MMA: Debunking the Myth of the K-1 Level Striker in Mixed Martial Arts

James MacDonald@@JimMacDonaldMMAFeatured ColumnistApril 17, 2013

Courtesy of MMA Fighting
Courtesy of MMA Fighting

If there is a pugilistic hierarchy within MMA, the “K-1 level striker” is perceived to be at its pinnacle.

The idea that there is a qualitative distinction between “MMA strikers” and “K-1 strikers” is a meme that can arguably be attributed to Joe Rogan, who has repeatedly endorsed this alleged division of striking talent during numerous UFC broadcasts.

Indeed, the pugilistic prowess—using the term "pugilism" in a more modern sense—of anyone who has even so much as attended a K-1 Grand Prix as part of the catering staff is likely to be embellished to the point of farce.

And if Alistair Overeem is competing inside the cage? Fuhgeddaboutit. Unless he happens to be fighting the resurrected corpse of Bruce Lee, one can expect the striking credentials of his opponent to be buried beneath a mountain of hyperbolic praise for the Dutchman.

Then again, within the context of the current combat landscape, the traditional conception of a “K-1 level striker” is now a total non-sequitur, since an aging Mirko “Cro Cop” is the current standard-bearer for the floundering organisation.

Going forward, we can probably expect the likes of Tyrone Spong and Alistair Overeem to be described as “Glory-level strikers” by analysts keen to highlight the perceived disparity in striking talent.

There is a superficial truth to the perception that MMA striking is generally inferior to what we might see in Glory. For example, if Cain Velasquez decided to compete in professional kickboxing, he probably wouldn’t be contending for titles.

But to view matters in such simplistic terms is a mistake. With the addition of the grappling arts, the nature of the striking game is fundamentally altered.

What works in a pure boxing or kickboxing contest may disadvantage you in an MMA bout. To illustrate this point, let’s look at some of the subtle differences in the stances utilised in each sport.

Speaking generally, boxers tend to employ a narrower stance than either kickboxers or mixed martial artists. Kickboxers tend to stand slightly squarer than boxers, while mixed martial artists stand squarer still—again, this is a very general analysis.

There are a number of reasons for these subtle differences. For example, a narrow stance has the advantage of creating a smaller target. However, it also inhibits one’s ability to sprawl effectively—an obvious disadvantage in MMA.

In truth, mixed martial artists are forced to be much more well-rounded in their striking than either boxers or kickboxers, simply because there are so many different styles they must be prepared to face.

Against a fighter like Tyrone Spong, it might be possible to get away with a narrow stance, since the idea of him shooting a power-double is almost comical. But employing that same style against GSP is likely to get you put on your backside in a hurry.

The point is that we cannot assess the standard of MMA striking in isolation from these salient contextual factors any more than we can judge the quality of MMA wrestling without factoring in the inclusion of striking and submissions.

Is Tyrone Spong a better striker than Cain Velasquez? Is Josh Koscheck a better wrestler than Georges St-Pierre?

Strictly speaking, the answer to both questions is a resounding “Yes.” But these questions take on a different shape once posed within the context of MMA.

Striking within mixed martial arts is routinely disparaged by those who appear ignorant to some of the nuances described, or by snobbish analysts who can’t help but spew their disdain for any deviation from normative striking techniques.

As essentially a hybrid sport, MMA still isn’t fully understood in quite the same way that boxing is. Even 20 years after the UFC’s inception, our knowledge of what works in mixed martial arts continues to expand year after year.

That being said, more “experts” should recognise MMA for what it is, rather than continually trying to convince us that its hybrid nature necessarily means that its constituent parts are inherently inferior.

Not only is it not true, but it hasn’t been true for a very long time.