Who is the heaviest hitter in the UFC...

[trevorama]

They always talk about him as a grappler, and that does appear to be where he is most comfortable, but I've gotta say, Matt Hughes has some of the best striking I've seen in the UFC. He has solid technique.

Ummm... Am I missing something? In 40 some odd fights, I don't believe Matt Hughes has never knocked anyone out with a punch. (On Sherdog.com it shows that he KO'd someone back in 2001 -- but it doesn't say how.)

Being a competent striker and having good technique is not the same thing as being one of the heaviest hitters. You actually have to knock people out... at least sometimes.

Watch how Hughes keeps his eyes locked on his opponent, even when he is getting hit.

And here I was thinkin' that was because he was too slow to move out of the way.

Watch his accuracy: Hughes doesn't waste many punches, rarely if ever throwing a wild punch.

If he were accurate, and a heavy hitter, he'd at least have scored a couple knock-outs by now -- perfect punch or otherwise.

Watch how he keeps his shoulders over his hips, for the most part.

My cat sometimes stands on her hind legs with her shoulders over her hips. That doesn't make her a heavy hitter.

He doesn't get the "big hits" very often (probably because he doesn't overcommit his weight behind any one punch) but I think he is one of the most accurate strikers in the UFC and has a decent amount of juice on them as well.

I'm gonna use some Spock logic and your own statements to drive this one home:

If "Big hits" = Heavy hitter
...then...
No big hits = NOT a heavy hitter
...therefore...
If Matt Hughes has no big hits
...then...
Matt Hughes has my cat's standup power

You really can't argue with that logic.

 

[zDom]

Ummm... Am I missing something? In 40 some odd fights, I don't believe Matt Hughes has never knocked anyone out with a punch. (On Sherdog.com it shows that he KO'd someone back in 2001 -- but it doesn't say how.)

Being a competent striker and having good technique is not the same thing as being one of the heaviest hitters. You actually have to knock people out... at least sometimes.


If he were accurate, and a heavy hitter, he'd at least have scored a couple knock-outs by now -- perfect punch or otherwise.

Re-read my post. I didn't say he was a "heavy hitter." Ever.

I just thought it might be a good place to mention he has really good technique — better than "competent." Maybe I should have started another thread for this comment on Hughes: my bad, I guess.

And didn't he win both his last two fights by TKOs? A total of 14 TKOs. Not bad, if you ask me. The cumulative effect of a series of hard punches can be just effective, if not as dramatic, as one hard punch.

Fact is, I agree: Hughes is NOT a "heavy hitter." But I think he has better punching technique than some of the heavy hitters listed above.

Kind of like how Babe Ruth hit more home runs, but also had the most strikeouts, too. Swinging for the fences has its drawbacks.

And here I was thinkin' that was because he was too slow to move out of the way.

That may explain why he gets hit, but it doesn't change the fact that keeping your eyes on your opponent will make you a better striker, not to mention keep you from getting knocked out by an unseen punch or kick.

My cat sometimes stands on her hind legs with her shoulders over her hips. That doesn't make her a heavy hitter.

I'm gonna use some Spock logic and your own statements to drive this one home:

If "Big hits" = Heavy hitter
...then...
No big hits = NOT a heavy hitter
...therefore...
If Matt Hughes has no big hits
...then...
Matt Hughes has my cat's standup power

You really can't argue with that logic.

Actually, it is easy to refute logic like that.

First of all, to review, I didn't say Hughes is a heavy hitter, so no straw men for me, thanks.

Secondly, how does "no big hits" get you to "has your cat's standup power"?

Power is a continuum, not a binary "strong or weak" situation. I would submit that Hughes has less power than a "heavy hitter" and considerably more than your cat, unless, of course, you own a pet tiger.

Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy before attempting to "drive home" a point with Spock-like logic.

Again: my apologies for taking off on a tangent. I should have started new thread for this.

Then again, I might argue that, for his weight class, he IS a heavy hitter. Is there anybody else in that weight division who IS getting one-punch knockouts?

 

[LegLockGuy]

Not Liddell. Liddell faces grapplers with barely any standup so it makes him look like a heavy hitter. Wanderlei would lay him out. (as Rampage Jackson did)

I'd have to say Arlovski. Even though the guy lost twice, he throws heavy bombs, and I'm hoping everybody remembers Arlovski vs Buentello.

 

[Odin]

They always talk about him as a grappler, and that does appear to be where he is most comfortable, but I've gotta say, Matt Hughes has some of the best striking I've seen in the UFC. He has solid technique.

Watch how Hughes keeps his eyes locked on his opponent, even when he is getting hit. Watch his accuracy: Hughes doesn't waste many punches, rarely if ever throwing a wild punch. Watch how he keeps his shoulders over his hips, for the most part.

He doesn't get the "big hits" very often (probably because he doesn't overcommit his weight behind any one punch) but I think he is one of the most accurate strikers in the UFC and has a decent amount of juice on them as well.

..umm I dont know about that Matt Hughes stand up is average at best...I would even go as far as saying it could be his weakness.

........He's good at strikes that set up takedowns though I must say.

The most accurate striker in the UFC is Liddel no contest..its either that or he has thee luck of the gods when he Punches.

 

[Shogun]

Not Liddell. Liddell faces grapplers with barely any standup so it makes him look like a heavy hitter. Wanderlei would lay him out. (as Rampage Jackson did)

I'd have to say Arlovski. Even though the guy lost twice, he throws heavy bombs, and I'm hoping everybody remembers Arlovski vs Buentello.

I have to disagree just slightly with this. He may have faced grappling-dominant fighters, but some of them have also been VERY good strikers. Babalu, couture, metzger, and Ortiz are good strikers. esp babalu. but the main reason I disagree is 2 names in particular: Vitor Belfort, and Vernon white. chuck beat them both.

on the subject of good, solid technique. I believe Sherk has really good boxing abilities. he gave up about 4 or 5 inches to Pierre and didn't d half bad.