy, other options present themslves. Witness the KO of Renzo Gracie by Henderson. If that was all you practiced and EVERY time someone shot on you your reaction was to hit them in the head, you might find that you get a lot of KO's or a lot of woozy opponents. I think that so far the true potential of a lot of MMA positions and reactions have not been explored.
Hendo, not linland Ko'd Renzo.
You are correct, StInl u are correct, its just called changing levels, i learnt it in wrestlign a while back but u gotta drill it hard ot be able to react.
Thanks, made the correction. All them wrestlers look the same to me. ;-)
Great thread by all! ttt
ttt