- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 155,212
- Reaction score
- 190,395
This is an interesting idea. I think you raise a good point. People are dazzled by power but also by speed and flash. There's the tendency to say, "oh that guy isn't a good striker. He just has power" but Even in situations where that's true, it's like so what? The power guy obviously that figured out ways to make that power land, which can be way more involved and difficult to pull off than someone born with natural speed and athleticism flicking a jab out there much faster than their opponent ever could.
Its like there's this idea that true striking proficiency is measured by how slick and flashy a striker can throw their hands. But if that's all you can do, are you really good? Is it better to be 90 percent likely to touch your opponent with a strike, but only 2 percent likely to knock him out? Or is it better to be 2 percent likely to land a shot that is guaranteed to win the fight?
I think when we talk about effective striking we really need to just look at the results. As tempting as it is for me to sag volk is the better striker, I don't know if that statement makes any sense. Real, effective striking involves speed and power. And also thibgs like toughness, and doggedness, and also definitely chin. Max Holloway is a very effective striker even though, or maybe more like because, he is able to absorb so many shots.
Great post.