to defend effectively against the ground game...

[megamania500]

do you have to be highly trained in the ground game? Or can someone who didn't have a background in groundfighting (jujitsu or whatever) train to defend against that type of fighter without knowing his every technique and strategy? Can a complete fighter still be good without learning all that without actually learning every aspect of it? Alot of fighters know a good stand-up game, and know how to get out of the ground game back to stand up. Does someone need to know every aspect of the ground game in order to execute all these escapes back to the feet? Or are there specific techniques designed to get a fighter back to his feet, no matter what type of groundfighter he's up against? It seems like the grounedfighters are a dying breed these days.

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

It probably helps to have blue belt bjj or equivalent skills. It helps you recognize where the grappler is trying to take you and not go there. Cro-cop is a very effective MMA fighter with far less than stellar ground skills. He's got a sprawl, always backs out of the guard, and when on his back knows how to stall for the standup. You won't see him using a gogoplata or playing rubberguard anytime soon.

 

[Ianhockey91]

It probably helps to have blue belt bjj or equivalent skills. It helps you recognize where the grappler is trying to take you and not go there. Cro-cop is a very effective MMA fighter with far less than stellar ground skills. He's got a sprawl, always backs out of the guard, and when on his back knows how to stall for the standup. You won't see him using a gogoplata or playing rubberguard anytime soon.

Hahahahah yeah i think id piss myself if i saw fight results that said Cro-cop via submission (gogoplata) 1:43 R2

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

Hahahahah yeah i think id piss myself if i saw fight results that said Cro-cop via submission (gogoplata) 1:43 R2

He did manage to guillotine Kevin Randalman in their rematch. I think it says more about Randlman than Cro-cop though.

 

[oxymed]

It probably helps to have blue belt bjj or equivalent skills. It helps you recognize where the grappler is trying to take you and not go there. Cro-cop is a very effective MMA fighter with far less than stellar ground skills. He's got a sprawl, always backs out of the guard, and when on his back knows how to stall for the standup. You won't see him using a gogoplata or playing rubberguard anytime soon.

This is very true ....all of the good strikers train on the ground also ....Chuck is a purple belt in jiu-jitsu....Silva is a black belt ......Cro cop brought in Werdum to train him.....Look what happened to Mark Hunt vs. Josh Barnett ....Easy sub for Barnett Due to no ground game by Hunt........A decent ground game is a must.

 

[rgjujitsu]

crocop lost to nog by armlock

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

crocop lost to nog by armlock

With Werdum in his training camp, I doubt he makes that same mistake anymore.

 

[ass_face]

A decent ground game is a must.

Or a sprawl from hell... but I do tend to agree.

 

[Kane Fan]

do you have to be highly trained in the ground game? Or can someone who didn't have a background in groundfighting (jujitsu or whatever) train to defend against that type of fighter without knowing his every technique and strategy? Can a complete fighter still be good without learning all that without actually learning every aspect of it? Alot of fighters know a good stand-up game, and know how to get out of the ground game back to stand up. Does someone need to know every aspect of the ground game in order to execute all these escapes back to the feet? Or are there specific techniques designed to get a fighter back to his feet, no matter what type of groundfighter he's up against? It seems like the grounedfighters are a dying breed these days.

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

 

[megamania500]

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?

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

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?

Chuck used to wrestle Div I which gives him takedown defense beyond a sprawl. The other advantage Chuck has is that he can grab the cage in the octagon and help himself stand. If you are fighting in a ring and they forbid rope grabbing, that is not an option.

 

[ass_face]

Chuck used to wrestle Div I which gives him takedown defense beyond a sprawl. The other advantage Chuck has is that he can grab the cage in the octagon and help himself stand. If you are fighting in a ring and they forbid rope grabbing, that is not an option.

Actually I don't think you are allowed to grab the cage (I may be wrong), but I have seen several instances where a fighter is holding the cage to defend a takedown or hold position and they get an earful from the ref.

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

usually the ref will say something like, "Watch the fence." And not penalize the grabber. In Pride when you touch the ropes a gang of refs at ringside yank your limb off immediately.

 

[Kane Fan]

well yah if your submission defence and takedownd efence are good
and your striking is good you can do well
hell that's Chuck Liddells actual recepie

 

[Yarg!]

its called mixed martial arts for a reason.

 

[ass_face]

In Pride when you touch the ropes a gang of refs at ringside yank your limb off immediately.

Yeah, I noticed that... I thought I was watching a Lumberjack match... LMAO

 

[Djimbe]

This is one of the things that REALLY Pisses m,e off about MMA comps . In real life I WOULD use the Fence , or Gate , or WHATEVER to keep myself off the ground and it woulds SO WORK , and give me an advantage against someone with Poorer standup than me .

 

[CrazyK]

This is one of the things that REALLY Pisses m,e off about MMA comps . In real life I WOULD use the Fence , or Gate , or WHATEVER to keep myself off the ground and it woulds SO WORK , and give me an advantage against someone with Poorer standup than me .

Yeah but this isn't street fighting, it's mma competition. Give it what you will, but there has to be some boundaries.

 

[Djimbe]

Sure , and Im not Advocating Weraponsplay or anything , Im just saying that in my opinion that PARTICULAR boundary is utterly rediculous .

And lets not ACT like MMA Promoters dont try to advertise their Battles as "The Closest Thing To Reality" and whatnot . ANd the fact is that This is somethignthat Skews the game twards a Grappler HEAVILY and UNFAIRLY and UNREALISTICALLY .

 

[Kane Fan]

well the biggest thing that skews it torwards grapplers in my mind is the judges
to me controlling where the fight takes place is worth points, but only if that works out well for you
say a guy lands a takendown but gets swept or rolled after
ok the guy landing the takedown got the fight where he wanted it, but the other guy made something happen with it
so who is controlling that aspect of the fight
usually they judge based on top possition and take down

 

[Djimbe]

I know , and that really sucks , because , frankly I can lay on my Back all day and defend myself just fine , as can a lotr of ppl , but thats not "Agressive" enough - who dictates that Agression is the best way to Fight ? Nothing I DO in a Fight is agressive , Im a counter-Fighter , always have been .