Originally Posted by Shady1

matt hughes has bad standup

Originally Posted by Trix

This is a topic that has been on my mind for some time.

A lot of people talk about a mythical thing called "MMA experience" and how old school fighters who have been in the business a long time supposedly have an "advantage" over new school fighters.

In the case of Tito, his experience would seem to work against him, as he would seem to have lost every stand up battle he has waged throughout his career.

Why is Tito's stand up so horrible in comparison to other fighters -- even newer fighters like Mark Hamil? And, is experience really the advantage that some say it is?

If experience really were valuable wouldn't Tito's stand up be god-like by now & wouldn't he be punching fools through the fence of the octagon and winning every fight via KO/TKO as opposed to having every new name in the business outstrike him?

What do you fellas think?

Originally Posted by oldfan

Tito actually has pretty good form. He just doesn't have the natural speed or power to compete with the best.

I don't think the worst striker in mma would have gone the distance with Machida.

Also, I would take Tito in a boxing match against anyone who ever trained at Hammer House.

Originally Posted by mmaswe82

Didn't Phil Baroni train some time with Hammer house? he's a better boxer than Tito imo, but the rest of them are worse.