Kane Fan said:
your English is somewhat iffy here man
I know what your asking but the way your saying it is, crazy
can a complete fighter still be good without learning all that without actually learning every aspect of it
I dont knwo 100% what your saying
do you mean to ask if you can escape the ground scenarios w/out training how to do it?
I guess the basic answer is if you practice escapes and takedown defence then sure you can beat people, if your striking is better
but it's still better to really train both
I actually usually see people having more groundskill then strike skill
with 4oz gloves on you dont need that much technique, lousy thrown punches often result in ko's in mixed
Well, I know that a fighter who doesn't train the groundgame and be proficient at it wouldn't be described as a "complete" fighter. The question is, if a fighter practiced takedown defense and escapes back to the feet from the ground well enough, and be a good striker, would that type of defense work enough to compete in MMA?
The reason I'm asking is, take for instance, the finale of Ultimate Fighter 2, where Luke Cummo vs Joe Stevenson and Luke was billed as primarily a striker, but not much ground game. He was able to effectively escape Joe's groundgame and bring it back to the feet. Was Luke's limited (by MMA standards, anyway) groundgame enough to deal with Joe's groundgame? Or did he actually have enough groundgame to counter Joe's? I know that he lost to Joe, but Joe certainly didn''t have an easy time with Luke.
I know many fighters who don't have groundgame get taken out easily by groundfighters. But Chuck Liddell, who has some groundgame, never has to use it due to his ability to keep it standing.
Now, is Chuck's ability to keep it standing a result of studying aspects of the groundgame, or could he learn to keep it standing without learning as much as he has about it, and be just as effective?