Greg Jackson: Why People Shouldn't Blame Him

Over the past few months, a lot has been written and said about how wrestling is supposedly ruining MMA.  Within a similar stream of thought, people have started to blame Greg Jackson for risk-averse strategies that turn talented and dynamic fighters into boring wrestlers.

When it comes to the "wrestling is ruining MMA" issue, I'll side with MMA talking head Jordan Breen in saying that much of the debate is nothing more than pointless drivel designed to drive Internet traffic.

Yet still, I feel that someone needs to take the time to look specifically at the case of Jackson, and say once and for all that the criticisms leveled at him are simply ridiculous, as you can see by looking at the fighters Jackson has to work with, an actual history of his record as a coach and an understanding of the underlying fundamentals of MMA.

A Brief History Of The Criticism Against Greg Jackson

Within the Jackson camp, there are fighters from top to bottom who implement grapple-heavy strategies.

Georges St. Pierre, Rashad Evans, Joe Stephenson, Clay Guida and Carlos Condit are frequently referenced as fighters who rely on their wrestling to win fights in a way that sacrifices excitement.

Writers have even gone so far as to criticize Jackson's handling of Jon Jones, saying that he is favoring wrestling when he could be a dynamic striker.

From a superficial view, the case seems obvious...or does it?

The Tools At Hand

Something that is often overlooked when criticizing Jackson is the idea of looking at the kind of fighter he has to work with.

Georges St. Pierre is seen by many as "the best functional wrestler in MMA."

Despite owning a few highlight reel knockouts, Rashad Evans is still first and foremost a wrestler.

Joe Stepehnson, Clay Guida and Carlos Condit are all far better grapplers than they are strikers.

And despite owning a plethora of flashy strikes, Jon Jones' background is in Greco-Roman wrestling.

When you work with a wrestler like St. Pierre, it would be sheer idiocy to waste his wrestling ability.  By continuing to implement wrestling into his fights, St. Pierre forces his opponents to focus much of their training and attention on defending his wrestling and grappling attack. It's a constant threat that his opponents need to worry about.

Rashad Evans may have knockout power, but he's not as good of a pure striker as many of the fighters in his division.  If he went out and tried to fight toe-to-toe with Quinton Jackson for three rounds, he probably would have lost, and the same goes for his anticipated bout with Mauricio Rua. Using his wrestling advantage is only intelligent.

In the cases of guys like Clay Guida and Joe Stephenson, the case is even more dramatic. These two fighters are terrible strikers who would lose most of their fights if they tried to win fights with their striking.  Wrestling is not only the best option for these two, but it's really the only option.

This brings us to the case of Jon Jones, who some people ridiculously seem to think is the next Anderson Silva.

Jon Jones Is Not Anderson Silva

Yes, I understand that they're both tall, athletic and explosive black guys with dynamic and powerful strikes, but the similarities are actually very superficial.

While Jones has an arsenal of spinning back elbows, flashy kicks and Wing Chun techniques, his striking fundamentals are still average at best.

Jones is naturally athletic and coordinated, so he can pull off these crazy techniques, but his lack of striking fundamentals would still leave him open to counters from the more refined strikers like Lyoto Machida and Mauricio Rua, and, of course, Anderson Silva.

Not only does Silva possess the athleticism to pull off spectacular moves like those of Jones, but he also has the knowledge of timing, distance and angles to be able to use them effectively without leaving himself overly exposed.

Comparing Jones to Silva compares a man who was at times being out-boxed by Jake O'Brien with a guy who made Rich Franklin and Forrest Griffin look like they didn't know what they were doing inside the Octagon.

In conclusion, comparing Jones to Silva is hardly better than an over-generalization of athletic black people. Dynamic strikes aside, Jon Jones is a wrestler.

Revisionist History?

As I've argued, it is nothing more than intelligent for Jackson to come up with wrestle-heavy strategies, given the fighters he works with. That said, even when considering these fighters, Jackson's strategies are hardly as wrestle-heavy as you might have been led to believe.

If you believe the new version of history, Georges St. Pierre has been gun shy ever since losing to Matt Serra. This version of history somehow glosses over how St. Pierre clobbered Jon Fitch on the feet for basically the whole of five rounds, and scored a knockdown on Thiago Alves.

When looking at his coaching, this version of a gun shy Greg Jackson certainly wasn't the one who specifically told St. Pierre to go out and engage BJ Penn in kickboxing for the second round of their rematch.

Surely this gun shy Greg Jackson wasn't involved in devising a strategy for Evans to stand and strike with Chuck Liddell, because that sounds not much like wrestling at all.

After watching Machida bash Thiago Silva's brains, this gun shy Greg Jackson must have told Rashad Evans to take down and grapple with the karate master.  Oh wait, he didn't.

Never mind the whole list of Jackson-associated fighters like Leonard Garcia, Nate Marquardt, Donald Cerrone and Shane Carwin who have all been anything but wrestlers in their fighting performances, minus Cerrone's latest stellar effort.

The Basis Of MMA

At the center of the criticism against Jackson is the insane idea that wrestling is somehow ruining MMA.

Anybody with even a small amount of intelligence should know that wrestling is effective in winning fights, despite what Dan Hardy has to say.

Keeping that in mind, the argument against wrestling isn't about its effectiveness but rather against its entertainment value.

The only criticism of wrestling in MMA that can be made comes from those who see MMA not as a competition, but as an entertainment product, and even then, the argument isn't a good one.

In my mind, there are at least two different kinds of fans of MMA.

1. Those that value the competitive aspect of the sport.

2. The meathead fans.

The meathead fans aren't happy unless two people are swinging for the fences trying to knock each other's head off.  This to me, is boring, because it's not a test of skill or a battle of wits but merely an exercise of chin vs. fist.

For me, entertainment comes from watching meaningful MMA bouts where both fighters try to win in any way possible within the rules. Fights where one fighter chooses a strategy for excitement rather than in order to win are actually more boring for fans like me.

But even though some will call me an MMA elitist for this attitude, I'll argue that not only is this the less meatheaded attitude, but it's also the one that is more in-sync with the origin of the sport of MMA, which had nothing to do with excitement, and everything to do with winning.

If this is what people criticize Greg Jackson of aspiring to, then I guess that's not much of a criticism after all.