MMA Striking Isn't Boxing, Muay Thai, or Karate

Sep 24

7 min read

I've spent a lot of time thinking about what actually makes MMA striking different from the striking arts that contribute to it.

For a long time, I've described it this way:

"MMA striking is fought at the range of karate, with the weapons of Muay Thai and the angles of boxing."

But the more I think about it, the more I think that description is incomplete. It tells us something about where some of the tools came from, but it doesn't really explain what makes those tools work in MMA.

MMA striking isn't simply a collection of boxing, Muay Thai and karate techniques. It is striking adapted to a different set of problems.

The Problem Is Different

A boxer knows that the person standing across from him is going to punch him. He has to deal with different ranges, angles, combinations, movement and defensive reactions, but the basic threat structure is relatively contained.

Muay Thai creates a different problem. The fighter has to account for punches, kicks, knees, elbows and the clinch. Fighters can spend a lot of time standing within mutual kicking range because that is the sport they're competing in. Both athletes have to be willing to exchange those weapons.

MMA adds another layer to the problem. The person standing across from you can punch you, kick you, clinch you or take you to the ground. Every striking exchange exists alongside the possibility of wrestling. That changes the way we have to think about distance, stance, footwork and even which weapons become especially valuable.

The techniques haven't necessarily changed. The problems surrounding them have.

The Neutral Stance

This is one reason I teach what I call the neutral stance.

I don't believe there is one universally perfect stance for every MMA fighter, but I do believe there is tremendous value in having a neutral MMA stance. The idea isn't that every fighter should stand exactly the same way forever. It's that the fighter needs a starting position that doesn't unnecessarily commit him to one part of the game at the expense of another.

A boxing stance is built around boxing. A wrestling stance is built around wrestling. Both can be excellent positions for the problems they are designed to solve, but MMA asks you to solve several problems at the same time.

The neutral stance gives us a place to start. From that position, we should be able to strike, defend strikes, change levels, defend takedowns, enter the clinch and move in different directions without having to completely rebuild our stance every time the problem changes.

That's important because MMA is constantly asking you to change problems. You might begin an exchange trying to land a combination and suddenly have to defend a level change. You might start defending a takedown and end up striking. You might pressure your opponent toward the cage and then have to deal with his attempt to reverse the position.

The neutral stance isn't necessarily the final answer to every situation. It's a position from which you can move into the answer. As the fight develops, the stance can change. Range can change. The opponent's position can change. Your tactical priorities can change. But you shouldn't have to completely abandon your ability to do the rest of MMA every time you want to strike.

That's what I mean by neutral. It's a starting position that keeps the most important options available.

Why MMA Striking Happens at a Different Distance

One of the things that makes MMA striking different is the distance we often choose to fight at.

In boxing, two fighters can comfortably operate at punching range because neither fighter has to worry about being taken to the ground. In Muay Thai, fighters can spend a great deal of time standing within mutual kicking range because that is the sport they're competing in. Both fighters have kicks, knees, elbows and the clinch available, and they have to be willing to stand in that range and exchange those weapons.

MMA changes the equation.

If I stand too close to my opponent, I make it easier for him to close the remaining distance, get his hands on me and begin wrestling. One of the advantages of fighting at a longer striking distance is that I create more space between myself and the takedown.

That doesn't mean I want to stand as far away as possible. I still have to be close enough to threaten my opponent. The point is that the useful striking distance in MMA can be farther out than what we commonly see in boxing or Muay Thai because I have another threat that I'm trying to manage.

And that creates an interesting tradeoff.

If I move farther away to make the takedown more difficult, I also have to become effective at attacking from that distance. I need weapons that can reach my opponent without requiring me to walk directly into his wrestling.

This is one reason the kicking game becomes so important.

The Calf Kick Is an MMA Weapon

The calf kick is a great example of how the MMA environment changes the value of a technique.

From a longer distance, I can attack the opponent's lead leg without having to enter punching range. I can damage the leg, disrupt his stance and make it more difficult for him to move forward.

Now the weapon I'm using to attack him also helps me manage the distance that protects me from his wrestling.

That's one of the things I find fascinating about MMA striking. The distance isn't simply a defensive choice.

The distance creates its own offensive opportunities.

I'm standing farther away because I don't want to make the takedown easy. But because I'm willing to fight from that distance, I have access to weapons that become particularly useful there. Those weapons can then make it even harder for my opponent to close the distance.

The defensive problem and the offensive problem start reinforcing each other.

This is why I think the karate-distance comparison is useful. I'm not saying karate has the one correct answer for MMA. I'm saying that fighting at a longer range can make sense when the fighter has to manage both striking and takedowns.

And once you understand why the distance changes, some of the weapons we see in modern MMA make a lot more sense.

The calf kick isn't just another technique we've borrowed from somewhere else. It is a weapon that makes tremendous sense in the environment MMA creates.

Every Strike Exists Alongside Another Threat

This is probably the biggest difference between MMA striking and the striking arts that contribute to it.

In MMA, almost every striking decision exists alongside another potential attack.

When you punch, you have to consider the takedown.
When you kick, you have to consider the catch.
When you pressure, you have to consider the counter or the shot.
When you back away, you have to consider the cage.
When you defend a takedown, you may expose yourself to strikes. When you defend strikes, you may give up the position your opponent needs to wrestle.

This creates an interconnected decision-making problem. A good MMA striker isn't simply someone who has good punches, kicks, knees and elbows. He understands how those weapons interact with the rest of the fight.

That's why I think one of the biggest mistakes we can make when teaching MMA is treating striking, wrestling and grappling as completely separate subjects. Of course we need to develop those skills individually. You need to be able to box. You need to be able to kick. You need to wrestle. You need to grapple. But eventually the fighter has to learn what happens between those skills.

The jab has to exist alongside the takedown.
The kick has to exist alongside the clinch.
The defensive movement has to exist alongside the cage.
The wrestling has to exist alongside the strikes.

That's where MMA actually begins to look like MMA.

Why Boxing-Heavy Fighters Can Still Be Great MMA Strikers

This also explains something that can confuse people when they try to categorize MMA striking.

You can watch a fighter like Ilia Topuria or Joshua Van and see an enormous amount of boxing influence. There are other successful MMA fighters whose games are also heavily built around their hands, combinations and boxing-style movement.

That doesn't mean they're simply boxing inside a cage. Their boxing has been adapted to the environment they're fighting in.

They understand when they can pressure. They understand the threats associated with their combinations. They understand how their opponent can respond with a takedown or kick. They have developed ways to make boxing work while the opponent has access to the rest of MMA.

That's the important distinction.

MMA doesn't require every fighter to become an equal mixture of boxing, Muay Thai and karate. A fighter can be heavily influenced by one particular striking style. He just can't pretend that the other parts of MMA don't exist.

The Goal Isn't to Collect Styles

I think this is where MMA striking can become unnecessarily complicated.

You don't need to become equally proficient in every striking art before you can become a good MMA striker. You need to develop the tools that solve the problems you are likely to encounter, understand how those tools interact with wrestling and grappling, and then learn to make decisions under resistance. That's very different from simply collecting techniques. A fighter can know hundreds of punches, kicks, knees and combinations and still struggle to decide which one to use when the opponent is moving, countering, shooting and changing position.

The goal isn't to have the biggest striking toolbox. The goal is to know which tool to use, when to use it, and what happens if the opponent gives you a different problem than the one you expected.

That's what makes striking in MMA so difficult. And it's also what makes it so interesting.

The Environment Creates the Style

I've come to think that MMA doesn't really have a single striking style.

It has a set of problems. The cage creates some of them. The rules create others. The ability to wrestle creates others. The ability to kick creates others. The threat of the clinch and ground fighting changes the way every exchange takes place.

The fighter brings his own strengths into that environment and develops a style around solving those problems.

That's why I don't think the most useful question is, "Should I teach boxing or Muay Thai or karate for MMA?" Those arts are all valuable. They give us different tools and different ways of understanding striking. The better question is:

How do we make those tools work when the opponent can do everything else?

That is what makes MMA striking its own thing. You can borrow the weapons. You can borrow the movements. You can borrow the concepts.

But eventually, you have to adapt them to the fight you're actually fighting.

MMA striking isn't boxing.
It isn't Muay Thai.
It isn't karate.

It is striking adapted to an environment where every punch, kick and movement exists alongside the possibility that the fight can change completely in the next second.