u/emaxwell14141414

Previously, I had asked about how restaurants changed since decades past, the 80s, 90s, 2000s and 2010s. There's been reports of specific restaurants and types of restaurants that have fallen apart, become corporatist, lost sight of genuine food and service and so on. And reports of those crushing it or at the very least grinding away as they have done for decades.

I was wondering more about the latter. In the American Midwest, which specific restaurants have been doing as well or better than they've been in the 80s, 90s and 2010s? Same for specific restaurant chains, cuisines and scenes. Italian, Pizza, New American, BBQ, Seafood, Classic Burger Joints own and run by elderly workers, Steakhouses, Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Mid Eastern.

Previously, I had asked about how restaurants changed since decades past, the 80s, 90s, 2000s and 2010s. There's been reports of specific restaurants and types of restaurants that have fallen apart, become corporatist, lost sight of genuine food and service and so on. And reports of those crushing it or at the very least grinding away as they have done for decades.

I was wondering more about the latter. In the American South, which specific restaurants have been doing as well or better than they've been in the 80s, 90s and 2010s? Same for specific restaurant chains, cuisines and scenes that can be found in Southern states. Italian, Pizza, New American, BBQ, Cajun and Homestyle, Classic Burger Joints own and run by elderly workers, Steakhouses, Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Mid Eastern.

Previously, I had asked about how restaurants changed since decades past, the 80s, 90s, 2000s and 2010s. There's been reports of specific restaurants and types of restaurants that have fallen apart, become corporatist, lost sight of genuine food and service and so on. And reports of those crushing it or at the very least grinding away as they have done for decades.

I was wondering more about the latter. In Miami, which specific restaurants have been doing as well or better than they've been in the 80s, 90s and 2010s? Same for specific restaurant chains, cuisines and scenes. Italian, Pizza, New American, BBQ, Seafood, Classic Burger Joints own and run by elderly workers, Steakhouses, Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Mid Eastern.

Previously, I had asked about how restaurants changed since decades past, the 80s, 90s, 2000s and 2010s. There's been reports of specific restaurants and types of restaurants that have fallen apart, become corporatist, lost sight of genuine food and service and so on. And reports of those crushing it or at the very least grinding away as they have done for decades.

I was wondering more about the latter. In the US, which specific restaurants have been doing as well or better than they've been in the 80s, 90s and 2010s? Same for specific restaurant chains, cuisines and scenes. Italian, Pizza, New American, BBQ, Seafood, Classic Burger Joints own and run by elderly workers, Steakhouses, Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Mid Eastern.

With the coverage around Strickland, I was wondering what the current views and consensus is, to the extent it exists, on his views of the caliber of MMA talent. Particularly with regards to the US and two other controversial hot spots. Just in case the exact statement is needed, it is:

“They’re signing guys at 10k and 10k. 10k and 10k on four fights, man. Three fights, you get cut. So they sign these Brazilians, these daggies. They go home with their 20k and they’re living life good.

How do you live on 20k (in America)? And I think that’s also a big reason why we’re seeing less Americans.

These are Import fighters and they go back home to Dagestan, Brazil, and they live on their, let’s just say they make sh*t money, they’re happy. If there was NFL money in the UFC, we would dominate the UFC. There would not be one foreign champion.”

Is it completely accurate for all 8 weight classes, HeavyW down to FlyW? Mostly true for HeavyW, Light HeavyW and MiddleW, to a certain extent? Is it missing key details and aspects of Americans in MMA? There is also the implication that in the wider world of pro sports UFC title holders are mediocre at best as athletes.

With the coverage around Strickland, I was wondering what the current views and consensus is, to the extent it exists, on his views of the caliber of MMA talent. Particularly with regards to the US and two other controversial hot spots. Just in case the exact statement is needed, it is:

“They’re signing guys at 10k and 10k. 10k and 10k on four fights, man. Three fights, you get cut. So they sign these Brazilians, these daggies. They go home with their 20k and they’re living life good.

How do you live on 20k (in America)? And I think that’s also a big reason why we’re seeing less Americans.

These are Import fighters and they go back home to Dagestan, Brazil, and they live on their, let’s just say they make sh*t money, they’re happy. If there was NFL money in the UFC, we would dominate the UFC. There would not be one foreign champion.”

Is it completely accurate for all 8 weight classes, HeavyW down to FlyW? Mostly true for HeavyW, Light HeavyW and MiddleW, to a certain extent? Is it missing key details and aspects of Americans in MMA? There is also the implication that in the wider world of pro sports UFC title holders are mediocre at best as athletes.

With the coverage around Strickland, I was wondering what the current views and consensus is, to the extent it exists, on his views of the caliber of MMA talent. Particularly with regards to the US and two other controversial hot spots. Just in case the exact statement is needed, it is:

“They’re signing guys at 10k and 10k. 10k and 10k on four fights, man. Three fights, you get cut. So they sign these Brazilians, these daggies. They go home with their 20k and they’re living life good.

How do you live on 20k (in America)? And I think that’s also a big reason why we’re seeing less Americans.

These are Import fighters and they go back home to Dagestan, Brazil, and they live on their, let’s just say they make sh*t money, they’re happy. If there was NFL money in the UFC, we would dominate the UFC. There would not be one foreign champion.”

Is it completely accurate for all 8 weight classes, HeavyW down to FlyW? Mostly true for HeavyW, Light HeavyW and MiddleW, to a certain extent? Is it missing key details and aspects of Americans in MMA? There is also the implication that in the wider world of pro sports UFC title holders are mediocre at best as athletes.

With the coverage around Strickland, I was wondering what the current views and consensus is, to the extent it exists, on his views of the caliber of MMA talent. Particularly with regards to the US and two other controversial hot spots. Just in case the exact statement is needed, it is:

“They’re signing guys at 10k and 10k. 10k and 10k on four fights, man. Three fights, you get cut. So they sign these Brazilians, these daggies. They go home with their 20k and they’re living life good.

How do you live on 20k (in America)? And I think that’s also a big reason why we’re seeing less Americans.

These are Import fighters and they go back home to Dagestan, Brazil, and they live on their, let’s just say they make sh*t money, they’re happy. If there was NFL money in the UFC, we would dominate the UFC. There would not be one foreign champion.”

Is it completely accurate for all 8 weight classes, HeavyW down to FlyW? Mostly true for HeavyW, Light HeavyW and MiddleW, to a certain extent? Is it missing key details and aspects of Americans in MMA? There is also the implication that in the wider world of pro sports UFC title holders are mediocre at best as athletes.

With the coverage around Strickland, I was wondering what the current views and consensus is, to the extent it exists, on his views of the caliber of MMA talent. Particularly with regards to the US and two other controversial hot spots. Just in case the exact statement is needed, it is:

“They’re signing guys at 10k and 10k. 10k and 10k on four fights, man. Three fights, you get cut. So they sign these Brazilians, these daggies. They go home with their 20k and they’re living life good.

How do you live on 20k (in America)? And I think that’s also a big reason why we’re seeing less Americans.

These are Import fighters and they go back home to Dagestan, Brazil, and they live on their, let’s just say they make sh*t money, they’re happy. If there was NFL money in the UFC, we would dominate the UFC. There would not be one foreign champion.”

Is it completely accurate for all 8 weight classes, HeavyW down to FlyW? Mostly true for HeavyW, Light HeavyW and MiddleW, to a certain extent? Is it missing key details and aspects of Americans in MMA? There is also the implication that in the wider world of pro sports UFC title holders are mediocre at best as athletes.

Looking at the tradition of American wrestlers getting UFC belts and having dominant reigns and grounding their fellow American, Brazilian and European enemies to dust, it's been focal to the UFC's development. And has been going back to the days of Couture and Matt Hughes.

Currently, it's been a year and a half since we've had one of them claim a UFC belt. Though ymmv, as far as I see Jones stopped counting as one after the Stipe defense since it's there was clearly no intent to ever defend. The closest have been Harrison, since her style has key similarities to American wresters and Gaethje as interim champ. Among the rest of American champs, there has been O Malley, Strickland, and Strickland again and Van if he counts. And those 3 are more boxing/kickboxing oriented than wrestling oriented, which is unprecedented for American title holders. Even in the 2010s it was never thought that American MMA fighters who didn't come from college wrestling could succeed like this.

From what I see, the issues are some combination of two main factors. The first is that wrestling has been integrated into the American sports machine, and especially the youth sports machine, at a level it's never been before. Therefore, wrestlers who can get to the level of NCAA Div 1 All American, which used to be a UFC staple, have options outside of getting into the Octagon, that are completely unprecedented. Which is also why American wrestlers since the mid 2010s have had international success that going back to the 50s and earlier would have been impossible.

The second is that MMA has become more dynamic, intricate and shifted in a manner such that, for fighters who have been only exposed to very high level wrestling in America, with no cross training, are facing an entirely different puzzle to solve. And wrestlers coming out of NCAA haven't been able to solve it. Perhaps because with how MMA has shifted, extensive training in boxing, Muay Thai and/or kickboxing of some variation is vital even for the best of wrestlers with Matt Hughes kind of strength.

Which one of these is a more major factor?

And how would one or both of these factors, as well as any others, need to change for American wrestlers to get back on top?

I had presumed that 100 % of members here came to the conclusion that Strickland was awarded the sd correctly or that Strickland was robbed and it should have been a clear UD win as opposed to sd. In the analysis, I was wondering if in fact there are any members here who felt that Chimaev was the guy who was robbed or that there is at least a case to be made for Chimaev winning. If there is even one, it would be interesting to see why.

I had presumed that 100 % of members here came to the conclusion that Strickland was awarded the sd correctly or that Strickland was robbed and it should have been a clear UD win as opposed to sd. In the analysis, I was wondering if in fact there are any members here who felt that Chimaev was the guy who was robbed or that there is at least a case to be made for Chimaev winning. If there is even one, it would be interesting to see why.

Looking at the tradition of American wrestlers getting UFC belts and having dominant reigns and grounding their fellow American, Brazilian and European enemies to dust, it's been focal to the UFC's development. And has been going back to the days of Couture and Matt Hughes.

Currently, it's been a year and a half since we've had one of them claim a UFC belt. Though ymmv, as far as I see Jones stopped counting as one after the Stipe defense since it's there was clearly no intent to ever defend. The closest have been Harrison, since her style has key similarities to American wresters and Gaethje as interim champ. Among the rest of American champs, there has been O Malley, Strickland, and Strickland again and Van if he counts. And those 3 are more boxing/kickboxing oriented than wrestling oriented, which is unprecedented for American title holders. Even in the 2010s it was never thought that American MMA fighters who didn't come from college wrestling could succeed like this.

From what I see, the issues are some combination of two main factors. The first is that wrestling has been integrated into the American sports machine, and especially the youth sports machine, at a level it's never been before. Therefore, wrestlers who can get to the level of NCAA Div 1 All American, which used to be a UFC staple, have options outside of getting into the Octagon, that are completely unprecedented. Which is also why American wrestlers since the mid 2010s have had international success that going back to the 50s and earlier would have been impossible.

The second is that MMA has become more dynamic, intricate and shifted in a manner such that, for fighters who have been only exposed to very high level wrestling in America, with no cross training, are facing an entirely different puzzle to solve. And wrestlers coming out of NCAA haven't been able to solve it. Perhaps because with how MMA has shifted, extensive training in boxing, Muay Thai and/or kickboxing of some variation is vital even for the best of wrestlers with Matt Hughes kind of strength.

Which one of these is a more major factor?

And how would one or both of these factors, as well as any others, need to change for American wrestlers to get back on top?

This is a topic that has been argued, debated, dissected and gone over regularly in past threads. I had gotten to wondering the current stances on this. If you had full control over the focus of American wrestling, from youth sports through the NCAA level, what would you choose and why? Would it be more to freestyle or perhaps freestyle all the time? Going further into folkstyle than currently? Or keeping it exactly the same. I was interested in current stances and the reasons behind them.

Looking at the tradition of American wrestlers getting UFC belts and having dominant reigns and grounding their fellow American, Brazilian and European enemies to dust, it's been focal to the UFC's development. And has been going back to the days of Couture and Matt Hughes.

Currently, it's been a year and a half since we've had one of them claim a UFC belt. Though ymmv, as far as I see Jones stopped counting as one after the Stipe defense since it's there was clearly no intent to ever defend. The closest have been Harrison, since her style has key similarities to American wresters and Gaethje as interim champ. Among the rest of American champs, there has been O Malley, Strickland, and Strickland again and Van if he counts. And those 3 are more boxing/kickboxing oriented than wrestling oriented, which is unprecedented for American title holders. Even in the 2010s it was never thought that American MMA fighters who didn't come from college wrestling could succeed like this.

From what I see, the issues are some combination of two main factors. The first is that wrestling has been integrated into the American sports machine, and especially the youth sports machine, at a level it's never been before. Therefore, wrestlers who can get to the level of NCAA Div 1 All American, which used to be a UFC staple, have options outside of getting into the Octagon, that are completely unprecedented. Which is also why American wrestlers since the mid 2010s have had international success that going back to the 50s and earlier would have been impossible.

The second is that MMA has become more dynamic, intricate and shifted in a manner such that, for fighters who have been only exposed to very high level wrestling in America, with no cross training, are facing an entirely different puzzle to solve. And wrestlers coming out of NCAA haven't been able to solve it. Perhaps because with how MMA has shifted, extensive training in boxing, Muay Thai and/or kickboxing of some variation is vital even for the best of wrestlers with Matt Hughes kind of strength.

Which one of these is a more major factor?

And how would one or both of these factors, as well as any others, need to change for American wrestlers to get back on top?

Looking at the tradition of American wrestlers getting UFC belts and having dominant reigns and grounding their fellow American, Brazilian and European enemies to dust, it's been focal to the UFC's development. And has been going back to the days of Couture and Matt Hughes.

Currently, it's been a year and a half since we've had one of them claim a UFC belt. Though ymmv, as far as I see Jones stopped counting as one after the Stipe defense since it's there was clearly no intent to ever defend. The closest have been Harrison, since her style has key similarities to American wresters and Gaethje as interim champ. Among the rest of American champs, there has been O Malley, Strickland, and Strickland again and Van if he counts. And those 3 are more boxing/kickboxing oriented than wrestling oriented, which is unprecedented for American title holders. Even in the 2010s it was never thought that American MMA fighters who didn't come from college wrestling could succeed like this.

From what I see, the issues are some combination of two main factors. The first is that wrestling has been integrated into the American sports machine, and especially the youth sports machine, at a level it's never been before. Therefore, wrestlers who can get to the level of NCAA Div 1 All American, which used to be a UFC staple, have options outside of getting into the Octagon, that are completely unprecedented. Which is also why American wrestlers since the mid 2010s have had international success that going back to the 50s and earlier would have been impossible.

The second is that MMA has become more dynamic, intricate and shifted in a manner such that, for fighters who have been only exposed to very high level wrestling in America, with no cross training, are facing an entirely different puzzle to solve. And wrestlers coming out of NCAA haven't been able to solve it. Perhaps because with how MMA has shifted, extensive training in boxing, Muay Thai and/or kickboxing of some variation is vital even for the best of wrestlers with Matt Hughes kind of strength.

Which one of these is a more major factor?

And how would one or both of these factors, as well as any others, need to change for American wrestlers to get back on top?

Strickland is now 3-0 against Russian fighters from the Caucasus. Unless Imavov shows massive evolution, then if there is a rematch it will be 4-0.

It seems Strickland has successfully figured out the Russian and Caucasus styles of fighting and shown how to end their success once and for all. Nothing they have tried has worked.

If Strickland was in the same weight class as Dvalishvilli, Makhachev, Topuria or Khabib in previous years, would the strategies that worked at UFC 328 and previous fights work just as well?

In a hypothetical rematch, will Strickland's signature defensive boxing allow for his pressure, cardio and pace to grind Imavov out? Basically, as last time. Conversely, is it possible that Imavov has evolved enough so that Strickland's defensive skills and cardio? It seems hard to tell.

Strickland is now 3-0 against Russian fighters from the Caucasus. Unless Imavov shows massive evolution, then if there is a rematch it will be 4-0.

It seems Strickland has successfully figured out the Russian and Caucasus styles of fighting and shown how to end their success once and for all. Nothing they have tried has worked.

If Strickland was in the same weight class as Dvalishvilli, Makhachev, Topuria or Khabib in previous years, would the strategies that worked at UFC 328 and previous fights work just as well?

In a hypothetical rematch, will Strickland's signature defensive boxing allow for his pressure, cardio and pace to grind Imavov out? Basically, as last time. Conversely, is it possible that Imavov has evolved enough so that Strickland's defensive skills and cardio? It seems hard to tell.

Strickland is now 3-0 against Russian fighters from the Caucasus. Unless Imavov shows massive evolution, then if there is a rematch it will be 4-0.

It seems Strickland has successfully figured out the Russian and Caucasus styles of fighting and shown how to end their success once and for all. Nothing they have tried has worked.

If Strickland was in the same weight class as Dvalishvilli, Makhachev, Topuria or Khabib in previous years, would the strategies that worked at UFC 328 and previous fights work just as well?

In a hypothetical rematch, will Strickland's signature defensive boxing allow for his pressure, cardio and pace to grind Imavov out? Basically, as last time. Conversely, is it possible that Imavov has evolved enough so that Strickland's defensive skills and cardio? It seems hard to tell.

Going back to World Championships last fall and using that as well as all international wrestling events, who have been the most successful wrestlers in terms of caliber of competition beaten, consistency, development and just being more proficient than their opponents? Ideally, this is looking across all weight classes for who have been the 5 most proficient and accomplished among fs wrestlers,5 among Greco Roman wrestlers and 5 among women's fs wrestlers. Am interested to see if such lists can be made.