Quote of the Day: Boxing Matters in Mixed Martial Arts

I don’t think you have to be a Gold Glove boxer or anything. I do think it helps to have a good jab though., especially if you have a nice reach.

Rob Dib
http://www.break-your-face.com

by Rob Dib on Aug 13, 2008 1:58 PM EDT 0 recs

I’m not saying boxing’s not important, just that’s boxing isn’t at the heart of MMA while other sports are components of it.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

And yet its pretty important. When you eschew the basics for the one punch KO, you end up like the figure a couple posts down. He learned an important lesson about keeping his chin down, hands up, and punches straight.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

Fine

No one is saying it isn’t important. What we are saying is that it’s not at the center of the universe. And poor boxing wasn’t Manny’s only problem.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

I don’t see how the guy is saying its the center of the universe, though. He’s implicitly stating otherwise.

Also, its London, ONTARIO.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up 0 recs

You can substitute muay thai for boxing and you’re still a complete MMA fighter. Furthermore, Muay Thai incorporates knees, clinch fighting, and kicks; Boxing doesn’t. The best striker in the world today are kickboxers (Anderson Silva) and Cro Cop.

Certain disciplines are essential…however, boxing isn’t. Muay Thai or Karate can be substituted easily.

by cyph on Aug 13, 2008 2:28 PM EDT up 0 recs

Boxing has clinch fighting. It should also be noted that most of the punching techniques in Muay Thai are converted from western boxing. You should watch Anuwat Kaewsamrit sometime to see a clinic of it in MT.

Oh, and again to reiterate my point about singling this guy out to make some sort of point:

“And it usually is their ability to use their FEET or their hands."

Clearly, he is a boxing dinosaur!

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up 0 recs

Clinch fighting in Thai boxing is completely distinct from what is commonly understood in boxing especially when you consider they don’t even really have the same purpose and aren’t used very similarly.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

You should tell Matt Skelton that. In any case, I mentioned that because, in fact, clinch fighting is pretty important in boxing, though no boxer would want to actively clinch with a fighter who has a world class greco background. Then again, most muay thai kickboxers wouldn’t either.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

I don’t think you interpred his meaning well. He didn’t say Boxing was better then everything. He said that when two BJJ/grappler guys lock horns the better guy standing comes out on top. I don’t know what other boxing trainers are saying, but this quote is not in anyway diffrent from what I have observed.

by szucconi on Aug 13, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up 0 recs

It's not me

I don’t think so. He’s saying clearly what separates the good MMA fighters from the bad is – ultimately – their striking ability. This completely is not true and is evidence of a limited comprehension of the dynamics of a MMA fight.

AND is precisely why I suggest he seems to think striking holds some sort of preemient status in MMA. It’s obviously a critical component, but it’s not the most important or even more important of any of the skill sets.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

It does separate elite fighters from the simply “good”. BJ didn’t just beat Sherk because Sherk couldn’t get a takedown, he beat Sherk because he’s significantly better standing. Guys at the top of the sport are multidimensional and to have multiple dimensions means you can strike in addition to being a good grappler. Furthermore, he says IN HIS OWN WORDS that it is secondary to grappling!

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:38 PM EDT up 0 recs

Dude, what separates the good from the great is actually a complex set of differences. To oversimplify by suggesting the SOLE difference is good vs. great striking is absurd. Striking is clearly important, but to make it the sole distinguisher between the good and great fighters is patently false.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

How many great fighters can’t strike? There were a lot more 10-12 years ago, but by the time the Frank Shamrocks, Igor Vovchanchins, and Rumina Satos arrived, that was a dead meme.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

How many great fighters can’t wrestle?

How many great fighters don’t have great submissions?

How many great fighters can’t do 25 minutes?

How many great fighters can’t make great gameplans?

It’s not simple enough to suggest striking is the demarcation.

And that’s the other problem: it’s not as if two equally talented fighters in other dimensions ALWAYS cancel each other out and resort to striking. That happens in some cases. In others it creates for pitched battles. But the amount of times where fighters have equal abilities and allow striking to be the sole determinant of their match is rare.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up 0 recs

Where did he say that fighters don’t need to wrestle? Where has anyone said that? This is a crazy strawman you keep attacking.

On the other hand, being a pretty good striker in addition to knowing your way around the mat is a good line of demarcation when deciding who are the best P4P fighters on the planet. I mean, Ishida, Sherk, Tito, and Hughes are all fine and dandy, but haven’t we seen what happens when guys who aren’t necessarily collegiate/world class wrestlers stuff their takedowns?

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

There is no strawman. Not even close.

What I am addressing is the point of what distinguishes fighters from being good versus great. The vast majority of great fighters do all things well, some do a few things well with the rest of their skill set being REALLY good. The point is that to bring up “aren’t all great fighters able to strike” begs the question for wrestling and jiu-jitsu, too.

That then leads to my point: why focus on striking if that aforementioned concern is valid?

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

No, there is a strawman. You are going insane over the evil boxing people convinced that its the bestest combat sport in the world and more valuable than anything else in MMA. Meanwhile, some CANADIAN boxing trainer goes, “Yeah man, Boxing is pretty important as a secondary skill in MMA, pretty important if you feel your ability on the mat is being nullified” and you get enraged and fight someone that isn’t there.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’m not enraged. I’m just confused with some of the points you are making.

And I’m not anti-boxing. I’m one of the most pro-boxing MMA writers in existence. But I also have watched their tendency to value the skill sets in boxing a little too highly. I see evidence of that here.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

Luke's got a legit point about the way boxing people

discuss the importance of boxing, compared to other skills. But the truth is that we can’t really expect these people to approach it any other way at first. If three years from now these exact people are saying the same thing, then we’ve got a problem with their ability to identify the many facets of the sport.

Boxing is perhaps the absolute

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Aug 13, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

..is perhaps the absolute

single least important/critical background to possess. Absolutely it’s important, and a good boxing background allows for a lot more control in the stand-up game. But that’s really where its value lies, in positioning.

Anyways, these guys are trying, which is something we really need them to do. But they should try to enter it with a bit more humility, and an open mind. It’s always frustrating when they mis-state the value of certain aspects of the game.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Aug 13, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

I can think of a few less critical things to be talented at. I’ve yet to see olympic style or traditional TKD make an impact. Sidekicks aren’t all that popular. Spider guard?

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up 0 recs

And

I can think of all kinds of set-ups and inside punching common in boxing – Holyfield vs. Toney, e.g. – that have zero place in MMA.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

The number of active boxers who actually use the Toney shoulder roll style is in the single digits. How many wrestlers who’ve trained part time as strikers for 2 years can be expected to attempt it?

It was thought for years that if you didn’t totally square yourself up, you’d be taken down. No if ands or buts. After the last few times I’ve seen GSP, Silva, and Lyoto, it looks like that myth has been shattered. I don’t believe anything is necessarily impossible in MMA at the moment (apart from perhaps tornado kicks).

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’m not even talking about his shoulder rolling style. I’m referring to the distance and offensive tools both Toney and Holyfield used.

And as for this:

“It was thought for years that if you didn’t totally square yourself up, you’d be taken down. No if ands or buts. After the last few times I’ve seen GSP, Silva, and Lyoto, it looks like that myth has been shattered.”

So then, what you’re saying is what separates good fighters from great fighters is takedown defense, because a) the stances even those MMA fighters use still isn’t the same as a boxer’s nor is the distance and b) the only thing keeping them up is their TD defense which allows them to strike a little more liberally.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

I was trying to figure out how to work in takedown defense, but you did better than I could.

Striking ability is absolutely worthless if you can’t stay on your feet. And wrestling is worthless if your opponent has impervious takedown defense.

It’s just too complex to say “Superior striking wins the day!”

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Aug 13, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

But where is anyone saying that takedown defense is without or of lesser value? Again: strawman.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

The number one thing in any sport is to control the pace and style of the contest, and MMA is no different. If your plan is to KO someone from the onset, then you have to know to protect yourself from being taken down and controlled/stopped on the ground. The ability to either initate or defend takedowns is thus paramount in MMA. Striking is second. Unsurprisingly, this is the very point made above.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 3:23 PM EDT up 0 recs

Sidekicks? Spider guard? I guess if you want to reduce boxing to a single position/maneuver, then you’ve made my case for me? Probably not, but it certainly diminishes the value of boxing as a whole, if that’s the point.

If that’s not the point, then it’s not really fair to compare a whole form of combat to one or two specific techniques or maneuvers found in a wholly different form of combat.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Aug 13, 2008 3:12 PM EDT up 0 recs

Boxing is the refinement of an aspect of fighting (punching) to the ultimate over the course of hundreds of years of interaction with every other striking sport on the planet. The basics of boxing are things like foot/head movement, defensive postures, jabbing, combination punching, etc. The lengths to which they’ve been refined have allowed guys who primarily trained in boxing to move into other striking sports with a great amount of success (Hunt, Mighty Mo, Lebanner, Mike Bernardo, for instance). Hell, do you really think there’s a Shotokon Karate 8th dan at Black House right now for Lyoto and Anderson going over kata?

Most everyone recognizes its value as a weapon and they train to use it. Its certainly far more valuable to most than flying armbars.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

It really seems like you understand what Luke is saying, and you understand what I’m saying. You’re comparing boxing (a highly specialized and refined method of punching) to specific maneuvers in other martial art forms such as flying armbars and spider guards , and as such, I wholeheartedly agree that it’s the single-most refined and significant maneuver known in man-to-man combat. Every single form of strike-based combat training includes some sort of punch variation.

But as a background or facet of an MMA game, it is not the determining factor in a large percentage of fights. It is one minor factor which is entirely dependent on other factors to be present before it is even factored into the outcome of the fight, these other factors being takedown defense, submission defense, mobility, chin, etc..

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Aug 13, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’m making those comparisons because of the claim that it is the “least important” skill to have. There are tons of potential things you can do in an MMA bout and we’ve seen most of them attempted. For some reason, boxing is of pretty major interest to every camp around. Whether people like to admit it or not, boxing is a staple of MMA at this point in time and looks to be so into the far future until someone converts sticky hands to work in a cage.

No one, not even the poor ‘ol boxing trainer, is deluded enough to claim strinking is the most important thing. Not being important doesn’t mean being able to strike isn’t important though.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up 0 recs

And that should be “not being MOST important doesn’t mean it is not important.”

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

...and I hate to post again, but stuff like “mobility” is often tied directly into things like boxing or muay thai. Have you bothered to watch the Olympics at all? Greco Roman wrestlers and Judoka aren’t exactly practicing the kind of proper movement or defensive posture required to be successful in MMA.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

I don’t get what’s confusing here. A boxing trainer acquiesces to boxing being secondary in value and says that fighters should train for it anyways to use should it be necessary. What part of that is tough to read?

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

Because there is no acquiescing going on. That’s where we disagree.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up 0 recs

”...that secondary skill usually leads to the winner of the fight. And it usually is their ability to use their feet or their hands."

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up 0 recs

This part paints the problem pretty well

So when you show up and you are a grabber or jujutsu, when those two come together and cancel each other out that secondary skill usually leads to the winner of the fight.

It completely disregards the complexity of the sport as a whole. On the one hand, he says that there are different levels of striking, and these are often the determinant factor in a fight because the grappling cancels out, implying that boxing is a superior, or more complex form of martial arts than any of these other facets.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Aug 13, 2008 3:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

A fighter or both fighters can cancel out each other’s grappling depending on how they wish to contest an MMA bout. Thus, it goes to secondary skills, which is where striking comes into play. It HAS to come into play because if you are not grappling, the only other way to win is via striking, not putting balls in a hoop or how fast they can run around the cage.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 3:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

Also, he focuses on striking BECAUSE HE IS A BOXING COACH. What, like you want Thomas Davis Jr. to be teaching you double leg takedowns or judo throws at ATT?

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

I disagree on your interpretation. I mean this is a BOXING guy suggesting that kicks are a good thing. I don’t disagree that some boxing guys have it wrong, but this guy is just trying to keep the newly revived boxing program at his gym alive. You’re wrong Luke.

by szucconi on Aug 13, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

It’s up to you. If you want to co-sign on the statement that what separates the good from the great in MMA is their ability to strike, you’re on your own.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

But Luke, that’s true. The ability to strike does separate the good from the great, otherwise Pe De Pano would be UFC Heavyweight Champion.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up 0 recs

But it’s NOT true. It CAN be the difference between good and great fighters IF AND ONLY IF all other things are equal. But they aren’t. They are quite different in virtually every match-up. Great striking is important, but it is only part of a much greater set of characteristics of what separate good from great.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

It isn’t that way at all. Top level strikers don’t need to have black belts in BJJ or 15 years international experience in freestyle to stuff a takedown. Did Maurice Smith and Mirko CroCop teach us nothing? Great standup ceases to matter when fights start on the ground.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up 0 recs

Dude

You’re just agreeing with me.

What separates good from great is actually a whole host of factors. It isn’t just an ability to strike. You must know that is patently false.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

Who is arguing that striking is the most important aspect of MMA? No one is. Being able to control whether the fight is standing or on the ground is numero uno. Great. Everyone gets that, including the boxing trainer who’s quote you apparently refuse to actually read.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:55 PM EDT up 0 recs

Maybe this guy is a little confused and thinks that all grapplers are at the same level, but thats understandable to some degree. He is a boxing guy and he understands the vast range of boxing skill levels. I for one do not. I get, for the most part, grappling. What I can respect is the guy pumping up his expertice. Its clear that he owes his new job to MMA and he understands that. He doesn’t have the same grudge that I have heard from other boxing trainers. You just took this qoute and made the point you wanted to make before you knew this quote existed.

by szucconi on Aug 13, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

I mean come on, the guy says that boxing is one part of a well rounded way to keep in shape. He is not one of those “Boxing is be all end all of everything” guys. I know those guys, one of them happens to be my father.

by szucconi on Aug 13, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

To me, it’s not that this guy sounds too much like a curmudgeon. Mostly it’s the general perception of the sport as lacking technique or complexity, and how “All of those funky things they do on the ground are interesting and dangerous, but when they both know how to do that stuff, it all comes back down to boxing.”

In an extremely limited fashion, that’s got some truth as a snapshot. But it’s inaccurate to apply that reasoning to the vast majority of match-ups we see. So much more comes into play than just boxing and grappling, that you can’t just distill it down to that. And if you’re going to professionally analyze and explain this sport, you need to be able to display a working understanding of that concept, if not be able to identify and explain the specific intricacies themselves.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Aug 13, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

I mean, what major MMA gyms would want boxing coaches? Pfff. Could you imagine if a former gold medalist would end up finding employment at somewhere like American Top Team? Why, that would be the day! Hur hur.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

You’re just being ridiculous here. I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean. No one is suggesting boxing isn’t important. Don’t distort anyone’s arguments.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up 0 recs

Obviously every major MMA gym on earth puts some significant value on it because they hire boxing trainers. And again, where does this guy say its as or more important than grappling? He’s saying its generally something fighters use when one can offset the takedowns and clinch of the other, and I’d say that’s pretty much on point. I mean, what else are they going to do then? Throw fireballs?

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up 0 recs

Alright, if you want to pretend saying what separates the good from the great is striking = what separates the good from the great is their wrestling or what separates the good from the great is their submissions, be my guest.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up 0 recs

What separates the good from the great is all around skill. Being good all around entails you know more than one or even two aspects of MMA.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

YES!

Then why are you disagreeing with me?

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

Because you’re up in arms over someone who you think went against that and actually didn’t?

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

Ok

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’ve been told I’m a grabber.

by Baudelaire on Aug 13, 2008 2:00 PM EDT 0 recs

And let me remind you: that protective order is still in effect. So keep your distance, pal.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Aug 13, 2008 3:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

I’m confused here. Meldrum is basically saying striking is generally secondary in MMA and that the vast majority of elite fighters are very good at it while guys who aren’t at least somewhat capable rarely reach the elite level. I look at the best fighters in the world, whether they are Faber, Torres, Anderson Silva, GSP, BJ Penn, Gomi, Fedor, Forrest, Rampage, etc. and its a pretty accurate statement.

by D.Capitated on Aug 13, 2008 2:07 PM EDT 0 recs

Boxing is just like any other discipline in mma. You adapt the technique to fit the game, keeping the effective portion and basically scrapping the rest. No more important and no less important. Is a striker with no ground game better than a grappler with no striking? I would say they are about the same.

"The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'"

by BJJDenver on Aug 13, 2008 2:12 PM EDT 0 recs

What’s funny about all of this is that if you look at the top people in the game (A.Silva, Fedor, GSP, BJ) they all have completely different backgrounds (Muay Thai, Sambo, Karate, and BJJ) and beyond that use different techniques to win.

Part of the reason for that is entirely physical: BJ can’t do the things that Anderson can do and vice versa. BJ, who has excellent striking, will never have the kind of complete stand-up game that Anderson has, and Anderson will never be as masterful on the ground as BJ, no matter how hard either of them train in any particular disciple.

And what all of this means is that while there are certain good suggestions for fighters (learn wrestling to perform and defend takedowns, learn muay thai for striking, learn BJJ for groundwork) they won’t work for everyone. Each fighter needs to figure out how to become as complete as they can, but there is no one path to that goal. Boxing will not help some people, but BJ makes great use of it. Sambo hasn’t produced all that many great MMA fighters, but Fedor sure knows how to put it to good use. Etc, etc.

Hopefully that’s something that everyone above can agree with.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Aug 13, 2008 3:19 PM EDT 0 recs

AGREED 100%

by Luke Thomas on Aug 13, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up 0 recs

You pretty much summed up the beauty of mma, imo.

"The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'"

by BJJDenver on Aug 13, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

Absolutely agreed with the whole post.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Aug 13, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up 0 recs

Woah

This thing got outta hand quick! lol.

If I were to start a career in MMA I would choose, Muay Thai, BJJ, and wrestling to focus my training on instead of Boxing, BJJ and wrestling. I have friends who swear Boxing is the best contact sport and yup…its really annoying. =/

by xFenixKnightx on Aug 13, 2008 3:50 PM EDT 0 recs

How the helll

did this whole discussion happen while I was on my lunch break?

by AJB on Aug 13, 2008 5:20 PM EDT 0 recs

Well, somebody said something on the Internet – which means that there had to be a fight.

And also, you had too long of a lunch. Seriously, time to cut back or the boss will notice. :-)

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Aug 13, 2008 6:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

My boss is cool

Twice a week she lets me take an extra long lunch so I can get in time at jiu jitsu class. Then the secretary counts my bruises when I get back. My office rules.

by AJB on Aug 13, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

Where do I send my resume again?

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Aug 14, 2008 7:01 AM EDT up 0 recs

Boxing is important...

... but it’s not the be-all, end-all of MMA striking. It takes more than being just a good boxer. It’s not enough to have just that one tool, you need kicking and elbows, etc. Just look at Cantwell’s dismantling of Stann in the WEC a couple weeks ago. Stann got overwhelmed and ultimately creamed by Cantwell’s mixed martial arts.

by pud333 on Aug 13, 2008 10:27 PM EDT 0 recs