Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Enigma_Machine

Is the max skill level for takedowns higher then the max skill level for T/D defense?

Recommended Posts

Lets say you have two clones identical to each other physically and mentally, and they are both forced to train equally as hard for say one year. One has to train takedowns and G&P, the other has to train takedown defense and striking. Which one would be more successful? I'm thinking it may be possible that no matter how much takedown defense a fighter learns, it simply may not be a skill that's as effective as the best takedowns.

 

The reason I say this is because it's not like guys who want to strike aren't training takedown defense but many times the wrestlers don't even struggle to get them down. What do you think? What if wrestling and takedowns at the highest level are simply unavoidable?

 

I know guys like Chuck Liddell and JDS are good examples of successful strikers with TDD but they never really fought relentless wrestlers. Chuck was successfully taken down and pounded out by Rampage in the first fight and Randy in the first fight, both who were willing to try and outstrike Chuck. Would Chuck or JDS have been as successful if a wrestler refused to stand but relentlessly fought for the takedown?

 

What are your thoughts? Is there a skill imbalance in wrestling that allows a relentless TD guy to win every time against a striker with TDD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of fighters who can defend TDs constantly, the problem is that they can't knee to the head. A fighter can stuff alot takedowns but that doesn't mean anything, the wrestler will keep shooting and will eventually take him down. UFC rules favour wrestling no doubt about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a lot of fighters who can defend TDs constantly' date=' the problem is that they can't knee to the head. A fighter can stuff alot takedowns but that doesn't mean anything, the wrestler will keep shooting and will eventually take him down. UFC rules favour wrestling no doubt about that.[/quote']

 

I agree, a thing to consider is that the guys who stop a lot of takedowns may not be fighting as good wrestlers. An example Thiago Alves, he was able to prevent most of Rick Story's takedowns and it ended up being a clinch battle on the fence, but when Thiago fought GSP... there was no competition, GSP took him down at will.

 

So lets look at GSP, do you think there will ever be a striker with the takedown defense to stop his takedowns? Even his clone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So lets look at GSP' date=' do you think there will ever be a striker with the takedown defense to stop his takedowns? Even his clone?[/quote']

 

I believe that there will be a fighter that stuffs more GSP takedowns than is shot on him, but i don't believe there will be someone who will stuff every single takedown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets say you have two clones identical to each other physically and mentally' date=' and they are both forced to train equally as hard for say one year. One has to train takedowns and G&P, the other has to train takedown defense and striking. Which one would be more successful? I'm thinking it may be possible that no matter how much takedown defense a fighter learns, it simply may not be a skill that's as effective as the best takedowns.

 

The reason I say this is because it's not like guys who want to strike aren't training takedown defense but many times the wrestlers don't even struggle to get them down. What do you think? What if wrestling and takedowns at the highest level are simply unavoidable?

 

I know guys like Chuck Liddell and JDS are good examples of successful strikers with TDD but they never really fought relentless wrestlers. Chuck was successfully taken down and pounded out by Rampage in the first fight and Randy in the first fight, both who were willing to try and outstrike Chuck. Would Chuck or JDS have been as successful if a wrestler refused to stand but relentlessly fought for the takedown?

 

What are your thoughts? Is there a skill imbalance in wrestling that allows a relentless TD guy to win every time against a striker with TDD?[/quote']

 

Being able to take a fighter down is definitely a favoured skill since you can control the pace and place and the other fighter can't quite open up as much with thier striking because of the threat of being taken down. Another thing is because of the threat of takedown it also opens up the grapplers striking game because of the threat of takedown and if they can bait the striker into commiting it gives them even greater chance for the takedown to be successful or atleast a clinch to be initiated.

 

The striker/ttd fighter is only offering one real threat. Now granted if they can stuff the takedowns and force the other fighter to stand they will pick them apart but it's not so easy and thier striking will be a little tentative because they have to avoid the takedowns.

 

It all comes down to the fighters themselves really though. Whoever creates, capitilizes and ultimately imposes thier will wins but the Grappler is often at an advantage.

 

Because they are really dealing with all three facets and there is a synergy there that helps the grappler be a better grappler and a better striker than they normally would AND the threat helps nullify the striker some from being better than they otherwise could be at pure striking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being able to take a fighter down is definitely a favoured skill since you can control the pace and place and the other fighter can't quite open up as much with thier striking because of the threat of being taken down. Another thing is because of the threat of takedown it also opens up the grapplers striking game because of the threat of takedown and if they can bait the striker into commiting it gives them even greater chance for the takedown to be successful or atleast a clinch to be initiated.

 

The striker/ttd fighter is only offering one real threat. Now granted if they can stuff the takedowns and force the other fighter to stand they will pick them apart but it's not so easy and thier striking will be a little tentative because they have to avoid the takedowns.

 

It all comes down to the fighters themselves really though. Whoever creates' date=' capitilizes and ultimately imposes thier will wins but the Grappler is often at an advantage.

 

Because they are really dealing with all three facets and there is a synergy there that helps the grappler be a better grappler and a better striker than they normally would AND the threat helps nullify the striker some from being better than they otherwise could be at pure striking.[/quote']

 

I agree 100% that's why no matter how much tdd a striker learns he will never be as effective as the best wrestler unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree 100% that's why no matter how much tdd a striker learns he will never be as effective as the best wrestler unfortunately.

 

Unless the wrestler isn't good at Jitz . ;)

 

It could be argued the other way that if the Striker/TDD fighter can shut down the shots and impose thier striking the grappler is a fish out of water. If the grapplers first few attempts get shut down and they're facing a much better striker it can be difficult to survive.

 

Most of the time the grappler has an advantage though because of the synergy i mentioned that works against the striker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless the wrestler isn't good at Jitz . ;)

 

It could be argued the other way that if the Striker/TDD fighter can shut down the shots and impose thier striking the grappler is a fish out of water. If the grapplers first few attempts get shut down and they're facing a much better striker it can be difficult to survive.

 

Most of the time the grappler has an advantage though because of the synergy i mentioned that works against the striker.

 

that's also possible but I'm talking about the best of the best at each style. TDD vs TD. Is it possible to completely avoid the ground against the best wrestler in the world if you;re the best at takedown defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's also possible but I'm talking about the best of the best at each style. TDD vs TD. Is it possible to completely avoid the ground against the best wrestler in the world if you;re the best at takedown defense?

 

No, examples.

 

Rampage(TDD) vs Rashad(TD)

 

Penn(TDD) vs Edgar(TD)

 

Penn(TDD) vs GSP(TD)

 

Anderson (TDD) vs Chael(TD)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No' date=' examples.

 

Penn(TDD) vs Edgar(TD)

 

Penn(TDD) vs GSP(TD)

[/quote']

 

I think these should be the only examples. Penn's TDD is legendary. Rampage and Anderson are good at it but Penn is known for that.

 

but these examples are more like Striking w/ TDs. Frankie got BJ to strike with his quick punches and took him down. GSP set him up with a long jab then got TDs after he wore Penn down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say there isnt a skill imbalance !!!! i say the surroundings would dictate where the fight goes!! in a cage +wrestler....wide open field + defense striker......."Mind your surroundings young grasshoppa"~iFUNK

 

 

Most ppl dont train defense as intensely as offense,and also i think thats why you see wrestlers dominate in cages they have the space advantage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think these should be the only examples. Penn's TDD is legendary. Rampage and Anderson are good at it but Penn is known for that.

 

but these examples are more like Striking w/ TDs. Frankie got BJ to strike with his quick punches and took him down. GSP set him up with a long jab then got TDs after he wore Penn down.

 

Yeah i agree, If Edgar was only allowed to shoot and Penn was only allowed to defend i think Penn would stuff them all, but i think we were talking about it from an MMA perspective, because if Penn was only defending he wouldn't be striking and wouldn't be winning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah i agree' date=' If Edgar was only allowed to shoot and Penn was only allowed to defend i think Penn would stuff them all, but i think we were talking about it from an MMA perspective, because if Penn was only defending he wouldn't be striking and wouldn't be winning[/quote']

 

from an MMA perspective neither of the ones that OP stated (Striking w/ TDD or TDs w/ GnP) would be the best so I say. The best IMO would be a great striker who could take the fight down if he so wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
from an MMA perspective neither of the ones that OP stated (Striking w/ TDD or TDs w/ GnP) would be the best so I say. The best IMO would be a great striker who could take the fight down if he so wanted.

 

Striking with TD's hmmm, what if someone shoots on you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Striking with TD's hmmm' date=' what if someone shoots on you?[/quote']

 

knee them in the face :D but just going with how it was with having 2 things you'll always have an incomplete fighter.

 

good TDs w/ GnP and I'd say limited striking would have a very hard time picking up the timing of whoever they are trying to take down and could probably get set up to getting KOd

 

good TDD w/ Striking would be manhandled if they were taken down

 

and as you said Striking w/ TDs would suck on getting taken down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's also possible but I'm talking about the best of the best at each style. TDD vs TD. Is it possible to completely avoid the ground against the best wrestler in the world if you;re the best at takedown defense?

 

 

No it's not possible to avoid the ground against the best wrestler but the fight isn't over after a takedown unless they get KO'd or injured by a slam.

 

Defense is only defense. Eventually you can't defend everything something will get through but can they defend enough and knock out the wrestler or if taken down survive on the ground or even submit...depends

 

If Anderson had 100 fights against Chael i'd put money on Anderson 80 times out of 100 maybe more.

 

Not saying Silva has the best TDD but i think he's the best striker and i think Chael is the best wrestler with decent GnP. There's Chael's problem, he doesn't do enough damage to end it and his submission offense/defense is not that good so it gives Anderson more chance to win because his biggest threat is wrestling. KO and submission wins a fight and they start on the feet every round. Wrestling can get you a decision and rarely a KO or injury win.

 

I still think the idea of a wrestler having an advantage is a sound theory but it comes down to what happens in the fights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...