Contact

Map

Volume XXXI

Joao Pedro, Brandon Cage, Joseph Burtner, take a look at the 4 things that govern MMA. (David will post his tonight, sorry.)

Effective Striking 

Joao: Landing any type of strikes (missed strikes do not count, of course) to the opponent. Strikes to the head and body should count more than, for example, strikes to the legs. On top of "amount of strikes landed" a second criteria should be - and that's where subjectivity kicks in - how hard those strikes were. These two factors should determine effective striking.
Strikes that rock the opponent should count even more.

Brandon Cage: landing solid strikes without taking damage.

Joseph Burtner: Because MMA is three-dimensional, we have to take into account striking from a distance, in the clinch, and on the ground. The basic rule of thumb for striking is to hit and not get hit, and that should be the basic guideline for judging strikes. I'd give more weight to the fighter who landed the most strikes, though other factors, such as how the strikes effected the course or outcome of the fight, come into play. If strikes are used to control the distance, steer the opponent in the direction you want him to go, or set up takedowns and guard passes, then they're effective. Damage is also a measure of effectiveness: if a fighter lands far fewer shots than his opponent, but manages to do more damage (knocking his opponent down, cutting him open, etc), then he has the edge in effective striking. Probably. It depends largely on the fight at hand.

Effective Grappling 

Joao: Takedowns, transitions on the ground and attempted submissions should count.
Let me break it down: being able to take your opponent down should count (stuffed takedowns should not count for either fighter), each and every transition should count (from closed guard to half-guard to side control to full mount, for example; in this example, 4 "points" should be awarded for the 4 successful transitions); on top of that I believe attempted submissions (if the kimura is locked but not finished, the armbar is locked but isn't finished) should also count a little bit towards effective grappling, as it is an effective way of promoting more submission attempts. Escaping submissions should not count towards effective grappling.

Brandon: the art of fighting without striking composed of take downs, transitions and submissions

Joseph: Once again, MMA is three-dimensional, so takedowns, clinch control, ground control/positioning, and submissions all play into determining effective grappling. My rule of thumbs is that unless a fighter pulled guard, the guy on the bottom has less effective grappling due to the fact that he couldn't stop a takedown and hasn't executed a sweep or escape. And unless the guy has a guard like Big Nog or Aoki, where he's being active and threatening constantly with sweeps and subs, being on his back means that he's at a disadvantage, especially in MMA where ground-and-pound is a constant threat. It's a similar situation with the clinch. If a guy is staying active in the clinch, forcing his opponent's back against the cage or ropes, threatening with takedowns, getting a good control position (Thai plumb, underhooks), and is using his control to set up takedowns and strikes, he's winning. There's not a whole lot of offense that you can do with your back against the cage while in the clinch. With takedowns, it's a bit trickier. A takedown helps control where the fight takes place, but if you take a guy down and he pops right back up, your takedown wasn't effective because it didn't lead to you improving anything. You didn't land strikes from up top, hold a dominant position, or start searching for submissions.

Aggression

Joao: Wanderlei Silva version IVC (Brazil), that is what we are looking for here. Aggression points should be awarded to the fighter that is effectively pursuing his opponent, engaging or trying to engage, both on the feet or on the ground. Counter-strikers should receive negative points in terms of the aggression criteria. We cannot have all fighters starting to behave as counter strikers.

Brandon: Intelligently forcing your opponent to be defensive.

Joseph: Aggression means pushing the pace, being active instead of reactive, and trying to finish the fight. It doesn't necessarily mean charging headlong into a brawl, but it usually means that you've got the opponent backing up, you're going for takedowns, and you're trying to capitalize and dominate the clinch and ground games. Counterstriking is not aggression, but lateral movement in order to strike at different angles is. Pursuing the clinch and the takedown is aggression, because you have to move forward, and into your opponent's strike zone. Aggressively pulling guard in order to take your opponent to the ground is also a form of aggression.

Octagon Control 

Joao: Taking the center of the octagon and also using the fence in two ways: in the clinch, forcing your opponent against the cage and wearing him out (probably also with dirty boxing, foot stomps, knees, etc), and on the ground pushing the opponent against the cage, giving him less space to maneuver.

Brandon Cage: Forcing a opponent into a position in the cage that the fighter wants using wresting, good foot movement and ground work. 

Joseph: Basically, this is dictating where the fight takes place. While I typically wouldn't characterize it as "aggression", Machida's general strategy, especially vs. Ortiz, was a good example of control: he stopped the takedowns and maintained a range that was favorable to him on the feet. Randy Couture is another fighter with great ring/Octagon control because he usually dictates where the fight will take place with his clinch game and takedowns. Although, as I said above, takedowns don't mean that much if they can't keep the man down.

Thoughts? Please send to Comments@informativesports.com

Submitted 12/07/2009

Comment on this article to Comments@informativesports.com

Contact the Mailbag if you have any Sports Questions 
Mailbag@
informativesports.com