Anyone here agree that the more well balanced fighter doesn't always win?

[Bullsherdog]

I used to believe the common maxim ''The fighter who well balanced in striking(both fists and feet),clinching,and groundfighting will defeat the fighter who is only highly proficient in one of these category but lacking in the others(Ex. Boxer skilled with hand but awful in kicking or groundfighting).

However the fight between Tom Sylvia and Ray Mercer changed my outlook on fighting. For those unfamiliar, in June 13,2009 Ray Mercer and Tom Sylvia had a fight in the ''Adrenaline MMA 3: Bragging Rights'' event.

Prior to the fight almost everybody was saying Tom Sylvia would easily crush Mercer in the fight because Ray Mercer was only boxer while Tom Sylvia was an well balanced MMA fighter,having skills in striking(both in boxing and Muay Thai kicking techniques),clinching,and groundfihgting.However when the fight begun, the MMA World was ROCKED by what occured:Ray Mercer easily knocked out Tom Sylvia in 9 SECONDS USING ONLY BOXING TECHNIQUES!

After watching that fight I realized that just because you are well balanced in the three different fundamental disciplines of MMA(Striking,Clinching,and Ground fighting) with at least journeyman skill in all 3,it doesn't necessarily mean you will defeat a fighter who specializes only in one of the three aspects( like the way Mercer defeat Sylvia so easily).I realized that even if you are well balanced if you are fighting someone who only specializes in 1 of the 3 aspects but is highly skilled( much more skilled than you are) you could easily lose especially if your opponent is at master level(particularly in striking) while you only have Journeyman skills in all 3.

What do you think of my observation from the Ray Mercer fight?Do you agree or disagree?Is there flaws in it?Or is it a very important thing MMA fighters should keep in mind and absorb?

 

[Martial D]

It's Tim, not Tom, to start with.

Secondly he was anything but ballanced. He had 0 ground game and his striking sucked. He was just really big.

 

[Danny T]

Anyone can get caught. It happens.

 

[Headhunter]

Anyone can beat anyone it's as simple as that. Fighting has a lot of luck to it

 

[Headhunter]

Also TIM Sylvia is most certainly not a ground fighter at all and very rarely kicks. If you knew the history you'd know they tried to have a boxing match but couldn't get licensed due to Sylvia not having enough boxing experience so changed it to Mma. So more than likely Sylvia had a gameplan of Just boxing.

Also that's one fight. Look at randy couture vs James toney easy win for couture. Look at rampage Jackson who yes is an Mma fighter but relies on only his boxing and he's been dominated by guys with more well rounded styles.

 

[skribs]

I used to believe the common maxim ''The fighter who well balanced in striking(both fists and feet),clinching,and groundfighting will defeat the fighter who is only highly proficient in one of these category but lacking in the others(Ex. Boxer skilled with hand but awful in kicking or groundfighting).

However the fight between Tom Sylvia and Ray Mercer changed my outlook on fighting. For those unfamiliar, in June 13,2009 Ray Mercer and Tom Sylvia had a fight in the ''Adrenaline MMA 3: Bragging Rights'' event.

Prior to the fight almost everybody was saying Tom Sylvia would easily crush Mercer in the fight because Ray Mercer was only boxer while Tom Sylvia was an well balanced MMA fighter,having skills in striking(both in boxing and Muay Thai kicking techniques),clinching,and groundfihgting.However when the fight begun, the MMA World was ROCKED by what occured:Ray Mercer easily knocked out Tom Sylvia in 9 SECONDS USING ONLY BOXING TECHNIQUES!

After watching that fight I realized that just because you are well balanced in the three different fundamental disciplines of MMA(Striking,Clinching,and Ground fighting) with at least journeyman skill in all 3,it doesn't necessarily mean you will defeat a fighter who specializes only in one of the three aspects( like the way Mercer defeat Sylvia so easily).I realized that even if you are well balanced if you are fighting someone who only specializes in 1 of the 3 aspects but is highly skilled( much more skilled than you are) you could easily lose especially if your opponent is at master level(particularly in striking) while you only have Journeyman skills in all 3.

What do you think of my observation from the Ray Mercer fight?Do you agree or disagree?Is there flaws in it?Or is it a very important thing MMA fighters should keep in mind and absorb?

It's in your approach. If you do something like take wrestling for a year, then take boxing for a year, then do a year of kickboxing, and then do a year of judo...you're going to lose to someone who did 4 years in any one of those, because you haven't taken them long enough to be proficient in them.

In Taekwondo, it usually takes about 3-4 years to get a black belt, and that's basically an advanced student. I equate it to a high school diploma. Another year or so to get 2nd degree, which are usually pretty sharp, and another couple years or so to get 3rd degree. At my school, I've looked at the black belts and seen they have a lot of raw skills that need to be refined (as opposed to the white and yellow belts who don't even have the raw skills yet). The 2nd degree black belts usually need a little bit of polish here and there, but are pretty solid. The third degree black belts usually don't have much more to learn inside the Taekwondo curriculum. What's left are things outside the scope of what Taekwondo normally teaches, and it is at this point that branching out to become more balanced is where you will see the biggest returns. Even for most 1st degree black belts, continuing to 2nd degree is usually going to be better than learning something new...by 2nd degree it's kind of a wash.

But from start to finish at 2nd degree might take the average student 5-8 years. Third degree, probably 8-12 years for most people. It took 9 or 10 years for my Master's son, and the only other two 3rd degree students we've had at my school (besides me) started when they were in elementary school and got their 3rd degree when they graduated high school.

I point this out to say that if you are a "balanced" fighter with 5 years experience, you're basically a bad fighter in multiple arts. If you are a "balanced" fighter with 20+ years experience, you are probably a pretty good fighter in several arts.

 

[Xue Sheng]

There is always someone bigger, tougher, stronger, faster or just plain luckier than you on any given day

 

[jobo]

It's in your approach. If you do something like take wrestling for a year, then take boxing for a year, then do a year of kickboxing, and then do a year of judo...you're going to lose to someone who did 4 years in any one of those, because you haven't taken them long enough to be proficient in them.

In Taekwondo, it usually takes about 3-4 years to get a black belt, and that's basically an advanced student. I equate it to a high school diploma. Another year or so to get 2nd degree, which are usually pretty sharp, and another couple years or so to get 3rd degree. At my school, I've looked at the black belts and seen they have a lot of raw skills that need to be refined (as opposed to the white and yellow belts who don't even have the raw skills yet). The 2nd degree black belts usually need a little bit of polish here and there, but are pretty solid. The third degree black belts usually don't have much more to learn inside the Taekwondo curriculum. What's left are things outside the scope of what Taekwondo normally teaches, and it is at this point that branching out to become more balanced is where you will see the biggest returns. Even for most 1st degree black belts, continuing to 2nd degree is usually going to be better than learning something new...by 2nd degree it's kind of a wash.

But from start to finish at 2nd degree might take the average student 5-8 years. Third degree, probably 8-12 years for most people. It took 9 or 10 years for my Master's son, and the only other two 3rd degree students we've had at my school (besides me) started when they were in elementary school and got their 3rd degree when they graduated high school.

I point this out to say that if you are a "balanced" fighter with 5 years experience, you're basically a bad fighter in multiple arts. If you are a "balanced" fighter with 20+ years experience, you are probably a pretty good fighter in several arts.

Your claiming a direct causation between how long you xtudy an art and how effective a fighter you are, that isnt really there, certainly theres a causation between study time and what grade you reach, but again no direct causation between grade and fighting effectivness, certainly not when its an inter disipline fight like is being discussed here

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Given my purposes are combat and you need to know every range to actually fight someone effectively, they will always win and your ill advised to not know how to defend yourself in each range. I mean, there is no guarantee what situation you will find yourself in outside sport, you dont know if you will be tackled to the ground, slip, ambushed, attacked with a weapon etc etc etc

There is also the training aspect, you need to know how to hook to be a good partner to train defences against them etc.

 

[skribs]

Given my purposes are combat and you need to know every range to actually fight someone effectively, they will always win and your ill advised to not know how to defend yourself in each range. I mean, there is no guarantee what situation you will find yourself in outside sport, you dont know if you will be tackled to the ground, slip, ambushed, attacked with a weapon etc etc etc

There is also the training aspect, you need to know how to hook to be a good partner to train defences against them etc.

Most arts teach techniques that are useful at different ranges. In Taekwondo, at really close range we're likely to use a distancing technique, but we have punches designed to work real close, in addition to normal punching range and kicking range techniques. A wrestler is going to have moves to "shoot" or to close in when he's at a distance from his opponent, and a BJJ fighter is going to need some sort of standing technique in order to take a fight to the ground.

If you know a little of everything, and you go up against a really good wrestler, the wrestler is going to know how to get past your strikes to take you down, and now you know a little bit of wrestling against a good wrestler. A good boxer or Taekwondoist, on the other hand, will keep you at the right distance using their footwork.

That's not to say a balanced fighter with a good strategy can't beat a more focused fighter, but a more focused fighter is going to have the techniques and footwork practiced to a much greater degree for their specific style and strategy. As someone who does mostly Taekwondo, I'd much rather face a balanced fighter than a dedicated boxer or wrestler.

 

[jobo]

Most arts teach techniques that are useful at different ranges. In Taekwondo, at really close range we're likely to use a distancing technique, but we have punches designed to work real close, in addition to normal punching range and kicking range techniques. A wrestler is going to have moves to "shoot" or to close in when he's at a distance from his opponent, and a BJJ fighter is going to need some sort of standing technique in order to take a fight to the ground.

If you know a little of everything, and you go up against a really good wrestler, the wrestler is going to know how to get past your strikes to take you down, and now you know a little bit of wrestling against a good wrestler. A good boxer or Taekwondoist, on the other hand, will keep you at the right distance using their footwork.

That's not to say a balanced fighter with a good strategy can't beat a more focused fighter, but a more focused fighter is going to have the techniques and footwork practiced to a much greater degree for their specific style and strategy. As someone who does mostly Taekwondo, I'd much rather face a balanced fighter than a dedicated boxer or wrestler.

But you Ig noring the fact you can become proficent in a lot of ma, well inside 12months

 

[skribs]

But you Ig noring the fact you can become proficent in a lot of ma, well inside 12months

You can learn the basics of a lot of them. You won't have the basics drilled very well or have the muscle memory and reaction time to compete yet. Look at professional athletes. They've usually done the sport in high school, college, and maybe even minor leagues, and then they get to the pros and have rookie struggles, even though they've been doing the sport for years.

In 12 months you might get good enough with a few techniques to beat someone else with limited fight experience, or to use one or two techniques to defend yourself. But I don't think you can get any kind of competitive competency in an art in under a year.

 

[jobo]

You can learn the basics of a lot of them. You won't have the basics drilled very well or have the muscle memory and reaction time to compete yet. Look at professional athletes. They've usually done the sport in high school, college, and maybe even minor leagues, and then they get to the pros and have rookie struggles, even though they've been doing the sport for years.

In 12 months you might get good enough with a few techniques to beat someone else with limited fight experience, or to use one or two techniques to defend yourself. But I don't think you can get any kind of competitive competency in an art in under a year.

Im not taking abkyt going to the pros,a tiny % of the population go to the pros, you used the term proficient above, and you can certainly be proficient in under 12months, if your sporty to begin with and have reasonable learning capacity.

tradional Martial arts are full of techniques that are unnecessary in order to be a proficient fighter,

 

[now disabled]

Anyone can get caught. It happens.

That actually answers the op's question fully without any need for more debate

 

[FriedRice]

"doesn't always win?"

is an all or nothing assertion which only requires 1 loss to prove this statement true.

It's like saying that the God of Christianity doesn't love everyone, which is true, because it only takes 1 person.