Amadi's Take
AMADI: Learning to combat stifling wrestling essential to raising striking and grappling standards in MMA
Aug 31, 2011 - 7:15:39 PM AMADI: Learning to combat stifling wrestling essential to raising striking and grappling standards in MMA

DISCUSS ALL THIS IN OUR NEW MMATORCH FORUM

...OH, ONE MORE THING - PLEASE BOOKMARK US & VISIT DAILY!

By: Jason Amadi, MMATorch Columnist

In the build up to the main event of UFC 73, Anderson Silva espoused a philosophy that's stuck with me for the last four years. In response to the conservative top game approach that his opponent Nate Marquardt was utilizing at the time, Silva dismissed that type of stifling attack as a tactic reserved for "lower level" fighters. At the time, I was sure that Silva's porous defensive wrestling would be his undoing against Marquardt, who in the same video package all but endorsed "grinding out" what most would consider "lay and pray" victories.

The fight was short, and at no point did Silva fear the takedown. He threw flying knees, got taken down, but when the time came he blasted Marquardt with a straight left hand, hit a beautiful switch and pounded him out to a stoppage. Silva's words and performance assuaged any and all fears I had of stifling wrestlers taking over mixed martial arts. Fast forward four years later, and this is still a serious topic of discussion, and I'm not sure why the thought of one dimensional wrestlers taking over the sport is still so pervasive in mixed martial arts.

During a media call for the StrikeForce Heavyweight Grand Prix semi-final, Daniel Cormier actually had a message for those critical of wrestlers imposing their skill set on other fighters. Cormier commented:

"It's not my job, it's not Jon Fitch's job, it's not Josh Barnett's job to actually teach someone takedown defense, it's their job to learn takedown defense. If they can't defend the takedown, then they deserve to lay on their back for 15 minutes."

Despite the flack that Cormier may receive for the harsh tone of his comments, he couldn't be more right. As much as the Unified Rules should be amended to be more proactive about stalling, neutralizing without effectively doing damage really is a tactic for lower level fighters, and truthfully, a fighter that can't combat that approach isn't going to wind up being elite anyway.

Looking at the landscape of mixed martial arts, today's most effective strikers use distance and footwork to avoid takedowns long enough to land crisp, meaningful kill shots. We've seen in recent months what dynamic strikers like Anderson Silva and Lyoto Machida have been able to get done against stifling wrestlers like Yushin Okami and Randy Couture. Their ability to keep distance, but throw quick, fight finishing blows is often the difference between success and getting caught up in a slow paced wrestling match.

Defending takedowns in mixed martial arts isn't limited to simply extricating one's self from an attacker's clutches; every aspect of the fight has to be geared towards striking quickly while controlling the distance. It's important to see mixed martial arts as an evolving process, and not a finished product. As much of a turn off as watching a "lay and pray" exhibition might be, it is essential to raise the overall standards of striking and grappling in mixed martial arts. Otherwise, you wind up with Paul Buentello.

Feel free to follow me on Twitter @JasonAmadi. If enough of you do it, I'll stop coming up with unfunny things to say at the end of columns.