why does veryone ride dick of "explosive fighters"

Discussion in 'MMA, Boxing & Other Combat Sports' started by 1234gfret5, Feb 8, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 1234gfret5

    1234gfret5 Bitch Suck my 12 Inch

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    699
    melvin gullard, kevin randleman, sokodjou, lesnar, anthony johnson, etc.

    why does everyone think that being explosive makes you able to beat the champ?

    it seems like a technical fighter always wins versus an explosive fighter.

    also, IMO i believe being too explosive is both a sign of no mental control and being risky.

    id rather root for fedor than a guy who just swings for the fences.

    id rather root for machida, who can outskill his opponent, and use his explosiveness as a weakness against them.
    test
  2. SeeSon

    SeeSon New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2002
    Messages:
    7,315
    How is Rumble not technical?
    test
  3. Mac Sabbath

    Mac Sabbath New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    9,777
    Explosive fighters are exciting, but it has its pros and cons. Being explosive doesn't mean you're not technical. Actually, explosiveness can be a technique in itself. The only fight GSP had recently where he wasn't explosive was his first with matt serra.

    Rumble's got some technique, and he just beat a guy with a decent, technical standup game in Luigi (i kept expecting rumble to get caught with an overhand right.)

    Explosiveness itself rarely loses fights. Invariably, it's always some other bad habit. Wandy's defense, Chuck's sloppy uppercut from far away, Randleman's everything but his wrestling, Arlovski's hands being down, Brock's lack of jiu jitsu defense, etc.

    and for the record, Fedor's striking is sloppier than people acknowledge. He's really not too different from Wanderlei with the hands.
    test
  4. jayoo

    jayoo new york representative

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,849
    ^yeah.. everyone says it, but what gets me is why? just because it's not "textbook" sound with boxing precision doesn't mean it isn't an effective style.. to me sloppy is something thats ineffective..and well, i dont think his hands have proven to be ineffective
    test
  5. Cognitive D.K

    Cognitive D.K New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2001
    Messages:
    4,832
    i think fedor is plenty explosive

    watch him explode out of mount against coleman in their first fight and transition straight to the armbar

    and that left hook that dropped timmy was seriously explosive and covered a whole lot of ground quickly

    anyway back to the point, explosive fighters are usually exciting and provied a finish either way
    test
  6. ANDtheMC

    ANDtheMC New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    7,744
    I agreed w/ almost everything you stated except Fedor's striking being compared to Wanderlei. I think you're on drugs. I've rarely seen Fedor just got into a all out slug fest like that. His swings might be wide and looping but it's because he's going for power shots. But fact of the matter is, he strikes AS METHODICALLY AS ANYONE IN MMA. He looks for openings and strikes openings. Doesn't look to brawl and get in a lucky punch. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    test
  7. SeeSon

    SeeSon New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2002
    Messages:
    7,315
    In terms of technique, Mac is right about Fedor. Having great timing (which Fedor has) does not equate with having good technique. Fedor's technique is sloppy, but because of amazing timing and the highest fight IQ in mma, he is extremely effective, but effectiveness does not equate to having proper/correct technique. You can argue that having correct and technical striking isn't necessary, but that's a different conversation.
    test
  8. exothermic

    exothermic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Messages:
    10,648
    you need to be good at everything and as mma evolves more n more the guys who have no natural talent n physical prowess will no longer do good
    test
  9. jayoo

    jayoo new york representative

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,849

    i just think looking at it from the standpoint that they have it in textbooks and how your "meant" to swing.. is not ALWAYS right.. but i completely see where everyones coming from..

    everybody is different, physically, mentally, the whole 9 yards... so why would the same textbook approach to striking be equally useful for EVERYONE? it doesn't make sense to me and never will. i think certain people will alter techniques and styles to fit their own comfort level, and thats what fedors done. how he swings and approachs the striking game is on-point to him, hes comfortable, it works for him, and its shown.

    mike tyson, muhammed ali, rocky marciano, george foreman..

    all 4 great heavyweights, and all 4 have completely different boxing styles.. marciano and foreman and tyson labeled "sluggers" but all approaching it from a completely different way.

    thats my point without going 5 more paragraphs.
    test
  10. Mac Sabbath

    Mac Sabbath New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    9,777
    lol, Wanderlei had a method as well. If all of Wandy's fights were roll of the dice slugfests, he would've lost more fights even against some of the lesser opponents. Actually, Wandy's specific gameplan was to punch while moving forward so he could get in the inside. His strength, like most muay thai guys, is the inside. People call him a terrible striker, which is a bit inaccurate. He's a really good striker with horrible boxing. If you watch that second cro cop fight, you see the perfect gameplan for fighting him. When he moves in, fucking book it and counter.

    I'll just say this about Fedor: he gets away with quite a bit just because he's such an intelligent fighter. He's without a doubt the best fighter in MMA or maybe even the world at capitalizing on openings. But still, even his dangerous overhand right leaves his head begging for counters if his opponent can avoid it. He's really quick, and he's smart enough to get his head out of the way, but the problem is he usually leans his head a little to the right, begging for a good kick to the noggin. Also, I really found out against Arlovski that he doesn't check kicks.

    Not saying that I have the bullet proof blueprint for beating him or anything, I'm just saying that it wouldn't surprise me too much if an alistair overeem puts him away with a good hook.
    test
  11. jayoo

    jayoo new york representative

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,849
    i agree, it leaves him susceptible to kicks indefinitely, no ones really capitalized on a large level yet though so we'll have to see.
    test
  12. Cognitive D.K

    Cognitive D.K New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2001
    Messages:
    4,832
    cro cop could have kicked him and didnt put him down

    but yeah that overhand right was chucks bread and butter for so long and you see how that turned out when people keened in on it

    but i think fedor is smart enough to make the adjustments in mid-fight as pujols does in mid-at bat

    hes just that fight-smart
    test
  13. ANDtheMC

    ANDtheMC New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    7,744
    I never said he's a terrible striker. He's not methodical. And yes, he has a gameplan and it is often to go in and slug it out. You can't tell me Wanderlei does not do this. I've seen 'em in fights in Pride and UFC just go in and start swinging trying to get the harder shot to connect on the right spot. Yes, he clinches sometimes but Mike Tyson jabbed sometimes too... Everything he does is to set up into a brawl. Even his jabs are set up to come in close and start swinging wildly. He's just better, has a stronger mind, and isn't scared to get hit while more people aren't fearless enough to get into that type of match, backed up, got snuffed, and often dropped.

    The thing is, that's not the only thing you have to worry about Fedor. As a heavyweight, he has some of the best ground work too. And barring you're that 7 foot monster he fought, he can take down a lot of guys in the clench. And he's dangerous from the guard and on top. THEE MOST DANGEROUS ON TOP.

    And again, I've rarely ever seen Fedor just go in and start free swinging like you see Wanderlei so that comparison does not work. He might use similar hooks but he does pin point precision punches and backs off. If he lands one of those, it probably means he hurt you so he keeps coming but otherwise, he backs off. He doesn't miss and keep swinging wildly like Wanderlei often does... So again, I don't see the comparison...

    And I just can't see Fedor losing. I think the best shot anyone has against Fedor is Brock Lesnar in several years if he really REALLY trains as hard as he claims he's going to or if a jiu-jitsu expert can put him on his back because putting Fedor in your guard means nothing more than you're gonna get beat the fuck up... lol
    test
  14. ANDtheMC

    ANDtheMC New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    7,744
    And Fedor has so much more than just that overhand right. He comes from several different angles and his ground game is a million times better.
    test
  15. ProFane

    ProFane dB's Finest

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    6,085
    to answer the original question. its because if your explosive you have serious potential to be great. imagine if Machida had the athletic ability of Melvin Guilard. it would be crazy
    test
  16. jayoo

    jayoo new york representative

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,849
    i hope in some way or form your not trying to downplay mike tyson in his prime? he actually threw jabs more often than your making it seem like, and his style was VERY precise. im assuming your just trying to make a relation on the whole "sometimes" thing though and i see where you comin from

    but you cant say silva only clinches "sometimes"... ive seen quite a few BRUTAL clinches from wandy..
    test
  17. ANDtheMC

    ANDtheMC New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    7,744
    Again, as much as Tyson jabbed. I do downplay Tyson in his prime because I don't think he fought great competition. I think they gave 'em fighters that fit into the description of what he was good at. When he fought guys that could control a fight and jab 'em/pace 'em out he got destroyed (see Lennox Lewis fights and Holyfield). But he was extremely dominating regardless and a legend for what he did, regardless.

    But regardless, in that analogy, it wasn't in attempts to downplay Tyson but more to show that he doesn't clench as much as he throws them looping hooks and brawls, while Fedor RARELY ever has done that and more precisely lands accurate shots and backs out unless he hurts the fighter (which is usually).
    test
  18. jayoo

    jayoo new york representative

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,849
    i agree with mike tyson being fed certain fighters as he started out... the reason he fell early is because he was never all there in the head, he was destined to be one of those "coulda been" fighters... because physically he was one of the most gifted fighters to ever live, but mentally hes weak, his own thought process destroyed him..

    but you do know easy fights is the case for most fighters people expected to be great from early on right?


    muhammed ali fought a lot of bums in his first 19 fights, and thats when he was considered his best, against henry cooper is where they say his hand speed was truly displayed..

    rocky marciano, his early fights were easy, and in his biography there's quotes from colombo, and other friends where he was becoming angry at how he wasnt getting closer to a title shot at one point. he felt he was more than ready.

    roy jones jr... up until jorge castro in my opinion? and i think many others could agree, he didnt have much competition.. he was handfed for 17 straight fights. and then not again until bernard hopkins.


    i shouldnt even have to get into calzaghes situation...



    the point is, everyone starts off being fed.. because their creating a champion, thats the method to doing it and it's been wash and rinse ever since the first...
    not to mention once you start off, despite your performance your a new fighter on the professional level, nobody at that time could look ahead and say muhammed ali would be as great as he was, or roy jones jr would be... you just hope, and build toward that moment.
    test
  19. ANDtheMC

    ANDtheMC New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    7,744
    But the thing is, I can't name many great fighters Tyson beat. Everyone else you named won CLASSIC fights with elite competition. How many fights can you name like that for Tyson?
    test
  20. jayoo

    jayoo new york representative

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,849
    ^oh no i agree with you but my reasoning for not being able to name them was in my first few points, angelo dundee said it as well. tyson was great, but he wasn't built for longevity, he came in, showed his strengths and mentally folded before he ever had a chance to truly prove his worth in the sport.

    so in all reality, people can downplay tyson because he never did have a long list of respectable wins that every other fighter considered great has. yet hes quick to be mentioned with the greats. so i think for as long as boxing is spoken of.. the subject of mike tyson will always be an opinion.. whos to say had he kept it together mentally he couldnt of knocked out everyone an changed history as we know it today (holyfield, lennox, etc)... and at the same time, whos to say he wouldnt of folded regardless
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)