How Sean Strickland Dismantled Israel Adesanya

[Stuart0502]

In fact I suspect that before the Israel fight, if I posted a break down of Strickland loosing to Pereira, saying its because he was doing wing chun, the master would of chimed in pointing out that Strickland stance and defence is nothing like wing chun and there should be no comparison

No doubt about it.

Undoubtedly the forum resident Master started with the idea that Wing Chun is the best style and has been working backwards from there.

This thread is going round in circles now so I'm out.

 

[The Don]

I am not denying his striking is informed by Muay Thai. But its not how Muay Thai is generally applied either in MT itself or in MMA and doesn't follow a MT strategy.


Yes, everyone has at some point "done everything under the sun"


I am not interested in talking about outliers who have tried this or that. I mean the fundamentals of the style.
Obviously we know Stricklands training is primarily boxing and Muay Thai with limited if any actual Wing Chun input apart from things his trainers may have picked up that has come into MMA; the point is this is neither boxing nor Muay Thai, so the striking style he has developed is different and has a strong resemblance to many aspects of Wing Chun

Why don't we reach a consensus on the fundamentals and aims of each style, excluding outliers. Otherwise we just go in circles for comparison, there has to be a point of common reference.

This is how I would put it. I am going by @The Don to have input, who I am taking as the resident boxing expert here, since the other so called 'experts' were fooled by Stricklands faux Philly Shell, which he was the only one who called it out to say what he is doing has no resemblance to an actual Philly Shell.

Yes this is simplified but I am trying to get to the essence, particularly with regards to defence.
Fundamentals:

Boxing

Movement of head and body and footwork as primary defence (bob and weave, extensive footwork). Use of hand parrying defence secondary to body movement and footwork.


Muay Thai

Use of Thai kick, teeps on outside. Uses hand trapping counters sometimes to punch but mainly attempts to engage a Thai clinch. Does not typically stand and trade using parry/deflection and punches but tries to initiate clinch for elbow and knees.


Wing Chun

Primary defence hand parry and forearm/elbow deflections with straight line punches.
Use of head and body movement secondary to use of hands only if strikes get through. Stands at close range to strike without strategy to clinch.


Stricklands MMA striking style in this fight, however he has developed it, is closer to the WC approach. His defence was primarily based on the deflection and hand parry style at close range, with body and head movement secondary and no attempt to initiate Thai clinch, but rather to stand and strike with mainly straight line punches unless the opponent was hurt or out of position.

Alright, first of all I appreciate that you think that about me, but there are so many other users here who know so much more. @Sinister is I would say The authority when it comes to all things boxing.

Secondly, I think a lot of the disagreements here is a form of misunderstanding and miscommunication.

Thirdly, Strickland's "striking style" really is just basic 1-2 combinations if we're talking purely about the Adesanya fight. His stance resembled a Philly Shell but it didn't function like one. His strikes in all honesty looked a lot like your basic strikes which I still think looked a lot closer to boxing then it did Wing Chun. And his awkward head movement is I would dare say, a result of just not being good at the basics and fundamentals of boxing.

I still think Silva showed more Wing Chun in brief bursts then Strickland did in the entire fight.

 

[listrahtes]

The discussion with him is pointless because a) he has no clue about boxing / stand up
b) he has never even done light sparring or even shadow boxing
C) the outcome is determined before he even watches something
c) because of a to c he can't analyze a fight.

Hell even spacetime was more insightful about martial arts.

That's why these discussions will always end in a circle. It's like someone who never left New York explaining to you how to hunt in the wild.

 

[aerius]

The discussion with him is pointless because a) he has no clue about boxing / stand up
b) he has never even done light sparring or even shadow boxing
C) the outcome is determined before he even watches something
c) because of a to c he can't analyze a fight.

Hell even spacetime was more insightful about martial arts.

That's why these discussions will always end in a circle. It's like someone who never left New York explaining to you how to hunt in the wild.

It gets better. He doesn't even know what Wing Chun IS despite 20 years of wanking to it.
@Sanserif ripped him to pieces in this thread and showed that his "knowledge" of Wing Chun is just as poor as everything else.
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/162430704/

 

[The Don]

Hell even spacetime was more insightful about martial arts.

That's...quite a feat.

 

[listrahtes]

That's...quite a feat.

He was a master in ko ing sofa cushions and doors. That's something . And his Karate wasn't that bad for point karate, he just thought he could fight while never doing it.

 

[DoctorTaco]

It gets better. He doesn't even know what Wing Chun IS despite 20 years of wanking to it.
@Sanserif ripped him to pieces in this thread and showed that his "knowledge" of Wing Chun is just as poor as everything else.
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/162430704/

ouch. @Sanserif clearly using open handed techniques when slapping the master around all over that thread.

 

[The Don]

He was a master in ko ing sofa cushions and doors. That's something . And his Karate wasn't that bad for point karate, he just thought he could fight while never doing it.

You know, before Spacetime posted videos of himself we had a few back and forths. The moment he posted his videos I stopped responding. He was either a very bad troll, or deep into his own delusion.

 

[rmongler]

I

I am not interested in talking about outliers who have tried this or that.

Which is funny because your hobbyhorse is an outlier. Saying things like "i've never seen muay thai that looks like this" only exposes your own lack of familiarity.

In American folkstyle wrestling, is it better to attack a down opponent with chickenwing tilts, or crossbody rides, or even deemphasize matwork altogether, so as to min-max neutral game? I have my own opinions about optimality of course, but it can be an arcane subject of hair-splitting margins, and more broadly speaking you can find examples of each competing at a national level. Every guy has their own favorite things they use as their go-to, and not all of them are the same. It's not just about level of commonality, it's also level of success. What do the best of the best look like when they can consistently beat the best? The answers can surprise you.

A sport that has good depth, large participation, and long history, is going to have a plethora of styles; and also reasons why some approaches are more predominant than others. There's a reason why more dramatic forms of leverage blocking with large gross motor movements never caught on in a big way - even in muay thai, where clinchfighting is a significant aspect of the competition - and that is because it is in fact rather difficult to intercept a fist with a fist, and the amounts of training time you spend on being able to do so, could also be spent on doing other things with even greater return on investment, higher ceilings of usability against more talented competition.

 

[The Don]

I'm sorry some of us completely derailed your post @The MM Analyst.

Hopefully this ends it. This looks a lot closer to Wing Chun then what Sean did the entire fight.

 

[TheMaster]

I think a lot of the disagreements here is a form of misunderstanding and miscommunication.

Yes a lot of it is. You didn't address the points I made regarding the essence of boxing however compared to the essence of Wing Chun and what we saw Strickland doing.

Strickland's "striking style" really is just basic 1-2 combinations if we're talking purely about the Adesanya fight. His stance resembled a Philly Shell but it didn't function like one. His strikes in all honesty looked a lot like your basic strikes which I still think looked a lot closer to boxing then it did Wing Chun. And his awkward head movement is I would dare say, a result of just not being good at the basics and fundamentals of boxing.

While I do value your perspective, in my view it is off in this case. You are seeing the 'boxing' aspects, but defensively what is far more significant is his use of the parry and deflection style and hand fighting and primary defence with head and body movement and footwork secondary, which differentiates his system from boxing.

That he could have developed such a system himself with such strong resemblance to applied Wing Chun is not surprising, given his exposure to Muay Thai which is a distantly related style to WC but in this case he has used some of thse skills to apply the WC approach of standing and striking at close range with the deflection parry defense mixed with some boxing rather than engaging a Thai clinch or following a MT strategy.

I'm sorry some of us completely derailed your post @The MM Analyst.

Hopefully this ends it. This looks a lot closer to Wing Chun then what Sean did the entire fight.

There is no need to apologise. He did a great piece but this an analysis of Stricklands style and method of combat so its all good.

I still think Silva showed more Wing Chun in brief bursts then Strickland did in the entire fight.

Well, as much as I respect your views bout boxing I would disagree on the Wing Chun.

For me, while Silva did show some good elements of Wing Chun in his fights , Strickland in this fight was the first time I thought "that's Wing Chun he is doing, mixed with some boxing."

 

[zapataxiv]

ouch. @Sanserif clearly using open handed techniques when slapping the master around all over that thread.

I'm not surprised and I told him this before

I would not be surprised if he didn't know anything about wing chun

he just chose something that he thought nobody would pick up on

common tactics for liars like @TheMaster

 

[TheMaster]

I'm not surprised and I told him this before

I would not be surprised if he didn't know anything about wing chun

he just chose something that he thought nobody would pick up on

common tactics for liars like @TheMaster

The video of the fight doesn't lie.
Get used to it, and watch it again and again because it stands and the effective application of many WC techniques and strategy is there for all to see.
Luckily there's been enough sensible commentary on this thread to enable people to ignore puerile comments such as from you.

And a fighter heavily exposed to Muay Thai combined with boxing, who favours in-fighting and straight punches but doesn’t like to clinch, developing a hybrid Wing Chun/boxing style of fighting in an MMA fight with MMA gloves, is really not that surprising nor hard to understand for any real and intelligent martial artist.
But like I said, spending years trashing something only to be so clearly and absolutely proven wrong is tough to accept, I get it.

 

[TheMaster]

Without any training at all, our instincts is to pull our head straight back, look away from the punch and even close our eyes. It's how our brain is just hardwired. We see a punch coming at our head, we move our head away from the threat. In boxing, this natural reaction gets retrained into slipping, bobbing and weaving away from the punches while still be in a position to counter, reset or move back into a safer position.

I want to highlight this insightful and important point you made regarding the natural response to being punched is to move the head, and boxing refines this reflex into a bob and weave constant head movement defence, combing it with footwork.

As I said, the other instinctive reflex when an incoming punch to the head is to bring the hands up to protect.
Wing Chun takes this instinctive reaction and hones it into a system of arm deflections and hand parries as the primary defence.

In this sense Boxing and Wing Chun both represent opposite polarities of development of these two natural reactions, with boxing favouring the head and body movement as primary and hand parrying as secondary, and a Wing Chun approach favoring the hand parry and arm deflection as primary and head and body movement as secondary defence.

The fact that the vast majority of MMA fighters with the exception of Strickland and possibly one or two others, favour the former approach is really a result of the widespread availability and teaching of boxing as the base striking style. Thus it is the 'accepted wisom' that the head movement primary defensive approach is the standard for striking.
What Strickland has shown however, is the viability if one is willing to close distance and fight with pressure, of the parry/deflection defensive style which is more akin to Wing Chun and related styles.

Why these two different forms of approach to primary/secondary defensive structure developed in the respective styles is an interesting question.

 

[aerius]

Antonina Shevchenko brought Wing Chun to MMA with her counters off the parry.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Antonina Shevchenko brought Wing Chun to MMA with her counters off the parry.

Yup! Classic wing chung. After all, boxing teaches head movement as a primary defense and using your hands/gloves as a secondary. It’s crazy that I’ve been boxing for 20 years and just now learned this fact. Wild.

 

[aerius]

Yup! Classic wing chung. After all, boxing teaches head movement as a primary defense and using your hands/gloves as a secondary. It’s crazy that I’ve been boxing for 20 years and just now learned this fact. Wild.

I'm sure it came as a surprise to Cody Garbrandt as well. Imagine his shock upon learning that his entire amateur boxing career was actually Wing Chun.
Who could've known?

 

[DoctorTaco]

I'm sure it came as a surprise to Cody Garbrandt as well. Imagine his shock upon learning that his entire amateur boxing career was actually Wing Chun.
Who could've known?

i just discovered I’ve been teaching wing chung this whole time!

 

[rmongler]

I want to highlight this insightful and important point you made regarding the natural response to being punched is to move the head, and boxing refines this reflex into a bob and weave constant head movement defence, combing it with footwork.

As I said, the other instinctive reflex when an incoming punch to the head is to bring the hands up to protect.
Wing Chun takes this instinctive reaction and hones it into a system of arm deflections and hand parries as the primary defence.

In this sense Boxing and Wing Chun both represent opposite polarities of development of these two natural reactions, with boxing favouring the head and body movement as primary and hand parrying as secondary, and a Wing Chun approach favoring the hand parry and arm deflection as primary and head and body movement as secondary defence.

The fact that the vast majority of MMA fighters with the exception of Strickland and possibly one or two others, favour the former approach is really a result of the widespread availability and teaching of boxing as the base striking style. Thus it is the 'accepted wisom' that the head movement primary defensive approach is the standard for striking.
What Strickland has shown however, is the viability if one is willing to close distance and fight with pressure, of the parry/deflection defensive style which is more akin to Wing Chun and related styles.

Why these two different forms of approach to primary/secondary defensive structure developed in the respective styles is an interesting question.

The major problem is you engage in a rhetorical two-step here. It is certainly possible to make generalizations about things that are more or less common in a given tradition in a given time and place, but then you cut it back the other way by trying to then imply that nothing exists in a tradition *except* your generalization, and then when a more knowledgable poster than you objects to this, you retreat back to saying 'but do you not agree that generalizations are possible?' without ever dealing with the actual objection.

The matters of this problem are manifold. The first and most obvious is the ignor-ance of the more fulsome varieties of form in a given tradition that are erased by the reductive misapprehension. Another, more subtle, but perhaps even more significant matter, is that given the existence of various forms, including ones that comport with your theories, why are they not the more significantly predominant?

The answer you would like to believe is that the sole factor behind any species of differences arising anywhere are merely because of arbitrary restrictions on behavior somehow. The answer that you dare not speak, dare not even think of to yourself, is that your theories have in fact already been put to the test; by many a man, at many a time, in many a place; and have been found wanting, in the face of other, more rewarding forms of practice.

 

[TheMaster]

Antonina Shevchenko brought Wing Chun to MMA with her counters off the parry.

I'm sure it came as a surprise to Cody Garbrandt as well. Imagine his shock upon learning that his entire amateur boxing career was actually Wing Chun.
Who could've known?

The irony is both of these examples prove my point, despite the attempts to cover the reality of the premise and views espoused with feigned humour; they are clearly doing boxing as a base. Why?
Head and body movement is the primary defence while the parry is secondary.

This is the reverse of the Wing Chun approach and the one that Strickland employed in his fight with Adesanya which is why it is so notable and the commentary team could only grasp at by statements such as "he has such a unique style"; engaging the strikes with hand parry and arm deflection is the primary defence along with control of range along the centerline, with head and body movement the secondary defence used only as necessary. This is not boxing.

The major problem is you engage in a rhetorical two-step here. It is certainly possible to make generalizations about things that are more or less common in a given tradition in a given time and place, but then you cut it back the other way by trying to then imply that nothing exists in a tradition *except* your generalization, and then when a more knowledgable poster than you objects to this, you retreat back to saying 'but do you not agree that generalizations are possible?' without ever dealing with the actual objection.

The matters of this problem are manifold. The first and most obvious is the ignor-ance of the more fulsome varieties of form in a given tradition that are erased by the reductive misapprehension. Another, more subtle, but perhaps even more significant matter, is that given the existence of various forms, including ones that comport with your theories, why are they not the more significantly predominant?

The answer you would like to believe is that the sole factor behind any species of differences arising anywhere are merely because of arbitrary restrictions on behavior somehow. The answer that you dare not speak, dare not even think of to yourself, is that your theories have in fact already been put to the test; by many a man, at many a time, in many a place; and have been found wanting, in the face of other, more rewarding forms of practice.

A nice poetic piece but the central point remains; the fact of outliers does not disqualify the essential basis of a style.
One can distill down the essence of a karateka like Machida and readily differentiate his system from a boxing base, even if one one argues that "somewhere, a boxer was using a side karate horse stance and a stepping straight punch with karate blocks".

And your motivations for your views, likely unaware even to yourself, reside less in any kind of objective analysis of combat and far more in sentimentality and investment in the beliefs you wish to hold, in this case that the sport of boxing, practiced for over a century with its manifold restrictions and rules, big boxing gloves and systematized stylistic and training foundations, somehow contains all the answers to less restrictive combat forms that have found it wanting.

The evolution of MMA continues, and the points I have raised and Stricklands performance and application of 'Wing Chun boxing' will stand the test of time, just as previous limitations in belief of what have later proven to effective in this sport have time and again been tossed by the wayside, as more developed understanding of what can work and in what situations and contexts continues to come to the fore.