MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[jjhk001]

First of all, let keep it limited to tangible things like good striking or submission skills and not intangible things like great heart or strong will.
I know people will say you gotta be good in all of the skills, but I want know people's opinion on the top three things. Now, on to my top three:

1. Takedown Defense: For me, it all starts with this specific skill. With so many grappling type of fighters out there, an opponent must be wary of getting taken down - especially if you are primarily a striker. The greatest example of takedown defense making someone great is Chuck Liddell. You can see from Liddell/Couture 1, 2 & 3, he polished up his takedown defense game. If you can make an opponent believe that you are nearly impossible to takedown, you have won a big battle here.

2. Striking - specifcally boxing style striking - I believe this is a close second to takedown defense. You don't have to be the most techincally sound striker - Chuck is kind of sloppy with his technique sometimes, you just have to be patient about picking your spots and when you throw a punch and how you mix up your combos. Say you are a great striker ala Chuck - and you are facing a world class grappler in Couture - if you can frustrate that grappler's game to the point that you can't be taken down, then what else do you have to turn to? With the grappler's game nullified, you then use your superior striking skills to pick apart your opponent or wait for the right opportunity and knock him out. I like to use the Liddell/Couture analogy because it is the classic striker vs grappler analogy and also because of how their fights evolved as one fighter got better and evolved and was able to surpass the other.

3. A solid chin/the ability to take a potentially fight ending punch and recover - I wonder, for all the fighters out there, is this a God given thing, or something you acquire as you train and participate in bouts? Anyways, I believe this is important because of the notion of the "puncher's chance." I believe every fight, no matter what specialties the fighters come from, can potentially end in a knockout - the one that comes to mind is Lutter/Eastman - I was watching that fight with my brother and we were thinkin' that Marvin was gonna KO that dude or Travis is gonna choke him out - and what happens? Eastman got KTFO - total surprise - you cannot say that you saw that one coming. Back to my explanation: because of this phenomenon of the "puncher's chance" a good chin, although a defensive quality, can be a dangerous offensive quality. I believe nothing demoralizes a fighter more than when his opponent simply won't get knocked out. Remember that famous clip of Fedor getting hit really hard - you see Fedor stumbling backwards in a daze - his opponent - (anybody know his name?) tries like mad hell to finish him off - that chin of his, or his block-of-granite-head absorbs the blow and he fights on to win. Also, Chuck again is a great example - he seems to take a lots of punches but it doesn't slow him down much - has he ever been knocked out?

[WadoKai]

Good post, good topic. I'm in agreement with you on the first 2 things, but that's because I like to see a champ who just wins by KO'ing people.

In no particular order...

Takedown Defense. A good sprawl to stomp a wrestler's or submission expert's game is key. A champion needs to be able to avoid the takedown.

Striking. It actually baffles me how many people in the fight game have terrible striking. Winning a fight by strikes is the most exciting and personally gratifying way to win.

Natural athleticism. Call it heart if you like, but I'm referring more to the stamina and endurance to just keep plugging away for a full 25 minutes if necessary. At the end of the day, if all skills are equal, it's athleticism that'll win the fight.

That all being said, there are the intangibles like heart, luck, mental focus and capitalizing on errors that go into making a champ. Those would just be my top 3 physiological picks.

[jjhk001]

Originally Posted by The Sundance Kid

any # of things can combine to make a great champ, Matt Hughes isn't know for his takedown defense nor his striking but he is arguable the greatest champ the UFC has ever seen. But you make good points with your 3.

Seems to me you were describing a CC or Chuck Liddell type fighter,

I was primarily describing Liddell - I for one am glad fighters like Liddell are able to showcase their skills. I thought it was a turning point in MMA history when a superior striker was able to frustrate a world class grappler like Couture. One thing that got me tired of watching a lot of MMA matches was when grapplers (primarily greco-roman/freestyle wrestlers) would take down their opponents, and stay in the full guard and try to pound out a decision or a stoppage due to strikes. A lot of the time, the wrestler would stay in full guard and throw strikes - ala Tito - when these wrestlers couldn't pound out a stoppage, the fight would go the distance - very boring to me. I am glad to see people like Liddell, BJ Penn and GSP, people who can frustrate grapplers with their athletic ability and takedown defense to the point where these grapplers must rely on something else in their arsenal which is not as good as their grappling skills. I for one hate to see GNP as so called "skill" in MMA - I found it hard to believe that Mark Coleman is credited with being a pioneer in the "technique" of GNP? Is that really true? By the way, another one of my favorite fights is Maurice Smith/Mark Coleman - although Smith did not display the best takedown defense early on, he was able to frustrate a world class grappler and get a victory by decision. GSP frustrating Hughes in their title bout is another classic example of takedown defense and superior striking winning over an excellent grappler.

[jjhk001]

Originally Posted by WadoKai

Good post, good topic. I'm in agreement with you on the first 2 things, but that's because I like to see a champ who just wins by KO'ing people.

In no particular order...

Takedown Defense. A good sprawl to stomp a wrestler's or submission expert's game is key. A champion needs to be able to avoid the takedown.

Striking. It actually baffles me how many people in the fight game have terrible striking. Winning a fight by strikes is the most exciting and personally gratifying way to win.

Natural athleticism. Call it heart if you like, but I'm referring more to the stamina and endurance to just keep plugging away for a full 25 minutes if necessary. At the end of the day, if all skills are equal, it's athleticism that'll win the fight.

That all being said, there are the intangibles like heart, luck, mental focus and capitalizing on errors that go into making a champ. Those would just be my top 3 physiological picks.

You know, the funny thing was that I was gonna say my #3 pick was athleticism. This to me is vitally important to staying on top. Fedor is a bit chunky, but I think that guy is athletic - he always seems to stay busy, always moving around and trying to get at you. The athletic types are the exact kind of fighters that never get caught in submission like the triangle choke. I find it odd that the triangle choke, one of the most technical and difficult submissions to pull off, does work sometimes. If you notice, it only works on those fighters that don't stay busy...you can almost telegraph a triangle - the figher is kinda limp in someone's guard, not staying particularly busy, then slowly, but surely, the triangle creeps up on you and the fight is over - example of this would be MacDonald/Ed Herman fight - there are plenty of other examples.

I really think the next great fighter, regardless of weight class is going to be Rashad Evans. He figures highly in all three of my qualities. He possess a good and soon to be great boxing style striking skills. He is of course from a wrestling background, so naturally you would assume that great wrestlers themselves can avoid takedowns. Lastly, I believe has a great chin, although that has yet to be proven against a top tier, proven fighter. I am basing this on the track record he had on the ultimate figher show. He had more fights than all other participants, leading up to the finals. He is not a natural heavyweight, yet he took some good pounding from much larger fighters, but never got knocked down.

As an addition, he is athletic as hell, and I think when pushed, you will see that he has the heart of a future champion.

[jjhk001]

Originally Posted by The Sundance Kid

I agree on all execpt the Hughes GSP II fight, Hughes had a bad game plane, he should have shot more, he tried to stand with GSP too much, and when he finaly did go for a take down he got kicked in the noggin, i think there next fight we will see Hughes shoot at the start of the fight, now wheather he gets him down are not is a whole differant story.. getting off of work be back in about 40 min. to respond once i get home.

I disagree. Remember Hughes/GSP I? Hughes shot in early, and took down GSP with ease. But GSP remained calm and got up (much like Chuck just gets up). I think that even if Hughes does take down GSP, GSP is too strong and athletic and will simply just get up. Given the fact that GSP can't be kept down, Hughes would have to resort to a striking style game plan, which as you said, was the wrong plan.

[Ubermensch]

I don't think good take down defence is nessasary but very well to have to be champ...The reason for saying this is Frank Shamrock and Matt Hughes (the Two Longest UFC Champs Ever) takedown defence are okay but arn't stunning. It seems to me that both of them can turn around any kind of mount that there opponent makes on them. So I would add Ground Control to the list .

[jjhk001]

Originally Posted by jjhk001

First of all, let keep it limited to tangible things like good striking or submission skills and not intangible things like great heart or strong will.
I know people will say you gotta be good in all of the skills, but I want know people's opinion on the top three things. Now, on to my top three:

1. Takedown Defense: For me, it all starts with this specific skill. With so many grappling type of fighters out there, an opponent must be wary of getting taken down - especially if you are primarily a striker. The greatest example of takedown defense making someone great is Chuck Liddell. You can see from Liddell/Couture 1, 2 & 3, he polished up his takedown defense game. If you can make an opponent believe that you are nearly impossible to takedown, you have won a big battle here.

2. Striking - specifcally boxing style striking - I believe this is a close second to takedown defense. You don't have to be the most techincally sound striker - Chuck is kind of sloppy with his technique sometimes, you just have to be patient about picking your spots and when you throw a punch and how you mix up your combos. Say you are a great striker ala Chuck - and you are facing a world class grappler in Couture - if you can frustrate that grappler's game to the point that you can't be taken down, then what else do you have to turn to? With the grappler's game nullified, you then use your superior striking skills to pick apart your opponent or wait for the right opportunity and knock him out. I like to use the Liddell/Couture analogy because it is the classic striker vs grappler analogy and also because of how their fights evolved as one fighter got better and evolved and was able to surpass the other.

3. A solid chin/the ability to take a potentially fight ending punch and recover - I wonder, for all the fighters out there, is this a God given thing, or something you acquire as you train and participate in bouts? Anyways, I believe this is important because of the notion of the "puncher's chance." I believe every fight, no matter what specialties the fighters come from, can potentially end in a knockout - the one that comes to mind is Lutter/Eastman - I was watching that fight with my brother and we were thinkin' that Marvin was gonna KO that dude or Travis is gonna choke him out - and what happens? Eastman got KTFO - total surprise - you cannot say that you saw that one coming. Back to my explanation: because of this phenomenon of the "puncher's chance" a good chin, although a defensive quality, can be a dangerous offensive quality. I believe nothing demoralizes a fighter more than when his opponent simply won't get knocked out. Remember that famous clip of Fedor getting hit really hard - you see Fedor stumbling backwards in a daze - his opponent - (anybody know his name?) tries like mad hell to finish him off - that chin of his, or his block-of-granite-head absorbs the blow and he fights on to win. Also, Chuck again is a great example - he seems to take a lots of punches but it doesn't slow him down much - has he ever been knocked out?

Just to throw one more quality in there, my #4 pick would be good clinch skills (Muay Thai style, NOT dirty boxing clinch skills) To me, the dirty boxing style clinch game (Couture) is merely a distraction to set up other things. The Muay Thai style clinch skill, if used wisely and with enough fury, can end a bout quickly or tire or frustrate your opponent to no end - several examples come to mind - Shogun's ass whoopin' of Rampage, Any number of Wandy's beatdowns - the best one being the one he handed Eugene Jackson, and finally, the best example of the Muay Thai clinch game frustrating an opponent to the point where it is game changing...Anderson Silva's one sided ass whoopin' of the Ace...by the way, i hated to see the Ace taken out like that - he was truly one of my favorites - i thought he was gonna last longer. Oh well, Anderson Silva gained another fan in me after that fight though - i look forward to the next ass whoopin he hands out.

[jjhk001]

Originally Posted by Ubermensch

I don't think good take down defence is nessasary but very well to have to be champ...The reason for saying this is Frank Shamrock and Matt Hughes (the Two Longest UFC Champs Ever) takedown defence are okay but arn't stunning. It seems to me that both of them can turn around any kind of mount that there opponent makes on them. So I would add Ground Control to the list .

I agree with you there - I didn't even think of it that way. It is just as valuable a skill - ground control - if you get taken down, and the grappler attempts GNP on you, then you are able to reverse/sweep him, or better yet, escape and get back to you feet, or even throw a submission, then that is just as good as not getting taken down as well. I don't know about you, but do you think there are more fighters out there with great ground control skills or takedown defense? Which would you rather possess as you primary skill?

[Ubermensch]

Clintch fighting is well overlooked Frank, Randy and Jens are great in the clintch even though they all have diffrent clintch techniques. I love to clintch fight it takes most opponents off guard and makes them feel realy uncomfortable. Plus if you practice your sholder strikes and the infamous Skull Grind down you can wear out an oponent very easily.

[Nate_Deezy]

Honestly I think the most important aspects of being a champion are more personality related than actual performance. Don't get me wrong. I'm not talkin about like a WWE freakshow thing, but who was more popular? Andrei Arlovski or Tim Sylvia? Why is it? Because Tim Sylvia has some really good skills...as long as he's not champ, cuz with the belt he fights to not lose rather than to win. Andrei was well loved because of his charisma, the fang mouthpiece (which is bad ass btw lol) and the fact that he looks like the kind of guy who would break into your house and kill your family. He's a mean lookin dude. That said, I think the 3 main qualities are...

1. Personality/ Charisma as Well as A Signature Trait. As I already said, if you don't have this, no one will want to watch you. Even if it's Fedor's style, which is just sort of the "That guy doesn't talk very much at all, doesn't look at his opponent before the fight, and shows no emotion so he seems to me like a programmed killing MACHINE" type thing. You have to give people a reason to watch you that sets you apart from your opponents.

Examples: Chuck's ice shorts, Cro Cop's checkered shorts/ LHK, Andrei's fang mouthpiece, Tito's mouth/ blonde hair, Fedor's "My veins carry ice water" persona.

2. Longevity. This not only pertains to how long a fighter can keep his belt, but also how long he can compete with the younger talent and how long he can keep his fans happy. Back in the day I thought Tim Sylvia was fucking incredible. He was a big guy who could hit REALLY hard, and he was tough as nails. Now that we have been exposed to the real Tim, we all hate him pretty much unanimously. Arlovski is a good example in this case as well, seeing as how if he kept the belt for 20 years (not really possible) I would have watched every fight he ever had and been cheering for him.

Examples: Matt Hughes, Randy Couture, Fedor Emelianenko, Wanderlei Silva, Dan Henderson, Chuck Liddell

3. Attitude/ Overall Self-Conduct and The Skills to Back it Up. No one wants a champion who just shoots off at the mouth all the time and disrespects his opponents. On the same note, no one wants a "Mr. Nice Guy" as champion in the ring/ octagon. I think you should be well spoken, intelligent, and respectful outside the ring, but a ruthless, merciless fighting machine inside. These traits are what can really establish you as either "just another fighter" or a "household name."

Examples of Good Self Conduct: Chuck Liddell, Rich Franklin, Fedor Emelianenko

Examples of Bad Self Conduct: Tito Ortiz, Tim Sylvia, Matt Hughes (sometimes)

Sorry for the long post lol but I had to bring out the columnist in me or something. As far as fighting goes however, the 3 main traits are obviously Standup, Ground Control, and Transitions/ Ability to keep the fight where it fits you best.