“Manfromyard also says that, “You don’t need to be a technical striker to have effective striking in MMA.” Once again I struggle with the logic used here. Is he saying that you don’t have to have good striking to have good striking?” Maybe he’s saying you don’t have to have great striking to have good striking and you only need good striking to be successfull in the MMA.”

In wrestling, some guys use great technique and some guys just bull rush guys. Both ways, you get the guy taken down, but one requires more skill. When have you seen fedor throw textbook punches? Some guys like Fedor and Chuck Liddell throw wide looping punches but they are still effective, at least until they meet a better striker. Rampage and Anderson are the exception, not the rule, but more will follow as they develop an advantage.

Honestly, having this argument is like trying to explain color to a blind man. You have to train MMA and Muay Thai both to get what I’m trying to say, and I don’t think many people do.

It’s just snobbery. People are saying that MMA fans are drunkards and uneducated, yet the majority of Thai boxing’s support in Thailand comes from gamblers. You have guys saying that Boxing used to be about brute force and no skill? When was this? Jack Johnson was refining technique back in the day. Most of the “evolution” in boxing has come from rule changes such as glove sizing, round length, and clinching rules.

Honestly, I think its just Muay Thai snobbery, and a bunch of guys are bitter because MMA is blowing up. Striking is the least important skill in MMA because either your wrestling/takedown defense must be better to prevent takedowns, or your submissions must be enough of a threat to deter someone from trying.

So yeah, its sloppy. But keep crying in your pillow and blaming MMA instead of showing people Thai fights or trying to boost the sport yourselves. How many of you guys give friends Thai fights to watch or show them on the internet? Think about that before you cry about the UFC….

2) Manfromyard has one more argument. The first is that if technical striking is so lethal in MMA then strikers would own the UFC. Strikers don’t own the UFC, as he would claim, therefore striking is not lethal in MMA. He then goes on to say that we don’t see many technical strikers like Rampage Jackson or Anderson Silva in MMA. Once I heard this I honestly considered whether it would be worth my time to respond to someone with such bad thinking skills. He’s saying that striking isn’t important in MMA, yet the best strikers are at the top. Is he serious?? Jokes aside he does raise a point about the importance of striking in the MMA game. It is only half of the game and possibly the smaller half. However, if you have an excellent takedown defense and excellent striking you will be very hard to beat. Crocop is the best example of this principle. Of course, great strikers with great takedown defenses will occasionally get taken down and occasionally get knocked out by weaker strikers but this doesn’t really weaken my argument. Even the best fighters occasionally lose to weaker fighters. You may not need a great striking game to be a good MMArtist but you better be sure that you can get past those strikes safely before you take the fight to the ground. MMA is a mulitfaceted sport. You have to be good on your feet and good on the ground. Manfromyard also says that, “You don’t need to be a technical striker to have effective striking in MMA.” Once again I struggle with the logic used here. Is he saying that you don’t have to have good striking to have good striking?” Maybe he’s saying you don’t have to have great striking to have good striking and you only need good striking to be successfull in the MMA. Or maybe he’s saying that if you have a good defense against strikes and excellent takedowns and groundwork then you can be successful in the MMA. What is does a grappler with weak stand up do against a lethal striker who is difficult to take to the ground? Technical striking will alway be important because technical striking is fast, crisp, and powerful, i.e it’s dangerous. Technical striking is an indispensible tool for MMArtists. Evidence for this is the fact the MMArtists generally split their training 50/50 between striking and grappling.
3) My complaint about MMA striking is not so much a complaint about the style of MMA, but the quality of the striking in current fighters. The quality of the striking has improved over the years and will continue to do so. If a sport becomes popular, then the athletes will make a lot of money, and if there is a lot of money then the quality of the athletes will improve. Imagine what would happen if the UFC became as popular worldwide as boxing was in the U.S.A in the 50′s. You would have little kids in Thailand training muay thai and grappling every day. They would be formidable MMArtists.
4) The specificity principle applies to this discussion. The more an athlete focuses on one part of his game the better he/she will become. Because MMA is so complex it will be hard for fighters to become expert at all parts of the game. That being said they can be very good at all parts of the game. This will happen in the future as MMA becomes more popular.

(You get larger dividends on your grappling technique than your stand-up technique. So that’s why you don’t see many Rampage’s (boxing) or Anderson Silva’s (Muay Thai) in MMA.) BUT YET THERE AT THE TOP
this is to respond to Manfromyard
sorry Ithink you point does not pass the smell test.
we evolved as human in everything we do.
and we should aspire to be the best.not except the the bottom of the barrel as thebench mark of our progress in any sport.
Yet again I’ve gone on a tangent.
I hope that I have made my point though.

So if there is such a technical deficit (and i definitely agree that there is), then why doesn’t a good striker just come in and clean house? It should be relatively simple, no? But whenever great strikers enter, they get taken down relatively easily and get beaten badly. If their stand-up is so great, why aren’t they KO’ing guys as soon as they enter into striking range?

You don’t think there a few guys who are not making that much money in striking arts that wouldn’t enter an MMA fight for easy cash?

All grapplers who train bemoan the fact that MMA grappling is less technical than in dedicated grappling contests. Roberto Traven was a Mundials winner who got submitted by someone who shouldn’t have been on his level at all! Why are Crocop and Bang Ludwig getting KO’ed by such less technical strikers?

I don’t believe that people want to see sloppy fights. Everyone who saw Anderson Silva dismantle Chris Leben and Rich Franklin loved it. There is somethign visceral about a great striker that everyone can appreciate unlike a great grappler.

To get back to my point, an athlete is going to take the easiest path to victory. In Muay Thai if your opponent is weak in the clinch, then you would train your clinch in preparation for him. The simple truth is that the technical striking that you would like to see does not make as big a difference as you think, otherwise everyone would train it. You get larger dividends on your grappling technique than your stand-up technique. So that’s why you don’t see many Rampage’s (boxing) or Anderson Silva’s (Muay Thai) in MMA. A fighter has to have a solid ground game first before they can reap the benefits of increased striking proficiency.

You don’t need to be a technical striker to have effective striking in MMA, end point.

North Americans just haven’t been exposed to that stuff. You can’t even see true Muay Thai rules in North America. K-1 isn’t even real Muay Thai. True Muay Thai doesn’t exist in force outside of Thailand.

American still associate kickboxing with that shiny pants full contact Karate. Even Chuck Norris’ World Combat League is nothing close to Muay Thai and Chuck knows as much about striking as anyone.

Muay Thai needs better marketing, and some more push by the WBC.