By: Ryan Hetrick
In the UFC, or Ultimate Fighting Championship, to those who don't know, is an extremely physical and obviously combative sport. The interesting thing to me when talking about the UFC is the greatest fighters of all time and even champions in the UFC currently. The statement can be made for the UFC as being a "soft-muscled" sport. Although many fighters are in prime physical condition, it is not needed to be considered a great fighter. In the first picture below is Fedor Emelianenko. He is considered by most websites, fans, and even President of the UFC, Dana White, to be the greatest heavyweight fighter of all time. With a record of 34-4, going undefeated over the cross of ten years, a case can be made for Fedor as the greatest fighter to ever live. For most of his career he was in good physical condition, but he is obviously not an apparent muscular guy.
In the next picture below is current Middleweight champion of the world, Anderson Silva. Anderson Silva is considered by most to be the greatest fighter in UFC history and many people would go farther than that and dub him as the greatest fighter ever to live. He does have some more tone than Fedor, but if you saw him at a beach, one would not think of him as one of the greatest fighters ever.
Now below, is Brock Lesnar whom most people know from his pro wrestling career. He had a brief stint in the UFC but was cut down by injuries and his inabilities to recover from a punch. He is in the same weightclass as Fedor, but is not consider to be even a top five heavyweight ever.
Rousimar Palhares is my muscular example from the middleweight division. While he is known for his physical strength and bone crushing submissions, he has never been able to enter the top ten rankings of fighters in his weightclass.
As you can as see, in the UFC, the muscular build of a fighter does not determine skill level. The UFC in my opinion, can very easily be considered as a soft muscled sport because of the lack of physically intimidating champions/legends of the sport.
I totally agree with you when you say that size and muscular build don't determine skill level. I believe this may be true for all sports. For instance, in football people always think that the bigger person is always the best. However, this isn't true all the time. For example, you have someone like Drew Brees who is what some call undersized for the quarterback position. If you know football then you know that Drew Bree's is one of the best quarterbacks in the league. Another example is Barry Sanders. Sanders was undersized at 5 foot 8 inches. Him being smaller didn't stop him as many believe he might be the best running back to ever play the game
ReplyDelete-Tim Love
I completely agree with this post because sports are not all about how big you are, or muscularity, or tone. To be a great athlete doesn't mean you have to be the biggest, most muscular macho dude playing because speed, coordination, and intelligence play a significant role in athletics. For example, in basketball, the post players are usually very tall and muscular guys and the point guards such as Steve Nash are smaller and not as strong. Based on muscularity, in a game of 1-on-1, the post player should win because they are stronger and bigger. In reality, point guards are more complete players and stronger assets to teams because they have the coordination and speed along with athleticism to win a 1-on-1 game with a post player. In sports, muscularity is not always key, but with a perfect mix of strength, heighth, speed, and coordination, players can be great. LeBron James would be an example of a perfect athlete because he's as strong and tall as a big man, and has the speed and coordination of a point guard making him one of the best players to ever play basketball.
ReplyDelete-Ollie Goss
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the UFC could be considered a soft muscle sport. Many of the fighters when you look at them do not look in the greatest of shape, even though they are. Roy Nelson is obviously an extreme example but many heavyweights do not look like they are athletes. It is surprising for how in shape you need to be in for MMA how many fighters have soft muscled bodies.
Josiah Blevins
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that size of one's muscles does not determine the athlete's skill level. I believe for one to be a great athlete does not necessarily mean they are huge in size or tone or rip with muscles. To be a great athlete, one needs to be extremely good with their skills, have outstanding work ethic, and the ability to continue to improve and try to be the best they can be with what they are given. Different sports require different aspects of one's body that needs to be more developed for the sport the athlete is playing. An example of this would be a defensive end in football would be more focused on their upper body than a soccer player who would focus more on their speed and legs. The best players in any league know their skills and play with what they are good at and do not try to over due it.
- Jenny Kelley
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI don't completely agree with you that the UFC is a soft-muscled sport. I understand and agree that muscle doesn't determine everything, because the fighter definitely needs skills and a good fighting technique to be able to fight with the best. But in all of the pictures that you showed, all the guys are muscular. Fedor looks like he is big and muscular, as you can see Silva gained muscle and tone over the years, Brock is very big and muscular, and Rousimar is ripped. I don't see any soft-muscled guys in these pictures. I think there are different levels of being toned and ripped. Some fighters are more toned and ripped than others, but that doesn't mean the others aren't toned or ripped at all. I know that in UFC there is one fighter (I don't know his name) that doesn't have any muscle tone, but he is very big. Some guys show strength differently. There are those fighters who are toned and ripped, and there are others that are big in size with less muscle tone, but I don't think that means they are soft-muscled. In my opinion, UFC fighters need a lot of skill, size or muscle, and a great fighting techniques to be great.
-Kody Burlingame
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI agree that UFC can be a soft-muscled sport. I also agree that skill doesn't always have correlation with muscle and body mass. Although in many cases it helps, it doesn't always complete the athlete. When talent meets someone with the correct type of muscle and weight, that is the perfect recipe. A perfect example of this is Kevin Durant, a three time scoring champion of the National Basketball Association. Durant is very skinny, and has lanky arms. It's obvious that he's not extremely strong physically. However, Durant has basketball strength, he can finish at strong at the rim and has great instincts and reactions while playing. Another example is Maurice Jones Drew, running back for the Jaguars. Drew is 5'7, and has always been questioned by his size and toughness. Over time we've seen Drew can take a hit, and is almost impossible to catch when he gets going. He's been clocked to run a 4.39 40 yard dash.
-Brett Creamer
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI have never paid that much attention to UFC, but this is pretty crazy to see. One will always believe the stronger on is the greater of a fighter one will be, but this totally takes that image and changes it. It is pretty crazy to look at these fighters in detail and they almost look fat. I mean I know that they have muscle on muscle, but they are not necessarily as shaped as I expected to see. This would certainly classsify as soft muscle! Nice work Ryan!
Nate Riley
This is a great post,
ReplyDeleteWhen you think of UFC you wouldn't normally think of soft muscle, but I do agree that UFC could be considered a soft muscle sport. Mostly because the heavier weight fighters don't necessarily have to have a muscular tone to be successful fighting. It is very interesting to see all the fighters with different body types that can have succession the UFC and being muscular does not necessarily mean you will win. The UFC is more about skill than size and I think this is why fighters can have soft muscle and still win fights.
- Jacob Beverly
This is a very interesting topic because I am sure if you asked one of those guys who we are referring to as "soft muscled” they would not agree with you at all. Just because the body isn’t totally chiseled doesn’t mean they lack the muscle. These guys work their butts off everyday training and practicing to be the best in the world and to call them soft muscled is not correct. Skill had a lot to do with the success of the fighter, as well as longer arms, but a lot of fighters get by on their incredible strength. Golf is a soft muscle sport because you could literally just play in a league and not have to worry about working out at all. Most golfers do now to possibly hit the ball a little farther or just have more endurance while playing a match. If you tried to go through a whole season of fighting without working out you would have very little chance of winning any fights. If you make the assumption that UFC fighters are soft muscled you might as wall say soccer players are too. There are some pudgy soccer players out there and look even worse than some fighters. It is just the way that players are able to utilize and train their own bodies to learn the best skills possible to be able to compete.
ReplyDeleteBY: RJ Hefflinger
I agree with you about when you say that size and muscular build don't determine skill level. moat of people are thinking about if who muscular build is bigger, they are very stronger than other smaller guys. It is not true because the buscular build is only showing to spectators. Who is relly great fighter in my country, their body is skiny. Thus, we can't say about they are stronger thatn other guy who has big muscular build. They only want to show to people about their great body.
ReplyDelete-Junho Song-