MMA & UFC General - Featuring Bellator MMA & Rizin Fighting Federation

[naffatune]

I wouldn't say insane, but a subpar boxer going into MMA could definitely hold their own in a fight. Boxing is such a fundamental part of MMA and even fighting in general, but this fact is often overlooked given the volume of MMA fighters with NCAA wrestling backgrounds. The very fact that we even bother having gloves and wraps speaks to the fact that we tend to use our fists whenever we choose to strike someone.

Expanding on this point, I would like to give a brief rundown of why boxing is the best martial art.

1.) Fights start standing up, even if it isn't in a combat sports context (i.e. da streetz), therefore, boxers have the first mover advantage.

2.) Your hands are naturally the fastest striking tools you have, even if you're bad at boxing. Imagine taking that to the next level by becoming a boxer, essentially turning your hands into its own firearm. Fast punches are also hard to defend, especially if you're unleashing a combo.

3.) Punching is energy efficient. You can chain 8 or more punches if you wanted to. Become a boxer and you can chain 12 in a matter of milliseconds (possible hyperbole there, but you get the idea)

4.) Boxing teaches you how to get into good angles of attack. What's better is that the angles that boxing teaches you to use has crossover into arts that use kicks and knees (e.g. do a 90 degree pivot and voila, you can land a clean roundhouse to the body)

5.) Boxing offers the most robust striking defense ever. Head movement (e.g. slips, pulls, rolling under or with punches), blocking, shelling and parrying are commonly used tools in the boxing department.

The more I started paying attention to boxing, the more I began to realize that the level of boxing among UFC fighters is quite low in comparison (although not bad, just average). About a dozen or so guys in the UFC stand out to me as good boxers, including Garbrandt, Poirier, Holloway, Kattar, Dominick Cruz, Bobby Green, Lando Vannata and others.

After all the time I have spent watching the UFC, I can really only conclude that the average UFC dude is a guy who has good wrestling but awkward boxing, in an offensive and defensive sense. Thankfully, this became less and less apparent as time passed since UFC's explosion in 2008, but the difference in boxing skill between a UFC guy and a boxer is still noticeable in today's UFC roster if you've spent time breaking down technique.

 

[Violent Ken Apologist]

I wouldn't say insane, but a subpar boxer going into MMA could definitely hold their own in a fight. Boxing is such a fundamental part of MMA and even fighting in general, but this fact is often overlooked given the volume of MMA fighters with NCAA wrestling backgrounds. The very fact that we even bother having gloves and wraps speaks to the fact that we tend to use our fists whenever we choose to strike someone.

Expanding on this point, I would like to give a brief rundown of why boxing is the best martial art.

1.) Fights start standing up, even if it isn't in a combat sports context (i.e. da streetz), therefore, boxers have the first mover advantage.

2.) Your hands are naturally the fastest striking tools you have, even if you're bad at boxing. Imagine taking that to the next level by becoming a boxer, essentially turning your hands into its own firearm. Fast punches are also hard to defend, especially if you're unleashing a combo.

3.) Punching is energy efficient. You can chain 8 or more punches if you wanted to. Become a boxer and you can chain 12 in a matter of milliseconds (possible hyperbole there, but you get the idea)

4.) Boxing teaches you how to get into good angles of attack. What's better is that the angles that boxing teaches you to use has crossover into arts that use kicks and knees (e.g. do a 90 degree pivot and voila, you can land a clean roundhouse to the body)

5.) Boxing offers the most robust striking defense ever. Head movement (e.g. slips, pulls, rolling under or with punches), blocking, shelling and parrying are commonly used tools in the boxing department.

The more I started paying attention to boxing, the more I began to realize that the level of boxing among UFC fighters is quite low in comparison (although not bad, just average). About a dozen or so guys in the UFC stand out to me as good boxers, including Garbrandt, Poirier, Holloway, Kattar, Dominick Cruz, Bobby Green, Lando Vannata and others.

After all the time I have spent watching the UFC, I can really only conclude that the average UFC dude is a guy who has good wrestling but awkward boxing, in an offensive and defensive sense. Thankfully, this became less and less apparent as time passed since UFC's explosion in 2008, but the difference in boxing skill between a UFC guy and a boxer is still noticeable in today's UFC roster if you've spent time breaking down technique.

Would it make enough of a difference for someone of say Poirier's level to beat Khabib in stand up with some more practice? Are you sure wrestling isn't a stronger fundamental base...?

Loving the posts, btw.

 

[Sheriff of CWCville]

I wouldn't say insane, but a subpar boxer going into MMA could definitely hold their own in a fight. Boxing is such a fundamental part of MMA and even fighting in general, but this fact is often overlooked given the volume of MMA fighters with NCAA wrestling backgrounds. The very fact that we even bother having gloves and wraps speaks to the fact that we tend to use our fists whenever we choose to strike someone.

Expanding on this point, I would like to give a brief rundown of why boxing is the best martial art.

1.) Fights start standing up, even if it isn't in a combat sports context (i.e. da streetz), therefore, boxers have the first mover advantage.

2.) Your hands are naturally the fastest striking tools you have, even if you're bad at boxing. Imagine taking that to the next level by becoming a boxer, essentially turning your hands into its own firearm. Fast punches are also hard to defend, especially if you're unleashing a combo.

3.) Punching is energy efficient. You can chain 8 or more punches if you wanted to. Become a boxer and you can chain 12 in a matter of milliseconds (possible hyperbole there, but you get the idea)

4.) Boxing teaches you how to get into good angles of attack. What's better is that the angles that boxing teaches you to use has crossover into arts that use kicks and knees (e.g. do a 90 degree pivot and voila, you can land a clean roundhouse to the body)

5.) Boxing offers the most robust striking defense ever. Head movement (e.g. slips, pulls, rolling under or with punches), blocking, shelling and parrying are commonly used tools in the boxing department.

The more I started paying attention to boxing, the more I began to realize that the level of boxing among UFC fighters is quite low in comparison (although not bad, just average). About a dozen or so guys in the UFC stand out to me as good boxers, including Garbrandt, Poirier, Holloway, Kattar, Dominick Cruz, Bobby Green, Lando Vannata and others.

After all the time I have spent watching the UFC, I can really only conclude that the average UFC dude is a guy who has good wrestling but awkward boxing, in an offensive and defensive sense. Thankfully, this became less and less apparent as time passed since UFC's explosion in 2008, but the difference in boxing skill between a UFC guy and a boxer is still noticeable in today's UFC roster if you've spent time breaking down technique.

I think it’s admirable to see an argument for anything but grappling generally, or “catch wrestling” being the best fundamental base for MMA, but regardless of whichever is objectively best I think I may at least be able to counter some of your points for the sake of fun. I do think that (regrettably) grappling is the strongest style in the meta of MMA, at the very least in promotions that use the cage.

Before addressing any of your numbered points, I think situations where lower level boxers might be able to succeed in low level mma is mostly a product of relative experience between competitors. This is to say that a low level boxer will have a much greater advantage in striking and may also not see as wide a discrepancy in grappling. A fight is a fight, but at the very least this would appear to tip the odds in favor of the boxer. The same is true of grapplers like Dillon Dannis that can be fed bums that, while they may actually have superior striking to Dannis, still lack his generalized experience in another facet of MMA.

1. Although fights start standing, if you are close enough to land a strike on your opponent, it means that you are also now close enough to become engaged in a grappling exchange. There is no real “advantage” to this reach that is exclusive to the striker, aside from the results of strikes being felt instantaneously and the results of victory through grappling usually occurring procedurally over a decent period of time. It could be argued that it is still ultimately a matter of who can implement their game more effectively and consistently regardless of manner by which victory is achieved (this may be my biggest point in all of this, which isn’t exactly a bulletproof statement in and of itself but I still feel strongly is the best rule to abide by)

2. It is difficult to argue against this point honestly, as Muay Thai guys and even some kickboxers will struggle with people whose hands are that much better. Where I feel this advantage might end in MMA is where grappling is paired with striking. I believe Khabib’s overhand right that dropped Conor is a perfect example that works similarly philosophically to things like the southpaw double attack. Although a normal overhand right may not be hard for a striker to defend, it is when they must worry about the level change, especially if both are designed to look like the other each time they are executed, and the consequences of guessing wrong can mean being in serious danger of losing the round if not the entire fight.

3. Whatever a fighters strongest facet is is the thing that will cost them the least amount of energy to perform. Again, going back to gearing strategy and training towards a fighters natural strengths wins fights because such strats are typically the least exhausting and safest overall, regardless of what techniques are utilized.

4. I love angles as much as the next guy, but they are only working if you are in a striking exchange, they’re not gonna help much if the person you fight refuses to engage in striking / forces grappling. This is just a high level technique within striking, just like an advanced thor sub chain would be for a grappler.

5. This is objectively false, as this is to completely ignore attacks below the waist and properly countering kicks, and elbow and knee strikes (specifically in the clinch). Although the best defense can be a good offense and you can encourage other people to not wanna kick / strike with you through superior hands, this still ignores the logical fallacy in this approach to striking from a purely defensive standpoint.

Not at all trying to shit on you with all of this, feel free to lemme know what contentions you might have with any of my counterpoints!

 

[naffatune]

Before I get into my counter to your counter, I would like to say that I am in no way trying to downplay grappling; it is still very much an important skill to have in MMA and is second to my number 1 (which you already know by now). Nevertheless, here's my take on what you said:

1.) Correct me if I am interpreting this wrong, but your first point basically tells me that "any style works provided you are really good at it". To me, this just isn't true. MMA is a sport with an objective goal: physical damage to your opponent with little damage to yourself as possible. Like anything with an objective goal (e.g. getting a house, winning a game of rugby, acing an exam), methods with which to achieve these things will rest on a hierarchy. To me, boxing rests at the top, with wrestling right below it.

I can't understate how important my first original point was (i.e. fights start standing up), because it makes most of the other counter points after your first one fall apart, and you acknowledge that it isn't bulletproof. My point that fights start standing up is important not only because of the first mover advantage on the part of the superior boxer, but because of defensive responsibility on the superior grappler's part during boxing exchanges.

Let me elaborate on this. Before a grappler can even begin implementing their game, the first thing they have to do is contend with the pace the boxer is setting (because fights start standing up). However, the pace and rhythm guys with boxing skills set with their footwork, offense and feinting is never going to be the same; it will very between fighters and, more importantly, may vary during the course of a fight itself, provided the MMA fighter is really experienced in boxing. This will build up to the point where the grappler cannot know when to shoot in since they will not know when the right opening for a takedown is going to come. Because of this, they are stuck standing up, and have to contend with eating punches all the time.

This leaves the grappler with no choice but to learn boxing technique first. He doesn't have to be superb, but he has to be good enough to survive until the moment that they anticipate a certain strike or combo, giving them the chance to shoot. This is, in an of itself, a testament to why boxing is the best martial art, and i'm not talking about punching only, i'm talking about the defense and footwork involved when avoiding boxing offense. And if a wrestler with little boxing skill manages to take a boxer with little grappling skill down, it's not a testament to the superiority of wrestling over boxing, it's a testament to their chin.

In an MMA context, a good boxer is even more dangerous since fights don't just start standing up; every round does.

2.) This does not prove the effectiveness of grappling over boxing. The very fact that Khabib was still standing with Conor up until that point proves that an understanding of boxing footwork and fundamentals was necessary to defend Conor's attacks up until a point where he could shoot (i.e. constant circling to avoid linear strikes and bouncing in rhythm to stay fluid and composed, which is a fundamental component of boxing).

3.) This point, to me, is almost identical to point one. It basically means "whatever you're good at takes the least amount of energy to perform". Well, imagine an MMA guy that does everything with perfect technique. Because skill in everything is controlled for, boxing would be, overall, the energy efficient toolset among all else; every individual movement in boxing is smaller and all of them produce varying amounts of immediate damage, compared to grappling techniques, which are simply bigger movements involving varying amounts of strength; the very initiation of a takedown requires more explosive movement and penetration then, say, a 1-2-3-4 combo which has the potential to catch someone clean if the timing is right.

4.) I disagree with this; in fact, the opposite is somewhat true. Angling off can prevent takedowns, and a good example is demonstrated in Gaethje versus Khabib. I will say though that angling off to prevent takedowns isn't foolproof; a wrestler transitioning into different kind of takedowns proactively like Khabib can put someone up against the fence. But remember my first point. What got Khabib to last long enough to get him into the position to take Gaethje down in the first place? That's right. Boxing fundamentals. Or his chin. In fact, it was actually both, because Gaethje was clipping Khabib with overhand rights. To his credit, Beeb showed the sharpest boxing he has ever shown that night, both offensively and defensively.

5.) I disagree with this as well. Boxing actually has crossover into kick defense as well, provided you can correctly anticipate kicks coming. It's well known that you can pull your head away from a knee or a head kick, or maybe even roll under a head kick (e.g. Khabib vs. Barboza) or with it (e.g. Cruz vs. Dillashaw).

Also, just because I said boxing is the most robust form of defense ever doesn't mean that I said it defends everything. I only said it because throwing punches is the most common form of strike, and boxing defense is the only way you can deter it. The premise that the first thing that people do in a fight is punch is a premise I touched on in my previous post, but that is reinforced by something I should've covered but didn't; it is the "longest weapon to nearest target" principle (i.e. hands are longest weapons that you have that are the closest to the head).

With all this being said, I can honestly still admire a good grappler. They definitely are tough as nails and stubborn as hell.

If you want a fight that illustrates the first point the best, watch Caceres vs. Hooper. You will see who the superior boxer is (even though the superior boxer has a pretty poor boxing skillset in and of itself)

Anyways, it's getting late and i'm getting sleepy. Time to knock myself out cold now. If you have any counter points, let me know.

 

[Violent Ken Apologist]

I think it’s admirable to see an argument for anything but grappling generally, or “catch wrestling” being the best fundamental base for MMA, but regardless of whichever is objectively best I think I may at least be able to counter some of your points for the sake of fun. I do think that (regrettably) grappling is the strongest style in the meta of MMA, at the very least in promotions that use the cage.

Before addressing any of your numbered points, I think situations where lower level boxers might be able to succeed in low level mma is mostly a product of relative experience between competitors. This is to say that a low level boxer will have a much greater advantage in striking and may also not see as wide a discrepancy in grappling. A fight is a fight, but at the very least this would appear to tip the odds in favor of the boxer. The same is true of grapplers like Dillon Dannis that can be fed bums that, while they may actually have superior striking to Dannis, still lack his generalized experience in another facet of MMA.

1. Although fights start standing, if you are close enough to land a strike on your opponent, it means that you are also now close enough to become engaged in a grappling exchange. There is no real “advantage” to this reach that is exclusive to the striker, aside from the results of strikes being felt instantaneously and the results of victory through grappling usually occurring procedurally over a decent period of time. It could be argued that it is still ultimately a matter of who can implement their game more effectively and consistently regardless of manner by which victory is achieved (this may be my biggest point in all of this, which isn’t exactly a bulletproof statement in and of itself but I still feel strongly is the best rule to abide by)

2. It is difficult to argue against this point honestly, as Muay Thai guys and even some kickboxers will struggle with people whose hands are that much better. Where I feel this advantage might end in MMA is where grappling is paired with striking. I believe Khabib’s overhand right that dropped Conor is a perfect example that works similarly philosophically to things like the southpaw double attack. Although a normal overhand right may not be hard for a striker to defend, it is when they must worry about the level change, especially if both are designed to look like the other each time they are executed, and the consequences of guessing wrong can mean being in serious danger of losing the round if not the entire fight.

3. Whatever a fighters strongest facet is is the thing that will cost them the least amount of energy to perform. Again, going back to gearing strategy and training towards a fighters natural strengths wins fights because such strats are typically the least exhausting and safest overall, regardless of what techniques are utilized.

4. I love angles as much as the next guy, but they are only working if you are in a striking exchange, they’re not gonna help much if the person you fight refuses to engage in striking / forces grappling. This is just a high level technique within striking, just like an advanced thor sub chain would be for a grappler.

5. This is objectively false, as this is to completely ignore attacks below the waist and properly countering kicks, and elbow and knee strikes (specifically in the clinch). Although the best defense can be a good offense and you can encourage other people to not wanna kick / strike with you through superior hands, this still ignores the logical fallacy in this approach to striking from a purely defensive standpoint.

Not at all trying to shit on you with all of this, feel free to lemme know what contentions you might have with any of my counterpoints!

quoting you so you get pinged and may respond to his post quicker

 

[naffatune]

I wouldn't say so. In fact, I think regular Poirier would have beat Khabib fair and square, provided he wasn't so tentative.

I distinctly remember going into the Poirier back when it was about to happen expecting Poirier to give Khabib some trouble with his hands (although I did think at the time that Khabib would beat him nonetheless)

The fact that Poirier wasn't throwing as much as he usually does is not a testament to the effectiveness of wrestling, but an overestimation of the effectiveness of wrestling. It makes sense; it's easy to get caught up in Khabib's win streak when actually fighting him.

Don't take my word for it; Poirier actually admits that he didn't throw as much as he usually did nor set up any of his signature combos in his interview after Khabib's victory. He also describes how he clipped Khabib:

"I believe I threw a jab-cross and switched stance; that way I could still be in range with power shots when he pulled back"

This very combination is so common for Poirier to throw; he clipped someone as good as Max Holloway with the same thing.

If Poirier just treated Khabib like a normal opponent, he would have given him so many problems and probably would have had him TKO'd somewhere in the 3rd. Poirier stays long and fast with his jab and even his cross, which would have allowed him to have enough distance to see Khabib's shots coming, and that would give him the opportunity to launch reactive combos upon Khabib's shoot.

 

[JamusActimus]

I wouldn't say so. In fact, I think regular Poirier would have beat Khabib fair and square, provided he wasn't so tentative.

It's was regular Conor,Dustin and Gay cheese agaisnt Khabib.

The wrestling of Khabib just doesn't allow you to use your sticking game to the fullest.
But if you don't respect Khabib^s wrestling then you will get wrestle fucked even more

 

[Lemmingwise]

I like autistic debates about fighting.

Boxing is one of the better styles to prepare for random fights as it allows you to fight people without overcommitting yourself.

The reason wrestling/bjj has been so dominant in MMA is because they're one on one fights and they limit your opponent's options. That only works in 1 v 1.

Btw you can't judge people's boxing skills well by watching a MMA fight. Different rules create different strategies.

Bobbing and weaving is very effective in boxing, but you don't see it much in thaiboxing or mma, because your legs are vulnerable to attack as you lean one way or the other.

The fact that you don't see a lot specialised boxers in MMA isn't just because boxing isn't as effective, it's also that boxing is still has amuch more established scene, so the competition to get the boxing talent is much stronger than catch wrestling for example. If they want to make money they have the option of either pro wrestling or MMA.

 

[naffatune]

Btw you can't judge people's boxing skills well by watching a MMA fight. Different rules create different strategies.

Bobbing and weaving is very effective in boxing, but you don't see it much in thaiboxing or mma, because your legs are vulnerable to attack as you lean one way or the other.

The fact that you don't see a lot specialised boxers in MMA isn't just because boxing isn't as effective, it's also that boxing is still has amuch more established scene, so the competition to get the boxing talent is much stronger than catch wrestling for example. If they want to make money they have the option of either pro wrestling or MMA.

Okay, well the rules in MMA allow most boxing techniques to be performed. I do acknowledge some strategies in boxing can't be adapted into MMA, such as relying on a shell or relying on low head movement. Other than that, there's no excuse to have poor, undisciplined punching, bad head movement, and just bad traditional boxing in MMA.

I'm not entirely sure about boxing salary, but regardless if it's true that boxers don't get paid as much as MMA guys, your last point is just a proxy. I'm trying to argue about what works in MMA from a ground-up, technical perspective.

I saved my point against your point about "legs being vulnerable to attack" for last because it is extremely important.

Whenever you are doing any kind of move, you are never not leaving an opening in some area. So discussions about "what leaves an opening and what doesn't" are pointless.

What matters is not that you don't leave an opening ever, but that you minimize the risk of openings being exploited. What separates good boxers from bad ones is that they can mix up their techniques and rhythm to the point where they become unpredictable. Notice that in my first point, I said the word "relying" when referring to the usage of techniques. A good boxer never relies on the same techniques over and over. They have a fruit salad of defenses and punches, meaning that all of them do not leave the same openings. On top of that, none of them are thrown in the same pattern.

Thus, it wouldn't matter if I used my head movement in MMA. Even if i'm a good boxer, nobody's going to leg kick me while i'm moving my head provided that i'm mixing up my boxing defense. This deters anticipation from the opponent and, therefore, timing with the leg kicks to begin with (in order to time any kind of counter, you need anticipation).

Alright. Time to puke out a list of good striking breakdown channels you should check out: Complex Boxing, Modern Martial Artist, Lawrence Kenshin, Jack Slack, Look At My Opinion, elusive2.0, and Stan Lee MMA.

Be wary though. Striking breakdown channels have a chance of being taken down because UFC doesn't like guys using their content. That's why most striking analysts cover boxing and kickboxing since there is no risk of strikes (pun fully intended there).

 

[Lemmingwise]

Okay, well the rules in MMA allow most boxing techniques to be performed. I do acknowledge some strategies in boxing can't be adapted into MMA, such as relying on a shell or relying on low head movement. Other than that, there's no excuse to have poor, undisciplined punching, bad head movement, and just bad traditional boxing in MMA.

I'm not entirely sure about boxing salary, but regardless if it's true that boxers don't get paid as much as MMA guys, your last point is just a proxy. I'm trying to argue about what works in MMA from a ground-up, technical perspective.

I saved my point against your point about "legs being vulnerable to attack" for last because it is extremely important.

Whenever you are doing any kind of move, you are never not leaving an opening in some area. So discussions about "what leaves an opening and what doesn't" are pointless.

What matters is not that you don't leave an opening ever, but that you minimize the risk of openings being exploited. What separates good boxers from bad ones is that they can mix up their techniques and rhythm to the point where they become unpredictable. Notice that in my first point, I said the word "relying" when referring to the usage of techniques. A good boxer never relies on the same techniques over and over. They have a fruit salad of defenses and punches, meaning that all of them do not leave the same openings. On top of that, none of them are thrown in the same pattern.

Thus, it wouldn't matter if I used my head movement in MMA. Even if i'm a good boxer, nobody's going to leg kick me while i'm moving my head provided that i'm mixing up my boxing defense. This deters anticipation from the opponent and, therefore, timing with the leg kicks to begin with (in order to time any kind of counter, you need anticipation).

Alright. Time to puke out a list of good striking breakdown channels you should check out: Complex Boxing, Modern Martial Artist, Lawrence Kenshin, Jack Slack, Look At My Opinion, elusive2.0, and Stan Lee MMA.

Be wary though. Striking breakdown channels have a chance of being taken down because UFC doesn't like guys using their content. That's why most striking analysts cover boxing and kickboxing since there is no risk of strikes (pun fully intended there).

I got the impression I was reading the words of a true believer even before you shared the pamphlets of your church.

The idea that people wouldn't kick you in the leg while you're moving your head.... where do you get that shit? Have you ever fought against someone that could mix up their attacks?

Since I can see that any discussion with a true believer is as useful as trying to break a baseball bat with my forearm in a fight, I'll just leave you with this:

Decades of battlehardened competition in MMA has produced a metagane where the boxing skills that you value have low effect on success.

Why should they waste time on them?

 

[Violent Ken Apologist]

I got the impression I was reading the words of a true believer even before you shared the pamphlets of your church.

The idea that people wouldn't kick you in the leg while you're moving your head.... where do you get that shit? Have you ever fought against someone that could mix up their attacks?

Since I can see that any discussion with a true believer is as useful as trying to break a baseball bat with my forearm in a fight, I'll just leave you with this:

Decades of battlehardened competition in MMA has produced a metagane where the boxing skills that you value have low effect on success.

Why should they waste time on them?

Because every other champ brings something new to the table. There's no 'meta' for MMA, we're yet to even scratch the surface. Sideways karate style with boxing was a myth before Conor and traditional karate in turn sucked before Machida. Jesus. None of these people fight the same, are we even watching the same fights?

 

[Lemmingwise]

Because every other champ brings something new to the table. There's no 'meta' for MMA, we're yet to even scratch the surface. Sideways karate style with boxing was a myth before Conor and traditional karate in turn sucked before Machida. Jesus. None of these people fight the same, are we even watching the same fights?

At that level it is ALL metagame. They spend a lot of time training to beat a specific opponent.

 

[KatanaSenshi]

I'm sorry boxing haters but boxing is the best style and this is an objectively truth.

Maybe you damn casuals don't know it but Art Jimmerson knocked the fuck out of Royce Gracie to win the UFC1, and later James Tony put Randy Couture to pasture violently and proved Jimmerson's achievement wasn't a fluke. Not to mention K1 was dominated by pure boxers like Botha, Arthur Williams, Nishijima, etc. Boxing is such a complete martial being it could be a millionaire if it was a CEO really.

Seriously guys, you don't need to check leg kicks or prepare for takedown/clinches by lowering the stance, you just backdash/sidestep then counter with special moves on full power gauge. As Connor McNugget (who is a decent boxer if you don't know) once said, the most important things are accurate command input, memorizing time cost of each move and repetition.

Alright. Time to puke out a list of good striking breakdown channels you should check out: Complex Boxing, Modern Martial Artist, Lawrence Kenshin, Jack Slack, Look At My Opinion, elusive2.0, and Stan Lee MMA.

Spoiler

On a somewhat serious note, Fedor is probably the best "boxer"/puncher/whatever (and MMA goat imo) who utilized the boxing skillset quite well but it was possible because his defensive grappling/wrestling was so good, and even someone like him had to rely on other skills (kicks/grappling) on many occasions against bigger guys or better strikers. MMA fighters look like shit boxers simply because MMA is not boxing.

 

[naffatune]

I got the impression I was reading the words of a true believer even before you shared the pamphlets of your church.

The idea that people wouldn't kick you in the leg while you're moving your head.... where do you get that shit? Have you ever fought against someone that could mix up their attacks?

Since I can see that any discussion with a true believer is as useful as trying to break a baseball bat with my forearm in a fight, I'll just leave you with this:

Decades of battlehardened competition in MMA has produced a metagane where the boxing skills that you value have low effect on success.

Why should they waste time on them?

The bold text seems to show me that you didn't read what I said after the "nobody's going to leg kick me" part. I will bolden and italicize it so you can see it clearly.

Thus, it wouldn't matter if I used my head movement in MMA. Even if i'm a good boxer, nobody's going to leg kick me while i'm moving my head provided that i'm mixing up my boxing defense.

If I mix up my boxing defense and in unpredictable patterns, then it won't matter if I move my head at any given moment. If i'm parrying and blocking in addition to moving my head, with all moves done in no specific order, the opponent won't know when to time their leg kicks.

Parrying and blocking don't require weight transfer to any of the legs, meaning that I am in a braced and balanced position to both check leg kicks or pull back my front leg to avoid them (and no, you don't need to raise your leg to check leg kicks. Most leg kicks are thrown to the calf, so just turn your front foot out 45 degrees or 90 degree inward if its an inside leg kick).

Timing is critical in any striking combat sport because it ensures that a fighter can land a counter without their opponent seeing it coming. If you know i'm going to throw a jab, and you time a leg kick while I throw the jab, I don't see it coming because I was focused on throwing the jab. The only way for you to throw a technique and have it land without timing it is if you know your opponent doesn't know how to defend it.

 

[Violent Ken Apologist]

The bold text seems to show me that you didn't read what I said after the "nobody's going to leg kick me" part. I will bolden and italicize it so you can see it clearly.



If I mix up my boxing defense and in unpredictable patterns, then it won't matter if I move my head at any given moment. If i'm parrying and blocking in addition to moving my head, with all moves done in no specific order, the opponent won't know when to time their leg kicks.

Parrying and blocking don't require weight transfer to any of the legs, meaning that I am in a braced and balanced position to both check leg kicks or pull back my front leg to avoid them (and no, you don't need to raise your leg to check leg kicks. Most leg kicks are thrown to the calf, so just turn your front foot out 45 degrees or 90 degree inward if its an inside leg kick).

Timing is critical in any striking combat sport because it ensures that a fighter can land a counter without their opponent seeing it coming. If you know i'm going to throw a jab, and you time a leg kick while I throw the jab, I don't see it coming because I was focused on throwing the jab. The only way for you to throw a technique and have it land without timing it is if you know your opponent doesn't know how to defend it.

These people don't understand fighting clearly. Barf. I hate the internet.

 

[naffatune]

These people don't understand fighting clearly. Barf. I hate the internet.

Yeah. It's still fun to explain how things in the striking department work to casual guys.

 

[Violent Ken Apologist]

Yeah. It's still fun to explain how things in the striking department work to casual guys.

Nah it's ok, it's just being in other threads where no one can think critically had me realize this epitomized what I dislike about it. It's actually nice seeing people talk, I hope you get more disagreements as it's fun to see the riposte firefights.

Here's the thing, man. Most people suck. 90% of people are dumb as shit, so if you just do what everyone else is and focus predominantly on an 'established meta' how can you ever be really good, you know? You have to try the new, the experimental, the different. This isn't controversial.

 

[naffatune]

Nah it's ok, it's just being in other threads where no one can think critically had me realize this epitomized what I dislike about it. It's actually nice seeing people talk, I hope you get more disagreements as it's fun to see the riposte firefights.

Here's the thing, man. Most people suck. 90% of people are dumb as shit, so if you just do what everyone else is and focus predominantly on an 'established meta' how can you ever be really good, you know? You have to try the new, the experimental, the different. This isn't controversial.

I knew running my mouth about the superiority of boxing as much as I did was going to get a reaction. I intended to get this; again, it's fun to explain boxing tactics to guys who haven't studied it thoroughly

People following an "established meta" in any topic I am interested in can be annoying to me, especially if it doesn't work. That being said, going against it does not in and of itself mean that things are going to work out for you. An example is Tony Ferguson; he went against all conventional wisdom on what a striker should be and he paid the price in full.

 

[Violent Ken Apologist]

I knew running my mouth about the superiority of boxing as much as I did was going to get a reaction. I intended to get this; again, it's fun to explain boxing tactics to guys who haven't studied it thoroughly

People following an "established meta" in any topic I am interested in can be annoying to me, especially if it doesn't work. That being said, going against it does not in and of itself mean that things are going to work out for you. An example is Tony Ferguson; he went against all conventional wisdom on what a striker should be and he paid the price in full.

It worked for him, imagine if he had solid p4p trad boxing skills on top of that right! We did learn some things through experimentation. This is my thing, the wilderness of strategy as a whole is a marvel to behold. Anything new will work at least a little until the studying catches up to it, you know?

What if a pro WBC high ranked boxer trained tdd and defensive jits and went to ragdoll some cans at one of those Dutch Kickboxing camps to get used to leg strikes, how do you think he'd fare in the UFC if he just abandoned his high payroll and went for it?

 

[Lemmingwise]

I'm sorry boxing haters but boxing is the best style and this is an objectively truth.

I love boxing. Just not his brand of boxing tm.

Timing is critical in any striking combat sport

This nigga. Next you might be telling us that being fit for the fight is important too.

you didn't read what I said after

I read you fine, it's just theory nonsense. Every technique works if you're one step ahead of the other guy and no technique works if you're a step behind.

I just think it's funny when some rando steps up and thinks he knows better than guys risking their heads, preparing for months. Sometimes with millions on the line.

I really just think you caught that Gracie bug. You know the Gracie's are pretty legit. Good fighters. Decent style. Good training mentality. But they sell it with such a crapload of PR. And then some gullibles that watches thinks that gracies invented wrestling.

Only you have it in regards to boxing. Nothing wrong with being passionate about training. Being passionate about learning and sharing. All good stuff.

But to pretend like boxing is this kind of alpha and omega and mma guys aren't devoting enough time to it... it's just the result of wearing blinders. That's why I asked if you had any experience being in that kind of situation. You know, where it's not just friendly sparring. And I guess not getting an answer is an answer in itself.