The difference between avoiding damage and running away in MMA

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » The difference between avoiding damage and running away in MMA
POLL: Avoiding Damage vs Running Away
They are the same thing. 2% (1)
They are entirely different. 86% (36)
Don King put Clay Guida up to it. 12% (5)
Franklinfan47
6/24/12 5:44:03PM
So somethings been bothering me since Guida vs Maynard on Friday, besides the fight itself. Guida and his fans have been defending his strategy by saying things like "what am I supposed to do Dan Mirgliotta, just let Gray punch me in the face?" or "not every fighter is just going to stand in the pocket and throw bombs".

What bothers me is statements like this imply that a fighter has to run away in a fight to avoid getting punched, like Guida and Kalib Starnes. That is complete and undeniable BS. Its called head movement and boxing technique!

Look at Guida's training partner, Cub Swanson. The dude fought aggressive as hell Friday night to secure the finish (which isnt getting enough recognition btw), yet managed to avoid most of Pearson's bombs with awesome head movement and footwork. REAL footwork. Not the sprinting and back pedalling Guida was doing.

Or lets look at the best in the business, Anderson Silva. When he fought Forrest Griffin, he was standing in the pocket the entire time and still managed to take literally no damage due to masterful footwork and head movement.

Basically, what Im trying to say is: strategies like Clays and Starnes take away from the sport imo. If they want to justify it by saying its the only way to avoid damage, they are wrong. Period.
infestructure
6/24/12 6:40:04PM
Point well made. I'd like to add a big GET EFFED to anyone who compares Condit's masterful deconstruction of Diaz to Guida's re-enactment of a track and field caveman with Parkinson's disease.
Chael_Sonnen
6/24/12 6:46:58PM
What 'bout this joker.......

Does it count if you are RUNNING from Burger King and AVOIDING DAMAGE at the same time?
Image Attachment(s):
Photo Attachment 1
infestructure
6/24/12 6:53:14PM

Posted by Chael_Sonnen

What 'bout this joker.......

Does it count if you are RUNNING from Burger King and AVOIDING DAMAGE at the same time?



Accept my AV bet challenge.

I got Andy Pandy Pudding and Pie, Kissed Chael Sonnen and made him cry (for months)
jae_1833
6/24/12 6:54:21PM
It's a delicate balancing act for sure....but the best in the sport at it is Llyoto Machida.
kopower
6/24/12 7:34:47PM

Posted by jae_1833

It's a delicate balancing act for sure....but the best in the sport at it is Llyoto Machida.



Agreed that it's a delicate balancing act. I was frustrated with the way Condit fought, but it was smart. Clay on the other hand, was very frustrating. Not Starnes frustrating, because he did land some decent shots, and had moments of offense.
warglory
6/24/12 9:25:12PM
I am one of the few who didn't mind Clay's strategy. Why? Because Gray didn't change his offense...at all. Why is the onus on Clay to switch a tactic that was working, to play into Gray's plan? Where were the angles from Gray? Why didn't he cement himself in the center of the cage and wait for Clay to engage if he was so concerned? Has Clay ever done this before? No. And this isn't the first fight he's had under Jackson's guidance, so how about we get off the man's ass and let a respected fighter take his loss like a man and move on to the next bout?

It wasn't a pretty fight, but we see weird match ups happen all the time, where fighters simply cannot get into a groove that looks and feels like a compelling fight. Randy Couture vs. Brandon Vera was boring as hell, but you know what? It got the job done, and Randy didn't suffer much damage, which is one of the reasons he was able to fight well into his 40's.
kingsmasher
6/24/12 9:26:10PM
If more fighters began to fight like Clay did plain and simple MMA would die out quickly...That was seriously a joke and if I am Dana I would tell Guida thats a quick way to find yourself on the undercard at best....IM not saying stand in the pocket but literally Clay would swing then run to the opposite side prolly like 50 times...I mean it really looked like a cat chasing a mouse but the mouse would always get away...
FlashyG
6/24/12 9:54:30PM

Posted by warglory

I am one of the few who didn't mind Clay's strategy. Why? Because Gray didn't change his offense...at all. Why is the onus on Clay to switch a tactic that was working, to play into Gray's plan? Where were the angles from Gray? Why didn't he cement himself in the center of the cage and wait for Clay to engage if he was so concerned? Has Clay ever done this before? No. And this isn't the first fight he's had under Jackson's guidance, so how about we get off the man's ass and let a respected fighter take his loss like a man and move on to the next bout?

It wasn't a pretty fight, but we see weird match ups happen all the time, where fighters simply cannot get into a groove that looks and feels like a compelling fight. Randy Couture vs. Brandon Vera was boring as hell, but you know what? It got the job done, and Randy didn't suffer much damage, which is one of the reasons he was able to fight well into his 40's.



Gray did change his offence, that's how he won the fight. He changed from chasing Guida around the octagon and trying to cut him off to the Muay Thai clinch and holding Guida in place to score the majority of his points.

Standing in the center and waiting for Clay wouldn't have helped him one bit. Clay would have danced around him, occasionally darting in to jab at him then dance away again. It would have also had fans angry at him for not fighting.

Vera v Couture wasn't exciting by any means but it was far more entertaining than Guida v Maynard. Both fighters landed at over 50% accuracy and landed an equal amount of shots to Guida & Maynard but in 2 fewer rounds.
Franklinfan47
6/24/12 10:02:35PM

Posted by warglory

I am one of the few who didn't mind Clay's strategy. Why? Because Gray didn't change his offense...at all. Why is the onus on Clay to switch a tactic that was working, to play into Gray's plan? Where were the angles from Gray? Why didn't he cement himself in the center of the cage and wait for Clay to engage if he was so concerned? Has Clay ever done this before? No. And this isn't the first fight he's had under Jackson's guidance, so how about we get off the man's ass and let a respected fighter take his loss like a man and move on to the next bout?

It wasn't a pretty fight, but we see weird match ups happen all the time, where fighters simply cannot get into a groove that looks and feels like a compelling fight. Randy Couture vs. Brandon Vera was boring as hell, but you know what? It got the job done, and Randy didn't suffer much damage, which is one of the reasons he was able to fight well into his 40's.



I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Im not out to personally attack Clay, Im sure he's a very respectable guy. I have an issue with fighters and trainers in general who view running as a means of avoiding damage. And the reason I dont want to let it go is because I dont want the sport to degenerate into a bunch of guys throwing punches then seeing who can back away the fastest.

Gray isnt totally devoid of blame, he could have definately changed his tactics to close the distance. Perhaps Guida's strategy took him by surprise though.

And youre right, Randy didnt suffer much damage when he fought Vera. But you know what? He also didnt resort to running away to win his fights, so I dont see your point.

frizzzlecake
6/24/12 11:52:11PM
The worst part about Guida was he actually showed great head movement and footwork, he just didn't do anything with it and ran.

I think once he looks at the tape and see's how well he did, he'll be adding punches.
Pookie
6/25/12 7:58:55AM
If your opponent overcommits, you counter attack and make them pay for it. If you don't, your running away. If you avoid exchanging to the point where your opponent screams at you with his hands at his knees to hit him, and you still dont for strike for a good 5 seconds, all the while pawing the air with your jab, your running away.

Footwork and frustrating your opponent is good in that it causes the opponent to open up their defenses in trying to catch you(Machida/Evans). But Guida didnt make Maynard pay for shit. His best shot of the fight was the punch Maynard let him have, for free. He was absolutely being Timid, and it was in his best interest to do so. He wouldn't have had such a close fight any other way.
Franklinfan47
6/25/12 8:23:07AM

Posted by jae_1833

It's a delicate balancing act for sure....but the best in the sport at it is Llyoto Machida.



See this is a great point. Lyoto is always elusive without ever actually running away.
K4RP3NT3R
6/26/12 5:36:01PM

Posted by infestructure

Point well made. I'd like to add a big GET EFFED to anyone who compares Condit's masterful deconstruction of Diaz to Guida's re-enactment of a track and field caveman with Parkinson's disease.



Well, that's a huge F Me then. I do not see a huge difference between the Condit/Diaz fight and the Guida/Maynard fight. Let me start by saying "masterful destruction" is quite the exaggeration.

Now, back to the point. Diaz/Maynard both became very frustrated because their opponents continued to keep their distance. Once they closed the distance, their opponents would throw a combo and the stalking would begin again.

Guida/Condit both kept their distance from their opponents to the point of ridiculousness. I understand not wanting your opponent to initiate their gameplan, but your job is still to make it a fight. I thought Guida had won the fight simply because the fight resembled the Condit/Diaz fight. I did not agree with it, but I assumed Guida had won.

Moving backward is fine as long as there is an obvious offense being presented. Guida was focused more on keeping his distance than he was on initiating an offense. Condit seemed to be waiting for the counter more than Guida but still kept his distance. Diaz would stalk him to the cage, Condit would throw a combo, and then they would repeat. Condit is a great fighter and I hope to never see him use that strategy again.

Lately, it appears like many fighters have been fighting not to lose instead of fighting to win. Guida and Condit are both exciting fighters who have only done this on one occasion each, but some fighters who will not be named do this every single fight.
MMAcca
6/27/12 4:55:20PM

Posted by Pookie

If your opponent overcommits, you counter attack and make them pay for it. If you don't, your running away. If you avoid exchanging to the point where your opponent screams at you with his hands at his knees to hit him, and you still dont for strike for a good 5 seconds, all the while pawing the air with your jab, your running away.

Footwork and frustrating your opponent is good in that it causes the opponent to open up their defenses in trying to catch you(Machida/Evans). But Guida didnt make Maynard pay for shit. His best shot of the fight was the punch Maynard let him have, for free. He was absolutely being Timid, and it was in his best interest to do so. He wouldn't have had such a close fight any other way.



100% Agree.


And those stoooopid chest high non-jabs Guida was throwing were utterley pointless and designed to create the illusion of offence.
MMAcca
6/27/12 4:57:02PM

Posted by Franklinfan47


Posted by jae_1833

It's a delicate balancing act for sure....but the best in the sport at it is Llyoto Machida.



See this is a great point. Lyoto is always elusive without ever actually running away.



The master without doubt.

You over commit, you get hurt.
DancingDoll
6/29/12 3:49:34PM
I was watching the fights with someone and we both felt dizzy/nauseated watching Guida dancing around like that. It was like the MMA version of the Blair Witch Project phenomenon.

I know that's his usual style, but it usually gets broken up for bits with *actual* contact fighting so your eyes have time to adjust again.

Even Guida has to admit that he was way off his game.

Fights like this (where the guy is running away and it's not just strategically avoiding damage) are rare but very obvious, even to an amateur viewer. The reason people get hyped up about it is because it's not the right way to fight when you're at en elite level in the UFC. It's not just about winning, it's about how you win... and you need fans who are willing to buy tickets and PPV to pay your salary and sponsors who are willing to back you. When you get called out for a fight like that, it's legit. In 95% of other fights, guys are able to balance 'avoiding damage' and asserting dominance and octagon control. We watch it and it all looks normal and as it should be. This fight stood out for all the wrong reasons.
Bubbles
7/2/12 11:07:45PM

Posted by infestructure

Point well made. I'd like to add a big GET EFFED to anyone who compares Condit's masterful deconstruction of Diaz to Guida's re-enactment of a track and field caveman with Parkinson's disease.


Condit literally ran away in that fight...I think jjeans counted something like 20 times where he turned his back, Guida only once. Diaz came in and Condit threw a leg kick and ran away, sometimes added a jab. Guida actually shot in for combinations. Condit was 150% counter attack, Guida was like 75%. Diaz showed no facial damage post fight, Maynard did.

but if you thought Condit clearly won his fight, then Guida clearly won this fight by actually engaging at some points in the fight while playing a counter game.

btw "masterful destruction" would indicate that Diaz took a beating, broken facial features, and would have slowed down at some point in that fight...all that really took any damage was Diaz's shorts and the wallets of whoever paid for that PPV.