SwordBrethren wrote:A friend of mine, sporting a pot belly, but with several years of wrestling experience and 4 years of BJJ, crippled a young man who was jacked/ripped but had otherwise done nothing to prepare for MMA fighting expect weight lifting and strength training. The guy had enough power to wrench his way out of a triangle choke, lift my friend up, and slam him down, but it didn't help him, in the end he had to be carried out of the cage because he couldn't walk.
Yes. Four or more years can make a big difference. The point is that the wrenched himself out of a choke and slammed his opponent down. One wrong fall and your friend could have had broken bones.
SwordBrethren wrote:Anybody who watches the first five or six UFCs, or PRIDE from Japan will see that the highly technical fighters almost always win, especially over the strong bulky brawler types who have minimal technique.
This is incorrect, even apart from the fact that there are weight catagories. Although depending on myofybril hypertrophy, the one could have more bang for his buck. Hearing testimonies of pro-MMA trainers, the first thing their battered fighter says when he gets to the corner after a round is, "That guy is so much stronger than me."
SwordBrethren wrote:A person who has trained 8-12 years of BJJ, grappling/wrestling, etc, will almost certainly triumph over an individual who outweighs him by 100 pounds and can bench/squat two or three times as much.
The experienced individual has a much higher chance, yes.
I fought the world number two ISKA female kickboxer who was also an MMA fighter (who happened to be in the same school as me). I outweighed her by about 70 or 75 pounds and with minimal experience I overpowered her. I was not nearly as strong then as I am now.
Having actually done MMA, I was more comfortable with smaller, more experienced opponents than I was with larger, less experienced opponents. There is so much more room for error from a technical standpoint. Even if my technique sucks, I can still wrench the person with a burst of energy. They wouldn't stand a chance of the sloppy offensive move was reciprocated, because I'd just overpower it.
SwordBrethren wrote:1- Technique
2- Endurance
3- Speed/timing
4- Strength
I don't mean to be a hard-ass, but this list is typical of someone who has little experience in strength and martial arts. Strength naturally gives speed and endurance. The idea that someone who has a lot of muscle is slow is a complete myth. Strong people, assuming they're not carrying too much fat, are much faster. The more muscle you have the more explosive power you have. Also strength naturally creates endurance to a certain point in that because you are stronger each movement requires less effort. I never train long-distance running, but I could run 5 miles easily in a decent time because I train my legs for strength and I do sprints, which increase strength and muscle size as well. With high intensity training like sprints, the higher level VO2max training on your cardiovascular system naturally trickles down to better aerobic capabilities. Never mind that your cardiovascular system gets trained very well if you are taking only 1 or 2 minute breaks between sets or if you're going supersets.
You can have endurance without strength anyway, but the raw strength of the person is going to blow the endurance away with power. If a strong person uses 50% effort to overcome the durable person's 100% effort, what does the endurance count for? Endurance only helps if the opponents are of equal strength. You can't have speed without strength. It is a physical impossibility. I will concede that good technique can increase speed, but strength is much more effective at increasing speed.
SwordBrethren wrote:If two opponents of equal technique meet, strength will probably be the deciding factor, but strength cannot overcome a massive disparity in technical training.
Guy A-
10 years of boxing, 10 years of BJJ, 5 years of judo, does not lift weights.
Guy B-
2 years of wrestling, can bench 600 and squat 1000.
The weight lifting of Guy B will not be able to close the massive gap that exists between his lack of technique and his opponent's overwhelming technique.
I'd put my money on the more experienced fighter in this case specifically, but I wouldn't be surprised if the off chance came to pass that the stronger won. You see, the experienced fighter just has to make one mistake and it's over. It's not very likely, but possible nonetheless.
I say again,
experience,
technique and
strength are all equal. With two factors, not necessarily the same, having the same values, the difference of the outstanding factor will more than likely be the deciding factor. Assuming you can measure any of them, but just for the sake of the argument.