[bbjd7]

The comparision is more in the fact they are both supposed to be great kickboxers but aren't that effective in MMA solid MMA strikers can trade with them and they do fine.

Paul Taylor has a hell of a time doing any damage to his opponents when they aren't terrible. I mean look at the Lytle fight.

I haven't seen anything outside of the headkick on Marcus Davis that has convinced me this guy is all that dangerous standing.

He's better then the average and the bad strikers he's proven that but he's shown me nothing in any of those fights that show him being a very good striker.

Originally Posted by MilesHackett

It's not about the level of the competition he's facing, it's about evaluating his technical abilities, defensively and offensively. I don't understand why you can't see that without looking at the quality of his opponents. We're talking about technicalities here, and just on a technical level, Marcus Davis is a good striker.

So showing great techinical skill against scrubs proves stuff?

Then I guess Cain was a great stand up fighter because of the Stojnic fight..... O wait.

A couple of times isn't a "ton", so it's pretty obvious that you're speaking in hyperbole. Taylor landed leg kicks at will and picked Sobotta apart for almost the entire fight, I really don't see how you can argue otherwise.

I didn't say he didn't he won the fight clearly. He also got hit pretty clean though by a guy who's not a striker

[MilesHackett]

Originally Posted by bbjd7

The comparision is more in the fact they are both supposed to be great kickboxers but aren't that effective in MMA.

There really is no comparison aside from the fact their backgrounds are in striking. Taylor is the much better striker on a technical level, Stout gets tagged way more than Paul does.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

Paul Taylor has a hell of a time doing any damage to his opponents when they aren't terrible. I mean look at the Lytle fight.

The Lytle fight was determined in the clinch, Paul lost there, not when he was in the pocket exchanging.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

I haven't seen anything outside of the headkick on Marcus Davis that has convinced me this guy is all that dangerous standing.

Then I don't think you've been paying attention, to be honest. His speed, combinations, and defense are exceptional. Why else do all of his opponents try to take the fight to the ground if he's not a "great" striker? Because they know that: a) he's very good standing and b) his ground game is his weakness.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

He's better then the average and the bad strikers he's proven that but he's shown me nothing in any of those fights that show him being a very good striker.

That's your take, but it doesn't make much sense to me, personally.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

Then I guess Cain was a great stand up fighter because of the Stojnic fight..... O wait.

No, because even in that fight he showed poor stand-up defense and didn't throw technically good punches or combinations. Honestly, you're missing the point. Just by looking at how a fighter throws a punch, pulls their hands back, tucks their chin, and uses their footwork can tell you whether they're a great striker or not. You don't seem to get this, for whatever reason that may be.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

I didn't say he didn't he won the fight clearly. He also got hit pretty clean though by a guy who's not a striker

While Sobotta excels on the ground, he actually started off with striking disciplines such as Tae Kwon Do, just so you know... he's not entirely foreign to the concept of fighting.

[bbjd7]

Originally Posted by MilesHackett

There really is no comparison aside from the fact their backgrounds are in striking. Taylor is the much better striker on a technical level, Stout gets tagged way more than Paul does.

They both have backgrounds in striking and they both aren't nearly as effective IMO as their backgrounds would indicate. Like Sokky on the ground.

The Lytle fight was determined in the clinch, Paul lost there, not when he was in the pocket exchanging.

Yet when he did exchange with Chris Lytle who is way to wild he didn't hurt him. He and Paul Kelly slugged it out for a bit and Taylor didn't do a lot of damage.

Then I don't think you've been paying attention, to be honest. His speed, combinations, and defense are exceptional. Why else do all of his opponents try to take the fight to the ground if he's not a "great" striker? Because they know that: a) he's very good standing and b) his ground game is his weakness.

His opponents try to take him down because of B. He comes forward and he isn't stupid about it but he also doesn't do a lot of damage and gets hit a good amount.

That's your take, but it doesn't make much sense to me, personally.

And I have no idea how people consider Taylor one of the best strikers in the WW division.

---------- Post added at 07:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------

Originally Posted by MilesHackett

No, because even in that fight he showed poor stand-up defense and didn't throw technically good punches or combinations. Honestly, you're missing the point. Just by looking at how a fighter throws a punch, pulls their hands back, tucks their chin, and uses their footwork can tell you whether they're a great striker or not. You don't seem to get this, for whatever reason that may be.

Because it's not true. To be a great MMA striker you have to be able to hurt people and put them down and you can't tell that just by technique. A lot of things go into being a great MMA striker. Knowing when to throw and when not to, Being smart about your kicks, and a bunch of other things and Taylor hasn't shown a lot of those.

While Sobotta excels on the ground, he actually started off with striking disciplines such as Tae Kwon Do, just so you know... he's not entirely foreign to the concept of fighting.

Great tidbit he's still not a striker

[MilesHackett]

Originally Posted by bbjd7

They both have backgrounds in striking and they both aren't nearly as effective IMO as their backgrounds would indicate. Like Sokky on the ground.

That comparison is ridiculous. Paul Taylor's stand-up is not the equivalent of Sokoudjou's judo, because he actually wins most of his fights when they are standing, versus Sokoudjou who gets raped on the ground every time the fight goes there.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

Yet when he did exchange with Chris Lytle who is way to wild he didn't hurt him. He and Paul Kelly slugged it out for a bit and Taylor didn't do a lot of damage.

Taylor might lack stopping power with his hands, but he is technically sound as a striker, which is what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

His opponents try to take him down because of B. He comes forward and he isn't stupid about it but he also doesn't do a lot of damage and gets hit a good amount.

Once again, I disagree. Most guys who stand with him don't do it for long because they know his stand-up is very good. And just because you can't see visible damage, doesn't mean it's not being done. Sobotta's legs were destroyed in that fight.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

And I have no idea how people consider Taylor one of the best strikers in the WW division.

Doesn't as ridiculous as the time someone told me that Thiago Silva would get the fight to the ground and submit Machida by getting dropped.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

Because it's not true. To be a great MMA striker you have to be able to hurt people and put them down and you can't tell that just by technique. A lot of things go into being a great MMA striker. Knowing when to throw and when not to, Being smart about your kicks, and a bunch of other things and Taylor hasn't shown a lot of those.

He hurt Marcus Davis. And the bolded part confuses the shit out of me because he's shown all those things in his UFC fights that have remained standing. Have you even watched his fights? You know, with your eyes open?

Originally Posted by bbjd7

Great tidbit he's still not a striker

No, but it explains why he has good kicks.

[bbjd7]

Originally Posted by MilesHackett

That comparison is ridiculous. Paul Taylor's stand-up is not the equivalent of Sokoudjou's judo, because he actually wins most of his fights when they are standing.

It wasn't the best but the Stout one stands. Stout wins his fights standing but is still overrated standing. You can have a great background in something and not be great at it in MMA.

Taylor might lack stopping power with his hands, but he is technically sound as a striker, which is what we're talking about.

No we are talking about him being a great MMA striker and him lacking power and pressuring too much keeps him from doing that.

Once again, I disagree. Most guys who stand with him don't do it for long because they know his stand-up is very good. And just because you can't see visible damage, doesn't mean it's not being done. Sobotta's legs were destroyed in that fight.

Sobotta once again isn't a striker though and while he was hurt by the end of it Taylor didn't finish him in three rounds.

---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------

Originally Posted by MilesHackett

He hurt Marcus Davis. And the bolded part confuses the shit out of me because he's shown all those things in his UFC fights that have remained standing. Have you even watched his fights? You know, with your eyes open?

No he hasn't that's why he gets takedown so often. Alot of takedown defense is being a good MMA striker and being smart which Taylor doesn't do.

Yea and he hurt Liudin(idk how to spell it) but no one else really in the UFC and he has had chances.

No, but it explains why he has good kicks.

Yea doesn't explain those straight lefts he landed.

[MilesHackett]

Originally Posted by bbjd7

It wasn't the best but the Stout one stands. Stout wins his fights standing but is still overrated standing. You can have a great background in something and not be great at it in MMA.

Stout is not technically as good as Paul Taylor, he's generally taken more damage throughout his UFC career standing than Paul has.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

No we are talking about him being a great MMA striker and him lacking power and pressuring too much keeps him from doing that.

He is a great MMA striker. An absence of power doesn't mean he's not a great striker.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

Sobotta once again isn't a striker though and while he was hurt by the end of it Taylor didn't finish him in three rounds.

What difference does it make? Paul Taylor landed virtually everything he wanted at will. His technical skills are good by themselves, regardless of his opponent.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

No he hasn't that's why he gets takedown so often. Alot of takedown defense is being a good MMA striker and being smart which Taylor doesn't do.

So I guess by your definition, Paul Daley isn't a great striker because his takedown defense is average at best? Your argument is falling apart man. As I've stated, he has all the technical abilities a great striker requires, with the exception of stopping power with his hands.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

Yea and he hurt Liudin(idk how to spell it) but no one else really in the UFC and he has had chances.

He picks guys apart, just because he doesn't finish has no bearing on his technical abilities.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

Yea doesn't explain those straight lefts he landed.

Hmm.. what's more significant? The three left straights Sobotta landed, or the 40+ leg kicks that Taylor landed?

[bbjd7]

Originally Posted by MilesHackett

Stout is not technically as good as Paul Taylor, he's generally taken more damage throughout his UFC career standing than Paul has.

I would agree with that no question.

He is a great MMA striker. An absence of power doesn't mean he's not a great striker.

In MMA not having power is a big problem. If you can't finish it standing then you aren't a great striker.

What difference does it make? Paul Taylor landed virtually everything he wanted at will. His technical skills are good by themselves, regardless of his opponent.

If you can't finish then really your screwed in MMA. At some point almost every fight in MMA that goes 3 rounds hits the ground so part of being a great striker is being able to finish fights with strikes.

So I guess by your definition, Paul Daley isn't a great striker because his takedown defense is average at best? Your argument is falling apart man. As I've stated, he has all the technical abilities a great striker requires, with the exception of stopping power with his hands.

But Paul Daley can stop a fight at anytime and Taylor can't.

If you can stop it at anytime then not defending a takedown isn't as big of a deal. Because your fights aren't guranteed to go three rounds. But Taylor doesn't fight smart for a guy without power. He pushes forward too much and gets takendown because of it.

He picks guys apart, just because he doesn't finish has no bearing on his technical abilities.

I didn't say he's not technical. I said he's not great or very good at MMA striking because he doesn't put people away and that's a huge part of MMA striking.

Hmm.. what's more significant? The three left straights Sobotta landed, or the 40+ leg kicks that Taylor landed?

And when did I say Sobotta was better then Taylor. I just said that if he was a great striker he should be able to get rid of a guy like Sobotta standing and not get caught with left straights.

[MilesHackett]

Originally Posted by bbjd7

In MMA not having power is a big problem. If you can't finish it standing then you aren't a great striker.

I can't say that I agree with that.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

If you can't finish then really your screwed in MMA. At some point almost every fight in MMA that goes 3 rounds hits the ground so part of being a great striker is being able to finish fights with strikes.

Peter Sobotta, Marcus Davis, Paul Kelly, and Chris Lytle have never been knocked out. They are notoriously tough guys to finish via strikes, so maybe you should be a little more forgiving of Taylor.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

But Paul Daley can stop a fight at anytime and Taylor can't.

Paul Daley is a great striker technically and because he has power. If he didn't have power he'd still be a great striker. My point is, that even neither of these guys can keep a fight standing they're still great.. it has to do with wrestling, not their ability to strike.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

If you can stop it at anytime then not defending a takedown isn't as big of a deal. Because your fights aren't guranteed to go three rounds. But Taylor doesn't fight smart for a guy without power. He pushes forward too much and gets takendown because of it.

I'm not denying that he lacks power, or that he might be too aggressive. I'm just saying those things don't stop him from being a very good striker.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

I didn't say he's not technical. I said he's not great or very good at MMA striking because he doesn't put people away and that's a huge part of MMA striking.

By that definition Mike Swick a "great striker" because he has stopping power, despite the fact his technique is horrendous.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

And when did I say Sobotta was better then Taylor. I just said that if he was a great striker he should be able to get rid of a guy like Sobotta standing and not get caught with left straights.

I know you're not saying Sobotta was better, I'm just saying if you look at the accumulated damage of the fight, Taylor won by a landslide. Three left straights is insignificant to the general beating Sobotta took standing from Taylor.

[bbjd7]

Originally Posted by MilesHackett

Peter Sobotta, Marcus Davis, Paul Kelly, and Chris Lytle have never been knocked out. They are notoriously tough guys to finish via strikes, so maybe you should be a little more forgiving of Taylor.

Lytle is impossible to finish however
Peter Sobotta fights in Germany, Kelly just got hurt by Roli, He nailed Davis which was impressive I've admitted that.

Paul Daley is a great striker technically and because he has power. If he didn't have power he'd still be a great striker. My point is, that even neither of these guys can keep a fight standing they're still great.. it has to do with wrestling, not their ability to strike.

No he wouldn't because not having power in your strikes makes you much less effective in MMA. And as far as wrestling goes It's MMA so part of being a great MMA striker is knowing how to fight smart.

Pat Berry is the perfect example the guy isn't a great MMA striker mostly because he doesn't know when not to rush in and I believe Taylor rushes in too often.

I'm not denying that he lacks power, or that he might be too aggressive. I'm just saying those things don't stop him from being a very good striker.

But it does. It stops him from being as effective in the actual fight.

By that definition Mike Swick a "great striker" because he has stopping power, despite the fact his technique is horrendous.

No because it's a combo of having technique power and other things.

Mike's not a great striker because he lacks technique and Taylors not a great striker because he lacks power.

I know you're not saying Sobotta was better, I'm just saying if you look at the accumulated damage of the fight, Taylor won by a landslide. Three left straights is insignificant to the general beating Sobotta took standing from Taylor.

Of course he did but it's not insignificant when you get hit by a guy clean who's not a striker when you are one.

[MilesHackett]

Originally Posted by bbjd7

Lytle is impossible to finish however
Peter Sobotta fights in Germany, Kelly just got hurt by Roli, He nailed Davis which was impressive I've admitted that.

The fact remains that none of those guys have been finished by strikes though, so I think its excusable that Taylor couldn't do the same.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

No he wouldn't because not having power in your strikes makes you much less effective in MMA. And as far as wrestling goes It's MMA so part of being a great MMA striker is knowing how to fight smart.

I don't see how it's less effective when he's won every stand-up fight he's had in the UFC. I think he's a smart fighter too, judging by the fact we've never seen him rocked, and that he rarely takes unnecessary punishment, unlike guys such as Lytle.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

Pat Berry is the perfect example the guy isn't a great MMA striker mostly because he doesn't know when not to rush in and I believe Taylor rushes in too often.

I would say Paul Taylor is a better technical striker than even Barry. Barry has power, but his technique is extremely lazy.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

But it does. It stops him from being as effective in the actual fight.

It's effective if he wins, which he has.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

No because it's a combo of having technique power and other things.

Mike's not a great striker because he lacks technique and Taylors not a great striker because he lacks power.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this lol.

Originally Posted by bbjd7

Of course he did but it's not insignificant when you get hit by a guy clean who's not a striker when you are one.

Everyone gets hit, even Thiago Alves who is a "great striker" gets hit. Just because you get hit by a guy who isn't a good striker doesn't mean you're not a great striker.