Lyoto Machida = 1st - Primary game is striking (karate) 2nd - Secondary game grappling (BJJ / sumo) I think the days when grapplers dominated UFC are fast coming to an end, you will still need to have grappling skills, but my prediction is athletes from a striking background and at least a few years (2 or 3) of grappling will dominate the UFC in the near future.
The video of the guy in k-1 and wkf (Leon Walters) is pretty cool. That guy looks like quite an athlete.
Those days ended in UFC 14, when Maurice Smith UD'd Mark Coleman. Now, the UFC, and MMA as a whole, is dominated by well-rounded fighters with excellent conditioning. There are already athletes who's primary background is striking. Historically, we have guys like Bas Rutten and Guy Mezger; in more recent history, we have Georges St-Pierre, Kit Cope, Gegard Mousasi, Anderson Silva, Wanderlei Silva, Marcus Davis, Mirko Crocop, Mark Hunt, Malaipet, and of course Lyoto Machida. However, I think your time frame is off. Two or three years of grappling isn't nearly enough time to develop the skills to survive at the upper level of MMA. The reverse cannot be said of striking. There hasn't been a UFC or Pride champ in recent memory who didn't have a strong background in BJJ, wrestling, Judo, and/or Sambo. Even Anderson Silva, who I think is overrated on the ground, has a black belt in BJJ. Until you get to a certain level, the skills you learn in your first month or two of a striking class will be all you'll need, although a lot of time is spent refining those skills. In grappling, there are so many techniques that every time you learn a new submission, takedown, guard pass, or whatever, you have to learn about ten associated techniques to defend, trouble-shoot, set-up, or transition to what you just learned. Even if you don't want to put in a year or so of grappling training to attest to this yourself, it's evident from MMA competitions which one's easier to learn. When a fighter dedicates himself to improving his striking, you can see it practically from one fight to another; when he dedicates himself to improving his grappling, it may not be evident for years.
It is a constant evolving thing. One of the reasons Crocop used to clean guys out was because he was hard to takedown and going against guys who thought 'skills you learn in your first month or two' was enough for striking. But the pendulum has already been swinging back the otherway. They need both nowadays.
But Crocop was, by and large, using skills he learned in the first month or two. A straight cross or roundhouse kick aren't exactly advanced techniques. You learn them your first day of class, in most places. Now the counter to the half-guard pass that Antonio Silva was using against Fabricio Werdum in their fight? Never seen it before. My statement was a commentary more on the relative speed of integration of the skills of striking vs. the skills of grappling, not an endorsement of which method was superior. Although... Crocop did get knocked out by Kevin Randleman and outstruck by Fedor Emelianenko. Neither man is known for their technical striking skills. Could you see Damien Maia or Shinya Aoki getting out-grappled by a guy with only a year or two of grappling training? Striking is about what you can do, grappling is about how much you know.
I will give you this... But this? He wasn't learning techniques he learned in the first month or two! A lot of people will learn a submission in the first couple months of grappling, but that doesn't mean they will get it in free grappling for a long time. Why? Because the transition/setup is everything. It can take years to get that. One of the reasons watching people like Maia is so fun because his transitions/setups for the submission are so smooth. And the same is true for striking. Crocops footwork, combos, etc are a little beyond the stuff you learn in the first couple months. He did not, btw, get outstruck by Fedor. You need to rewatch that fight. In the first 10 minutes Crocop was outstriking him. In fact if one kick had been mere inches lower it would have been lights out for Fedor. There is a reason Fedor's face looked like hamburger after that fight. What got Crocop is that Fedor wore him down with constant pressure on the feet, takedown attempts, and then wore him down on the ground. He gassed Crocop out. Furthermore Fedor is known to have pretty good striking. His book is probably equally divided between striking and ground techniques.
i was passionate for shotokan for about 5 years, trained loads, won a few prizes. Then the UFC really made me question the validity of the whole thing. did about 4 years of traditional ( standup japanese jujitsu...) became disillusioned with the compliant syllabus nature of 'fighting static scarecrows'. they just seemed very slow compared to karate people. did judo on and off for 5 years. very impressed with its realism. Now working with a more modern (but still japanese) style of jujitsu for a combination of standing striking, standing grappling and groundwork. basically i love the japanese commitment to good manners, etiquette and technical excellence. but still need assurances that what i learn does actually work. i hate those flicky high kicks that win competitions yet are suicide in a real situation. Am also very adverse to teaching people hundreds of different techniques without ever pressure-testing any of it. MMA seems good to prepare you for being attacked by a sweaty man in his underpants (approximately your own weight) with a referee to ensure that the fight looks interesting and a mat to fall on safely - plus tons of forbidden acts you wont need to worry about defending yourself from. The street is a lot more scary than the octagon. so back to Lyoto , the guy has inspired us all. i guess we will need to wait for his (soon to be published) book to truly answer these questions. the martial arts is an enigma. nobody has all he answers, just questions. and we are all beginners. i have had to humility to bust myself back to whitebelt (under a new system) at least 4 or 5 times, and will be happy to do it again so long as i am learning good stuff...... anyway, happy training & train safe people :hat:
I think that might be a bit of an overstatement. I don't think you should overestimate how much the average karate guy (i.e. me :hat cares about the UFC. By all accounts Mr Machida is a decent guy and a good fighter but I wouldn't feel any better or worse about my karate training if I'd never heard of him. His impact on the sporting world and, possibly to a greater extent, on the discussion of karate on the internet, has been pretty substantial but (and perhaps it's just my age or the general lack of interest in sports amongst my friends) I don't know anyone training in karate who thinks about him all that much.
Not to derail the thread, but... You don't think a rear cross and roundhouse kicks were taught to him in his first month or two of training? Those have been his primary striking weapons throughout his career. Maybe the ax kick he pulls out now and then would be qualified as "advanced", but that's about it. I'll agree with you there, but transitions and setups in grappling tend to be more complex than what you find in striking. There's a reason there are a handful of basic punches and less than a handful of basic kicks, but dozens of guard passes, hundreds of counters to a double-leg, etc. How much new material do you really learn after three years of striking compared to three years of grappling? Refining the basics is very important, and I think too many people skip over that, but there are fewer basics in striking than in grappling. Again, this isn't a slander against striking. It's my strongest point, and I've spent much more time in striking than in grappling. But in striking, I'm simply learning how to be better at using the tools I already have, while in grappling not only do I have to do that, but I have to learn new tools. Let me put it to you this way: draw up separate lesson plans for "Striking 101" and "Grappling 101". See which list is longer. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Crocop's footwork sucks and he rarely uses combos. Like most knockout artists, he relies one one big strike instead of feints or combinations to set up his strikes. So he tried for a knockout and failed, and this makes him a good striker? Hey, if Gavrilo Princip's aim had been off by an inch, the first World War would never have happened. "What If's" are fun to play, but ultimately mean nothing. I did, and he did. Furthermore, the numbers back me up: http://www.fightmetric.com/fights/Fedor-CroCop.html On the feet, in the first round, Fedor landed 9 shots to Crocop's 5. Plus he had him backing up, off-balance. His striking dictated the pace of the fight. Crocop landed the most significant shot, a cross, but when he moved in to capitalize, Fedor backed him up with a missed overhand right. Fedor put out more volume, landed more shots (including to the head), and repaid every strike Crocop landed with two of his own. Not on a technical level, he isn't. He's fast, he hits hard, and he throws in volume, but his striking consists almost entirely of a left hook and an overhand right. He tends to get reckless when throwing combinations, which is now Fujita and Rogers hurt him, and how Arlovski was able to give him trouble. As for the book, it really doesn't mean that much. Ken Shamrock's second book basically did the same thing, and he's hardly an expert striker.
Excuse me if I find this part a bit contradictory. You're in favor of pressure-testing but find fault with MMA because they provide an environment for pressure-testing that lets you walk away with both of your eyes? While I agree that "the street is a lot more scary", you are making some incorrect assumptions here. When you train MMA, you spar with different weight classes. And because MMA training consists of mixing multiple disciplines, MMA fighters frequently get exposed to clothing handles (the gi) and "forbidden acts". I mean, do you pressure-test things like biting, gouging, groin attacks, and finger locks? I'm not saying that as a training method, MMA is perfect, but for self-defense, I think you'd be justified using that method for about 85-90% of your overall physical training.
does anybody on this blog have a feeling whether MMA training is safe ? i have had only limited exposure to it. i do feel the traditional arts have a better safety record ?
Traditional martial arts can be as safe as you want to make them. If your in a class with families, like mums and dads with their kids, of course the head instructor is going to demand that you being a senior student will not hurt anyone. On the other hand if you go to a black belt class thats full of guys who want abit of tango then you better know how to protect yourself, this class isn't for everybody just for the ones who want it so if you turn up you know what to expect.
I think that if the 'traditional' arts were to put as much emphasis on heavy contact as MMA does, you'd see a fairly similar (serious) injury rate. Perhaps even more so if gloves etc weren't used.
i have had only limited exposure to it. i do feel the traditional arts have a better safety record ? There are countless Judoka, Karateka and TKD people with dodgy knees that might disagree.
It's been derailed because the original question was answered within the first few posts. But, nevertheless, there is an interesting conversation being had! PASmith - this is one of my bugbares. There is nothing inherently bad for joints in 'traditional' MA training - it mostly lies in the way people train, where I'd argue the problem is not being traditional as such, but outdated. Ask rugby players about all their injuries, and not many people would argue that those guys aren't at the forefront of sports science.
Callsignfuzzy- Crocop is a counterstriker. They use footwork to avoid damage. It isn't like he could do what he did with a couple months training. A perfect example is a A. Silva versus Chris Leben. Both are using techniques that you describe as 'stuff you learn in the first couple of months' yet one has definitely refined it a lot more. I agree with you that grappling is a big mountain. No doubt about it. But I think you describe striking in far too simplistic of terms. I'd hate to get in the ring with an elite level boxer thinking, "Well I know the basic punches. How hard can it be. I've had 6 months under Freddie Roach, so I should be good now..."
