Who's the Better Wrestler: Mark Munoz or Matt Hamill?
by Luke Thomas on Mar 4, 2009 9:35 PM EST
in MMA News
Email
Print
For my money it's probably Munoz, although how he's able to use it in MMA is still very much an open question. Unlike football or basketball, there are strong wrestlers and programs all the way from Division I to junior college, but I do not believe Hamill had to defeat the same caliber of opposition Munoz did to snag the Div. I national title. Others seem confident Munoz will manhandle Hamill come Saturday night:
Fellow northern California high school wrestler Rick Randolph was three years ahead of Munoz in high school, took seventh in state and knows the name from way back. Randolph, who is gunning for the Gladiator Challenge heavyweight belt the same night Munoz battles Hamill, had high praise for the 2001 NCAA champ as well. He believes the much-hyped "wrestler versus wrestler" angle of the Hamill-Munoz matchup won’t turn out to be as competitive as many think.
"He’s just a dominant, dominant guy," Randolph said. "Mark Munoz is an NCAA national champion. That’s not good (for Hamill). Mark Munoz is a ridiculous wrestler. It’s not even in the same category. That’s essentially where he’s at. Hamill’s good, but the wrestling is not gonna be an issue. The wrestling will be dominated by Munoz. When you go with a guy at that level, it’s like, ‘How did you dominate me?’"
If you're a Hamill fan, you'll recall he dispatched another Division I national champion in Rex Holman, but Holman was significantly older and had not trained or developed with the same caliber of opposition. Hamill may have a relatively narrow offensive capability compared to other light heavyweights, but he also has more MMA experience and a far more usable boxing arsenal than Munoz (I've yet to see Munoz demonstrate any comfort in the standing realm).
Munoz's reassignment to the UFC and his now first match-up against Hamill isn't making heavy rotations within the media, but I expect the competitiveness of this match-up to make its mark on the UFC 96 broadcast. This one is a sleeper.
74 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think current training partners will make as big a difference as the wrestling experience
here’s Munoz (from Sherdog):
"I go to wherever I need go," said Munoz, who is a married father of four. "Jokers Wild Fighting Academy at Lake Forest, Babalu (Sobral’s) gym in Cerritos. I’ll go down to San Diego and train with Brandon Vera, and the Gracie gym in Torrance." He also has sessions with Jake Shields. "Jake is awesome, a wizard on the ground," Munoz said of the last and only EliteXC welterweight champ. "He teaches me a lot as far as interweaving wrestling with jiu-jitsu. He’s a vital asset to me and a great training partner."
Hamill has been notoriously slow to add jiu jitsu to his arsenal. Could find himself getting tapped on saturday.
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
Some video of Shields and Munoz training.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
Windows users be careful
The site linked above http://mixedmartialartvideos.com/2009/03/03/mark-munoz-jake-shields-training-video/ tries to install a trojan on your machine under the guise of being a spyware scanner. The videos are safe to play just ignore the popups and ok/cancel messages that occur every so often while watching the videos.
by technova999 on Mar 4, 2009 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Matt Hamill will punk this dude.
Ive seen Munoz fight in the WEC, against a bunch of chumps, which made him look good. Sure Hamill isnt the wrestler that Mark is but Hamill has faced far tougher competition. I was at UFC 88 and he busted up Franklins face before he caught that kick to the midsection. I dont see Munoz putting Hamill on his back and pounding him out. Hamill wins it in the strength department and on the feet. Plus its pretty obvious Hamill has a granite chin. Munoz is good, but the only way he wins is with some kind of lay and pray. He has skills but Hamill is tested and improves drastically after every fight. I actually think this is a bad matchup for Munoz for his first fight. Hamill by 2nd round tko.
by bareknuckledbrawler on Mar 4, 2009 3:49 PM EST reply actions
“Hamill wins it in the strength department and on the feet”
Wha? Hamill has some of the worst standup in MMA. He is ridiculously sluggish and awful. LOL at that.
by Bigperm on Mar 4, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
if he is sluggish and awful then how did he bust up such a technically sound striker like rich franklin? plus joe rogan and others have commented on the ridiculous power he has in his right hand.
by bareknuckledbrawler on Mar 4, 2009 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
Power? Check.
Rich Franklin is technically sound? He drops his hands and leaves himself open repeatedly. He hits hard and he’s a quick guy, though. I just wouldn’t confuse that for technique.
by asa on Mar 4, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions
I need to go..
back and rewatch that fight. because I don’t remember him busting up Franklin at all. As a matter of fact I don’t remember him doing much of anything at all against Rich.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 4, 2009 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
me too. All i remember was franklin picking him apart then landing the body kick that put him down.. I think the only guy he busted up striking is bisping.
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 4, 2009 8:07 PM EST up reply actions
And even then...
It was only for the first round. I am one of the people who scored that fight for Bisping (as I thought he won the 2nd and 3rd rounds).
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 4, 2009 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
Also...
it’s important to remember that that was a different Bisping than the current one who has very sharp boxing. Bisping back then was not very well developed in his game
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 4, 2009 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
yup, and hamil hasn’t evolved much from then.. and i used to dislike bisping, but since going to MW, he’s really impressed me. Faster, more agile, better striking, etc..
Munoz by Gnp round 2!
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 4, 2009 8:13 PM EST up reply actions
Disagreed..
Munoz has faced terrible competition, but he also trains with top flight competition. His base wrestling ability is likely above Hamill’s ability as well, and he’s remained active in keeping that wrestling base in the upper-echelon.
I also think Hamill’s standup isn’t enough to stop Munoz from destructively sitting Hamill on his back. Munoz is right in that if Hamill can’t get off his back, he’s pretty screwed. Hamill’s standup isn’t awful as BigPerm states, but it definitely isn’t going to hinder Munoz from unleashing some destructive takedown attempts in hopes of blasting Hamill on his back.
I think it’s a fairly close fight, but Munoz is much more credentialed in the wrestling department. Hamill uses his wrestling sporadically, as Munoz has mentioned, so it may very well be his advantage to put Hamill on his back for once.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
Hammill is no stranger to facing good wrestlers. Reese Andy was also a very good college wrestler, finishing 2nd twice in a weight class that included Les Gutches.
Hammill’s standup is underrated because he’s got an iron chin, always moves forward, and will take a shot in order to grab the other guy and pummel him with dirty boxing.
Munoz can win this fight, but Hammill is much more battle tested. He beat down Boetsch, who is an absolute monter himself with good wrestling and very diverse striking.
Reese Andy didn’t try to wrestle, and Reese Andy has one of the slowest and ugliest standup games I’ve seen in the UFC in quite some time. That’s why Andy got crushed. It wasn’t because he tried to outwrestle Matt Hamill.
Boetsch gassed himself out, which is a problem for him, but Munoz won’t be gassing. Cardio is Munoz’s advantage here.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions
I think Boetsch’s gassing was due to the high altitude in Denver more than conditioning.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
What's the difference?
So, how does that matter? That still means Hammil was better conditioned, which still gives Boetsch a disadvantage when it comes to his gas tank.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions
Well Leland, we’ll see how much Munoz tries to wrestle with Hammill as well. This isn’t a wrestling match. And if it were, Hammill would account for himself just fine. He pinned former NCAA champ Damion Hahn during his career, and started his career in the Big 10. Hammill is a very good wrestler.
The dynamic changes when strikes are allowed. Munoz looked uncomfortable on the feet when I saw him in the WEC. Hammill has a granite jaw and very powerful hands. And as of right now, a TKO over Boetsch is more impressive than anything Munoz has done, and Boetsch is a more impressive fighter right now than Munoz. That can change at UFC 96, as Munoz is the one more likely to show rapid improvement from the last fight to this one based on his level of inexperience in previous fights.
From what it sounds like, Munoz is going to try to put Hamill on his back, which is a solid gameplan in my mind considering Hamill hasn’t really brought in any jiu-jitsu trainers. He’ll have a lesser gas tank than Munoz, but he should have a bit better standup game.
Will it be enough to stop Munoz? I don’t think it will be. Hamill may have heavy hands, but he isn’t technically great on his feet. Munoz is nothing to write home about, but I still truly believe he’s much better than Hamill in the wrestling department.
A lot of fans are pointing at Hamill’s dominance over Holman as a premonition to Hamill’s wrestling dominance in MMA, but Holman hadn’t kept up his wrestling technique or strength. He also didn’t seem to use it well on the side of MMA, and Hamill’s power in the fight was evident. I don’t think he’s going to have as great an advantage in the power department in this fight, and I do believe Munoz will put him on his back.
Hamill’s chin is granite as far as we can tell, but his standup is still lacking, and on his back, we still have no idea. It’ll be a very interesting fight, but I think Munoz will take it and be another UFC fighter they can push in the Phillipines.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
I still don’t see Hamill submitted anyone, or effectively using guard to stop Munoz, but that’s my opinion. This comes down to a power vs. power matchup in my mind. If Hamill catches Munoz, it turns into a wrestling war… and I think Munoz wins that.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
LOL, in the face of evidence that keeps contradicting your posts, you won’t relent in the least. Hammill is a very accomplished wrestler who’s faced excellent, accomplished NCAA wrestlers in MMA. He has trained with good BJJ guys. He’s more experienced and has fought better competition. Knock Hammill’s technical standup skills all you want, but they work. It doesn’t take the best techinque when you hit harder and can take a punch better.
I think it’s pretty obvious that Munoz is the mpre accomplished wrestler. His submission skills from working with Shields are probably better than Hamill and his striking, while not refined is still at least as capable as Hamills. His ground and pound skills are otherworldly if you have seen any of his fights.
I don’t understand your problem with someone’s opinion. I’m unrelenting because I believe Hamill doesn’t have the wrestling ability to defeat Munoz.
The jiu-jitsu counterpoint by Luke does nullify my point that Hamill has a non-existent back ground game, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he can produce results with it. I want to actually see Hamill use some defensive jiu-jitsu against Munoz’s top game before I actually believe he can effectively counter with it.
I will knock Hamill’s technical standup skills, and I have. He isn’t technically sound in his boxing, but he is improving. Improving takes time, and I’m happy that Hamill has a solid boxing coach to improve. Heavy handed is great, but technical boxing can set up the heavy hands much better for Hamill. It’d be nice to see some of that, but yes… he has a chance on the feet.
It’s interesting that you laugh at other’s opinions. This is supposed to be debating conversation.
Convince me that Matt Hamill will win with something other than… he has heavy hands and unsupported “he’s taken on better competition” in the wrestling department.
Let’s talk wrestling then. The Damian Hahn argument is ridiculous considering Hahn was a redshirt freshman at the time, and Hamill was nearly in his prime as a champion. I fail to see how that proves your point. Give me more examples.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
“will knock Hamill’s technical standup skills, and I have. He isn’t technically sound in his boxing,”
To be fair, very few in MMA have technically crisp boxing.
Well, Hamill isn’t really technically good at all in the striking department, period. I’d give him an average rating if he moved a bit. One of the biggest problems I have with Hamill is that he sometimes manages to stand dead still when he strikes, opening him to the counter.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a huge Hamill fan, but I don’t see him just crushing Munoz with standup, even if he is heavy handed.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
To be perfectly honest...
I hope I’m wrong. I’d much rather see Hamill in the spotlight.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions
You can have your opinions, but when you continue to make statements that are repeatedly proven to be incorrect, it’s not helping your credibility at all.
I get your position. You think Munoz’s wrestling is superior and Hammill’s advantages in striking power and chin won’t be a factor. We’ll see. It’s apparent that no amount of corrections of your statements will affect your feelings on the fight. I believe Munoz to be more of a wild card because he’s still rapidly improving, but Hammill has great wrestling, has fought great wrestlers, has faced elite competition, has a strength advantage, and has the advantage in punching power, chin, and perhaps overall striking.
Doesn’t help my credibility in terms of what? An opinion on who’s going to win a fight? That makes no sense. It’s all opinion. I said Hamill didn’t have jiu-jitsu backing, and Luke countered it. It doesn’t change my position that Hamill is going to be defeated. I didn’t change my stance at all.
So what if my statement was proven incorrectly, it doesn’t change my overall view. It thins my perspective a bit, hence why I would like to hear your thorough reasoning why Hamill will win.
Wild card, I’ll agree with. He is a wild card.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve given reasons why Hamill has more than a good shot to win. Multiple times, in fact. Your credibility isn’t helped when you point out aspects of Hamill’s training that, as it turns out, aren’t as lacking as you described it.
You’re free to your opinion, of course. I believe there is evidence that Hamill may acquit himself better than you’re giving him credit for.
That aren’t proven to be credible either. His jiu-jitsu game has NEVER been proven in the cage, therefore my credibility in saying that his jiu-jitsu game is lacking isn’t shot at all. He has never proven it in the cage.
If he goes ahead and submits Munoz, I’ll give him all the props he deserves in improving in that department.
As far as striking goes, he has some heavy hands, but he’s still not technically sound. Just because somebody says “Hey, most guys aren’t technical” doesn’t mean that Hamill is a credible threat in the standup. Is Munoz a credible threat? Hell no, and Hamill is likely more of a threat.
That isn’t the question. The question is whether Hamill can catch Munoz and stop him from putting him on his back.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
Bottom line...
This is a decent conversation, and there have been some well-stated counterpoints.
Here’s what it truly comes down to… and I might actually switch my stance here.
We can go back and forth all day about who’s a better wrestler, but in the end, this may be a mirror image fight in the wrestling department. If that’s the case, Hamill should be able to nullify Munoz’s takedowns.
In regards to striking, I’d definitely give Hamill the edge. He has a solid boxing coach, and has shown he can hurt guys standing.
With that said and looking over our conversation, I may very well pick Hamill by a decision by using his dirty boxing and power on the fence.
It’s a tough call, you made some great points.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
It’s tough to compare wrestling stories here. Damian Hahn was pinned as a redshirt freshman by Hamill during Hamill’s better years as a wrestler. Hahn didn’t go on to win championships until later on. 2003, 2004.
Hahn’s win over Munoz is a bit more interesting, but both guys started out at lower weight classes, so it’d have been more interesting at their dominant
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
…dominant weight class.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions
Why would you discount a win over Hahn in a season where Hahn was an All American at Minnesota, finished 5th in the nation, and himself beat guys like Daniel Cormier? Hahn was a great wrestler from his first day at Minnesota.
Great wrestler, but Hamill was in his prime and more experienced at the time. Hahn was dominant in 03’, 04’ when Hamill was done already. It just isn’t as revealing of a matchup as you intend it to be.
It’s a solid win, but a few years later and both of them in their primes would have been more revealing, hence why the Munoz vs. Hahn fight is much more interesting to look at.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
people slept on his striking when he fought bisping too, and then he busted him up too…are you guys watching the same fights i am?
by bareknuckledbrawler on Mar 4, 2009 4:00 PM EST reply actions
i'm with you on that one
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
…and he won that fight. Wait, no he didn’t. Ah shit, we all know the truth. Technically, Hamill’s not a very good striker, but he can take a pretty good punch or two or 76. If this post was done with the intention of building interest in this bout, it worked in my case.
by Cannon Jacques on Mar 4, 2009 4:11 PM EST up reply actions
He busted Bisping up, but from a standpoint of actually analyzing who landed more and had the technically better striking… Bisping did. I still think Hamill won, but Bisping had the better technical boxing in that fight, by far.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
Hammill was getting taken to town by Boetsch til he gassed badly (remember, they were @ altitude in Denver). I don’t like Hammill’s game but he has shown serious improvement standing (he’s not great, but much improved). From what I saw of Munoz, he looked pretty green. I would like to see how Hammill reacts if he gets put on his back but I think his experience will carry him through in this fight.
Agreed..
Boetsch did gas and Colorado didn’t help him. Munoz has a huge gas tank, so it’s going to be interesting to see what happens if Munoz can implement the same gameplan.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
I think this is definitely a sleeper. I foresee them both clinching against the fence for agonizingly long periods of time, Hamil trying to keep from going down, and Munoz trying to get him there, and nothing happening in the meantime. Probably Hamil by split decision.
Let’s face it, training a bit with Shields does not a submission artist make. If he was training full-time with Shields then maybe he’d be pretty far along, but not when he’s training a little here and there.
You guys accomplished one thing today. I didn’t care @ all about this fight & now I actually want to watch to see it.
I wrestled Division I and coached at the highschool level. Matt hammil is a better wrestler than Munoz. He should dominate this fight.
so matt hamil is a better wrestler because?
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 4, 2009 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t buy that for one second. Munoz faced better competition than Hamill did and he won a D1 title. i don’t understand how anyone could argue that Hamill is better. It would be like arguing that a game D3 Basketball team is better than North Carolina. Huh?
Div 3 wrestling vs. Div 1 wrestling is nothing like comparing those divisions in sports like football or basketball. There are some amazing wrestlers in Div 3 (and 2, for that matter).
Hamill started off at Purdue, IIRC, and went D3 because they offered a better program for him based on his hearing impairment. Even competing at that level, Hamill beat elite D1 wrestlers.
Well, yeah, but was Munoz in Sports Illustrated for Kids magazine?? Huh? HUH?
"Negative, negative. I gotta stay lean and lightning and ready to fight." Capt. H.M. Murdock
by BadB on Mar 4, 2009 7:17 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I'm sold
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Mar 4, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
Technical vs unorthodox
To whoever said Rich isnt technical your wrong, because he is, atleast in the MMA world. But I think what people are missing is that you dont have to be a technical beast to excel in MMA. Some of the most feared strikers in MMA history were not very technical. Chuck and Wandy for example. Hamill is not a badass striker, but he has more power in his hands than a Keith Jardine, or Michael Bisping. I think that is his advantage in this fight is that he is heavy handed and has a solid chin. I actually think that Munoz will get eaten alive on the feet by Hamill. Hamill presses foward relentlessly, he eats punches like they are PBJ’s, and he is as strong as an Ox. Munoz wont be able to rely on his slight wrestling edge to win this fight. Munoz is overhyped, and is just another nail to be hammered.
by bareknuckledbrawler on Mar 4, 2009 8:13 PM EST reply actions
What a joke. Hammill isn’t “unorthodox”, he’s just bad. Pretty much everything about his striking is a lesson in how not to strike successfully in this sport. No lateral movement, no head movement, low hands, punches from the shoulder instead of the hips, no combinations, no kicks of any kind. Comparing him to Chuck or Wanderlei is simply ridiculous.
yep.. i get bareknuckle's point, but comparing him to chuck and wandy is going to far..
http://weoweoweo.deviantart.com/
by Anton Tabuena on Mar 4, 2009 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
i was comparing unorthodox styles, im not saying hamill is the striker that wandy or chuck is…because he is not. And if his striking is so bad then how does he continually bust guys up? Chuck dosent move his head much, he def hangs his hands low and he always looks for the big right. So your reasoning is a bit suspect.
by bareknuckledbrawler on Mar 4, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
hamill is not merely a brick wall who falls on people. He has proven this on more than one occasion…therefore his skills although not the most aesthetically pleasing, still are proven to work. Hamill’s standup is his advantage in this fight whether you like it or not.
by bareknuckledbrawler on Mar 4, 2009 9:53 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve never seen Munoz’s striking but if it’s worse than Hammil’s he shouldn’t be a mixed martial artist.
there are plenty of guys in the ufc who dont have great striking but still succeed…munoz was very green in the striking department last time i saw him fight. and i dont see him surpassing hamill due to traning in just a few months time.
by bareknuckledbrawler on Mar 4, 2009 10:04 PM EST up reply actions
Hell, comparing Chuck and Wandy isn't fair either.
One swings for the fences hoping to land his big shot before the other guy does and the other uses a style of calculated counter punching, risky but still calculated.
and one more thing, hamill did bust up Rich Franklin, as I mentioned before I was at the fight and Hamill literally busted his face up…the doctors were checking his cuts hard in between rounds…and that leg kick that rich threw to win the fight was sick, you could hear it all over the arena…dont sleep on the Hammer, it might not be pretty but it gets the job done.
by bareknuckledbrawler on Mar 4, 2009 8:21 PM EST reply actions
sleeper for the ages like Hammill’s every other fight. he’s not as bad as “Huggy Bear” Guida….but I am simply bored everytime this guy fights. He did get my sympathy for that HIGHWAY ROBBERY in the Bisping fight tho’.
Gatti.
Dekkers.
Pele.
Tadahiro Nomura.
Hidehiko Yoshida.
Aoki.
Kang.
Vanderlei.
by theworldsoldestsport on Mar 5, 2009 10:34 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
