|
Shooting vs. Stuffing
Mark Hatmaker
Shooting well-timed, precisely executed takedowns is an art and science unto itself. Shooting a (hopefully) successful takedown requires:
- Good evaluation of distance. Too far out and you are stuffed or clocked; too close and you just may wind up with a jammed clinch fight you didn't bargain for.
- Good speed. Good shooting requires as much a commitment to speed as good striking. An argument can be made for an even greater need for speed as shooting is an all or nothing commitment, after all, we are talking hurtling your entire body mass at your opponent and not merely a single limb. That doesn't leave a lot of room for hedging or half measures.
- Good strength/power. Yeah, I know, good technique makes a takedown less reliant on strength and power but, come on, we all know that attempting to lift, sweep, reap, or topple a squirming, resisting human that matches your own weight requires some strength and power--to claim otherwise is just silly. (Anyone who's tried to hold on to a three-year-old that doesn't want to be held should then extrapolate that three-year-old's weight to their own bodyweight).
- Good endurance. This comes into play later in the match/fight. Every stuffed or thwarted takedown takes its toll. Even if you have been successful on myriad shots, if your opponent is able to tie you up on the ground this may lead to a stand-up. Yes, you've earned the takedown but, you've got to balance that with your energy reserves that will allow you to repeat that effort.
There's no doubt about it, shooting is a major skill that all fighters need to devote some serious time to. With that said, might there be an "easier" way to approach takedown tactics (easy always being a relative term in a fight).
We see some shortcuts to developing a good shooting game already in some submission only work where we see some players by-pass shooting altogether by jumping guard or starting the game on the mat with an "invite" or butt-scoot strategy. While these two approaches can have some limited success in submission only arenas they don't transfer well to the street or MMA. Let's look at why this is.
First, the street. In a life or death situation in which flight is always preferable to fight the decision to go to the ground is diametrically opposed to flight. The decision to go to the ground is a decision to dig in and fight from the trenches and is never a good idea for reality work.
In MMA, the number of times jumping guard has been used successfully at the elite level can be counted on one hand and still have a finger or two left over to scratch one's head at this gambit. Whereas the butt-scoot or invite lured a few takers perhaps a decade ago about all this strategy invites now is a return wave to stand-up from the fighter still on his feet and boo's from the crowd.
Pointing out the deficiencies in these two attempts to by-pass solid shooting work for the street and MMA is not a wholesale denial of the thinking behind the strategy. The strategy behind by-passing shooting work is actually quite sound, let's take a look at some seemingly contradictory reasons why this strategy may work.
One--Fight Metrics reveal that more MMA wins are garnered via strikes than submissions. More of these striking wins are accrued on the feet than in ground and pound (for a in-depth look at fight metrics as they apply to MMA see our book THE ESSENTIALS). If one wants to play the odds, tightening the stand-up striking game is a solid way to go.
Two--Fight Metrics also reveals that the fighter that scores the first (or more commonly the most) takedowns in a match usually wins the fight. OK, it seems we've just made the argument for upping our shooting prowess. But...
Three--Stuffed takedowns weighs just as heavily (actually a little more) for predicting success. In other words, for every takedown you stuff you gain an edge in the match, whether its because stuffing requires less energy than shooting or, the stuffer may be keeping the fight focused on striking to his advantage where the shooter has just demonstrated he would rather no be at the moment-the data doesn't say.
It is possible to interpret the preceding information to weight the stand-up game towards improved striking and improved stuffing. And lest we assume that not working shooting presumes no takedown or groundwork on the stuffers part let's consider this--a Parasitical Takedown strategy. A strategy that is reactive in nature but that weighs heavily on exploiting sprawls and snapdowns to gain dominant ground position if desired or, one that spends more time working the clinch (gained from defending a shot) to fire more shots in a dirty boxing context or, to launch takedowns from the clinch position as opposed to wholesale shots at the legs from the outside.
There's no denying that a fast shot is a devastating weapon but it takes years to develop. In MMA (or street work) where so many facets are at play and so many areas to master, a game devoted to the parasitical strategy just may speed development for those who don't already have a good shot. A strategy that is less energy intensive but still allows one to reap the rewards of scoring a takedown and/or exhibit a hard-riding ground game. | 
