Is the UFC really more suited to wrestlers?

We often hear that the UFC is suited more to wrestlers than fighters from other backgrounds and the fact that the UFC is American & America produce a lot of wrestlers it would come as no real surprise, but is this really the case? Nick Diaz has again brought this up after his recent loss to GSP as well as saying he does like the unified mma rules., GSAP Let look at the current crop of champions in the UFC

Cain Velasquez
Jon Jones
Anderson Silva
GSP
Benson Henderson
Jose Aldo
Dominik Cruz, Renan Barao interim
Demetrious Johnson

Now some do admittedly have a wrestling background but for the most part they don't actually rely on it & nor have most of their recent opponents, GSP aside most seem to keep it standing.
Thoughts?

I think the scoring system favours octagon control as well as aggression and if you are successful at taking your opponent to the ground it shows both. Often when the fight has been pretty even, the fighter with the most successful takedown attempts wins - Condit v Hendricks is a perfect example, as is Chael v Bisping. It is also argued that wrestlers can dictate where the fight goes - if they want to keep it standing they have great defence and if they want to take the fight to the ground, they have great takedowns. There is logic to that.

However, the truly great fighters - the champions and especially those on the P4P lists are all exceptional combat athletes and martial artists. Take Ryan Bader for example, never been champion and lost his winning streak to Jones. Bader's a great wrestler with a powerful punch (much like Hendricks). But his skillset is not enough to be a top fighter. The best fighters utilize all the fundamental arts that make up mma and are experts in several martial arts disciplines. Silva is a Muay Thai and BJJ expert, Machida is Karate and BJJ, Aldo is Muay Thai and BJJ, GSP is now an expert in just about everything but his background is originally Karate and BJJ. Being a good wrestler is not enough but having good wrestling is very important.

talkingpoint wrote:I think the scoring system favours octagon control as well as aggression and if you are successful at taking your opponent to the ground it shows both. Often when the fight has been pretty even, the fighter with the most successful takedown attempts wins - Condit v Hendricks is a perfect example,

It does seem that takedown defense isn't taken into account as much as it should ie equal to a successful takedown. I had Hendricks winning that fight, I feel the way he took the fight to condit, landed big punches, prevented Condit from fighting his fight, & the way he capitalised on Condits attempted flying knees, taking him down were the deciding factors for me as well as his other takedowns.

as is Chael v Bisping. It is also argued that wrestlers can dictate where the fight goes - if they want to keep it standing they have great defence and if they want to take the fight to the ground, they have great takedowns. There is logic to that.

Do you mean great defence as in takedown defence? It didn't go that way with Urijah Faber against Aldo or Barao, I'd say the other 2 dictated where that fight went! To be fair to Faber in those fights he was in a no win situation, keep it standing & get outpunched/kicked or take it to the ground & probably get submitted!


However, the truly great fighters - the champions and especially those on the P4P lists are all exceptional combat athletes and martial artists. Take Ryan Bader for example, never been champion and lost his winning streak to Jones. Bader's a great wrestler with a powerful punch (much like Hendricks). But his skillset is not enough to be a top fighter. The best fighters utilize all the fundamental arts that make up mma and are experts in several martial arts disciplines. Machida is Karate and BJJ, Aldo is Muay Thai and BJJ, Silva is a Muay Thai and BJJ expert,GSP is an expert in just about everything but his background is originally Karate and BJJ. Being a good wrestler is not enough but having good wrestling is very important.

Silva actually trained in Tae Kwon Do, he has a black belt as well as doing some capoiera. He may have had some training in Muay Thai but has never fought at the lumpini stadium or any other top Muay Thai or kickboxing competions and isn't known in kickboxing circles.

sohotnot wrote:

talkingpoint wrote:I think the scoring system favours octagon control as well as aggression and if you are successful at taking your opponent to the ground it shows both. Often when the fight has been pretty even, the fighter with the most successful takedown attempts wins - Condit v Hendricks is a perfect example,

It does seem that takedown defense isn't taken into account as much as it should ie equal to a successful takedown. I had Hendricks winning that fight, I feel the way he took the fight to condit, landed big punches, prevented Condit from fighting his fight, & the way he capitalised on Condits attempted flying knees, taking him down were the deciding factors for me as well as his other takedowns.

as is Chael v Bisping. It is also argued that wrestlers can dictate where the fight goes - if they want to keep it standing they have great defence and if they want to take the fight to the ground, they have great takedowns. There is logic to that.

Do you mean great defence as in takedown defence? It didn't go that way with Urijah Faber against Aldo or Barao, I'd say the other 2 dictated where that fight went! To be fair to Faber in those fights he was in a no win situation, keep it standing & get outpunched/kicked or take it to the ground & probably get submitted!


However, the truly great fighters - the champions and especially those on the P4P lists are all exceptional combat athletes and martial artists. Take Ryan Bader for example, never been champion and lost his winning streak to Jones. Bader's a great wrestler with a powerful punch (much like Hendricks). But his skillset is not enough to be a top fighter. The best fighters utilize all the fundamental arts that make up mma and are experts in several martial arts disciplines. Machida is Karate and BJJ, Aldo is Muay Thai and BJJ, Silva is a Muay Thai and BJJ expert,GSP is an expert in just about everything but his background is originally Karate and BJJ. Being a good wrestler is not enough but having good wrestling is very important.

Silva actually trained in Tae Kwon Do, he has a black belt as well as doing some capoiera. He may have had some training in Muay Thai but has never fought at the lumpini stadium or any other top Muay Thai or kickboxing competions and isn't known in kickboxing circles.

Thanks for correcting me on Silva, must have been some sloppy journalism where I picked that up from!

Regarding Faber, Aldo is an elite fighter and a very special breed, especially at his weight class. As I said the P4P guys have more to their game than most other fighters, including Faber. But generally speaking when a wrestler is fighting a non-wrestling specialist then they have better takedown defence.

As for Condit v Hendricks, he did take the fight to Condit in the first round as well as the second but Condit grew into the fight, and by the third I think he was pushing the action more. Also Hendricks never capitalized on his takedowns, he never managed to create any significant G&P, or go for submissions. Condit was far more active from his back for my money.

talkingpoint wrote:

sohotnot wrote:

talkingpoint wrote:I think the scoring system favours octagon control as well as aggression and if you are successful at taking your opponent to the ground it shows both. Often when the fight has been pretty even, the fighter with the most successful takedown attempts wins - Condit v Hendricks is a perfect example,

It does seem that takedown defense isn't taken into account as much as it should ie equal to a successful takedown. I had Hendricks winning that fight, I feel the way he took the fight to condit, landed big punches, prevented Condit from fighting his fight, & the way he capitalised on Condits attempted flying knees, taking him down were the deciding factors for me as well as his other takedowns.

as is Chael v Bisping. It is also argued that wrestlers can dictate where the fight goes - if they want to keep it standing they have great defence and if they want to take the fight to the ground, they have great takedowns. There is logic to that.

Do you mean great defence as in takedown defence? It didn't go that way with Urijah Faber against Aldo or Barao, I'd say the other 2 dictated where that fight went! To be fair to Faber in those fights he was in a no win situation, keep it standing & get outpunched/kicked or take it to the ground & probably get submitted!


However, the truly great fighters - the champions and especially those on the P4P lists are all exceptional combat athletes and martial artists. Take Ryan Bader for example, never been champion and lost his winning streak to Jones. Bader's a great wrestler with a powerful punch (much like Hendricks). But his skillset is not enough to be a top fighter. The best fighters utilize all the fundamental arts that make up mma and are experts in several martial arts disciplines. Machida is Karate and BJJ, Aldo is Muay Thai and BJJ, Silva is a Muay Thai and BJJ expert,GSP is an expert in just about everything but his background is originally Karate and BJJ. Being a good wrestler is not enough but having good wrestling is very important.

Silva actually trained in Tae Kwon Do, he has a black belt as well as doing some capoiera. He may have had some training in Muay Thai but has never fought at the lumpini stadium or any other top Muay Thai or kickboxing competions and isn't known in kickboxing circles.

Thanks for correcting me on Silva, must have been some sloppy journalism where I picked that up from!

Not sloppy journalism just fanboy style nonsense! Fighters are always being credited with muay thai especially if they're a stand up fighter, Dan Hardy another, TKD & boxing yes, Silva also had a few boxing fights incidently,. You can generally tell with their stance, chin down/in, hands high and the way they chop their opponents legs up, also when the knees are used in the clinch. Barao is a good example when he fought Faber.

Regarding Faber, Aldo is an elite fighter and a very special breed, especially at his weight class. As I said the P4P guys have more to their game than most other fighters, including Faber. But generally speaking when a wrestler is fighting a non-wrestling specialist then they have better takedown defence.

As for Condit v Hendricks, he did take the fight to Condit in the first round as well as the second but Condit grew into the fight, and by the third I think he was pushing the action more. Also Hendricks never capitalized on his takedowns, he never managed to create any significant G&P, or didn't go for submissions. Condit was far more active from his back for my money.

Agree Condit grew into the fight & I think i gave him the 3rd. Had it been 5 rounds then I think he'd have won & poss stopped Hendricks. Agree also that Hendricks didn't capitalize on his takedowns & Condit was good off his back, still the right result for me.

I'm not arguing about the result, for me Condit needs to learn how to defend takedowns. It's clear his passion and strength is his unorthodox style of kickboxing but he favours that at the expense of his grappling. If he wants to get another title shot he'll need to improve his wrestling and jiu-jitsu.