In his most recent fight Conor McGregor made a point talk about how his ability to move was an advantage over other MMA fighters because of flat footed stances brought in from Muay Thai. So the question was posed in our Technique Group, is MMA currently experiencing a change in how fighters employ footwork?

Our discussion follows below and taking part are Bloody Elbow writers T.P. Grant, Zane Simon, Connor Ruebusch, Fraser Coffeen, Sherdog writer Pat Wyman, and Bloody Elbow Technique Group members Ben Thapa and James "a guy" Stapleton.

T.P. Grant: I think the state of MMA footwork has been in almost constant flux and we are seeing a shift in how it is being viewed. In the early days footwork was just not good because the level of striking in MMA was pretty low. And, even as it started to come up, many fighters preferred a heavy stance because it put them in a better weight distribution to fight takedowns and enter the clinch.

This was reinforced as Muay Thai became the dominant striking style of the mid-2000's, and while footwork is certainly important in Muay Thai, it does seem less dynamic. But recently I think we are seeing a shift in how MMA fighters really see footwork. I'd point to a few different lead ins.

First the fact that MMA fighters are better at defending takedowns, and in lieu of actually contesting a takedown conceding that battle and looking to stand right back up. The removal of fear of takedowns really opens up the striking game for a fighter.

Then we have the mold breakers, those who really exploited the general lack of mobility of their opponents, namely Dominick Cruz and Lyoto Machida. Both really came on circa-2010 and so much was made of the illusive footwork. Lyoto's style was a bit too karate and low volume though and fighters were able to eek by him, but Cruz's high volume style really presented problems fighters of the way were not equipped to solve.

In the last 3-4 years I'd argue we are seeing an opening up of footwork and more dynamic footwork being used in MMA, most notable and recently by T.J. Dillashaw. Being light on the feet is becoming the norm because fighters have the wrestling game, the cage game, and the ability to stand up that they are no longer worried about getting takedown.

Zane Simon: One of the major shifts this has caused is a rethinking of what "takedown defense" means. it's something that fans are really struggling against with Conor McGregor, as the general belief is that we just aren't seeing him tested against the right wrestling based fighters to see how good he is at stuffing takedowns. While that is partially true, it's something that you can easily transport to Robbie Lawlor or TJ Dillashaw or Anthony Johnson, or any number of fighters at the high end of the striking pecking order. If your footwork is good enough, people don't get the opportunity to shoot in the first place. For elite strikers with elite level movement, the question of takedown defense often becomes a bit moot and it's something that's a little foreign to the way we look at the sport.

T.P. Grant: Anderson Silva used that concept really well, and demonstrated it very nicely against Demian Maia.

James "a guy" Stapleton: One of the dominant forces in the footwork meta game is the size of the octagon and the amount of space guys have to move. Backing straight up is a well known footwork flaw, but mainly because it leads to you getting backed against the cage/ropes. Moving straight back is actually the easiest way to defend pretty much any single strike, and since guys can move so far back before hitting a wall they take full advantage of it. Now dealing with guys who constantly back up is typically done with a smart pressuring style, like how Weidman fights. However not a lot of people develop this skill because much of the sparring in MMA gyms happens on open mats, where you really don't have the option to corner the guy. The only physical barriers you have are maybe other people sparring, which backing the guy into doesn't work out so well for obvious reasons.

As a result of all this, guys need to develop footwork that can cover a huge amount of distance quickly because they need to learn to catch a retreating opponent in open space. Fighters do this by shifting stances as they blitz, by leaning and reaching into their strikes and generally doing things that pose extreme defensive risks simply because they won't be in range otherwise. Some fighters are adapting this really well, and transitioning into either kicks or knees depending on the range they end at. Gustafsson and Werdum come to mind for this, though Gus doesn't do it as often.

The issue with this though is what happens when these guys fight someone who will hold their ground and hit back. Even with something as simple as a jab. John Makdessi spears people with his jab, and pretty much everyone he fights runs into it hard at least once. I prefer the footwork of people like him. Guys who mostly hold their ground, are very economical with their movement and have great defense as a result.

I might be in the minority here, but I don't think Tj has great footwork on the outside. I think a lot of what he does leaves him in bad positions but he moves so fast and hasn't been fighting guys who don't know how to deal with it so it hasn't been an issue. But I consider his movement inefficient. I think guys in MMA are adopting these heavy movement styles and getting away with it because the people they fight don't have the footwork to keep them lined up. The real key to a light footed style is misdirection in my opinion, which requires the ability to change directions quickly. Cruz has mastered this, and his destruction of mizugaki is a prime example. He hops right, mizugaki over adjusts by a huge margin, Cruz goes left with his right hand them back to the right with his double. Against Pickett, McCall was constantly doing mostly the same thing. He'd circle around, jump in with his rear hand when Pickett was too committed to chasing him, then duck under any counters. I don't think dillashaw has this down to the same degree. I think he does better work when he's more or less standing in front of the guy and only changing angles with subtlety. When he's just circling around the outside he might set up a kick or 2 but I definitely think he's more efficient when he's relatively stationary.

I personally think the footwork of people like Aldo and Weidman is the future of the sport. The really fast, high volume guys can be successful with a style like Cruz or dillashaw but most guys are better off staying more grounded and being more economical with their movement, whether they prefer to counter or lead.

Connor Ruebusch: Some good points made in here already. I want to make one distinction before I get into any specific fighters: flat-footedness does not necessarily indicate bad footwork. Some of the greatest footwork-artists of all time have fought with at least one heel on the ground at all times: Joe Louis, Sam-A Kaiyanghadaogym, Archie Moore, etc. Footwork is about using the legs to accomplish your positional goal, namely, putting yourself in a position whence you can hit or take down your opponent and he can't return the favor. Whether you do this flat-footed or all bouncy-like is a matter of personal taste and schooling.

The difference these days seems to be that fighters and trainers are finally understanding that footwork can be both offensive and defensive at once. Angles take away threats as well as they create openings, and that goes for takedowns as well as striking. I do think Jose Aldo is the best example out there of how similar boxing and wrestling really are at the fundamental level. The Kenny Florian fight is quite possibly the best example of counter-wrestling footwork I've ever seen, as Aldo uses the same exact movements to both land counter punches and step out of the trajectory of KenFlo's shots.

We're finally getting to the point where it's not wrestling, jiu jitsu, and striking, but rather fighting, fighting, and more fighting. The artificial distinctions are falling away, and the underlying principles are being exposed and understood. If you can pivot away from a punch, you can pivot away from a shot. If you can drive somebody to the mat, you can knock them on their ass. And if you can move intelligently, rather than just responding to every threat by creating immense amounts of space, you can stay close enough to not only make an opponent miss, but make him pay for it as well. I can't tell you how many commentators I've heard laud a fighter's footwork simply because he's fast and bouncy, or demean another fighter's movement simply because he's slow and measured.

On the subject of the former bantamweight champ, Cruz's footwork is a real throwback to the boxers of the 60s and 70s--guys like Salvador Sanchez and Wilfredo Gomez. His normal stance is tall and narrow, which would normally be seen as a no-no for a wrestler, but it allows him the flexibility to move easily in any direction only to instantly drop into a wider, deeper stance with a single step. In other words, Cruz's starting position serves as a base for quick, explosive movements in any direction; his feet are so close together to start with that he's got a ton of room to work with in every direction.

James Stapleton: Well said Connor. I'm personally pretty "flat footed" but I prefer the term grounded. And yes about the angles and distance. That's why I feel Aldo has the best footwork in the sport.

I'm having success in my own game pivoting in either direction to defend both punches and shots against guys around my level. I have found in my experience that with an educated jab and smart pivoting it's possible to shut down a significantly better wrestler, or at least give them way more trouble than they expect.

Zane Simon: So, I realize that this comes from a very "lay" view of things, but would it be fair to say that fighters are looking to solve the classic problems of footwork by going from one extreme to the other. We've basically gone from "Zero" footwork in MMA, to "Infinite" footwork, without necessarily finding the "good" footwork that many elite fighters have. Within that swing, infinite footwork is highly preferable to zero, but it's still eventually a product of fighters trying to shortcut taking a studied approach to technique.

T.P. Grant: I would agree with Zane. Fighters try to replicate success without having the tools or having the time to develop it. But sometimes just the addition of the concept and a little athleticism is enough.Frankie Edgar, who was praised for his footwork because he was bouncy and moved a lot, didn't actually have sharp footwork when he fought B.J. Penn. But even though his footwork wasn't great and he left a lot of openings for counters, which B.J. Penn was able to use in the first fight, the movement and volume striking pulled him down two decisions.

Fraser Coffeen: Dillashaw is a key figure here in my opinion because, as you noted, guys like Lyoto and Cruz were something of the genesis of a new idea of movement at the highest level. Dillashaw is one of the first to have taken that style, worked to bring it in to his repertoire, and succeeded.

The takedown defense is a good point, and also ties into fighters using footwork effectively to maintain distance. Mighty Mouse is a good example here. One of the things he does so well is use his timing, speed, and footwork to explode inside, land his strikes, and then get back out. So he is often outside of most fighters' general takedown range, and when he gets inside that range, he's attacking. But his speed makes this a workable strategy for him where it won't work for others.

Overall, I agree with McGregor's assessment - a lot of MMA fighters do tend to fight flat footed and with limited mobility. That's due to a large variety of factors including the Muay Thai backgrounds, the emphasis on wrestling takedown defense, and (particularly at the higher weight classes) a lack of athleticism. What it means is that a fighter who can get in and out, stick and move using high end footwork, can find striking success against some of the more heavy-legged targets. It's an area the talented can now exploit, and I expect that this exploitation will force others to catch up and fix those deficiencies or develop a proper defense based on their own style.

Pat Wyman: To build on James' point about fighting being fighting, that's a line of reasoning that's been going around for a long time. Jack Dempsey talked about the importance of maintaining distance, using good angles, and keeping your base low in no-holds-barred fights to avoid getting taken down, and while he didn't go into tremendous detail, you can see the broad similarities to the emerging principles that have been going around here. You can't shoot a takedown if you don't have the distance or the right angle, and fighters with good movement and footwork are shutting down those shots before they even happen.

Ben Thapa: GSP absolutely destroyed Shields's ground game for three and half rounds by taking away his preferred angle for takedowns with jab and footwork alone.

That's the best high level example I can think of at the moment, although many lower level fighters are starting to show flashes of it.

James Stapelon: My favorite examples are Aldo vs Edgar, Mendes and Florian, Machida vs Weidman, Davis and Ortiz, Makdessi vs Patrick.

That wraps up our thoughts, so what do you think? Is Conor McGregor right about footwork in MMA?